Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:bye bye rand paul (Score 1) 434

by Curunir_wolf (#49593475) Attached to: Rand Paul Moves To Block New "Net Neutrality" Rules

" The Lawful Content clause in the rules is setup to ensure only lawful content is transmitted over the Internet. In order to determine if your data/packet is lawful, the government will have to analyze your data. In order to do that, they will only allow an encryption to be used that they can quickly decrypt (similar to what they did with Fax machines -the clipper chip). This will still allow encryption to perform email and internet transactions to keep the tech and private security companies happy.

This is the launch board to end private encryption, and will finally allow government to have free and open access to all data transmitted on the internet. Because of this, all devices that connect to the Internet will have to follow the same guidelines, this being phones, printers, tablets, PC’s etc. This will end all debate about companies providing devices that government cannot easily gain access.

This clause is much larger than just making hate speech - opposite political views, etc, unlawful content, this is the purpose to gain access to all the Internet data traffic."

Comment: Re:bye bye rand paul (Score 1) 434

by Curunir_wolf (#49593315) Attached to: Rand Paul Moves To Block New "Net Neutrality" Rules

While I think the reaction to the nipple flash at the Superbowl was way over the top there is a substantial difference between something that is broadcast over the air with no control over who can receive it vs. something sent down a wire at the specific request of the receiver.

There may be a difference to you, but that doesn't mean there is a difference to the regulators or politicians. After all, there are children on the Internet - have to protect the children from all those "dark corners". The difference in the past was that Internet content was not controlled under a regulatory scheme (like broadcast TV). But now it is. And only "lawful" (that is, explicitly allowed) content and protocols are covered. Everything else is subject to censorship and blocking.

Comment: Re:bye bye rand paul (Score 1) 434

by Curunir_wolf (#49586687) Attached to: Rand Paul Moves To Block New "Net Neutrality" Rules

People who are against net neutrality are for the internet as it is and has been since it entered the mainstream. People who are for net neutrality are trying to fix something that they think might be broken in theory because they are afraid of corporations and don't understand market forces.

It's worse than that, actually. It clearly looks like a effort to bring the Internet into a regulatory scheme like broadcast TV. Note all through the regulations they point out that only "lawful" content is protected. Not "legal" - "lawful". It's an important distinction. For instance, if I want to show some nipple during a performance, that's perfectly legal. However, if I do it during a superbowl show on broadcast TV, it's not "lawful", and I will face a half million dollars in fines. And the "lawful" moniker applies not just to content, but protocols and "transport mechanisms" as well. Is that protocol "lawful"?

Some of the champions of net neutrality are now starting to question whether they really got what they wanted - or if it's going to be something else. There will be endless challenges in the courts, and some companies have already promised them. And, of course, the FCC has still not release the 300 pages of regulations, so nobody really knows the details yet.

Comment: Re:Infosys, Really? (Score 1) 84

by Curunir_wolf (#49586185) Attached to: White House Outsources K-12 CS Education To Infosys Charity

It's even worse, the company had already had gone over budget almost two billion in doing a database for the Canadian government. Not a great track record, but still chosen above tons of qualified companies in the US.

That's consistent with the track record of most of these outsourcing companies. HCLA, for instance (Indian-based IT company), famously spent years writing the software for the Boeing Airbus. At the end it didn't work, failed FAA certification, and Boeing had to kick them out and hire a new team to do a re-write. HCLA has done the same on other projects.

You would think that at some point these companies (and government agencies) would figure out that they are wasting money on these low-bidder foreign companies, and stop using them. But no. They must be good salesmen, is all I can figure. They are certainly NOT good software engineers.

Comment: Re:Free Markets 101 (Score 1) 84

by Curunir_wolf (#49586091) Attached to: White House Outsources K-12 CS Education To Infosys Charity

Because we've seen the work of those H1-B workers. Somehow, companies keep hiring them even though it's clear to most of us that they are NOT getting their money's worth. The issue is exacerbated by the fact that much of those salaries are being sent somewhere else, instead of being spent at home, so other businesses suffer, too.

Comment: Re:But why? (Score 1) 634

by Curunir_wolf (#49569221) Attached to: How To Increase the Number of Female Engineers

When they put equal effort into increasing the number of men as journalists, authors, teachers, lab technicians therapists, editors, librarians, public relations officers and insurance underwriters then, and only then, will I believe they are sincere in attempting to balance the genders in STEM. However before then they look like hypocrites to me.

