Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re: Why not? (Score 1) 652

And nobody has yet explained how the recipient of a classified email could have prevented it from being sent.

When you have a clearance, you (at least contractors do, I suppose government types might be different) have to undergo "training" on how to handle classified information. One of the things that you're taught is how to deal with receiving classified material on an unapproved computer.

Bottom line (for contractors at least) is that basically you immediately disconnect from the Internet, immediately stop using the computer (but do not close any running programs or turn it off), and immediately contact security who will start making arrangements to deal with it. Failure to do so is essentially a crime. (Or at least I sure thought it was. Apparently it isn't, if you're a Clinton.)

Receiving classified information isn't itself a crime, but receiving it and then not doing anything about it is. Or, at least, that's what I've been taught every time I'm forced to retake the Security Clearance Refresher Training.

Comment Re:As a C programmer (Score 2) 113

No, as a pretty experienced C programmer too, it's *really* hard to find people who are even vaguely competent C programmers. You only need to set most people a completely trivial problem with vague exposure to pointers/memory management and they'll trip themselves up. "Implement memmov" usually is enough to catch out 95% of people.

Comment Re:Trump Trolling (Score 1) 652

ie the DNC generating good speeches and endorsements

They are? Everything I've heard about the DNC is that it's been an absolute disaster, with Bernie supporters constantly interrupting speakers who are spending most of their time castigating Bernie supporters for not falling into line after the DNC rigged the nomination for Hillary Clinton, to the point where something like half the delegates walked out after her coronation. Er, nomination. Sure, we'll pretend it was a fair nomination.

All the while Clinton is swinging rapidly back to her pre-Bernie positions, proving that she'll say anything for votes but her real priorities are supporting her Wall Street backers.

I'm not sure why Trump bothered to comment since the DNC convention so far is proving to be a complete disaster compared to the RNC convention.

Comment Re:Theatres are terminal (Score 1) 239

The difference between theft and copyright infringement is one of immense philosophical complexity.

Deprivation of property is nothing more than deprivation of the labor entailed to obtain that property. You bought a car? That cost you $28,000, which you worked for; but why did you work for $28,000? Because the car salesmen spend time seeking out, talking with, and servicing customers; the cashiers spend time being available to take your money; there are delivery drivers who must bring SIX CARS from far-off to stock them in this enormous 500-car lot; someone makes those cars in the factories; someone makes the steel, the paint, and the plastics; someone mines for the ore, and produces the power required to make those things. These are all human labors, time which must be taken to make the thing.

If someone steals your car, they steal the outcome of nearly $28,000 of labor. It's probably more like $24,000-$26,000, and only that high because the automaker has negotiated for bulk purchase of steel and paint at razor-thin margins ($1 billion of profits at 0.1% vs no profits at your usual 15%, Mr. Carnergie), and the steelmaker has used the promise of an enormous contract to bid down the ore and coal miners on contingency of receiving and maintaining the automaker contract. These people's labors also went into production (organization and operation of production, which means less total human labor than self-organized artisans). You have to fork over all that cash to get a new one, or else insurance has to fork it over (and insurance rates are slightly higher than costs, meaning the cost of basic levels of theft is paid by the insured).

Theft isn't about tangible, physical objects; it's about time.

On the other hand, if you make copies of a work, that deprives no one of tangible property. There is no cost of labor of pressing a DVD for which you have stolen a man's life and livelihood; there is no cost of labor of shipping which you have taken without payment; there is no plastic or metal or ink which a man has made with his time and for which you have failed to pay. Why, then, would it be theft?

Movies are made by the labor of screen writers, actors, special effects artists, directors, producers, marketers, musicians, sound engineers, construction workers, fuel miners, energy producers, iron and steel manufacturers, and so forth. Seemingly-endless human labor time is poured into the production of a small piece of information, a tiny thing which you can reproduce with hardly a fraction of a penny's worth of additional human labor.

It is for this effort they demand compensation.

What justification do you have for depriving these people of compensation for their labor?

The only justification is that your particular action doesn't cost them anything, directly. They only labored at what we price at millions of dollars of wages to produce a thing which can then be copied for a fraction of nothing; you only took that fraction of nothing. They expect, for their work, some form of compensation, and you don't see why you should give them such a thing.

That is the philosophical comparison of theft of property versus theft of intellectual property. That is why it's called "intellectual property": it really takes the labor of a man to make it.

Comment Re:Joke ? (Score 2) 652

Should espionage and violation of national security for political gain ever be something joked about by a major party Presidential candidate?

So instead of the candidate who made an already-made-several-times-by-other-people joke, you prefer the candidate who looks you in the eye and knowingly, deliberately, repeatedly lies to you about her handling of matters related to espionage and national security? Why?

Comment Re:Joke ? (Score 2, Insightful) 652

As opposed to waiting six months at a time for Clinton to even hold a press conference (it's been that long - that's how scared she is of her own supporting media) and then knowing, based on years of examples, that quite a bit of what she says are bald-faced lies? And, you're not scared of HER scary proposals? She's gleefully in favor of infringing on constitutionally protected rights, supports nationally self-destructive immigration policies, and wants to see the government involved in wildly more private sector activities, at both the business and personal level. She also "says a ton of things," but because it's done in that focus-group-tuned, calculating Clinton way, it's actually a lot more sinister.

Slashdot Top Deals

Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.