Comment: Amazon = Air Force, Google = Army (Score 1) 162
Believe the true intent is to have a ground force that can repel Amazon's copters.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Comment: There's more to Encryption than SSL/SSH (Score 1) 292
Relying on SSL/SSH only protects the socket between you and the server that you're talking to - which may not be the server that you think you're talking to. You are including a whole lot of stuff in your trust circle.
Now if you meant use OpenSSL or similar libraries for your encryption core, then I agree.
+ - Lawyer Threatens Suit Over Coat->
Submitted
by
BuckB
BuckB (1340061) writes "The Smoking Gun exposes what a lawyer thinks should happen when that lawyer loses a coat. The best part of the letter is the ending offer, and that if the offer isn't accepted in 10 days, the cost will continue to rise.
"MARCH 4--If you've forgotten why lawyers have approval ratings as low as politicians and journalists, take a look at this letter written recently by William Ogletree, a Texas lawyer.""
Link to Original Source
"MARCH 4--If you've forgotten why lawyers have approval ratings as low as politicians and journalists, take a look at this letter written recently by William Ogletree, a Texas lawyer.""
Link to Original Source
Comment: What if EVERYONE needed ten seconds per letter (Score 1) 145
Wouldn't that be a better world?
Posts would be short.
And insightful.
Like this one.
+ - US NOT Blocking Costa Rican Sugar Trade for IP Law-> 1
Submitted
by
BuckB
BuckB (1340061) writes "In an amazing case of "read only the headline and draw your own conclusion," a 300 word article from TicoTimes.net was grabbed and changed and morphed into an Anti-US, Anti-Intellectual Property slam of how CAFTA was bankrupting poor Costa Rican farmers when posted here on slashdot. Even back then, a quick read of the original article and a couple google queries caused reasonable persons to ask "How did Mike Masnick draw that conclusion?" Well, Masnick got his interpretation from Michael Geist, who apparently got the story from TicoTimes and twisted it to suit his views. Please read the original article, the article below, and the follow up here http://www.technollama.co.uk/update-on-costa-rican-sugar-trade-rowand to see the modern game of "telephone" as bloggers added "me too" just to get more AdSense revenue."
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
Comment: Amazing (Score 1) 441
From the original article that spurned all of this anti-U.S. tirade
"Arguedas said another issue stalling passage of the 14th amendment is the fact that legislators are looking to pass a law that is more extensive than the requirements of the agreement."
So, after all of this, it's the Costa Rican Legislative Assembly that's the evil guy and there are 322 (and counting) posts from people that never read the 300 word original article (including me until just now).
Comment: Re:Never Fear!!!! (Score 1) 441
In 2007, the U.S. exported 991 tonnes of sug1r beet for $76,000.
In 2007, the U.S. exported 373 tonnes of sugar cane for $190,000.
In 2007, the U.S. exported 103,138 tonnes of processed sugar for $391m.
http://faostat.fao.org/site/342/default.aspx
Comment: Re:Freedom is simple, CAFTA is not (Score 1) 441
And when Costa Rica becomes a state, sharing in the national debt and under the IP laws of the US, then they can sell their sugar to Montana.
Comment: Why a link to a link to a link? (Score 1) 441
Shouldn't the generator of the original story (Adam Williams/TicoTimes.net) be slashdotted directly?
Wouldn't giving the originator credit for their story be correct?
Does the original author deserve the AdSense revenue for writing something interesting?
Isn't this a bit ironic for a story on IP?
Comment: Re:Ok Lets try this... (Score 1) 235
Dear Comcast,
I can't believe you terminated my account. Ok - maybe I can believe that you terminated my account, but I can't believe that you didn't tell me you terminated my account for over a week, and in the mean time told me that the reason that the internet was down was due to my faulty modem. I can't believe you sent out two crews to diagnose the problem, and were about to send out a third (and probably would have had I not found your crew-sending-out routine a waste of my time) when you "discovered" that my account was terminated due to excessive bandwidth.
I also can't believe that, being the last one on cable in my FIOS-infected neighborhood, I was really hurting your performance. Really - there was only one other cable connected to your pedistal and one of your crews disconnected that thinking it was the problem with my service.
Then, I couldn't believe that you re-enabled my account saying all was forgiven only to terminate it again after just a couple days.
The biggest thing I can't believe is that your "security" department said that I violated a network cap that he wouldn't tell me what it was. I can't believe what a jerk he was in saying that he didn't care how many crews came out to my house since it didn't matter to him.
Finally, I can't believe that it took me so long to switch to FIOS.
