Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment A Click starts a negotiation, it doesn't end one (Score 1) 567

this isn't a situation where the context exists whether it's paid for or not.

I'm not sure I'm following this part. This isn't a chick/egg situation. If there is no content, I have no reason to go to a site. If I don't go to a site, I don't care what ridiculous requirements they think they can impose on me to see their lack of content. If there is content, but the rules for seeing it are too much of a burden on me, then it might as well not exist.
Say some new site pops up. They have to have some reason for people to go there. They could offer samples of their content, they could make note of some famous writer that is working for them, they could have agreements for exclusive content from some company/industry/whatever. It doesn't matter what their angle is, any time I type their URL in the address bar, or click a link that goes there, we are starting a new negotiation for data exchange. If I don't like the rules they impose, I am free to leave. If content producers want to wall off their content, whether it's ads, scripts, flash, requiring an app be installed, cookies, or some other restriction, they are also free to do that

The whole damn point of the enterprise is to make some jingle.

This person is correct. Some of the discussion on this topic has gone down the path of: "The internet existed before ads!" While true, we're also very much enjoying the content that ad-revenue is bringing us today, ignoring that fact will not lead to a proper negotiation with the content producers to show some sensibility when it comes to monetizing our eyeballs.

I'm familiar with the history of how content on the internet has been financed. I also enjoy the increased amount of content that is available when compared to 1996. That said, there has to be some better way than what we have now. There is no content that is worth the drain created by scripts, trackers, flash, and the like.

Comment A Click starts a negotiation, it doesn't end one (Score 2) 567

If the content is soooo special that they feel the need to rape my computer before I see it, the site can require a subscription or dedicated app. Clicking a link is not an agreement on my part to accept any and all conditions of the site in order to view the content. Clicking a link is the beginning of a negotiation for exchange of data. A negotiation that I will leave if third party scripts, third party ads, tracking cookies, or flash content are requirements.

Comment Re: Ok. (Score 2) 567

I don't get to choose what the site sends as a response, that is correct. I DO get to choose what to do with that response. If it doesn't include scripts, doesn't try to track me through the site or to other sites, doesn't include any Flash based elements, and doesn't include ads that are hosted by a third party, chances are I will allow my web browser to load and display the provided response.
If any of the above are included, they will be blocked. If that means I cannot see the content, then I will leave and make a note of how that site treated me. After a few times, I'll just quit clicking links to that site. If I am quite interested in the content, I'll use a search engine to find a different site with a similar story. If non exists, oh well, I'll get over it.
Clicking on a link is not a signal to the remote site owner that I am willing to let them abuse my computing resources in any way they choose, it is merely an attempt to negotiate an exchange of data.

Comment Re:Seems reasonable (Score 2) 173

Are they going to apply this same logic to data centers? How many other business types do they wish to micro-manage?

I can understand that the Utility Company wants to get back what they would spend to upgrade the infrastructure to support the BTC miners. Why can't they just state that up front, bill them for the upgrades, and work out some sort of contract for payment? That's what they do if you want utilities run to some place where they don't exist.

Comment Re: Not ill timed... (Score 1) 633

Touche! I wonder how many of those doing the job of interring the japanese-americans were of japanese heritage themselves.

I'd expect that those involved would justify their actions with "it's part of the war effort, and we are helping keep the nation safe". Typing that out makes me a little scared to think about what current military would think about such an order regarding firearm owners. Hopefully there would be enough pushback that it wouldn't happen.

Comment Re: Not ill timed... (Score 1) 633

Where did you get the idea that I have some unbending, unquestionable loyalty to an existing set of rules? We seem to be having a discussion about them now. This is an issue that has been a topic of discussion since the 18th century, and still is open for discussion.

Are you trying to say that setting up a system of rules for society, which includes a number of methods to change the rules, is an archaic 18th century idea? If you have some better method of managing society, perhaps you would share it with us.

Comment Re: Not ill timed... (Score 1) 633

I'd like to verify the requirements for this project. In order to meet your objective, I need to find legislation that is titled "Repeal of gun ownership privileges in the pursuit of genocide"?

Welcome to the real world, where there are shades of grey, and there can be many smaller parts that contribute to a bigger picture.

Comment Re: Not ill timed... (Score 1) 633

Who do you think are members of the military? Most of them are American citizens that believe that those centuries old rules are worth protecting, with their lives if necessary. How many of them do you think are going to willingly deploy within their own country, in order to implement orders that essentially break their oath of office?

Or are you thinking that the higher ups are just going to use drones and/or cruise missiles to take out resisting gun owners?

Comment Re: Not ill timed... (Score 4, Informative) 633

Lots of things require registration & licensing.

How many of them are rights specifically called out in the constitution?

Name those cases.

1911 - Turkey, 1935 - China, 1938 - Germany, 1964 - Guatemala, 1970 - Uganda. I'm sure these come up a lot, without any background info. This seems to have actual supporting documentation.

are also the ones who want to impose their version of

Nice job spinning the conversation on to an unrelated topic. OP didn't make any mention of religion, abortion, or homosexuality, and those have no direct relationship to gun control. Excellent example of the backhanded ad-hominem attack.

Slashdot Top Deals

All life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities. -- Dawkins