Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Is GTMO closed? (Score 3, Insightful) 540

Its incredible the double standard around here.

On one hand we have a man with 10 year perfect record for truth telling -> weasel, liar, attention whore because he won't surrender for the torture country;
On the other hand we have the mass murderer, who kept people who lied to congress in control of the intelligence, that was caught lying to help his candidate, and that didn't stop the human right abuses he promised to -> nobody is criticizing him.

I really hope he does not keep up with this "promise". Who will enable the next Manning? Who will save the next Snowden? The Guardian? WP? Only Wikileaks go the extra length to protect whistleblowers and to publish the truth in adversity. We need Assange free and working more than we need him keeping up with his PR stunts.

Comment Re:Strange Logic (Score 2) 270

Manning was just a show-off trying to data-dump anything she could get her hands on without a greater purpose in mind. She did it because she could, not because she had any morale compass.

According to Manning in her final statements:

I believe that if the general public, especially the American public, had access to the information contained within the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A tables, this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general as [missed word] as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan.

I also believed the detailed analysis of the data over a long period of time by different sectors of society might cause society to reevaluate the need or even the desire to even to engage in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations that ignore the complex dynamics of the people living in the effected environment every day.

When someone claims a purpose that matches his actions it seems wrong to claim they didn't have a purpose. Manning's leaks were what actually took the troops out of Iraq, when their government was forced to threaten taking American criminals to international court. Stratfor leaks relating to Syria show that officials believed the public would not support air attack without media attention to a massacre. Obama bombarded Libya without congressional approval.
She not only had a purpose, but she actually achieved it.

Comment Re:Trump is worse (Score 1) 270

thing you imagine the Clintons to have done

Read the emails, it's stupid to talk about accessible, undisputed information without reading it.

Trump is worse in pretty much every imaginable way when it comes to being a criminal and an all around terrible person.

Only someone that does not know about what Hillary has done can say that. Only US secretaries of state and presidents can achieve that level of evil, there is no information enough on Trump to claim what you did, the things he said cannot be counted as worst than the things she did. After he starts a war without congressional approval for political gain we can claim he is getting close to her (yes this information is also in the emails).

Comment Re:Not at all. Read Dotcom's license plate (Score 1) 91

US Military Members Had More than 15,600 Accounts on MegaUpload. It's not someone could have used megaupload for some legal activity. Lots of people were using it, the above article points to just a small subset of Americans who were doing it (the whole world used megaupload). I know American soldiers are not known for legal activity, but in this case it seems it was mostly a means of communication with their families.

Mega is one thing, Megaupload was another. I wouldn't bother with this shortening if the Mega service hadn't been created later.

Ad hominem attacks shouldn't have a place on the legal system. He looked bad and criminal and Google executives doesn't? Megaupload was doing then the same that youtube has been doing all along. Your claimed cat videos purpose has nothing to do with it.

Comment Re:MegaUpload (Score 1) 91

As I understand, if the content owners wanted to sell files and provide them to customers through a link on megaupload, they could. Just like content owners expose their files on youtube in exchange for advertising money. The "original content owner" doesn't get anything for pirate views on youtube, like they didn't on megaupload.

Or did you mean megaupload didn't bribe the RIAA?

Comment Re:MegaUpload (Score 2) 91

I read the wikipedia page too, but the prosecution's side ignores the technical reason why they didn't necessarily delete the files. I read an example of the file deletion thing, it was on these lines:
1. user1 makes a copy of the file for personal use (legal);
2. user2 makes a copy for sharing in his blog (illegal according to American laws)
3. user3, the rights holder, makes another copy of the file, for private use (legal).

If they deleted the file because of a notice on user2's link, the other users that had legitimate access to the file would have their legal property destroyed.

But about them not "playing nice", that's arguable, and my point is that according to the "rights holders", youtube is both a violator AND isn't playing nice, see 1, 2 and RIAA Says YouTube is Running a DMCA Protection Racket. They are all about how youtube and google are pirate heavens and are not helping enough in the good fight. In TFA they are talking about well-known loopholes (claiming/implying youtube should be doing something about it).

Megaupload was taking down the links for infringing content, that means that the alleged pirate lost access to the file, but without destroying the data of those users that were never accused of infringing anything. This is what caused controversy, the prosecutor thinks they should have deleted people's files.

