"How? It's a field with an overabundance of supply and not that much demand."
If that is so, why to the record labels continue to make huge amounts of money -- breaking new records every year it seems -- while the artists they make the money ON remain poor?
The fact is that the music industry for many decades has been notorious for low-balling, and even cheating, their artists.
". . . how wasteful most commercial software packages are."
That's certainly true. And the huge volume of our data, too, but mostly software. I have programs on my computer that are easily 20 times the size of entire hard drive of one of our office computers back in 1994... and that hard drive contained a complete install of Microsoft Office as well as Lotus 1-2-3 for those who didn't like Excel. With lots of room to spare.
As a long-time programmer, I celebrate the increases in capability we have seen over the years, but I decry the bloated inefficiency of much of our modern software. I would go so far as to say I am dismayed by it sometimes.
I'm not sure. IIRC, it was a jury that granted a huge amount for damages, then a judge (not jury) who overturned that large amount, and another judge who made it larger again.
I understand how amendments work. But my subject was completely separate.
If I misunderstood the person to whom I was replying, that's fine. But I wasn't writing about amendments. Rather the other way around: if the Federal government wants to do some of the things it has been doing in the last few decades, outside of its enumerated Constitutional powers, then amendments are called for. But there haven't been any. Making many of their actions technically illegal.
Many have argued the Supremacy Clause, but it is only part of the whole paragraph. The Constitution makes it clear that the Federal government is supreme over the States only when its laws are "in pursuance of" its given powers.
Having written all that, I would like to say I agree that in general, it's deplorable what the music companies pay artists, and that should change. But I'm not seeing anything new here.
Now, wait a minute. Seems to me this isn't bad at all. I don't know that this is "down" from the past at all... in the radio days (not very long ago), 0.1 cents per play would have been a pretty good return. Especially when you consider that each play was probably heard by thousands of people on average, while Pandora (for example) probably only averages about 1.2 people per play. As much as 0.4 cents or so per play back then would have been a dream come true. And if you figure it on a per-capita basis, why, she's committing highway robbery.
I see nothing in the article that indicates this is a lower royalty rate than back then. Further, in the article someone said:
"In certain types of music, like classical or jazz, we are condemning them to poverty if this is going to be the only way people consume music,"
... okay. But please explain to me how this represents any kind of change. How many rich cellists do you know? For that matter, how many cellists make much of any kind of money by actually selling their music to fans? Yoyo Ma and maybe at most a few others?
"Almost any kitchen-centric automation is more of a pain to implement or maintain for home users than it would be worth."
I agree!
One thing I don't want is an app that lets Bob turn his oven on from the convenience of his office chair 10 miles away. Who will pay for all the fires?
Sure, you can say "the automation will shut it off when it's done". Yeah, right. As Heinlein wrote, more or less: "You can't make something foolproof because fools are so ingenious."
"BS. GGP post was not referring to amendment of the U.S. Constitution, its the discredited Xth amendment stupidity. It doesn't work like that. This has been tested, and a war was fought on the issues. The Feds won."
Sorry, just wrong. Time to read the history books.
For just one example, the propaganda insinuating that nullification has been "discredited", or has racist roots, are what is really BS. One, and only one, Southern governor threatened to try using it against anti-discrimination laws, but he never actually did.
On the other hand, nullification was used successfully by the North against the Fugitive Slave Laws. It was never used in support of slavery. (In fact, South Carolina listed Northern nullification as its first justification, in its declaration of secession. Other Southern states listed it also in their declarations, but not as the first reason.)
It has been used many times since. Far from being discredited, it has been used numerous times, and is in active effect right now!
No less than 26 states have nullified the Federal "Real ID Act". It is effectively dead in the water.
A number of states have nullified Federal marijuana laws, making marijuana legal in those states (or at least decriminalizing it). Two states recently passed legislation making it legal for recreational, not just medical, use.
Several states have nullified Federal gun laws already. At least one of them has made it a felony for anybody to attempt to enforce Federal gun laws that the state considers to be extra-constitutional. Tennessee is considering similar legislation, as are other states.
So examples of modern, current state nullification are all around you. All Government propaganda aside, you can call it "discredited" all you want, but you would know better if you just pulled your head out and took a look around. For a "discredited" concept, it sure has been -- and continues to be -- pretty darned effective.
