Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

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: Wow ... (Score 1) 209

by Froggels (#48563915) Attached to: Feds Plan For 35 Agencies To Collect, Share, Use Health Records of Americans
What could possibly go wrong? Nothing. it's for our own health and safety. Don't you want to stay healthy?
Are these agencies going to be covered under HIPAA?

Nice one, since when does any law apply when national security is at stake?
I predict this will more or less put the private information of pretty much everyone into pretty much every government agency, and that this will be hacked and leaked 10 ways from Sunday.
It already is, so what's the big deal?

Comment: Re:Fucking Government doesn't care about US (Score 1) 73

by Froggels (#47902295) Attached to: NSA Metadata Collection Gets 90-Day Extension
..the 4th amendment has never been extended. Advances in technology were finally found to be covered by it

I always cringe whenever I hear the word "to find" used like this as if they actually uncovered some previously unknown truth hidden within the Constitution. These actions were never "found" to be in compliance with the Constitution. Instead they were just declared to be after limited tenuous debate. Even a 9th grader can recognise this as a blatant violation of our basic rights, but hey, the Supreme Court "found" that it's ok, so there nothing left for us to do than just suck it up.

Comment: Re: this would expose an enormous state secret. (Score 1) 248

by Froggels (#47787277) Attached to: US Government Fights To Not Explain No-Fly List Selection Process
TSA employees and similar government workers might as well all be on welfare for all the good they are doing. Why not just give them the same money that they are being paid to carry out their jobs at the TSA but let them stay home. What's the difference between a dollar handed out as welfare for doing nothing or that same dollar being handed out to a TSA employee? The money ultimately comes from the same tax source.

Comment: Re:Not Mandated by the Fed. BIG MISTAKE (Score 1) 643

by Froggels (#47768629) Attached to: U.S. Senator: All Cops Should Wear Cameras
Not to be too pedantic, but the by the "Fed" are you referring the Federal Government or the Federal Reserve? The "Fed" is the the Federal Reserve. I realize it's all cool and stuff to shorten long words, but sometimes doing so can completely change the meaning of what you are trying to say.

Comment: Re:Spoken like an American; come to Europe instead (Score 1) 449

by Froggels (#46613931) Attached to: WSJ: Prepare To Hang Up the Phone — Forever
Do you have any idea of the massive uproar which would occur in the UK if a supermarket (like Tesco) was stupid enough to try that over here ?

Do you have any idea of the massive uproar which would occur in the US if the major TV networks tried to implement a TV licence?

Comment: The Internet Changes Everything (Score 1) 260

by Froggels (#46496449) Attached to: The Era of Facebook Is an Anomaly
It wasn't all that long ago when the only way people were able to "come together" was to actually meet face to face. Before the likes to Facebook and Myspace... the only way to have any contact with lost former acquaintances was to do a lot or research or travel "back home" to find them. With services such as Facebook what would have been long lost acquaintances now bombard our news feeds with useless information 24-7. Fragmentation may have been the norm in the past, and Facebook may be a fad today, but social networking is here to stay. And I am over 45 years old. Now get off my lawn.

Comment: Re:If they don't like it... (Score 1) 286

by Froggels (#46375205) Attached to: Scottish Independence Campaign Battles Over BBC Weather Forecast
I sense derision in your comment. If you are so fond of the BBC then YOU can give them money, but as for the rest of us we shouldn't be FORCED to pay for a license for the simple act of owning a television set. We no longer live in the 1950s. If the BBC is so worried that people will receive their signal without paying then they should encrypt the bloody thing and make it only available to subscribers.

Comment: Don't Comply (Score 2) 506

by Froggels (#46358999) Attached to: Quebec Language Police Target Store Owner's Facebook Page
Too many people equate "The Law" with morality and consider it a forgone conclusion that whatever "The Law" states must be adhered to, and if violated must be enforced at all costs. Unfortunately there exist just too many unjust, absurd, horrific, ridiculous, and outdated laws such as, Jim Crow, Apartheid, FATCA, the Patriot Act, FATCA, the Nuremberg Laws, .....compulsory TV licensing *even if you don't have a TV*.... Most people who are negatively affected by such laws are usually met with derision and marginalized and told to suck it up by the majority of society simply because "It's the law!". It's a shame that we all live in societies that have placed "the Law" above justice and common decency.

Comment: Re:Crucial information (Score 1) 164

by Froggels (#46194413) Attached to: German Domain Registrar Liable For Copyright Infringement
Imagine you're selling someone fertilizer. Now if that person is using that fertilizer to build a bomb, you should of course not be responsible. Also it's unreasonable that you should have to check what they do with this fertilizer. But if you check, find out they build bombs with it, and continue to sell them the fertilizer knowing that they use it for building bombs you are of course also responsible for the deaths those bombs cause.

A more accurate analogy would be this: Imagine that your company maintains an independent telephone directory service. A fertilizer company whose number happens to be listed in your directory (un)knowingly sells "illegal bomb-making materials" to "terrorists" who happened to your directory service to find the fertilizer company's number. After a bombing attack your telephone directory service company is then held liable because you didn't happen to scrutinise your publicly accessible database close enough to weed out any potential bad guys who might receive calls as a result of you having listed their telephone numbers.

You can be replaced by this computer.