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


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

Comment Of course it is legal (Score 2) 111

If Spike TV finds a website streaming the Garcia vs Vargas fight tonight and they can identify which of their broadcasts is being streamed.... they have every right to turn that particular broadcast off.

That's all this is about. It isn't shutting down someone's site. It isn't spying on someone's data stream. It's not a wiretap.

It's a way to put different identifiers on the service you're providing to different customers. Once you have that, you can identify which of your customers is abusing your service and stop providing that service.

Comment Air above your backyard is already public property (Score 1) 307

TL;DR version: The "dystopian future has really arrived" because the US Supreme court disagrees with you.

your own house and garden suddenly become public places where your asshole neighbor can film you and your children

It's not happening suddenly. It happened twenty years ago.

Annoying people is sometimes illegal, sometimes not, but the law doesn't (and shouldn't) consider using "shitty tech gadgets" any worse than lawnmowers, drums, or a ladder. At the same time, the US has strong legal protection for people who want to take pictures, videos or otherwise gather information. You can't make it generally illegal do those things without infringing on the freedom of the press.

All the discussion about drones specifically is due to the human tendency to see actions as being tied to tools. It is the same fallacy that drives laws to be disproportionate where a crime is done "with a computer." Even if you get laws to protect your privacy in your back yard "from drones," you will still have your privacy invaded completely legally by people with actual airplanes, or ladders, or model airplanes, or mini-blimps.

The core issue is defining what the law should treat as your right to privacy. (Not what tools people might use to infringe on it.) So far, the courts have determined that you have property rights extending about to shotgun height above your property and you have the right to privacy where you are not visible or try to keep yourself from being visible from public property. (The air above your backyard is public property at sufficient altitude.) For example, it's perfectly legal to take pictures of your neighbors if they're in front of an open window (or their backyard.) It's illegal to take the same picture if they have blinds on their windows which are failing to actually hide the people on the other side. (Indeed, you in some states, even being naked at home in front of an open window is illegal.

Comment Re:Thanks to (Score 2) 369

I agree that adding limits like that is just adding potential for abuse. However, that doesn't mean there is no possibility for an edit option that is both sane and relatively safe.

My favored option at the moment is to put an "Add Edit" button on a person's account page. (Where it shows your previous posts.) The "Add Edit" button would give you a box where you could type in updates, corrections or whatever as a clearly delineated separate addition to your post. It would look like what we see on featured articles from time to time when new information becomes available.

Edit 2016-07-19 18:57CDT: It wouldn't be easy to abuse as the original content would remain, but it would make it possible to correct or clarify when appropriate.

Edit 2016-07-19 18:59CDT: Maybe limit the number of characters to something small and the number of edits to a maximum of two or three.

Comment Re:Thanks to (Score 1) 369

This sounds like a recipe for saying something popular to get modded up to visibility quickly, then editing it to inject your particular spam or trolling preferences while you've got the greatest visibility possible.

I would rather see an "Append Edit" option which would allow you to add something to your post, within the post, but clearly delineated as a separate entry. We see these on the the featured articles all the time.

Comment Re:Stack Overflow provides revision history (Score 2) 369

I don't know how SO works, but I like the concept. Edit your own posts if you like, but each edit draws a box mostly overlapping your previous one so that people who want to see the original edit can click on the bottom box. Essentially if somebody edits their own post 52 times, it should look like a deck of cards. Discourage unnecessary editing by limiting edits to 2 or 3 and knock any post back to -1 immediately if it's edited to avoid abuse.

Comment Re:Can this chip run GNU/systemd/Linux? (Score 5, Interesting) 205

That's probably all it can run. Typically specially designed systems need the ability to configure the OS radically differently than has been done previously which requires source code. Microsoft provides source code, as does IBM, in some special situations, but mostly it tends to be Linux that is used first. Consider the reasoning behind the OS chosen for the fastest computers in the world.