"Is that what you think this is? It seemed to me that it was a solution waiting for a sufficiently heart-wrenching problem, like how they doubtless have all the "Cyber-Patriot Act" stuff just waiting for an opportunity (Rahm Emanuel crisis style)."
Exactly. Not to mention that we have the Constitutional question to deal with.
What good is it to make it easier for states to share information, if the states don't want to do it? Several states now have exercised their ability to legislatively "nullify" unconstitutional Federal gun laws. More will follow, the higher-handed the Feds get.
I know this is hard to swallow, but the founders of the U.S. did not give the Federal government -- including the Supreme Court, which is part of the Federal government -- the power to decide what its own powers are. As James Madison laid out very clearly in 1800, even the Supreme Court is not immune to power-grabbing, and trying to give the Feds more power than explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. Therefore (according to Madison and other founders), the ultimate authority to decide when the Federal government is exceeding its power lies with the States. The States created the Federal government, therefore the States are the masters of their creation... not the other way around.
Lots of people seem to forget that the Supremacy Clause only refers to laws passed "in pursuance of" the other powers enumerated in the Constitution. Federal laws passed that are not in pursuance of those powers are (Thomas Jefferson's words): "of no force, null and void". Not actually law, at all.
Not to mention that executive orders are merely instructions for Federal employees, also not law, in the sense that they have no power to tell common citizens what to do.
"While MAFIAA may be incredibly stupid, don't think their finance people are as stupid. It's not hard for them to figure out if it's not worth the money."
Exactly. When numbers were grossly in their favor, the copyright trolls were actually looking at this as a cash cow. There have been several statements by organizations and private firms that they were after the money, not principle. They wanted to be "compensated for their losses", if not make an outright profit.
But when they *lose* money, what then?
The problem is the U.S. has been statutory damages. The law originally only targeted actual "pirates", who sold copyrighted works for money. Then it was changed to anybody who "expected to receive something tangible in exchange".
It should be noted, however, that your typical downloader still does not meet this definition.
I think a lot of it is, as someone else wrote in part, the simple fact that Firefox is the major independent (i.e., not affiliated with an OS or search company) browser. Opera was pretty much independent too, last I checked, but they don't have the penetration that Firefox does.
On that basis, I'm willing to give it security points. Since they do not have a vested interest in selling your information or locking you into an OS, they are likely to have consumer interest a bit more in mind than the others.
"... what do we do about it? "TEAR IT ALL DOWN" ah, no thank you. "
I think there are some pretty darned good arguments for tearing at least some of it down. Our government is bloated to the point that if something is not done, it is likely to explode and take many of us with it.
Just for one example, take the "War on Drugs". Billions of dollars spent every year, and we're no better off than we were 30 years ago in that regard. Even more billions are spent on housing and caring for the prisoners who should not be prisoners in the first place, and paying lawyers and judges we really don't need.
But Portugal (for one good counterexample out of many now) decriminalized ALL drugs. And guess what? Crime went way down, their court system is no longer overloaded, their prison population is way down, and other serious costs to society are down as well.
We could probably eliminate the DEA altogether and not miss it even a little. And maybe the ATF while we're at it. And the TSA. And...
"Whenever I see comments about "What is the govt doing?" my immediate response is, try living in a country with no govt and see how it compares (Somalia, Afghanistan etc)."
That's really not very relevant. You might as well tell someone who has a broken arm that they should be grateful, because you know a guy with no legs.
However, that isn't a logical argument at all. The fact that somebody else has it worse does not negate the fact that this person is in severe pain. And the fact that a few people (and comparatively, it is only a few) do not have a government, has little or no bearing on whether our government is doing the right thing. We have some serious problems here at home and comparing our government to no government does not even remotely add anything to the knowledge pool.
Just a suggestion, but next time maybe try arguing about the actual topic at hand, rather than just calling everyone crybabies?
Since we're on the subject, I don't see how Twitter can complain, since Twitter has been doing exactly the same to others who use its API. And I do mean exactly.
"Yes... because in all but a few cases, the weaponry they so desire to protect, is not terribly useful against the military, and is better suited for harassing/abusing minimally defended/hardened targets, like unarmed civilians in medium-large numbers or similarly armed civilians in small numbers."
This is the biggest load of bull I have read in a while.
First, it is the other way around. When you disarm the public, what do you end up with? A helluva lot more of those unarmed civilians, which would then be in large numbers, no medium about it. Sitting ducks for those who still did have guns to bully around.
