Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Correction: (Score 0) 321

by Trailer Trash (#47724937) Attached to: FCC Warned Not To Take Actions a Republican-Led FCC Would Dislike

Hint: Republicans don't just do this with the telco industry.

And yes, they are far worse than the Dems. Grow up.

This is my favorite part about Democrat voters. They don't claim their party has anything good about it - it's just "better than Republicans".

If that's your best reason to vote then, please, stay home on election day.

Comment: Re:Correction: (Score 4, Insightful) 321

by Trailer Trash (#47724929) Attached to: FCC Warned Not To Take Actions a Republican-Led FCC Would Dislike

this time Chief of Staff Matthew Berry, speaking at the National Conference of State Legislatures, has endorsed states' right to ban municipal broadband networks

He's endorsed the right of the people in each state to get bent over by massively-corrupt telcos with their monopolistic behaviors - by reinforcing their monopolies - all in the name of a free market (despite the fact that it's anything but).

FTFY.

Those telcos are forced to provide service to everybody at the same price, which means they make a profit on tightly packed businesses in the city and that offsets their losses on the more widespread customers out of town. If the city comes in and serves only the tightly packed businesses, they can easily offer the service at a lower price and still make money or break even, and the telco ends up losing their profitable customers and therefore their ability to offset their losses elsewhere.

I'm not against "municipal broadband", but they need to be held to the exact same standard as all other carriers in the same area. That might well mean offering service to out of town customers, also.

I didn't understand the fuss until last time this came up and someone in the industry explained it quite clearly in a +5 post.

Comment: Very, very easy to fix (Score 2) 155

by Trailer Trash (#47713461) Attached to: Google Receives Takedown Request Every 8 Milliseconds

All takedowns have to be sworn under penalty of perjury. Next time google gets one that points to a page with no infringement (just happened) (just happened again) (oops, and again, okay, I'll stop counting now) whoever sent it needs to be prosecuted for perjury. The infringement notice bots would be shut down in 10 minutes when those behind them are suddenly facing prosecution.

As I've said time and again: we don't need a new law - we need to enforce what we've got.

Comment: Re:Safety vs Law (Score 4, Insightful) 473

by Trailer Trash (#47707161) Attached to: Google's Driverless Cars Capable of Exceeding Speed Limit

Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is 100% the fault of the person making an unsafe lane change if there is an accident, NOT the person who was driving too slow for your taste. You still have not given a single legitimate reason why low speed limits (by themselves), or slow drivers (by themselves) are dangerous.

People who are driving at a speed that is far outside the average speed on a particular road are a danger simply because the difference between their speed and others is likely to be large. Note that whether they're going "faster" or "slower" doesn't matter - it's the difference in speed.

If I'm going 90MPH and I bump someone going 89MPH we'll be fine and have minimal damage to our cars. If I'm going 45 and bump someone going 44 it's the same. But bumping someone who's going 45 when you're going 90 will result in a major accident.

I remember reading something a few years ago said by a patrol officer. Basically, fast drivers and slow drivers cause the same number of accidents. But in his experience the fast drivers were part of the accident while the slow drivers caused other people to have an accident (trying to avoid the slow poke) and drove off possibly unaware that they had caused an accident.

Comment: Re:Doing it wrong. (Score 1) 376

by Trailer Trash (#47702095) Attached to: Rightscorp's New Plan: Hijack Browsers Until Infingers Pay Up

You don't want to cut off their web browsing, you want to cut their power. Get the electric companies to cut the power till they pay up. Can't download or watch them infringing files with no power.

Cut the power!!!!

Actually the analogous action would be to drop their line voltage to 30V and perhaps change the frequency to 20Hz.

Comment: Re: Amost sounds like a good deal ... (Score 1) 376

by Trailer Trash (#47702073) Attached to: Rightscorp's New Plan: Hijack Browsers Until Infingers Pay Up

You cannot prove a negative.

Sure you can. I was once falsely (and maliciously) accused of something, and was able to prove that I was 100 km away in a different city for the extended weekend, with hundreds of witnesses. 7 witnesses was more than sufficient.

So, you proved that you were somewhere else, which is a positive.

Comment: Re:Now what could go wrong? (Score 1) 376

by Trailer Trash (#47702047) Attached to: Rightscorp's New Plan: Hijack Browsers Until Infingers Pay Up

Oh for fucks sake, you KNEW what he meant by the post.