The fact that they were complying with the DMCA notices the way google and everybody else does should be enough. People shouldn't have to do more than what the law says, they should to as little as possible. Specially if going through extra lengths would hurt legitimate users. Being prosecuted or not shouldn't be about playing nice with the powerful or about being one of them.
While megaupload is being prosecuted, and torrent sites are constantly being persecuted, Google is the big pirate. The best way to find a torrent is still googling FILENAME .torrent and to find a song is still youtube. They are not prosecuted because it is google.

Comment MegaUpload (Score 4, Insightful) 91

Isn't this exactly megaupload's case? They were a legitimate service for storing and sharing files publicly and privately, just like youtube. They had a takedown system and were compliant to the DMCA, just like youtube. But not enough for the content "owners" liking, like youtube. Their system was used for piracy some of the time, just like youtube (and the proportion BS people tell about torrent sites does not apply here, the legitimate use was huge).

If the US had a decent prosecutor, he/she would go after Google with the same methods and arguments used in megaupload's case. To lose the case, of course, and set some precedents for the small people and the foreigners (Kim is anything but small).

American imperialism sucks.

Comment Obama now supports whistleblowing! (Score 4, Insightful) 205

He just needed to get out of office.

Obama made the most pro-transparency move of his office time. By greatly increasing access to secret information, the odds of us knowing the lies and crimes of the future administration are also increased. Let's hope for new troves.

Comment Re:I already simplify it for my kids (Score 1) 95

Your suggestion:

2) Always lie about your age, use a fake name, and never provide a real address

Facebook's Terms of Service:

You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission.

I don't think that complies with the CFAA. Violating the terms of service is illegal. You are teaching them to be criminals!!!

Besides this little detail, your simplification for kids seems pretty good. Changing the law so that they aren't considered criminals for following it is the solution.

Comment Re:And Spend $360 billion on Renewables (Score 1) 95

You know Clinton was the fracking candidate, right? (it's in the attachment of the email).

From an article about the subject:

In one excerpt of a speech to Deutsche Bank in April 2013, according to the document, Clinton boasted about the federal government’s support for fracking and her own work to promote the process across the globe.

“Fracking was developed at the Department of Energy,” the document shows Clinton saying. “I mean, the whole idea of how fracking came to be available in the marketplace is because of research done by our government. And I've promoted fracking in other places around the world.”

In another excerpt of the same speech, Clinton outlines why she supports a continued push for fracking.

“The ability to extract both gas and oil from previously used places that didn't seem to have much more to offer, but now the technology gives us the chance to go in and recover oil and gas,” the document shows her saying. “Or with the new technology known as fracking, we are truly on a path -- and it's not just United States; it's all of North America -- that will be net energy exporters assuming we do it right."

I don't mean, in any way, that Trump might be good for the environment. Just that he probably isn't going to be worst (frackingwise) than Hillary would have been.

Comment Re:Here's a hint, police detectives! (Score 1) 95

They do say that the coal use will be reduced, because they have to reduce it anyway, but they use the opportunity to also blame the open-air barbecues and attack them. That is part of Beijing's dream of becoming a "clean", modern city like Shanghai; to take the poor and the muslins from the streets/city.

The AC assessment that this is a PR stunt to blame random people grilling is correct. You don't even have to know the Chinese government well to see it through their BS. He read the summary and pointed the BS, the "reason" why they created this force is not pollution, I'll add that it is blaming the problems not on random people, but on the poor people, painting them as responsible for the pollution as much as the factory owners, and then hunting/expelling them through fines and prison threats, while financing upgrades for the rich.

The environmental police squad was one of several new measures

Other measures included cutting coal use by 30 percent in 2017 ...

They are being forced by the situation to act on the pollution issue, something that will be done by reducing coal use and closing/renewing factories. But they are using the opportunity to hunt the people who are not really contributing to the problem (thousands of open-air barbecues are nothing compared to one polluting factory), but that they dislike.

Do know that there is a lot of smoking inside Beijing's restaurants, even though it is illegal (and the law was made so that restaurant owners have no reason to try to enforce the law). Where are the police squads to enforce that law? The second hand smoking people get because of this lack of enforcement is a real problem*, but they are after the open-air bbqs. You see the discrepancy? That happens because the politicians are mostly smokers, and like the resources that come from China Tobacco ("the world's largest manufacturer of tobacco products measured by revenues").

*The US Surgeon General, in his 2006 report, estimated that living or working in a place where smoking is permitted increases the non-smokers' risk of developing heart disease by 25–30% and lung cancer by 20–30% source:

Slashdot Top Deals

Machines have less problems. I'd like to be a machine. -- Andy Warhol