Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



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:Authority (Score 1) 230

by Tokolosh (#49156407) Attached to: As Big As Net Neutrality? FCC Kills State-Imposed Internet Monopolies

I reason thus: The country is based on the premise that you have inalienable rights - to bear arms, marry who you want, say what you want, to privacy, to remain silent, to make a living, etc. Neither the Federal nor a State government can abrogate these rights, except to prevent physical harm to others. A government may enact regulations, which are defined in the classical, correct sense of managing potentially conflicting rights in such a way as to minimize conflict. So if your state infringes your right to marry/bear arms/start an ISP, then it is incumbent on everyone, including the federal government and the courts, to ensure your rights are protected.

So there is no problem with this, except if the community makes any rules that discriminates against other potential competitors, thus infringing their rights. This means that they should not regulate themselves.

Naturally, this philosophy is observed only when it suits the politicians, which results in the problems we observe.

Comment: Just Don't Call It The Internet (Score 1) 53

by Tokolosh (#49142017) Attached to: Facebook's Colonies

Facebook can connect the world, I have no problem with that. But if they screw with anything they are not allowed to call it "internet".

May I suggest the All Obnoxious Liars system?

Same should apply to Net Neutrality - do anything except route packets and you lose common carrier status and the right to "internet". I offer this one-sentence regulation to the FCC for free.

Comment: Culture Jamming (Score 4, Interesting) 241

by Tokolosh (#49105537) Attached to: Al-Shabaab Video Threat Means Heightened Security at Mall of America

These terrorist groups have slowly realized that the the biggest damage is not from bombs or airplanes, it is the self-inflicted damage that results. The DHS apparatus, multiple foreign wars and entanglements, loss of liberties, police militarization, "papieren, bitte" and a collective nervous breakdown are draining away the treasure and economic and social vitality of the USA. This is achieved at no cost beyond posting a video on the internet, and beheading any Americans who are stupid enough to visit them.

This is as asymmetric as warfare can get. You may say things are ok in America, but in reality it could have been much, much better..

Comment: Re:Who's Wi-fi? (Score 2) 73

by Tokolosh (#49068967) Attached to: Cellphone Start-Ups Handle Calls With Wi-Fi

Republic Wireless has built-in auto-accept of TOS (not technically a login) for otherwise open hotspots. The phone will attempt to "click-through" to get internet access, and if you confirm it has succeeded, it will remember the settings for future use. Now this is somewhat experimental and not perfect, but it does remove much of the hassle. RW is working to improve this all the time.

The problem is that many hotspots are severely crippled, with tiny bandwidth, blocked port and services. For example, all the big stores in the local mall have them, but I suspect their only purpose is to track you, not to provide a decent internet connection. They are therefore not useful for calling.

The beer-cooled computer does not harm the ozone layer. -- John M. Ford, a.k.a. Dr. Mike

Working...