Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Retaliatory measures based on no evidence. (Score 1) 821

I can see that it's an emotional topic for you and that you have deeply held beliefs about what happened. Being so closely involved and more than likely partisan, as your reaction suggests, puts your views under more pressure than most to be objective about the events prior to the 2014 revolution (or coup depending on your sources of news). I think the best way to find out who's involved and possibly why is to follow the money. The US and some EU member states have poured billions into the Ukraine (via some very shady accounting and avoiding disclosures in order to hide who exactly much of the money went to); something they are unlikely to do without expecting some kind of return on their investment. And the "why"? Possibly because bring the Ukraine into NATO would put them at Russia's doorstep and would also mean billions of dollars in weapons systems sales for the foreseeable future. There's also the strategic military importance of the Crimean peninsula to the Kremlin.

A lot of what happened in the years prior to 2014 look like they came directly from Gene Sharp's booklet "From Dictatorship to Democracy," which BTW was also used in the joint US + Saudi led undermining of the Syrian regime. I can remember some documentary reports of Ukrainian activists openly declaring that they were using the booklet. This has the CIA's fingerprints all over it. It's what they seem to specialise in.

In the world of geopolitics, nothings ever what it seems at face value. Unfortunately, the poor Ukrainian people have had to bear the brunt of this power struggle. They have a saying in India, "When the elephants fight, it's always the grass that suffers most."

Comment Re:Fair Use (Score 1) 42

The people making the videos or whatever that use the music come under fair use so no, they don't have to pay anything and their activities should be protected by law, i.e. the copyright holders have no right to ask them to stop. However, Facebook place advertising on pages next to user generated content and therefore make money out of it. It's only fair that Facebook shares the proceeds under a reasonable agreement with the copyright holders.

Comment Re:Ha ha I'd love to see them try (Score 2) 42

We need a legal fix here more than a technical fix: FRAND licensing for all streamed music.

FRAND (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing) is probably not the best example in the case of copyright music, since it's not an essential standard or patentable idea. Most user content that includes copyright music more than likely comes under fair use (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use) but the social media site owners are making the money off of it so they're the ones who should pay the royalties. So yes, people engaging in fair use need to be protected and those making money out of copyright material need to pay for it. I doubt that there is an fundamental legal ambiguity here; it's just the big corporations litigating their way to market dominance.

Comment Re:A Perfect Illustrationk (Score 1) 295

Every set top box I've ever seen has come with diagrams showing you which cable to plug in where. It's about the same as hooking up a DVD/Blue-Ray and less complicated than PCs, cable boxes, modems and routers, and hooking up and using receivers. Most people have more than one remote on their coffee table these days.

Comment Re:"the smart TV appears to be infected..." (Score 1) 295

I detect that some people here are unwilling to accept that malware exists and is causing problems inside Google's walled garden. App stores, including Google's Microsoft's, Apple Inc.'s, and anyone else's must go the way of downloading desktop apps from unverified sources a la 1990's .exe malware, i.e. just don't do it!

I only ever install an app when I've verified exactly who is responsible for it and that they're a trustworthy source, i.e. no back-doors, malware, sneaky telemetry/spyware, unencrypted connections, or serious/careless security flaws (i.e. that the developers are security conscious). That narrows down the list of acceptable apps substantially.

Comment Re:Retaliatory measures based on no evidence. (Score 5, Insightful) 821

Ah, another manufactured crisis, fictional villains, and nonsensical arguments. Feels like the 80s all over again.

On a similar note, when is the Whitehouse going to issue apologies and offer reparations to all the countries where it directly interfered and even overthrew or attempted to overthrow democratically elected governments, such as Iran, Chile, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, and Ukraine?

Comment Re:"the smart TV appears to be infected..." (Score 4, Informative) 295

The various branded flavours of Android on phones, tablets, and TVs are often locked into only downloading and installing apps from Google Play and/or their own branded app stores. Installing apps from 3rd parties, i.e. download the package and install it manually, is beyond most users knowledge and capabilities. It's more likely that the malware was installed from Google Play or the branded app store. Their verification and malware screening processes will always be at least a step behind the criminals.

Comment Re:now even /. puts out this overblown story (Score 1) 19

True. It's more a source of annoyance and possibly sabotage than theft. After discovering that it's trivial to read passengers' personal and flight details as well as gain access to online booking from the QR codes on boarding passes, I now shred or archive all my printed travel materials. Certainly, never throw them in the garbage!

Comment Re: Your honor, I plead not guilty by reason (Score 1) 261

The immature defence argument works in two ways: #1 - Don't lock 'em up because diminished responsibility and #2 - Don't lock 'em up because of USA's brutal, dehumanising penal system. We can make the public safety argument in #1, i.e. protect the public from people with diminished responsibility, but we can't argue that traumatising and brutalising children and young adults is in anyone's best interests. We just end up creating generations of hardened criminals who'll never know anything but crime and the penal system throughout their lives. The Thatcher regime tried "short, sharp, shock" with its borstal system in the 1980s. It was such an epic failure and flew in the face of all that is reasonable and humane that it spurred Alan Clarke to write and direct "Scum" in order to bring it to the attention of the British public: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... There was a public outrage and shortly after, the borstal system was shut down.

Slashdot Top Deals

In less than a century, computers will be making substantial progress on ... the overriding problem of war and peace. -- James Slagle