Maybe first they should be trying to provide a little more "equality" in college admissions and graduation. Women are dominating right now, and no one seems to care that there is a significant and growing gender gap in higher education.

Comment: Re: Google Streams (Score 2) 359

by Curunir_wolf (#49563043) Attached to: Google Insiders Talk About Why Google+ Failed

That's not the market solution. They have to care for everyone due to regulation. That raises everyone's else prices due to economics.

No, the market solution is to let the people too poor to afford medical care die of their illnesses and injuries. Just as the market solution to poverty is starvation. Do you need me to explain why that does not work out well in practice?

Because there are too many of those little dregs and not enough security for the elites to keep their heads.

Besides it's far cheaper just to send them some food stamps and a check every month than to try to educate them in a public school or teach them about running a business - just tell them to get a "job", and when they can't find one because nobody wants to hire some poor minority kid indoctrinated in a state-based/union-driven "feel-good center" where they learn to blame all their troubles on "the man", just offer some free health care and send them back to their Social Justice Government Housing.

Don't give them a place to live near the businesses, though, they'll just trash the neighborhood - there's some space down there between the railroad tracks and the city dump where you can build some brick boxes for them to live in.

Comment: Re:the endgame is ironic here (Score 1) 289

by Curunir_wolf (#49556293) Attached to: Robot Workers' Real Draw: Reducing Dependence on Human Workers

Agreed - there is an appropriate amount of regulation. That amount is neither zero, nor infinite regulation. But anyone that thinks that businesses would just do the right thing if only they were free to do whatever they want hasn't read their history.

History shows that businesses only need to look after their own self-interest. With all players acting the same way, there are, in fact, many checks built-in to a free market system. Intervention is only needed for things like, businesses that attempt to cut corners in dangerous ways by, for instance, using melamine-contaminated fillers for pet and baby food, or dumping toxic waste into the rivers or air.

The worst of monopolistic abuses, regulatory capture, and cronyism are actually side-effects of a run-away regulatory bureaucracy.

Comment: Re:the endgame is ironic here (Score 1) 289

by Curunir_wolf (#49554541) Attached to: Robot Workers' Real Draw: Reducing Dependence on Human Workers

However, the assertion that taking away the regulation will have better results than fixing the regulation is based on a fiction

Same old fallacy. Supporters of unlimited central government always try to claim that the only choice is all the regulation or none at all. Of course there is also such a thing as too much regulation, which causes more problems than it solves. So of course if a regulation isn't working, you just need a new regulation, and a new one to fix that, and a new one to fix that, until there are so many it becomes an albatross.

Anyone that thinks there are no regulations that need to be removed in the US has NOT been reading the Federal Register every quarter.

Comment: Front and Center (Score 1) 230

by Curunir_wolf (#49530305) Attached to: UK Police Chief: Some Tech Companies Are 'Friendly To Terrorists'

I'm saying that needs to be front and center of their thinking and for some it is and some it isn't."

When desires of government bureaucrats is "front and center" of thinking for a company making consumer products, then the company isn't working for it's customers any more. This is a system that has been tried before (and currently, in some places). In the 1930's and 40's it was called Fascism.

Comment: Re:the endgame is ironic here (Score 1) 289

by Curunir_wolf (#49523227) Attached to: Robot Workers' Real Draw: Reducing Dependence on Human Workers

there are no checks and balances

... of regulators, yes, I agree.

all markets will gravitate to monopoly/ oligopoly naturally

If you mean "all markets with excessive intervention by uninformed central planers will gravitate to monopoly/ oligopoly naturally" - I agree. If you mean all free markets do that - I've got about 400 years of history that prove you wrong.

this quasireligious notion that markets will remain balanced and fair and virtuous by magic free market fairy is an insane belief on the order of antivaxxers and creationists, directly contrary to economic facts and economic history

When you say it like that, it's nothing but an unassailable straw man ploy aimed at denigrating anyone that disagrees with your extreme position. I could turn this around on you and use similarly loaded words, lump all supporters of regulation in with statists, totalitarians, eugenicists and communists, as well as point out these folks are on the wrong side of economic history and economic facts. But you're not interested in having a reasonable position, but in painting anyone that questions an armed bureaucrat's intentions as a total anarchist.

Good Day!

The more I want to get something done, the less I call it work. -- Richard Bach, "Illusions"