Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Still not good enough. (Score 1) 282

by mrchaotica (#48934029) Attached to: FCC Officially Approves Change In the Definition of Broadband

Yeah, but voters are getting big government anyway! It's just that it's the even worse kind of big government -- the kind that spends all its money unaccountably on the military-industrial complex (and increasingly, the prison-industrial complex) instead of providing services to constituents.

Comment: Re:For all of you USA haters out there: (Score 1) 313

by jafiwam (#48932213) Attached to: Why ATM Bombs May Be Coming Soon To the United States

It's the cost of being first adopters. It's easier to build modern infrastructure when you have no infrastructure to begin with. We've got legacy systems for everything: finance, IT, cable, phone, nuclear, etc., etc. The next people in line implement the next generation using lessons learned from the implementations before them.

Likewise, it's easy for one industry in a country to be ahead of the same industry in the US.

Cell phone usage was faster in places that had NO PHONES before that. Beating out the US.

Tiny little compact places full of small people in tiny apartments got fiber optic sooner than the gigantic US with lots of space between places that would be hooked up, and competing options for TV and data.

Little twisty road countries with no hills and only 40 KM between major cities and their entire border have better ratios of people biking to work, beating out the gigantic and spread out not to mention hilly in many places US.

Finding one little piss ass country that has something better when one is cherry picking for something better is easy, unsurprising and boring. Find a country that has almost all of the stuff in the US has, and does _ALL_ of it better and I'll be impressed.

Comment: Oi (Score 1) 226

by fyngyrz (#48929867) Attached to: Facebook Censoring Images of the Prophet Muhammad In Turkey

I was saying that it makes a lot of sense for Facebook not to allow pictures of Mohammad in Turkey. Just like they don't allow boobies in the USA.

It doesn't "make sense", it simply retards social progress by keeping neurotics from considering the darker corners of their own thought processes. I mean, seriously. "Boobies bad"? That's just... pitiful. I am perfectly ready to describe anyone who isn't pleased by the sight of a nice pair of boobies in any neutral, humorous, peaceful, appreciative or loving context as a broken human being. One for whom I have sympathy and pity, but in no way does this engender any urge to force the world into a form that serves to insulate them from the toxic processes of their own twisted psyches.

As for drawing Mohammad, your assertion that there is no purpose but offense is wrong out of the gate. Art is one reason, political commentary is another, historical illustration is another, simple choice is another, and yes, offense is one but that doesn't make it an invalid use.

Comment: Who says it serves no purpose? (Score 3, Insightful) 226

by fyngyrz (#48928309) Attached to: Facebook Censoring Images of the Prophet Muhammad In Turkey

What offends you may not offend me. And vice-versa. What serves no purpose for you, may serve a purpose for me. Be it intended offense, or otherwise, or both at once.

No one in the USA has the "right to not be offended." Being offended is subjective. It has everything to do with you as an individual, or as part of a particular group; it varies due to your moral conditioning, your religious beliefs, your upbringing, your education; what offends one person or group (of any size) may not offend another, nor a person of another grouping; and in the final analysis, it requires one person to attempt to read the mind of other persons they do not know in order to anticipate whether a specific action will cause offense in the mind of another.

And no, codifying an action in law is not in any way sufficient... it is well established that not even lawyers can know the law well enough to anticipate what is legal, and what is not -- any more than you can guess what is offensive to me, or not.

Sane law relies on the basic idea that we try not to risk or cause harm to the bodies, finances and reputations of others without them consenting and being aware of the risks. It does not rely on the idea that we "must not cause offense."

Law that bans something based upon the idea that some individual or group simply finds the behavior objectionable is the very worst kind of law, utterly devoid of consideration or others, while absolutely permeated in self-indulgence.

Comment: Re:Overblown nonsense. (Score 1) 99

by mrchaotica (#48927695) Attached to: Why We Still Can't Really Put Anything In the Public Domain

Now, I grant you that most an entire generation having grown up with the idea that it's ok to steal IP, and the toxic idiocy of the "information wants to be free" crowd additionally muddying the waters, and the proliferation of people who just can't seem to keep their word, one might have reason to be cynical about this.

You've gone off the rails here. The "information wants to be free" crowd thinks as such precisely because information naturally (i.e., without the interference of law) is in the Public Domain to begin with. Creating a strawman argument claiming that they'd somehow twist that position to justify stealing from the Public Domain is not only offensive, but patently absurd.

Comment: Re:First they came for... (Score 2) 226

by fyngyrz (#48927551) Attached to: Facebook Censoring Images of the Prophet Muhammad In Turkey

what have you "won" exactly?

You "win" Turkish citizens annoyed with their government -- a win in the only venue likely to be able to create change there.

so you're for not opening diplomatic relations with cuba? we should just never ever ever reconcile or talk with cuba?

Diplomatic relations are not on the same level as corporate sponsorship of repression. Yes, we should talk to other governments, definitely including cuba, and yes, we should allow our citizens access if they wish to go there, and vice-versa.

But no, I don't think it is a positive thing when corporations adopt behavioral restrictions that are antithetical to freedom in general. It's not that I expect them to change, it's just that I don't like it, and as I am free to object and explain here, I do so.

we don't talk to iran? what is iran's attitude going to be then?

This is a straw man. I am all for talking to, and mutual visitation of, Iran (Cuba, etc.) These things allow cultural values to spread -- because generally, the dialog is quite open. I am not for FB repressing speech. These are not the same issues.

you are a dogmatic rigid ideologue

It's always entertaining to watch someone slinging mud at their own straw man.

If you want to know what I think, ask me. Don't put words in my mouth.

Comment: They only come for the ad viewers (Score 2) 226

by fyngyrz (#48927447) Attached to: Facebook Censoring Images of the Prophet Muhammad In Turkey

the absence of facebook won't make those problems go away.

I missed addressing that; responded a bit too quickly, sorry.

I consider this assertion to be flawed; here's why. FB has a very high public profile. Any visitor to the US that is exposed to social media is likely to be aware of both the institution and its reach. They can also learn that the reason "they can't have nice things" is because their government has stepped in the way of their citizens using religion as an excuse. Likewise, US family members who cannot connect with Turkish family members are likely to hold strong opinions, and share them.

If anything is going to make things change, I think that's far more likely than a FB presence that is repression-compliant.

Of course, this would require Zuckerberg and crew to operate using a metric quite different from the "maximize users as ad viewers" model, and that doesn't seem to be in the cards.

You might have mail.

Working...