Maybe you're trolling here and I'm taking the bait, but in case you really believe what you wrote, here goes...

Although carriers can effectively turn off your phone service, and can possibly even brick your phone if you haven't rooted it and disabled automatic OTA updates, they can't currently wipe it clean remotely. The proposed new 'service' would allow them to do that. And where there's some advertised protection against that happening, there's probably a backdoor, or at least an exploit, that can get around it.

Um, maybe they shouldn't be allowed to do that because they have a history of abusing their position to overcharge, automatically opting you in to services which they then charge you for, adding 'mistaken' line items that increase your bill, having really shitty dispute resolution mechanisms, etc. Not only giving carriers the ability to wipe your phone, but having customers actually sign up for and potentially pay for this 'service', further tilts the already unlevel playing field in the carriers' favour.

How is it either of these? Major content providers are on record as being in favour of, (for example), disconnecting subscribers' Internet service for even the suspicion of unauthorized copying.

Actually, by pointing out potential problems, asking pointed questions, and challenging the status quo, I think Bruce Schneier is encouraging us to engage our brains.

Given that the level of security on OBD2 ports has been utter crap for about two decades now, I doubt the automakers' major concern is security. Even with well-publicized stories about car hacking, auto companies seem to persist in the belief that it will never be a major, widespread threat. It's probably dealer pushback that has them concerned - having a car dealership is a license to steal, and I imagine dealers are very resistant to any change that threatens their ability to charge $500 for 15 minutes' worth of work.

No, the bigger question is "Why is CEO pay so entirely disconnected from the value of said CEOs to society as a whole?"

Really, do these people contribute 200, 500, or 1,000 times more to society, (or even to their companies), than the average employee? I'd be willing to bet that, in many cases, CEOs make lesser contributions on all fronts than do regular workers making WAY less money. Sure, CEOs often have greater responsibilities, as well as significant skills and talents. But are they really worth that much in the grand scheme of things?

...that the money for this transaction ultimately comes from all of us. We bought the products and services of the companies whose marketing and advertising rely on Facebook. And those of us who have FB accounts, (along with those of us who don't do our best to stop FB tracking us all over the Web), have made Facebook at least look like it's worth the money those companies hand over to it. That's how Facebook can pay almost a thousand years' of WhatApp's current revenue for the fledgling company.

Thanks - I think that's a good idea. I meta-modded it up - unfortunately I have no mod points right now. In any case, I fear Dice is so unamenable to reason that your proposal will fall on deaf ears. I'd love to be wrong though.

Forgive me if I'm repeating something that's already been said in the 2,000+ comments made so far; but doesn't this whole affair sound a lot like Gnome3, Unity, and, to a lesser extent, Windows 8?

The fact that this kind of thing happens over and over and over again, in spite of very well-entrenched and eloquent communities that make their profound opposition abundantly and repeatedly clear, suggests some larger cultural, sociological, and/or psychological element at work. In an immediate sense we need to try to protect Slashdot from those who would turn it into an inferior version of the new Yahoo. (Hard work, that...). But over the longer term, shouldn't we try to figure out what's missing in this kind of equation? Clearly, massive user communities such as those represented by Slashdot, Gnome, Ubuntu, etc, aren't managing to hang their considerable weight on the right levers to steer the leaders/stewards/managers/head honchos of those communities in a mutually beneficial direction.

In short, what are we missing here? Let's figure that out so the next time we go through this we can get a better result, sooner in the process, without all the energy lost to (seemingly ineffective) hand-wringing and breast-beating.

This would be VERY problematic - imagine editing your already-submitted post while somebody else is in the process of commenting on it. There could be a total disconnect between your comment and the reply - very confusing and very uncool.

I had the same thoughts about an hour ago. I'm not sure if you're experiencing the same thing I did - it's hard to believe that someone with such a low User ID has never come across this before - but FWIW I had to go the bottom of the page and click on "Get xxxx More Comments" to find the comment I posted less than 10 hours ago.

It seems to me that this one topic may just result in the Slashdotting of Slashdot. Quite a feat, actually.

The kind of audience that loves the new Yahoo. You know, the people used to web sites designed for those with no discernible attention span. The folks for whom conformity is a comfortable and entirely unconscious reflex. In other words, people who would have no interest in what Slashdot has always been, but who might be enticed to visit a 'lowest common denominator' site and bump up Dice's ad revenue.

Corporations tend to like pliable, compliant audiences who don't cause them any trouble. I'm sure a company like Dice is really uncomfortable dealing with smart people who have strong opinions and can defend them intelligently, logically, and rationally. As long as they believe they can replace existing users as we leave, and add new ones to increase readership, it's entirely possible they don't give a rat's ass about the current community.

Yes, it IS atrocious - I was unable to even post a comment in Beta. Had to go back to Classic for posting to work.

Thanks for the survey link - I didn't really want to email the bastards, so a few minutes ago I gave 'em hell on the survey instead.

Yup, me too. It kinda felt like it was about to jump the shark even before Dice took over, but after that point the writing was on the wall in great big letters and it was clearly only a matter of time. Fonzie is lining up for the jump right now, and as soon as Classic is no longer available I'm so outta here.

I tried posting this comment on Beta, and I couldn't even preview it, much less post it, so I'm back on Classic; this interface is SO much better. But even before I found out that Beta SIMPLY DOESN'T WORK, I realized that there's no pressure there anyway, 'cause it sucks as hard as it blows. Tiny text box, no 'quote parent' button - they're obviously trying to manipulate us into posting shorter comments. Well, Dice, guess what? When Classic disappears, my comments will be VERY short. Zero words - is that short enough for ya?

So long Slashdot, and thanks for all the fish - except for the fucking shark. No thanks at all for that.

Yes, the real world IS an immensely complex system, and terrorism will always be a part of life. And inevitably, some terrorist acts will be committed BECAUSE of the invasive and overbearing 'security' appartus we've allowed to be built because we foolishly think it's going to make us safer.

That said, what about taking responsibility for our own contributions to the mess we're in? If we build a society that actively promotes increasing poverty, inequality, disenfranchisement, and personal powerlessness, then we're building a society in which some of our members will respond senselessly and violently. And when we poke our noses into other countries' business, overthrowing their governments, propping up their dictators, and forcing our culture and our standards down their throats, we should expect some serious blowback. Yes, it may be necessary to get the bastards who broke into our house and fucked with our family - but at some point, shouldn't we ask why they're so pissed with us that they'll sacrifice their lives in order to fly planes into tall buildings and kill us? And shouldn't we consider conducting ourselves and our international affairs with more integrity, and with less arrogance and greed?

Terrorism will probably never be elimintated; but honestly, a lot of what we label 'terrorism' is retribution that we've brought upon ourselves, and it looks very much like what we would do, (and have done), if the roles were reversed.