Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Interesting argument (Score -1, Troll) 94 94

The communication is between humans and humans. A human at one end craft content and store in on a computer in a accessible format. The end user then crafts a request for that information and sends it via the internet and the stored communication from the content creator is then delivered to the end user.

So you are an author who sits in front of a word processor and writes a magazine article ("crafting content," in your language). That article is then printed in an "accessible format," called a magazine. The end user (reader) then "crafts a request" by sending in a magazine subscription request, and the content is then delivered to the end user. Sound about right? We should definitely regulate magazine publishers, making sure that they can't decide how many to print, how many pages to create, which advertisers they should contract with, how often they publish, or which letters to the editor the choose to print. Because we can't have all of that unfairness, especially if the publisher decides they'd rather make arrangements themselves to deliver their printed material to news stands or find other ways best suited to their advantage to get their publication in the hands of their audience.

their claim basically is that an answer machine hooked into a phone service means that it is no longer a telecommunications service

No, that's you making stuff up. The telecommunications service is the telephone service between you and the answering machine that happens to answer the call. The telephone service between the two end points is no different when you talk to an answering machine than when you talk to a person who answers the call instead. It's exactly the protocols, the same bandwidth, the same use of the resource during the exchange ... makes no difference, answering machine vs. human.

A network of computer networks passing routable packets around based on peering agreements between the operators of those separate (frequently privately owned) networks is NOT the same as making a phone call.

that email is not communications

I get it, now. You're being deliberately obtuse. You're trolling.

Their point is that having some servers pass around packets of information using a protocol like SMTP is exactly NOT like making a phone call. If you're saying that anything that is a form of communication is the same as a phone call, then please get back to hand-delivered daily newspapers, for example, and explain why that process shouldn't be subjected to the laws that impacting the publisher of a web site who wants to fatten up the network routes - even if it costs money - to make sure his audience gets a good, timely view of the content.

Their claim is so laughably stupid that the court should penalise them for making it.

As laughably stupid as not knowing how to spell "penalize?" Your half-baked vitriol on the subject is an example of exactly why this topic is a bad fit for most people, cognitively. Please don't do things like vote if it involves similarly complex subject matter. Thanks.

Comment Re:List of privacy violations (Score 1) 164 164

From what I could see, the features that actually invade privacy are optional. The collage was highly misleading, including such things as "Windows Update being mandatory" and "Malware protection only being able to turn off temporarily" as "privacy violations" when they're actually both just things that suck.

Comment Re: So much stupid (Score 1) 104 104

So you're saying that even with uber-militarized police nothing can be done about gangs?

Of course something can be done. But it's politically incorrect to do so. The most violent gangs are thick with illegal aliens from Central America. The leftier side of US politics really wants to be able to take legal Latino votes for granted. So they angle for policies that do everything possible to avoid ruffling feathers in that area ... including giving sanctuary to people who end up being enforcers for MS13, etc.

To deal with gangs like that, you have to actually arrest people and then once they're in prison, actually keep them there. We don't do nearly enough of that - the revolving door has those guys right back in action after short terms, and their habits of recruiting minors for a lot of their dirty work means little or no jail time for a big part of their operations. If they're deported, they just show right back up because we have a completely porous, unenforced border. That's only true because the federal government isn't bothering to do one of its main missions (controlling the border), and that is a 100% political problem. The existence and violent toxicity of powerful, organized, nation-wide gangs (like MS13) in the US is then left to local law enforcement to deal with.

So yes, when they move to deal with a place known to be protected by a bunch of MS13 soldiers, you better believe they want to show up with heavy equipment. Would you bring a nightstick to arrest a bunch of MS13 enforcers who consider killing police officers, cartel-style, to be a sport and a point of pride?

But none of that has to happen. Controlling the border and not tolerating tens of millions of illegals in a shadowy cash economy rife with internal, organized crime - it's a matter of political will. But because there are politicians who are too timid to talk plainly about it, and who would rather play identity politics in a craven hunt for votes, we have a system that perpetuates rather than addresses the problem. And the local cops get to risk their necks as a result. If I were in that line of work, yeah, I'd want an armored car when serving warrants, too.

Comment Re: So much stupid (Score 1) 104 104

I said there aren't enough SWAT teams around to all handle the gangs

So right now all SWAT teams are at 24/7 utilization, barely having time to sleep and eat?