Second, and my main point: there are about 1.4 million active U.S. military. Many of those (probably most, say 2/3) are stationed where they cannot readily be pulled out in any kind of reasonable time frame. But there are 300 million U.S. citizens, who possess about the same number of guns. Now, you can think as you like, but I'm telling you that having a machine gun is no match for being outnumbered 600 to 1.
To make matters worse -- for the military that is -- most of them would not fight. This isn't a civil war. This would be war on the citizens of their own land. It would be directly contrary to the Constitution they swore to uphold when they joined the military. (Important note: they swear to uphold the Constitution, not some upstart President.) Of those relative few who did stick around to fight their own people, they would be disowned by their families and (nearly) all their friends.
This isn't Nazi Germany, with a civilian population supporting a dictatorial leader and a rabid military. On the contrary: the majority of U.S. civilians today clearly think the Government has already gone too far in many ways, and wants military aggression to be curtailed.
So, yes. It would be effective against the military, if need be. And don't forget the ability to easily manufacture guns when they cannot be bought.
"You said they were random. Your implication was it would make it hard for authorities to track down. My point is you are wrong."
No, you misunderstood completely. Nobody in their right mind would think that any machine at all could be a Tor exit node at random, so of course I meant which exit node, among existing exit nodes, is chosen at random. In any sort of reasonable world I could hardly have meant anything else. I do not agree that there was any ambiguity.
"Seriously, did you miss the tragic Aaron Schwartz saga?"
No, I did not miss it, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand. Swartz was downloading academic material and such from a University-affiliated service, using the University's own network. He was not downloading some movie or other file via BitTorrent at home. The latter, not the former, is what this whole thread is about.
But my more recent point was this: in the message I first replied to, you stated:
"Somebody has to be the exit node and that somebody is going to be hassled quite a bit by the authorities"
... but no, they're not. For a typical civil downloading scenario, law enforcement will not have sufficient authority to monitor your traffic through an exit node. And if recent court cases are any indication, it is unlikely that the information would be subject to subpoena, either. And good luck either way, because neither Tor or anonymous proxies keep records.
So the main difference -- in THIS context -- between using an anonymous proxy, and Tor, is that the anonymous proxy will usually be faster. Tor can be dog-slow sometimes, depending on traffic and how many nodes you are going through.
"... but the set of exit nodes is certainly not random."
Of course they're not. But I'm wondering what your point is.
" They find somene with Child Porn, and rightfully get a list of places he's received data from from his ISP. One of those IP addresses just happens to be a TOR exit node. Bingo, warrant issued to monitor that exit node's activity. "
Sure. Of course. But that's pretty clear probable cause. So it's not unreasonable for them to get a warrant in that case. But that is completely different from the kind of thing we're talking about here. Kind of out of context. I don't think anybody could reasonably argue that simple not-for-profit copyright infringement would be justification.
"Running a TOR exit node out of your own house is a recipe for legal issues. Running it out of a hosted server somewhere is much less problematic, but legally speaking, that's the IP address spewing child porn and that's what's going to attract the attention (once they catch someone routing through that exit node)."
I wasn't suggesting anybody host one in their home. I don't fancy unwanted knocks on the door from the authorities. But again your example is something that is considered a rather serious crime today, if done intentionally. The context of the discussion was simple copyright infringement, which is another matter entirely.
"Fascinating. Jane's "I don't need a citation" reflex is so deeply ingrained that he doesn't even notice that the citation request was directed at viperidaenz's claim."
It is neither a matter of reflex or "not noticing". It is a matter of how Slashdot shows the comments. Slashdot has changed a number of things about their format lately, and whose comments are in reply to whom is not as obvious as it once was.
The way it is displayed on my screen, it appeared to be a reply made to me. Maybe one of these days I'll find a setting that shows them more clearly.
Slashdot Mirror
All the more reason to run an open hotspot with your router.
Many newer routers allow a "guest" account that allows internet use without access to your LAN.
"How? It's a field with an overabundance of supply and not that much demand."
If that is so, why to the record labels continue to make huge amounts of money -- breaking new records every year it seems -- while the artists they make the money ON remain poor?
The fact is that the music industry for many decades has been notorious for low-balling, and even cheating, their artists.
". . . how wasteful most commercial software packages are."
