Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

No RIF'd Employees Need Apply For Microsoft External Staff Jobs For 6 Months

OhPlz Re:laying off...but needs more H-1B's (281 comments)

Are the ones with kids more important than the ones without? Is this some sort of social calculus?

about a week ago
top

Comcast Customer Service Rep Just Won't Take No For an Answer

OhPlz Re:Only sorry they got caught (401 comments)

They sent reps door to door in my neighborhood to get people to "switch back". They know no bounds.

about two weeks ago
top

Amazon Seeks US Exemption To Test Delivery Drones

OhPlz Re:Ballsy (155 comments)

You do not want the chaos that would ensue if airspace was regulated at the state and local level.

As if DC isn't the pinnacle of chaos. They won't allow drone use until they've figured out how to line their pockets with it. That's not how it should work.

about two weeks ago
top

Amazon Seeks US Exemption To Test Delivery Drones

OhPlz Re:Ballsy (155 comments)

No commercial operations? The government shouldn't be blocking the testing or development of new technologies without a strong reason for doing so. I could maybe understand the fed's stance against Amazon using drones for delivery, but blocking them from even developing the technology and testing it is quite a stretch. So long as they don't intrude on controlled airspace and they perform the tests over private property with permission, what harm could be done? Amazon would obviously take steps to avoid issues since they'd be liable for any havoc they caused. The government shouldn't intrude just for the sake of asserting authority over a new technology.

Besides which, the feds already operate drones of their own. Under what regulations are those operated by? A government drone is no less capable of causing problems than a commercially or privately operated drone would be. If this was truly a matter of public safety and risk control, the federally operated drones would be grounded as well. If those drones are regulated somehow, an interim solution could be to allow test use of commercial drones with the requirement that they follow the guidelines set for federally operated drones. This would prevent the FAA and politicians from holding back the development of this technology for purposes of corruption, i.e. appointing campaign donors to committees, setting up new regulating agencies and the $$$ contracts that would go with that, etc.

Frankly, if the drones stay outside of controlled airspace and don't cross state borders, an argument could be made that this is not the jurisdiction of the federal government.

about two weeks ago
top

Amazon Seeks US Exemption To Test Delivery Drones

OhPlz Re:Ballsy (155 comments)

So the FAA has no intent of developing regulations or considering their need, but they have created a UAS study program including six regional test sites. Interesting.

If you've followed the various stories here regarding drones you'd see that the feds have been dragging their feet for a long time. The federal courts have even contradicted the FAA on occasion, stating that they can't do a blanket ban on all uses of drones based on the simple fact that the FAA regulates US airspace. I remember that one clearly because the courts stated that the FAA would have to regulate paper airplanes, by that definition of their areas of responsibility.

I'm pushing it a bit saying they have no intent, but they're not exactly going out of their way to make it a priority. One has to wonder if this is even something that should involve the FAA. Drones (at least the smaller ones that are generally discussed) are a far different thing than what the FAA usually regulates.

about two weeks ago
top

Amazon Seeks US Exemption To Test Delivery Drones

OhPlz Re:We have to get away from instant gratification (155 comments)

What are you doing on Slashdot? Subscribe to a magazine that covers stories like this, write your letter to the editor and wait a month for a possible response. You're so impatient posting on a site where you can get near-immediate feedback. This nonsense needs to be shut down now.

about two weeks ago
top

Amazon Seeks US Exemption To Test Delivery Drones

OhPlz Re:Ballsy (155 comments)

Ballsy is banning it without any intent to develop regulations or to even consider if regulations are necessary.

about two weeks ago
top

India's National Informatics Centre Forged Google SSL Certificates

OhPlz Re:All about trust (107 comments)

As a US resident, I'd be perfectly content to see the heads of various rights-invading federal agencies put away in prison.

So no, it's not ok. Not for the US, not for India.

about three weeks ago
top

Hospitals Begin Data-Mining Patients

OhPlz Re:Something I'd like to see (162 comments)

You have no right to demand a health care provider to provide you their services for free.

about a month ago
top

Hospitals Begin Data-Mining Patients

OhPlz Re:Doesn't give warm fuzzies (162 comments)

It's even worse for people with chronic pain conditions. All it takes is one medical provider to flag the patient as a drug seeker and that person's life becomes a living hell.

about a month ago
top

Google I/O 2014 Begins [updated]

OhPlz Re:No (49 comments)

Or have to re-login constantly and tell it to switch profiles.

about a month ago
top

FAA Bans Delivering Packages With Drones

OhPlz Re:Prime = OK ?? (199 comments)

You'd have to argue that since corporations are people too, the corporation can make deliveries as a hobby. Somehow, I don't think that will fly.

about a month ago
top

Venture-Backed Bitcoin Miner Startup Can't Deliver On Time, Gets Sued

OhPlz Re:That's a risk you take investing (120 comments)

If you order a processing system to spec and it doesn't meet the spec and/or doesn't arrive on the contractually bound delivery date, you absolutely have a case. The real question is if they can leverage its intended use to argue for damages above the cost of the equipment.

about a month ago
top

Emails Show Feds Asking Florida Cops To Deceive Judges About Surveillance Tech

OhPlz Re:Why are all of you so naive ? (251 comments)

The president can't do whatever he wants. - repeat until you get it.

Legal or not, the current President seems to think that he can do whatever he wants via "executive order".