BS.

A typical SWAT team is deployed less than once a week. That's a reason why we have increased cases of excessive force used - the idle SWAT teams just make it too easy to over-react.

By the time SWAT got there, they'd have scattered like cockroaches.

Another BS.

Comment Re:Button to open system settings (Score 1) 354 354

Personally I rather liked the 8.1 way, which was kinda similar to how Android does things if you haven't set a preference yet - applications could cause a dialog to appear that showed them the available applications to do X and set one of them as the default.

I'd like Microsoft to change it back to that. Who knows, if we put enough pressure on them, rather than demand they stop beating their wives, they might do it.

Comment Re:IE all over again (Score 4, Insightful) 354 354

I don't think so, browsers have always, until now, been able to set themselves as default, even back during the Netscape wars.

And they're not asserting ownership of your computer. What they've done is created a hamfisted (and biased towards Microsoft - yeah, I don't like it either) interface that replaces third parties modifying your computer with or without your consent. They had a better system in Windows 8.1, and should revert to that, but nonetheless, I don't actually like the idea of a browser being able to set itself up as default. I prefer myself to make that decision. Fortunately, the mainstream browsers have, until now, always at least asked for permission before changing the defaults, but that's not something they should have been allowed to do to begin with.

If we want this changed, we need to be a little less hyperbolic, because the issue here is that the new change isn't user friendly and is biased towards Microsoft, not ludicrous claims that Microsoft is taking control of your PC in some way it wasn't before. If you complain about the latter, expect your ticket to be closed with a "INVALID. Not actually a description of a real problem."

Comment Re:IE all over again (Score 3, Interesting) 354 354

I don't think anything's changed about the degree to which IE or NewIE is part of the OS since Windows 7. What's changed is that browsers can't set themselves to be the default any more - the user has to do it explicitly in the system settings.

Personally, I thought the Windows 8.1 way of doing it was better. But I don't think this is as terrible a change as being suggested.

Comment Re: So much stupid (Score 2) 104 104

In absolute numbers, more white people are shot by police than black people, but the former also make up a significantly larger chunk of the population (63% white vs 12% black).

But if you're going to make everyone look at it through the lens of skin pigment, then you also have to do what the producer of those statistics did: take into account the demographics surrounding high crime rates. Police shootings rarely, rarely occur outside the context of the cops interacting with someone in the middle of a violent or headed-towards-violent situation. Though the media is focused on things like that idiot campus cop who shot the guy trying to speed away from a traffic stop, that's NOT the sort of thing that makes up, in any meaningful way, the larger body of numbers. Take into account the wildly higher rates of violent domestic disputes, basic street crime, robberies, and (if nothing else) gang warfare, and the percentage of police shootings involving people of one skin tone relative to the percentage of that skin tone in the population takes a back seat to what that percentage is actually doing when it comes to the sorts of activities that bring wary cops rushing to the scene.

If one insists on comparing skin color percentages in the wider population, compare skin color percentages involved in violent crime before doing math about how often cops have violent encounters with a given group. Or, skip the whole skin color thing, and focus on geography. In places where cops have a hugely higher rate of violent criminals and behavior to deal with, they end up having to use force more often than in places where the population is much less routinely violent.

Comment Re:Amazon Prime (Score 1) 202 202

No, actually. I'm just describing something I pay for, and which I like. I know that's not fashionable, but it actually is possible to like a company and it's products/services. On balance, I think Amazon is a remarkable operation. Not shy about it. The more people who check them out and also use their services, the better it gets for me. I generally - though not always - like what Bezos is doing outside the context of Amazon directly.

Comment Amazon Prime (Score 0, Offtopic) 202 202

I have to say, I keep stumbling across new reasons that I like Prime. Had a gig this evening, and needed some spendy batteries. A couple of clicks this morning, and they were on my doorstep in the afternoon. It only takes a few events like that in a year to make Prime worth the modest cost. But so many other little goodies that Bezos keeps tossing in to remind me why it's good to stick around. I have enough parts and pieces shipped in that it pays for itself in time and shipping costs regardless. The rest is frosting on that cake. It will be interesting to see how much of a production budget Amazon gives these guys to make their particular form of entertainment. I anticipate lots of drone footage of cars doing entertaining things.

panic: kernel trap (ignored)

Working...