Systemd? Probably because serious computer engineers don't have any trouble dealing with the irritation that systemd causes. (The rest of us may, but if you have enough smarts to handle building a specialized chip, then systemd isn't really a challenge.)

Comment Re:Seriously? (Score 1) 317

Hell, if Bill Gates is having problems giving away his chickens . . . I'll take a couple per week! Rotisserie, in a Burrito, or just plain Fried.

This is kind of my sentiment. Why would you refuse a gift that doesn't come with strings? I realize the gift is intended for a specific type of use, and not everyone agrees that the particular use is the best way to help, but even if it doesn't get used as intended or doesn't succeed in the intended goal, it's still useful.

If Bill Gates sends me a handful of chickens I don't or need, I won't refuse them. I will try to sell them or stock up my freezer and won't become a chicken rancher, but I'll take them. If he sends me a hundred thousand chickens, I'll go into business briefly as a chicken rancher until I can sell the business or maybe if it's profitable enough, my IT career will become my hobby and I'll take it on as my full time job.

So, yeah, maybe I wish Bill were using his resources a little differently, but he's willing to try to do something good and stopping him from even being allowed to try based on politics just irritates me.

Comment Re:Nonsense poll options (Score 1) 301

I was a 'none of the above' because I don't exclusively use my real name or not use my real name, because I have two accounts, one with my real name and one without. I created the one without my real name with zero friends and zero likes because I am often presented with the option to log into something with facebook and don't trust the company with access to my real information.

On a related note, I like using Google+ to log into things because I can select exactly which circles (none) I want to give the company access to.

Comment Re:Emotional involvement (Score 1, Interesting) 100

Nice wording. By phrasing it so that a link needs to quote him specifically saying something you specify, you narrow legitimate potential replies, but lets take a look at what the interwebs are saying:

9 Outrageous Things Donald Trump Has Said About Latinos

  • "The Mexican government is much smarter, much sharper, much more cunning. And they send the bad ones over because tehy don't want to pay for them, they don't want to take care of them."
  • "Sadly, the overwhelming amount of violent crime in our major cities is committed by blacks and hispanics [sic] - a tough subject - must be discussed."

And then there's this headline "5 QUOTES THAT PROVE DONALD TRUMP HATES MEXICANS"

Now, I don't think Trump actually hates Latinos but I do think he's trying to capture the votes of a lot of people who either fear or hate Mexico and illegal immigrants. I think he panders to the lowest parts of our society by carefully selecting rhetoric that gives them the idea that he agrees with them and feels the same ignorant hatred they do.

It's a politician's trick. You say something that sounds good to people you don't want to actually be caught agreeing with while carefully avoiding actually saying you agree with their opinions.

For most voters, sadly that's enough. People are flocking to Trump in droves because he represents the golden trinity of an electable candidate. 1 - He is running on one of the two parties tickets, 2 - He has a strong claim to being an outsider angered by the insiders, 3 - He stays in the headlines.

Say what you like about the man, but he's good at getting people to support him. The fact that he uses short small words to make emotional impact makes him sound silly and sometimes irritating to me, but it sticks in people's minds and gives them things they can quote and feel opinions about. He's being compared to historical villains who did the same thing, but really there have been all sorts of politicians who have done the same thing. To me he often sounds stupid, but when he's not pandering to the masses and actually speaking like a normal person, I've heard him sound like a sensible human being. That makes me think it has to be intentional.

Comment Re:Reputable source, please (Score 4, Insightful) 90

People really don't care about the quality of journalism, they just want brand names they can pledge their loyalty to. The CSM is a highly respected organization that does good research and reporting.

Anybody who assumes the organization is as messed up as the religious dogma has no credibility themselves.

Comment Open source. (Score 1) 1839

Open source the code. Allow code enhancement submissions. Don't be afraid of competition, be afraid of not keeping the quality high enough.

Never would have happened under Dice. I wouldn't have even bothered asking. I'm actually expecting no change on this front, but I can't help but ask.

Slashdot Top Deals

One good reason why computers can do more work than people is that they never have to stop and answer the phone.