Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment passenger safety (Score 1) 236

While the police would need the ability to order cars to pull over (bank robbery getaway, or a kidnapping, etc.), there's also the problems of police abusing their authority and people impersonating officers to deal with. Rather than allow police more control than "pull over at the first safe opportunity" and "this area is unsafe, detour this way", we should also be implementing verification that the orders are lawful. A transponder in the officer's badge that could be detected by the car is one idea - where the car can communicate with the local police headquarters to verify that said officer is on duty, is an officer in that area and is not a duplicate, and what their status is if their own car/equipment can't communicate with HQ. Of course, there should be a manual override available in the event of communications jamming or the scene becoming unsafe for some other reason.

Comment What blazing speed! (Score 1) 253

Why, that's got to be almost 10% of what my cable provider upgraded me to for free 6 months ago. I feel sorry for the people using Comcast's network that hasn't been upgraded yet. But really, why upgrade their equipment at all to 10 mbps? If you're replacing equipment, why not upgrade to something that costs a little bit more, but won't need to be replaced in 1/4 the time to stay competitive?

Comment The horror (Score 2) 114

Can you imagine the sheer horror of politicians who would be forced to think about what they say before letting it escape their mouths or before they click the submit button on their computers?

If they have an intern sending their tweets, are these people so short on time that they don't have time to personally view and approve messages before they are broadcast to the entire world? If they don't understand the consequences of using a communications tool, perhaps they shouldn't be using it? Or perhaps they should be employing some more mature and trustworthy interns? Or perhaps ones that can explain the Streisand effect to them?

Comment Re:sincere skepticism. (Score 3, Insightful) 127

Being too late to stop changes from happening is not a good reason to stop efforts to limit how bad it gets. That's like saying "I'm already going to hit the car in front of me, so why use my brakes before impact?"

Well, it could spell the difference between a dented bumper and slaughtering everyone in both cars.

Comment Re: Police state San Jose (Score 1) 258

If humans had perfect and infallible memory that they could also pass directly on to others without distortion, our concept of privacy would be very different from what it is today. We live in a time when police can storm a business and smash the existing surveillance system the owners have in place, then argue (unsuccessfully, thank Buddha) that the footage from the one camera they missed shouldn't be admissible because they had an expectation of privacy. Yet the government sees no problem with virtually following each of us everywhere in our private lives as if they were electronic papparazzi.and we were Daniel Radcliffe walking hand-in-hand with a micro-bikini-clad Kim Cardassian. And people don't notice electronic privacy violations like what Penelope Garcia does several times a minute without any kind of warrant in the show Criminal Minds. There are many, many powers and tools that could be given to police to aid them in fighting crime, but it is a certainty that each and every one of them will be abused - police (I'm told) are every bit as human as anyone else, and they don't lie any less than anyone else. So said tools and powers given to them absolutely must be limited by our constitutional and human rights.

Comment Attack from the other direction (Score 1) 528

Someone should explain to the folks paying for the advertisements that when you have visually intrusive ads, ads that start playing sound, or ads that obscure the content, there's only two options available to the person viewing the page: close the tab right away, or use an ad blocker. The more intrusive and annoying the ad, the more likely I am to harbor bad feelings about product being advertised, stop buying their crap, and will bad-mouth their products all over social media. Likewise, someone should explain to the sites that hosting the ads that allowing keyword ads and things that bring up popups while browsing the site may pay you more per visitor, but it also assures that I'll not be visiting your site to see those ads. Would you prefer $.02 per visitor for 200 visitors, or %.01 per visitor for 10,000 visitors? As far as the people that create the ad software itself, they really don't give a fuck if it harms your experience with the site you are visiting, or how their tactics harm the perception of the advertisers - they only care about getting their number of ads served as high as possible so their paycheck is bigger, even if it is actual malware they are serving. That many folks would take great joy in working them over with a baseball bat isn't a deterrent. The only way to really get them to change is to attack their pocketbook.

Comment Re:Why? (Score 1) 135

You're going to find this hard to believe, but there are residences who have more than one person using the internet at a time. If you've got 2 roommates, will your 3Mbps connection be any good if someone else is using Netflix, Hulu, or YouTube (lol - fairly demanding?) at the same time?

Sure, your download only took 20 minutes - but that's 20 minutes that you can't be doing much of anything else over the internet. Is that download actively holding your attention? Or perhaps it's time to pick up a book while your connection is tied up.

Another point being that people don't want to have to "make do" with a connection they are paying more for than most of the rest of the world, and getting at best half of the speed.

Comment Re:Probably not bad (Score 1) 135

DSL has a range limit of about 12,500 feet from the central office, or from the vault location they run fiber to from the CO, and a preference to be under 10,000 feet. Considering the large price for the equipment to support it from the telco side, they're not going to put that equipment in if there's only 4-6 customers within range and it'll take 20+ years at that rate to pay off that equipment. At best they'll get that equipment as a hand-me-down when it's been ripped out of someplace else that has been upgraded 2-3 steps higher if the telco is feeling generous, and if the more expensive equipment isn't cheaper to maintain. Population density does matter, in that the company doesn't want to lay out the cash to serve areas that will take a long time to pay them back their investment - unless there's good publicity for them rolled in with it, too.

panic: kernel trap (ignored)