Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Apathetic Standards Atrophying (Score 2) 36

If you ignore the ASA or tell them to fuck off, they will do bad things, like ... um ... post on their website that you have told them to fuck off.

They might also take out an advertisement on Google so someone sees a message when they do a search for your blog/business/youtube channel indicating that you've told them to fuck off.

I think people should be clear when they show sponsored products, that's about basic integrity and ethics, but the ASA can make bad decisions. They aren't a government body. You can tell them to fuck off if you want to. The worst thing they'll do in many cases is tell people that you've told them to fuck off.

Comment Re:Disabling telemetry only works for 10 Enterpris (Score 5, Insightful) 316

Windows 8 was a fuck up because of the UI.

It looks like Microsoft said, with 10, let's just go deeper and fuck up the user's privacy instead.

The more I hear about 10, the less it looks like a saviour to Windows woes and the more it looks like an even bigger disaster.

Comment Re:Yawn... (Score 1) 226

On the other hand I can't believe some people actually think the US government wouldn't stoop to the level of getting someone who had a contact in the CIA to set up one of the greatest thorns in their side with a character-ruining false accusation. The US government would never do something like that!

Assange may have done what he is accused of AND the CIA may have been involved in engaging in character assasination to dicredit a particularly effective critic.

Any rational-minded observer can discount neither possibility.

Comment Re:It's Not About Porn (Score 5, Insightful) 231

The UK government, as do many others around the world, is just playing to a particular enclave of their supporters to gain political capital at the expense of others.

All this will do is kill a certain proportion of UK porn websites and enthusiasts (ahem) will look elsewhere; abroad.

That pesky international internet, eh?

Never mind, though, some dopey true-blue grannies will tell the bridge club what a good job the Tories are doing protecting their grand children. Even though they're not.

Comment Re:Why do we need H.265? (Score 1) 184

>Doesn't H.264 (aka MPEG4) which has much wider client support (browsers, hardware decoding, mobile etc) do a good enough job?

I dunno. I've seen x265 encodes of video which come out at under 150MB where the x264 encode is ~1.5GB for the same quality.

That's a huge saving in bandwidth.

Comment Re:For an alternative (Score 2) 581

What you raise, is an often raised response to discussions about free-speech and censorship.

What is often left out of these discussions, however, is the pervasive nature of corporate control over speech in the 'real' world (as well as the virtual). Corporations (and rich individuals) own newspapers (which trumpet *their* voice) TV stations (which do the same). The space for the mass dissemination of people's voices is small, and relegated to small groups, public meetings and protests (often barely tolerated by our democratic representatives).

When it comes to the mass dissemination of individuals voices, the internet is similarly coralled. Get a blog, people scream, on your own website! And there, the footfall is often small in scope. On sites where many people come together, those sites are owned by corporations and businesses, often merely looking for a proft..

The stark fact is, there are no public spaces on the internet. It's all owned by someone.

Comment Re:That's good (Score 1) 146

Why are we letting this hypothetical employer off the hook for basing their hiring decision on this non-issue? That's my question.

The narrative that you pose is one where people must be protected from the unreasonable views and actions of third parties as a result of finding information out efficiently. Is that feasible, practical, reasonable? And how are we to ascertain if it is worthwhile? By what metric?

Comment Re:Ugh (Score 4, Insightful) 127

Ad blocking was born in response to the arms race advertisers launched (and lets be fair here, also the websites that hosted them) where their ads became increasingly intolerable, obnoxious, disturbing and disruptive (to simple reading comprehension, never mind anything else). This behaviour *necessitated* a response; intitially simple pop-up blockers (now integrated into browsers AS STANDARD!) and gradually moving forward.

If anything, we've seen a lull in hostilities for the past few years as ad blockers have proved very successful, limited only by their install base.

The next round will probably involve websites refusing to show content until adblocking software is disabled (seen here and there already) and if/as this becomes more prevalent, ad blockers responding with stealthing mechanisms.

Since users ultimately own the rendering device, I'm not certain the advertisers can ever win. And god knows, they lost the moral argument long, long ago.

The more cordial the buyer's secretary, the greater the odds that the competition already has the order.