Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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: Only if it's bulletproof. LITERALLY bulletproof. (Score 1) 389

I don't wear a watch. Last watch I bought was at least 15 years ago and it lasted 2 days. I'm hard on watches. They get bashed into things routinely. I'll buy a smartwatch as soon as someone posts a youtube video subjecting one to a point-blank diacharge of a 44 magnum at it, and it survives.

Comment: Re:Ah, come one, don't we trust the Feds? (Score 1) 90

I don't see a lot of difference between the NSA and FCC, and in fact, I suspect the NSA is in favor of net neutrality so that their collection traffic doesn't get choked off by someone's ISP unless they tag it somehow so the ISPs all know who's data it is, which I'm sure the NSA would prefer not to advertise.

Comment: Cruises? (Score 3, Informative) 97

by Kazoo the Clown (#49187179) Attached to: FTC Targets Group That Made Billions of Robocalls
I don't get cruise sales calls -- I get calls for carpet cleaning, construction contracting, phony IRS agents, and phony credit agencies. I suspect many are calling from foreign countries. They obviously aren't deterred one whit by US laws or agencies. I just use a box to screen everything unless it's on a whitelist. And blacklisted calls get a disconnected number signal. For the most part, problem solved but I can see from the call logs who's tried and what scam they are pulling by googling the number. What I wonder is, why haven't we seen a massive bust of robocall scammers by the FBI? A couple of reasons-- one, they're not in the US, two, they're paying for the call, so the phone company is making money off them, and three, rich people are mostly unaffected by and/or oblivious of the problem.

Comment: Re:Encryption (Score 1) 136

by Kazoo the Clown (#49159559) Attached to: Under US Pressure, PayPal Stops Working With Mega
I claim my First Amendment rights include the right to speak in unbreakable code. And as far as anyone else is concerned, it may just be pure gibberish. It's up to me to decide what it means. I could even do this verbally, by reciting words that are translated to other words using a one-time pad. And if spending money is considered protected speech, speaking in unbreakable code must be as well. There's nothing in the First Amendment that says the speech has to be intelligible, by the Government or anyone else.

Comment: Neutrality debate ignores the elephant in the room (Score 1) 599

by Kazoo the Clown (#49137109) Attached to: Republicans Back Down, FCC To Enforce Net Neutrality Rules
So, the neutrality debate is about network providers adjusting performance for different types of content. It seems to me, far more important question than if they are legally allowed to do it, is WHY ARE THEY ABLE TO DO IT? A much bigger problem is the fact that they are able to tell anything at all about the content, because that means it's not secure and should be a violation of privacy. I'd prefer net neutrality failed, because we shouldn't be depending on network providers to monitor our traffic for content type, but we should fix that by making it impossible, not by legal means which clearly no longer apply to the government itself and by extension, the companies that facilitate communications. FCC net neutrality ruling doesn't fix the problem, it just lets the government PRETEND they've fixed the problem. Plus, the govenrment wants net neutrality, else how are they going to "fast lane" their surveillance program traffic without exposing it to dweebs at the ISPs?

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes. -- Dr. Warren Jackson, Director, UTCS