Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

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: Re:Bring on the lausuits (Score 1) 593

by Dishevel (#49138535) Attached to: Republicans Back Down, FCC To Enforce Net Neutrality Rules
Like I said. I understand your POV. I think the fix though is to stop local authorities from signing deals that keep everyone else out. To stop giving tax subsidies to companies to build out more internet and watch them take the money, redifine what broadband is and use the cash and right of ways that the public paid for to bury and type of competition.

I know the actors are bad. Seriously though. Have you ever seen the government take over new powers and not expand them and abuse them? They will here too. What happens when the FCC is controlled by ultra conservative board members and they outlaw tits on the internet "For the public good"? "Think of the children". Do you really think this will not happen? Anonymity will go out the window. Be made illegal.

Again. The current situation sucks. Government will make it worse.

Comment: Re:Live by the sword... (Score 1) 186

by Dishevel (#49138453) Attached to: Jury Tells Apple To Pay $532.9 Million In Patent Suit
I understand that. But the patents they got approved even though "real", we can all admit are overly broad and crappy. The only reason they got approved is because that is how the patent office works. "Approve if possible and let the courts work it out."

Except the courts are fucking stupid when it comes to tech and it takes years and millions of dollars to get a verdict.

They are bullshit patents and we all know it.

Comment: Re:Live by the sword... (Score 1) 186

by Dishevel (#49138397) Attached to: Jury Tells Apple To Pay $532.9 Million In Patent Suit
I stated that Apple was not a patent troll. That they were just "being" one.

I understand that it is different. You just have to really read what I posted. Apple has products. Therefore they can not technically be "Just a patent troll". They still though can use the patents they have in a trollish manner.

Some of us are nothing but Apple haters. Some Apple defenders. Some can recognize that Apple has products, a right to make them and is still being a douche about their shit patents.

Comment: Re:"Not intentional". Right. (Score 1) 370

by Dishevel (#49039153) Attached to: Samsung Smart TVs Injected Ads Into Streamed Video
I get to be smug.

Show me regulations passed in the US in the last 15 years that worked well without massive downsides.

I do not think that the government has zero role in the running of the country. I believe that they, long ago, passed the line into over regulation. I think that continuing even further down this pass is almost always going to be a really bad idea.

Comment: Re:"Not intentional". Right. (Score 1) 370

by Dishevel (#49039129) Attached to: Samsung Smart TVs Injected Ads Into Streamed Video
Your proposed regulation would be what?

That you must agree to having your conversations analyzed for key words so your TV can work?

(This is already the law) That they can not do it even if you (The Customer) agrees and wants it? (This should really spur innovation)

That there has to be a separate TOS for recording that the people who do not want to read the first one will also not read?

(This is where I think they will go) What exactly do you think the government can step in and fix here? (Government rarely does a thing well.)

Comment: Re: "Not intentional". Right. (Score 1) 370

by Dishevel (#49039077) Attached to: Samsung Smart TVs Injected Ads Into Streamed Video
I am sure that the way your were brought up there is only "all or nothing".

Some of us though are under the impression that many things are not like that. For example, Government. It is not restricted toward anarchy or nanny state, "Pick One".

The government needs to make no new law stating either that any contract you agree to you can later sue for because you no longer like it or a new law making something that is illegal, ... illegal.

I really do have the right to decide what contract I want to enter into. I do not need the government telling me that my TV has to listen to me or is prohibited to listening to me.

Comment: Re: "Not intentional". Right. (Score 1) 370

by Dishevel (#49039027) Attached to: Samsung Smart TVs Injected Ads Into Streamed Video
Oh child, are you not aware that making a thing illegal that some might find useful because you do not like it hinders innovation and restricts the freedom of the customers themselves.

Also. Just wondering if the "Oh Child" comment when coming from me sounded sad and desperate? Or did the fact that it was not followed by a bunch of bullshit make it not quite as bad?

If they can make penicillin out of moldy bread, they can sure make something out of you. -- Muhammad Ali

Working...