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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:Germany wants a lot... (Score 1) 721

So, solicitation for murder should be legal, so long as you haven't actually paid for the murder, as to that point, all you've done is speak to someone. And conspiracy to commit murder should be legal as well, as conspiracy is just speech, right?

We'd have to re-write a whol lot of laws to get to your standard, and I think that many people (perhaps even most) would disagree with making harmful speech legal.

What about slander, harassment and those other kinds of harmful speech currently illegal?

Comment Re:Brought about by the internet? (Score 1) 721

Someone who can't explain what he's saying obviously doesn't understand it himself.

Fraud involves some type of transaction dumbass.

So I was just trying to figure out what that meant. False advertising, like bait and switch, should be protected because advertising a $100 widget for $1 doesn't involve any transactions. Or because it "could" involve a transaction, then it's not protected speech. But then, Newspaper headlines wouldn't be protected speech, as the ones above the fold are specifically chosen to cause a transaction.

Your standard is inconsistent and untenable. I guess that's why you are so angry. You are an idiot, but think you are smart, so you are yelling at the guy holding up the mirror.

Comment Re:Idiots. (Score 2) 291

Hulu will never be a contender because they are a content owner. Netflix is a service organization. The viewer is the customer. For Hulu, the content owners are the customers, the revenue stream is unrelated to their primary customers. Hulu will never be able to think in a way that will make them relevant.

Comment Re:The reason for these laws (Score 1) 721

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... A quick glance of the Wikipedia page on it disagrees with you, not that Afghanistan is related to Germany. But nice distraction? Are or are not the applicable clauses in Germany changeable? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

But the Wiki entry on that doesn't say what you assert either. Try reality. I know it'd be a long trip for you, but the rest of us operate. there.

Comment Re:Internet of Hackable Things (Score 1) 147

As for something like parking meters.....presumably they are all wired to a central server on their own private wires? But physical access is root, so they're probably attackable, too.

Yes, it's like a new SCADA. In fact, most of the IoT objects I've actually worked with were explicitly SCADA compatible. Most of the same issues, including security.

Comment Re:Internet of Hackable Things (Score 1) 147

How do you hack them? Every IoT I've actually seen deployed is on a private network with no direct access to the Internet at all. The only ones actually selling and using I've seen are selling "private cloud" services and calling them "public cloud" They don't even touch the issue of security. They let the IT of the buying company figure out how to get in on the Internet.

Comment Re:No governments doing IoT, just infrastructure (Score 1) 147

IoT has no definition. Some people put the WiFi infrastructure down as IoT. Others call a hard-wired non-Internet-connected traffic sensor grid IoT.

IoT is a scam, but it's also real. So it's impossible to determine the use, until we shut down the scammers and get the real uses in the forefront.

The city is terrible at things like R&D.

So someone comes in and says "give me $10B and I'll save you $100B." The city says "giving you $10B is too much, how about $5M for a proof of concept?" The guy takes the $10M does just enough to prevent being hunted for fraud for the rest of his life, and lets it all fail. Then blames the city, and moves on to the next.

These scams have been around for years. Whether with musical instruments or monorails. IoT is just the newest version of scamming the ignorant.

Comment Re:ummmm (Score 1) 388

Many things so names were not named with names of meaning. Also, the forced naming of the already-named mountain didn't stick because there were still enough natives in the area to use the old name. In most cases, the feds take the state's name for something and run with it. They didn't in this case because Alaska wasn't a state for a while after the naming. Also note, the "inconsequential" names aren't being fought over. Note the Pribilofs are not using their native names, nor does anyone care. They are named for the Russian "explorer" who found the inhabited (and named) islands. There are many more such examples.

Is the real issue that if you let "those people" win, then you have to admit an error? And The Great White Race is never wrong?

Why must you use such force to hold back the natives? Why does it harm you so that the name of a mountain has changed on the federal records to match what the locals have been calling it since before the records were kept?

Comment Re:Brought about by the internet? (Score 1) 721

The intent of the Nazi was the deport them,

So nobody was killed? They were holding camps for deportation?

It's a shame the US didn't enter WWI on the side of the Germans. The world would be a very different place. We almost did. but our shared language with the English was the swaying factor. The Immigrant English in the US forced English on everyone as the only language, while the Dutch, Irish,Germans and many others didn't force their language on everyone else.

Comment Re:ummmm (Score 1, Insightful) 388

Poltically correct bullshit.

States rights are good when you want to break federal law. But state rights are shit when the state wants to name something in it.

Reminds me of the Civil War, where the States Rights issue was that the south was rebelling against states rights and wanted a strong federal government. But 150 years later, it's forgotten by the losers, and they assert they were on the other sides of the states rights issue. Always changing their story, because reality is against them.

Comment Re:ummmm (Score 4, Informative) 388

The name was Denali before the White Man reassigned the name to honor a white man. It'd been unofficially Denali to locals ever since. The feds refused to let the locals name it until 1980, when the federal park was renamed to Denali National Park and Preserve. It'd been officially Denali to locals ever since. Why should the feds disregard the local names for things, and force their own names on local features?

The value of a program is proportional to the weight of its output.

Working...