Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Well I guess its bad... (Score 1) 572

I'm not a prude by any stretch but believe sexuality is there to be enjoyed not sold. Underlying this is concern about the corrupting influence of power expressed via money; the willingness with which the almost literal underclass performs any bizarre act requested, even implicitly, by their (literal) corporate overlords...

How did prohibition work for alcohol? Drugs? Does it work for sex? Banning what people want doesn't work, it only creates shortages and a black market to satisfy that demand. This means an illegal, unregulated industry with no protection for any party involved, leading to worse conditions for that "literal underclass."

Comment Re:No (Score 1) 277

Lest we forget, Amazon started out as an online book retailer. Over the years they've built up a huge and incredibly efficient warehouse infrastructure and are now the largest online retailer, carrying much more than just books and mp3s.

Having said that, it does seem like Amazon is being attacked on all fronts. In digital music they have to compete with Apple and soon Google. I'm not sure whether Google wants to get into selling e-books, but with their planned store of out-of-print material, they will have the infrastructure to do so. And in the retail sector, among others like Target and Barnes & Noble, Wal-Mart is already a behemoth in meatspace. It's possible that they can take Amazon's top spot in online retail.

Comment Re:Antitrust (Score 3, Informative) 277

Unless Google abuses its dominant market position through anti-competitive actions, they should be allowed to do whatever they please. Antitrust laws protect the consumer from companies that abuse a monopoly position. Merely having a monopoly is not illegal.

Comment Re:Die Die Die (Score 1) 579

Actually, in "SOCIALIST MEDECINE" of Canada, we have plenty of vaccine doeses for everybody. But we are so not worried about H1N1 that most canadians don't even want to bother with it. Ironic isn't it?

If most Canadians don't want the vaccine, how in the world is it good that Canada has ordered vaccines for every citizen? I guess just tossing out millions of dollars of vaccine at the end of the year will just be a footnote on the story about great government success.

What's ignored here is that in "CAPITALIST HEALTHCARE" of America, the government is the largest purchaser of vaccines and actually regulates the price at which they buy them. This drove most vaccine makers out of the industry and breeds the yearly shortage we have grown accustomed to.

Comment Re:No one should have expected (Score 1) 1364

To be fair, this argument can be applied to voting, which is anonymous and cannot be verified by the general public. If highly visible people want to provide momentum for a movement, they can voice their support to the public on their own. It is possible to hold legitimate elections while respecting the privacy of voters, so the same can be true for petitions.

I am not saying petitions should be private, however. Disclosing petitioners and donors, unfortunately, is a necessary evil in identifying which groups support various politicians and initiatives.

Submission + - CIA Buys Stake in Firm That Monitors Blogs, Tweets (wired.com) 2

An anonymous reader writes: America’s spy agencies want to read your blog posts, keep track of your Twitter updates — even check out your book reviews on Amazon.

In-Q-Tel, the investment arm of the CIA and the wider intelligence community, is putting cash into Visible Technologies, a software firm that specializes in monitoring social media. It’s part of a larger movement within the spy services to get better at using ”open source intelligence” — information that’s publicly available...

Visible Technologies crawls over half a million web 2.0 sites a day, scraping more than a million posts and conversations taking place on blogs, online forums, Flickr, YouTube, Twitter and Amazon. (It doesn’t touch closed social networks, like Facebook, at the moment.) Customers get customized, real-time feeds of what’s being said on these sites, based on a series of keywords.

“That’s kind of the basic step — get in and monitor,” says company senior vice president Blake Cahill.

Then Visible “scores” each post, labeling it as positive or negative, mixed or neutral. It examines how influential a conversation or an author is. (”Trying to determine who really matters,” as Cahill puts it.) Finally, Visible gives users a chance to tag posts, forward them to colleagues and allow them to response through a web interface.

Comment Re:Your Honor! (Score 5, Insightful) 494

There's already recourse for harassment or stalking. It's called a restraining order. I see no reason why we need special laws to guard against "special" cases like online social networks. I recall reading about a person being charged with violating a restraining order for "poking" someone on Facebook, so it appears at least one court understands how old laws continue to apply as society changes.

Slashdot Top Deals

With your bare hands?!?

Working...