Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (Score 1) 294

By this logic, a mugger is less scary than a police officer, because a police officer has legal authority to arrest you. News flash: people do not need legal authority to fuck you over.

Well, if private credit agencies had a tendency to show up at my doorstep, point a gun in my face, and order me to hand over my credit records, then I'd say you had a good point.

Wait, you're saying government "has" a "tendency" to "show up at my doorstep, point a gun in my face, and order me to hand over my credit records?"

Paranoid hyperbole much?

Obviously, I was referring to the mugger. Did you even read what I was responding to?

Comment Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (Score 1) 294

By this logic, a mugger is less scary than a police officer, because a police officer has legal authority to arrest you. News flash: people do not need legal authority to fuck you over.

Well, if private credit agencies had a tendency to show up at my doorstep, point a gun in my face, and order me to hand over my credit records, then I'd say you had a good point.

Comment Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (Score 2) 294

As opposed to the private credit rating agencies that have all your personal credit information with zero transparency and accountability?

I'd rather this be in the public sphere where hopefully the agency has my interests at heart, rather than some private, for profit corporation.

From the article:

As many as 227 million Americans may be compelled to disclose intimate details of their families and financial lives

The key difference is that private credit rating agencies don't have the legal authority to compel you to provide them with any information. They might use some underhanded means to obtain some of that information, but they can't send you to prison for not telling them what they want to know. The government, however, does have that power. It is the powers of compulsion, not the database itself, which has me worried.

Comment Re:The US needs a loser-pays legal system (Score 2) 136

Wow, you Republicans are getting more brazen. Creating a system where the poor can't afford to sue because they may have to pay for the other guy's legal costs means that only the rich would be able to afford to defend themselves.

But the poor would only have to pay if they LOSE. If they have a legit lawsuit, that wouldn't be an issue.

Comment Re:This act is highly illegal (Score 1) 322

what's the difference between highly illegal, and illegal? Besides, what is so illegal about changing a registry key or value, or creating a registry key?

Changing a registry key in and of itself isn't illegal. But doing so to misrepresent that you paid for something you didn't, and obtaining that something through the Internet violates at least two federal laws: wire fraud and the computer fraud and abuse act. You are gaining access to software hosted on a computer that don't rightfully have access to (computer fraud and abuse act), and you are causing false information to be sent on the Internet for financial gain (wire fraud). Both are federal felonies. In addition, you are probably committing several civil infractions including copyright violation and violation of license agreements. If you want to keep getting updates from Microsoft for XP you can pay for them like everyone else.

Comment Re:so true :| (Score 2) 192

Your phrasing makes it sound like it's voluntary. Mentally ill people are often unable to make choices because of their illness, and so as a result, it's not a choice, it's just doing enough to get by.

True, also mentally ill people often have trouble getting good jobs if any jobs at all. Many live on government assistance and are well below the poverty line. And it is well known that poverty is correlated with a shorter lifespan. Many simply cannot afford healthy lifestyle choices, such as nutritious food or preventive medical care.

Comment Re:I dislike Python (Score 1) 185

I'm not really sure I see where R fits, though. For basic statistical work, SPSS is good.

It's good if you have the money. R is free, while SPSS is fairly expensive, as is its main competitor SAS. I see R as competing not with general purpose languages like Python, but rather with commercial statistics packages like SPSS and SAS. While it may have more of a learning curve than these packages, it is free software, which makes it very attractive for many users.

Comment Re:Could it be.... (Score 1) 41

.... that somebody finally found a commercially viable application of 3D printing?...

How many people would be ready to pay for a decent-quality figurine of themselves? Especially so at a special event involving costumes.

Well, that was the subject of an episode of the Big Bang Theory, but to be honest, I think what's going to sell 3D printers is the ability to print sex toys that people are to embarrassed to buy at the store.

Comment Re:Blizzard Shizzard (Score 1) 252

Suing programmers for their creation is a very bad practice. As code is a form of speech, denying someone a freedom of it is against a democratic constitution.

The First Amendment free speech protections don't cover copyright violation, and it's Blizzard's position that this software is a derivative work of their software, and therefore infringes on their copyright. Whether it is or not is up to the courts to decide, but this isn't a free speech issue.

Comment Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy" (Score 2, Insightful) 278

First, why should search engines not enjoy the same free speech rights as newspapers?

You're asking the wrong question. If we can agree that internet search engines are not newspapers, then the burden falls upon search engines to explain why they should receive the special status granted to newspapers.

What "special status" granted to newspapers? Is this a European thing? In America, everyone has the same free speech rights that newspapers do. Newspapers aren't special.

TLDR: this ruling simply applies to sites that link to content on other sites rather than it's own original content .

Now, do online newspapers lose the ability to link to other source material in their articles?

No, they don't. Because they are not internet search engines.

Your last two comments contradict each other. You say it's a search engine if it links to offsite content, but then in the next answer you say newspapers are allowed to link to offsite content without being classed as a search engine.

Comment Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy" (Score 3, Insightful) 278

The original court decision was twofold 1. You have no right to be forgotten by the Newspaper that published the story 2. You have a right to be forgotten by search engines.

This only applies in the EU and only applies to companies incorporated in the EU.

There are two problems here. First, why should search engines not enjoy the same free speech rights as newspapers? Second, what defines an Internet service as a "search engine" or a "newspaper"? Suppose I run on online newspaper that has a search function, allowing users to search past articles about any topic? Am I now a search engine? Suppose my newspaper becomes so popular it becomes the de facto place where people go to search for news stories? Do different rules apply then? Or does this ruling simply apply to sites that link to content on other sites rather than it's own original content? Now, do online newspapers lose the ability to link to other source material in their articles? The line between newspapers and search engines may become fuzzy, if it isn't already. Do you see the problem?

Slashdot Top Deals

1 + 1 = 3, for large values of 1.

Working...