Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Save the Franchise? (Score 1) 603

by Spudtrooper (#24584037) Attached to: LucasArts Embargoes "Clone Wars" Reviews
The midichlorians make perfect sense if you think about what happens to Vader. As a whole-body person, he was supreme. The Emperor turned him to the Dark Side because of his power with the Force. Then Obi-Wan laid the smack down on Mustafar, reducing his body mass (and, thus, his midichlorian count) by 50%. After that, Vader was a mechanical wretch, the Emperor's little whipping boy unable to live up to his full potential. That's why the Emperor wanted Luke. He wasn't stunted like Vader was. He had the potential to be far more powerful than Vader. Vader is a truly tragic character. He turned to the Dark Side due to the promise of power, then he lost it all. Also, Dooku and/or Palpatine arranged for his mother to be kidnapped and tortured by the sandpeople. Anakin's fall was set up right away from his introduction. The prequels aren't as ham-fisted as people like to make out. But Jar Jar still sucks.
Security

Submission + - DRM Scorecard: Hackers 1000, Industry Zero 2

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes: InfoWeek blogger Alex Wolfe put together a scorecard which makes the obvious but interesting point that, when you list every major DRM technology implemented to "protect" music and video, they've all been cracked. This includes Apple's FairPlay, Microsoft's Windows Media DRM, the old-style Content Scrambling System (CSS) used on early DVDs and the new AACS for high-definition DVDs. And of course there was the Sony Rootkit disaster of 2005. Can anyone think of a DRM technology which hasn't been cracked, and of course this begs the obvious question: Why doesn't the industry just give up and go DRM-free?
The Courts

Submission + - RIAA Accused of Extortion & Conspiracy

Submitted by
NewYorkCountryLawyer
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "The defendant in a Tampa, Florida, case, UMG v. Del Cid, has filed counterclaims accusing the RIAA record labels of conspiracy and extortion. The counterclaims (pdf) are for Trespass, Computer Fraud and Abuse (18 USC 1030), Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices (Fla. Stat. 501.201), Civil Extortion (CA Penal Code 519 & 523), and Civil Conspiracy involving (a) use of private investigators without license in violation of Fla. Stat. Chapter 493; (b) unauthorized access to a protected computer system, in interstate commerce, for the purpose of obtaining information in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1030 (a)(2)(C); (c) extortion in violation of Ca. Penal Code 519 and 523; and (d) knowingly collecting an unlawful consumer debt, and using abus[ive] means to do so, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692a et seq. and Fla. Stat. 559.72 et seq."
Music

Submission + - Why the RIAA doesn't want defendants exonerated

Submitted by RageAgainsttheBears
RageAgainsttheBears writes: The RIAA is slowly beginning to find itself in an awkward position when a few among its many, many lawsuits don't manage to follow through. Typically, when they decide a case isn't worth pursuing (due to targeting the wrong person or not having sufficient evidence), they simply move to drop the case and any counterclaims, and everyone goes separate ways. But recently, judges have been deciding to allow the RIAA to drop the case, but still allowing the counterclaim through. According to the Ars Technica article:

If Judge Miles-LaGrange issues a ruling exonerating Tallie Stubbs of infringement, it would be a worrisome trend for the RIAA. The music industry has become accustomed to having its way with those it accuses of file-sharing, quietly dropping cases it believes it can't win. It looks as though the courts may be ready to stop the record labels from just walking away from litigation when it doesn't like the direction it is taking and give defendants justice by fully exonerating them of any wrongdoing.

Slashdot Top Deals

The following statement is not true. The previous statement is true.

Close