Of course he knew what the OP meant, but I have to side with mrchaotica and I'll tell you why. A large part of the population thinks that copyrights are something that only big companies own. When people say "it's illegal to download copyrighted content" they perpetuate that myth. Nearly everything I download in a given day is copyrighted, it's just that the author has given permission for it to be downloaded. All the posts on /. are a great example.

So the issue is about whether it's unauthorized sharing, not whether it's copyrighted. I make that distinction simply because I don't want to help lay the groundwork for a fundamental change in copyright law at some point.

Comment: Re:What? (Score 1) 393

by Trailer Trash (#47658277) Attached to: 3 Congressmen Trying To Tie Up SpaceX

The argument is that the government doesn't create wealth. While you can look at defense contractors as the government creating jobs it is at best intellectually dishonest. The government doesn't create wealth, it acquires from other parties and redistributes it to further parties. Those first parties, from which the taxes are collected, would have been otherwise able to use those tax monies which would have stimulated other businesses and created the need and opportunities for jobs. Now these specific jobs probably wouldn't exist and the jobs that would be here may not be as well paying but in a climate where we consider part time jobs replacing full time positions to be job creation, I hardly think that matters.

Those jobs are taken from companies like mine that paid the taxes being used to pay for those jobs. Therefore, no net jobs are created and, in fact, net jobs are lost. The government doesn't create wealth - with the caveat being "usually" but "certainly not in this case".

Comment: Re:Legal pemission? THEY GIVE IT! (Score 1) 364

by Trailer Trash (#47654849) Attached to: Comcast Drops Spurious Fees When Customer Reveals Recording

Correct! So what if I placed an on-demand playback of "This call may be recorded for future review". How many CSRs at the other end would drop my call?

You're missing the point. If they give notice that "this call may be recorded" then that covers *both* parties. Either one of you may record legally at that point.

I live in a "one-party" state (TN) and used to live in another (IN) so it's never been a concern to me if I wanted to record, and I definitely have. One of my best calls was with a idiot Comcast rep - surprise, surprise.

Comment: Re:No retarded like clickbait retarded (Score 1) 291

by Trailer Trash (#47652055) Attached to: The Technologies Changing What It Means To Be a Programmer

The work involved in telling computers what to do is markedly different than it was even five years ago, and it's quite possible that any Rip Van Winkle-like developer who slept through the past 10 years would be unable to function in the today's computing world.

This is quite possibly the stupidest article ever posted to Slashdot.

Ok, this month.

I hate it when I have mod points and comments like this are already at 5.

Comment: Re:Where do I sign up? (Score 1, Interesting) 327

why would you want to opt out of social security?

Because the returns are abysmal compared to the stock market.

you plan to die young, or work til your 90?

Or, you're not stupid with money.

this is the same nonsense dreck you "shrink the gov til you can drown it in a bathtub" types always put up.
you need a course in basic civics concerning government (i suggest starting at governmentisgood.com).

Ah, yes, let's ask government-worshiping leftists what they think.

and oh, btw, if you dont pay your mortgage, the bank gets the guys with guns to come kick you out.

You make a voluntary contract with the bank and if you renege on your side they have the right to use the courts to enforce the contract. Works both ways:

http://articles.philly.com/201...

A big part of the purpose of government in a civilized society is to enforce contracts. You'd think reading "governmentisgood" would help you understand that.

Comment: Re:Larger request (Score 1) 134

by Trailer Trash (#47630003) Attached to: Aaron's Law Is Doomed and the CFAA Is Still Broken

There are plenty of innocent people in prison.

Not as many as you think.

You have no idea what I think. I think that relative to the entire prison population it's a fairly small percentage, definitely single digit and probably "low single digit" at that. However, when you have the world's largest prison population that's significant.

But worse than that a lot of people that we see being declared innocent were convicted of heinous crimes. That's creates two problems: 1. an innocent person is in jail and 2. a murderer/rapist/whatever *isn't* in jail. There have been documented cases of the murderer killing someone else while stupid prosecutors worked overtime to put the wrong guy in jail.

Obviously Aaron Schwartz was the right person, but the prosecution thought the alleged crime was worth 6 months in the slammer. They instead pursued charges that would have added up to a lifetime sentence. Something's not right in that picture.

"Your attitude determines your attitude." -- Zig Ziglar, self-improvement doofus

Working...