That's certainly true. And the huge volume of our data, too, but mostly software. I have programs on my computer that are easily 20 times the size of entire hard drive of one of our office computers back in 1994... and that hard drive contained a complete install of Microsoft Office as well as Lotus 1-2-3 for those who didn't like Excel. With lots of room to spare. As a long-time programmer, I celebrate the increases in capability we have seen over the years, but I decry the bloated inefficiency of much of our modern software. I would go so far as to say I am dismayed by it sometimes.
"Unless you are Jammie Thomas."
I'm not sure. IIRC, it was a jury that granted a huge amount for damages, then a judge (not jury) who overturned that large amount, and another judge who made it larger again.
I understand how amendments work. But my subject was completely separate.
If I misunderstood the person to whom I was replying, that's fine. But I wasn't writing about amendments. Rather the other way around: if the Federal government wants to do some of the things it has been doing in the last few decades, outside of its enumerated Constitutional powers, then amendments are called for. But there haven't been any. Making many of their actions technically illegal.
Many have argued the Supremacy Clause, but it is only part of the whole paragraph. The Constitution makes it clear that the Federal government is supreme over the States only when its laws are "in pursuance of" its given powers.
Having written all that, I would like to say I agree that in general, it's deplorable what the music companies pay artists, and that should change. But I'm not seeing anything new here.
"It sucks making pennies..."
Now, wait a minute. Seems to me this isn't bad at all. I don't know that this is "down" from the past at all... in the radio days (not very long ago), 0.1 cents per play would have been a pretty good return. Especially when you consider that each play was probably heard by thousands of people on average, while Pandora (for example) probably only averages about 1.2 people per play. As much as 0.4 cents or so per play back then would have been a dream come true. And if you figure it on a per-capita basis, why, she's committing highway robbery.
I see nothing in the article that indicates this is a lower royalty rate than back then. Further, in the article someone said:
"In certain types of music, like classical or jazz, we are condemning them to poverty if this is going to be the only way people consume music,"
... okay. But please explain to me how this represents any kind of change. How many rich cellists do you know? For that matter, how many cellists make much of any kind of money by actually selling their music to fans? Yoyo Ma and maybe at most a few others?
If you ask me, this is non-news.
"Almost any kitchen-centric automation is more of a pain to implement or maintain for home users than it would be worth."
I agree!
One thing I don't want is an app that lets Bob turn his oven on from the convenience of his office chair 10 miles away. Who will pay for all the fires?
Sure, you can say "the automation will shut it off when it's done". Yeah, right. As Heinlein wrote, more or less: "You can't make something foolproof because fools are so ingenious."
"Simply having more numbers isnt "math"."
No, but attrition isn't just having more numbers. It is having losses (look it up). Which means attrition is subtraction from those numbers.
"BS. GGP post was not referring to amendment of the U.S. Constitution, its the discredited Xth amendment stupidity. It doesn't work like that. This has been tested, and a war was fought on the issues. The Feds won."
Sorry, just wrong. Time to read the history books.
For just one example, the propaganda insinuating that nullification has been "discredited", or has racist roots, are what is really BS. One, and only one, Southern governor threatened to try using it against anti-discrimination laws, but he never actually did.
On the other hand, nullification was used successfully by the North against the Fugitive Slave Laws. It was never used in support of slavery. (In fact, South Carolina listed Northern nullification as its first justification, in its declaration of secession. Other Southern states listed it also in their declarations, but not as the first reason.)
It has been used many times since. Far from being discredited, it has been used numerous times, and is in active effect right now!
No less than 26 states have nullified the Federal "Real ID Act". It is effectively dead in the water.
A number of states have nullified Federal marijuana laws, making marijuana legal in those states (or at least decriminalizing it). Two states recently passed legislation making it legal for recreational, not just medical, use.
Several states have nullified Federal gun laws already. At least one of them has made it a felony for anybody to attempt to enforce Federal gun laws that the state considers to be extra-constitutional. Tennessee is considering similar legislation, as are other states.
So examples of modern, current state nullification are all around you. All Government propaganda aside, you can call it "discredited" all you want, but you would know better if you just pulled your head out and took a look around. For a "discredited" concept, it sure has been -- and continues to be -- pretty darned effective.
"That's not math, that's known as attrition."
Um, yeah. Attrition is math. Simple addition and subtraction, but it's still math.