With the lap-dog DoJ, the President really can do just about anything he wants.

about a month ago
top

Washington Redskins Stripped of Trademarks

OhPlz Re:My two cents (646 comments)

Surely you can see why granting a racist and discriminatory word special privilidges should be distasteful to the Federal Governement and American People as a whole?

You really need a spellchecker.

No, I do not agree with the point you're trying to make. A trademark is not an endorsement of any sort, the government can not and should not ever endorse brands. All it offers is a registry to keep companies from exploiting each others' marks. It serves no other purpose, nor should it. Instead, what we have is the nanny state stepping in and regulating speech. Fuck that.

This does not hinder their usage in any way.

It absolutely hinders the use of that specific speech as a marketable business brand. That's the whole point of trademarks! If this claim were true, why even have trademarks in the first place?

about a month ago
top

Washington Redskins Stripped of Trademarks

OhPlz Re:My two cents (646 comments)

Thanks. At least one other person understands.

about a month ago
top

Washington Redskins Stripped of Trademarks

OhPlz Re:My two cents (646 comments)

removing the trademark absolteuly does NOT harm them.
they can still call themselves the Redskins all they want.
they can just no longer depend on the federal government to block anyone else from using or profiting from the name.

Line one does not agree with line three.

Call me anything you want, but your logic is still flawed.

about a month ago
top

Washington Redskins Stripped of Trademarks

OhPlz Re:My two cents (646 comments)

Level playing field? Hardly. A lot of hard work was invested into that team and the brand is part of their identity. How is it level if some other team can masquerade as them with no legal recourse? How is it level that all the other teams aren't similarly affected, just this one, singled out because the feds have decided that "red skin" is derogatory? How can anyone have faith in a US trademark from this point forward? The IRS targets conservatives, why not have the trademark office go after their identities now? It's absurd! This is a free country, if you don't like the team's name.. don't watch them play and don't buy their tickets/hats/tshirts/whatever.

about a month ago
top

Washington Redskins Stripped of Trademarks

OhPlz Re:My two cents (646 comments)

"silencing ... through economic penalty"

WTF does that mean?

They had a trademark on their brand. The feds decide they don't like the mark so they take it away. The owners end up being harmed economically all because the government didn't like the descriptive nature of the brand. They've effectively stifled the free speech of the owner by denying them the use of the mark. I'm not making a 1st amendment claim because no one is being jailed over the use of the brand. I am saying that the government's purpose is to stifle the owner's speech by taking away the economic viability of the brand.

Are you saying the public violated the 1st Amendment rights of the Chick-Fil-A owner when their business declined after the owner's disparaging remarks about homosexuals?

Can you tie this back to a trademark issue, or a branding issue? It doesn't relate.

we can't even be certain losing the trademark would cost the team money in this case.

Seriously? It's not cheap to launch a new brand. It's not cheap often to even come up with a new brand. Then they have to worry if the feds will take that one away too. Is the next trademark certification going to come with a "we promise you can keep this one"?

    Trademarks are intended to protect the public from confusion about counterfeit versions of popular products, they specifically do NOT exist to guarantee revenue streams for the creators in the way that patents and copyrights do.

Are you suggesting that counterfeits don't affect the profitability of a product?

Are people going to start going to copycat "Redskins" team games?

Probably, yes. They certainly won't be licensing it for use anymore.

These kinds of arguments are so annoying: it's basically an extension of the entitlement mentality, if you've ever made some money doing something, nobody can ever do ANYTHING that might impinge on that.

A brand isn't "doing something", it's an identifier. If the federal government grants a trademark on it, yes, they're entitled to use it. That's the point.

about a month ago
top

Washington Redskins Stripped of Trademarks

OhPlz Re:My two cents (646 comments)

The revocation of that restraint provides more Free Speech to other commercial endeavors and does not impact the 'Free Speech' rights of the Trademark holder.
It only impacts their legalized monopoly on the use of the Mark.

The trademark exists to protect their business interest in the brand name. The feds aren't canceling the mark because other business entities want to use it, they're canceling the mark because the feds don't like it. Yes, with the mark canceled, others can use it. Sure, you can argue that, it's not factually wrong.

The bigger issue is that the government is doing this to stifle the team's ability to use the branding they've had for a long, long time. You can't run a team like that without the ability to control licensing of the brand. That's a major source of income for that type of business. That's the free speech issue here. I don't like your brand because it offends me and I'm taking it away from you.

He simply no longer has the ability to sue someone else to stop them from using it.

That's a bit of a problem for a business, don't you think? You're being intellectually dishonest if you disregard that as a non-issue.

about a month ago

Submissions

top

NH Man Arrested for Videotaping Police.. Again

OhPlz OhPlz writes  |  about 3 years ago

OhPlz (168413) writes "Back in 2006, a resident of New Hampshire's second largest city was arrested while at the police station attempting to file a complaint against officers. His crime? He had video tape evidence of the officers' wrongdoings. According to the police, that's wiretapping.

After world wide attention, the police dropped the charges. His complaint was found to be valid, but the evidence never saw the light of day.

Well, guess what? Round two. There are differing reports, but again the police arrested Mr. Gannon and again, they seized his video camera. This time it's "falsifying evidence" because he tried to hand off the camera, most likely to protect its contents.

Once again, if the police are free to videotape us, why aren't we free to videotape them? If there's the potential of police wrongdoing, how is it that the law permits the police to seize the evidence?"

Link to Original Source

Journals

OhPlz has no journal entries.

Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...