"Is that what you think this is? It seemed to me that it was a solution waiting for a sufficiently heart-wrenching problem, like how they doubtless have all the "Cyber-Patriot Act" stuff just waiting for an opportunity (Rahm Emanuel crisis style)."
Exactly. Not to mention that we have the Constitutional question to deal with.
What good is it to make it easier for states to share information, if the states don't want to do it? Several states now have exercised their ability to legislatively "nullify" unconstitutional Federal gun laws. More will follow, the higher-handed the Feds get.
I know this is hard to swallow, but the founders of the U.S. did not give the Federal government -- including the Supreme Court, which is part of the Federal government -- the power to decide what its own powers are. As James Madison laid out very clearly in 1800, even the Supreme Court is not immune to power-grabbing, and trying to give the Feds more power than explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. Therefore (according to Madison and other founders), the ultimate authority to decide when the Federal government is exceeding its power lies with the States. The States created the Federal government, therefore the States are the masters of their creation... not the other way around.
Lots of people seem to forget that the Supremacy Clause only refers to laws passed "in pursuance of" the other powers enumerated in the Constitution. Federal laws passed that are not in pursuance of those powers are (Thomas Jefferson's words): "of no force, null and void". Not actually law, at all.
Not to mention that executive orders are merely instructions for Federal employees, also not law, in the sense that they have no power to tell common citizens what to do.
Am I seriously the first one here to see the obvious opportunity for jokes about MOKE signals?
You guys are slipping.
"While MAFIAA may be incredibly stupid, don't think their finance people are as stupid. It's not hard for them to figure out if it's not worth the money."
Exactly. When numbers were grossly in their favor, the copyright trolls were actually looking at this as a cash cow. There have been several statements by organizations and private firms that they were after the money, not principle. They wanted to be "compensated for their losses", if not make an outright profit.
But when they *lose* money, what then?
The problem is the U.S. has been statutory damages. The law originally only targeted actual "pirates", who sold copyrighted works for money. Then it was changed to anybody who "expected to receive something tangible in exchange".
It should be noted, however, that your typical downloader still does not meet this definition.
I think a lot of it is, as someone else wrote in part, the simple fact that Firefox is the major independent (i.e., not affiliated with an OS or search company) browser. Opera was pretty much independent too, last I checked, but they don't have the penetration that Firefox does.
On that basis, I'm willing to give it security points. Since they do not have a vested interest in selling your information or locking you into an OS, they are likely to have consumer interest a bit more in mind than the others.
"... what do we do about it? "TEAR IT ALL DOWN" ah, no thank you. "
I think there are some pretty darned good arguments for tearing at least some of it down. Our government is bloated to the point that if something is not done, it is likely to explode and take many of us with it.
Just for one example, take the "War on Drugs". Billions of dollars spent every year, and we're no better off than we were 30 years ago in that regard. Even more billions are spent on housing and caring for the prisoners who should not be prisoners in the first place, and paying lawyers and judges we really don't need.
But Portugal (for one good counterexample out of many now) decriminalized ALL drugs. And guess what? Crime went way down, their court system is no longer overloaded, their prison population is way down, and other serious costs to society are down as well. We could probably eliminate the DEA altogether and not miss it even a little. And maybe the ATF while we're at it. And the TSA. And...
Just kidding ("this message will self-destruct...").
Those thermite / hard drive slag units seem intriguing, though. I wonder if I could rig up the same kind of thing.
Probably not in my laptop. No room.
"Whenever I see comments about "What is the govt doing?" my immediate response is, try living in a country with no govt and see how it compares (Somalia, Afghanistan etc)."
That's really not very relevant. You might as well tell someone who has a broken arm that they should be grateful, because you know a guy with no legs.
However, that isn't a logical argument at all. The fact that somebody else has it worse does not negate the fact that this person is in severe pain. And the fact that a few people (and comparatively, it is only a few) do not have a government, has little or no bearing on whether our government is doing the right thing. We have some serious problems here at home and comparing our government to no government does not even remotely add anything to the knowledge pool.
Just a suggestion, but next time maybe try arguing about the actual topic at hand, rather than just calling everyone crybabies?
Since we're on the subject, I don't see how Twitter can complain, since Twitter has been doing exactly the same to others who use its API. And I do mean exactly.
The whole idea is ridiculous. It's simply impossible.
---
"This message will self-destruct in five seconds."
"Great once we got the locals on our side."
Correct. But in a case like the one mentioned, would the locals be on their side? Hell, no.
"Yes... because in all but a few cases, the weaponry they so desire to protect, is not terribly useful against the military, and is better suited for harassing/abusing minimally defended/hardened targets, like unarmed civilians in medium-large numbers or similarly armed civilians in small numbers."
This is the biggest load of bull I have read in a while.
First, it is the other way around. When you disarm the public, what do you end up with? A helluva lot more of those unarmed civilians, which would then be in large numbers, no medium about it. Sitting ducks for those who still did have guns to bully around.
Second, and my main point: there are about 1.4 million active U.S. military. Many of those (probably most, say 2/3) are stationed where they cannot readily be pulled out in any kind of reasonable time frame. But there are 300 million U.S. citizens, who possess about the same number of guns. Now, you can think as you like, but I'm telling you that having a machine gun is no match for being outnumbered 600 to 1.
To make matters worse -- for the military that is -- most of them would not fight. This isn't a civil war. This would be war on the citizens of their own land. It would be directly contrary to the Constitution they swore to uphold when they joined the military. (Important note: they swear to uphold the Constitution, not some upstart President.) Of those relative few who did stick around to fight their own people, they would be disowned by their families and (nearly) all their friends.
This isn't Nazi Germany, with a civilian population supporting a dictatorial leader and a rabid military. On the contrary: the majority of U.S. civilians today clearly think the Government has already gone too far in many ways, and wants military aggression to be curtailed.
So, yes. It would be effective against the military, if need be. And don't forget the ability to easily manufacture guns when they cannot be bought.
"You said they were random. Your implication was it would make it hard for authorities to track down. My point is you are wrong."
No, you misunderstood completely. Nobody in their right mind would think that any machine at all could be a Tor exit node at random, so of course I meant which exit node, among existing exit nodes, is chosen at random. In any sort of reasonable world I could hardly have meant anything else. I do not agree that there was any ambiguity.
"Seriously, did you miss the tragic Aaron Schwartz saga?"
No, I did not miss it, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand. Swartz was downloading academic material and such from a University-affiliated service, using the University's own network. He was not downloading some movie or other file via BitTorrent at home. The latter, not the former, is what this whole thread is about.
But my more recent point was this: in the message I first replied to, you stated:
"Somebody has to be the exit node and that somebody is going to be hassled quite a bit by the authorities"
... but no, they're not. For a typical civil downloading scenario, law enforcement will not have sufficient authority to monitor your traffic through an exit node. And if recent court cases are any indication, it is unlikely that the information would be subject to subpoena, either. And good luck either way, because neither Tor or anonymous proxies keep records.
So the main difference -- in THIS context -- between using an anonymous proxy, and Tor, is that the anonymous proxy will usually be faster. Tor can be dog-slow sometimes, depending on traffic and how many nodes you are going through.
"... but the set of exit nodes is certainly not random."
Of course they're not. But I'm wondering what your point is.
" They find somene with Child Porn, and rightfully get a list of places he's received data from from his ISP. One of those IP addresses just happens to be a TOR exit node. Bingo, warrant issued to monitor that exit node's activity. "
Sure. Of course. But that's pretty clear probable cause. So it's not unreasonable for them to get a warrant in that case. But that is completely different from the kind of thing we're talking about here. Kind of out of context. I don't think anybody could reasonably argue that simple not-for-profit copyright infringement would be justification.
"Running a TOR exit node out of your own house is a recipe for legal issues. Running it out of a hosted server somewhere is much less problematic, but legally speaking, that's the IP address spewing child porn and that's what's going to attract the attention (once they catch someone routing through that exit node)."
I wasn't suggesting anybody host one in their home. I don't fancy unwanted knocks on the door from the authorities. But again your example is something that is considered a rather serious crime today, if done intentionally. The context of the discussion was simple copyright infringement, which is another matter entirely.
"Fascinating. Jane's "I don't need a citation" reflex is so deeply ingrained that he doesn't even notice that the citation request was directed at viperidaenz's claim."
It is neither a matter of reflex or "not noticing". It is a matter of how Slashdot shows the comments. Slashdot has changed a number of things about their format lately, and whose comments are in reply to whom is not as obvious as it once was.
The way it is displayed on my screen, it appeared to be a reply made to me. Maybe one of these days I'll find a setting that shows them more clearly.