Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment For others (Score 1) 395

The one thing they never ask in these surveys is if they would mind if the government looked at their internet history. People are okay with giving up freedom because they assume it is other people's freedom. It's easy to say the government should look through people's internet traffic because you assume you are a good person so the government would never have a reason to look through your internet traffic. But when you ask them specifically if they are okay with it happening to them they have to actually think about it. They never consider that the government gets it wrong. They never consider that someone from the government may have something against them. Forcing them to think about that means some people will suddenly have a problem with it. It is the same thing when lawmakers suddenly find out they are the ones that are being looked at. All those laws they voted for were for other people, not for them.

Comment Great except for hidden fees (Score 1) 440

I like the idea of this. If we can get our mobile payments systemsup to snuff this would make things a lot easier. My issue is the hidden costs involved with it. One of the reasons I use cash is because I know it costs small businesses money if I use my credit card. I would rather get cash and pay that way for local shops than cost them the percentage they pay to the credit card company even though I may get a few cents back. The only way I could get behind this totally would be for there to be some way to make the payments with the middle man taking a big chunk of the money. IF it was true micropayments where the middle man takes a couple cents then maybe, but as long as it is a couple percent, I will still pay with cash.

Comment This is a good policy (Score 4, Interesting) 523

I really like this policy. Sites deserve to be able to show ads and make revenue on their content. That is how you get content to stay around and be good. The issue is the terribly intrusive and deceptive ads that suck up bandwidth and annoy everyone. I switched to uBlock Origins a while ago because of the memory AdBlock sucks up, but if they can get that under control I may switch back just for this feature.

Comment Re:How can there be? (Score 1) 622

While I agree with every example you show, these are terrible comparisons. In none of these case is the resource sold to me as "unlimited". And besides that, I am told "you have X Mbps bandwidth for you to use" when I sign up for internet. I am in no way told I am sharing it with anyone else and in fact told the exact opposite. It is my bandwidth to use and I can use it "unlimited". I know better because I work in IT and know how these things actually work but Joe AverageUser has no idea how bandwidth and oversubscription and COs work, not should they need to. If you are told "this is for you and you can use it as much as you want" it is reasonable to assume it is for you and you can sue it as much as you want.

Comment In other words (Score 4, Insightful) 372

In other words, police have no idea how to do their job without being able to assault people, racially profile them, and generally be dicks. If these police are afraid to do their jobs because they might be filmed, the easiest solution is to hire police officers who don't do anything wrong that will be an issue if it ends up on tape. The reason people are taping the police constantly now is because they expect the police to do something wrong because they have shown in a lot of cases they do. If the police get better and stop setting the expectation they will treat people like garbage, then people won;t expect it and won't feel the need to film them constantly.

Comment Re:Well that settles it then (Score 2) 138

While you are probably correct, my issue with this thinking is that they CAN go after anyone for making a replica. If the intent is that they will only go after people selling them, then that is how the law/ruling should read. The law currently gives them the ability to go after anyone creating a replica, even something as silly as a 10 year old kid making one out of cardboard (no, I don't think they would ever be dumb enough to do that, but legally they could). We should never rely on companies to do the right thing and not abuse power. If we want that to happen, we shouldn't give them the power to begin with instead of just hoping they would never use it.

Comment Re:Pretty reasonable (Score 2) 235

While in theory I agree, in practice, what else can we do? Someone commits a crime, they need to be punished. Sure, we can levy fines, but if the person is rich, they just pay them and it doesn't matter to them. If they are poor they can't pay them anyway so what do we do then? If someone steals a car, we can try and get them to pay for the car, but they probably don't have enough to do it. Sure, we can garnish wages for the future, but that is just a sure fire way of keeping the poor committing crimes because even when they do make money legally afterward, they won't get it.

Comment Criminal versus Civil (Score 3, Informative) 83

While I agree he should have probably gotten a more severe penalty, comparing the civil cases versus a criminal case is an unfair comparison. The companies could still pursue a civil case against him and they have an automatic win on their hands because of the criminal conviction. He could end up with what he was sentenced to here PLUS a civil case for a huge amount. This isn't necessarily the end of it, it's just the end of what the government can do.

Also, I can't find anywhere exactly what he was convicted of, but I would guess this was felony level copyright violation, which means he now has a felony on his record which in reality is a much bigger deal than losing a civil case and owing the companies a ridiculous amount of money because it means you basically can't get a decent job anymore.

Comment Here's a better idea (Score 5, Insightful) 199

Instead of giving Century Link 3 billion dollars to build the infrastructure and then have a monopoly where they can overcharge the customer, let's take that 3 billion and have the government build the infrastructure. Then we let any company who want so use it do so for a small fee. Then not only do we have infrastructure, but we also have competition and at least a small income from the lines, which is better for everyone.

Comment Until they can't (Score 3, Insightful) 576

Sure, FedEx can tell you exactly where a package is, until they can't anymore. It's not like they don't lose packages. The only reason they can track them as well as they do is because they are going to a limit number of areas where they are scanned going in and out of each. And they still lose them sometime. Unless we are going to have immigrant get scanned in everywhere they go, there isn't a way to track people the same way we track packages.

Comment This is how it will go (Score 4, Insightful) 253

Assuming I believe them (which I do for places that have someone else offering gigabit but less so for other places), this is how it will go. If you are in a town with a competitor offering gigabit speeds, it will cost around $100 a month. If you are in a town without a competitor offering gigabit internet, they either will not offer gigabit speed (although they will probably add the infrastructure for when a competitor does) or they will charge $300 a month for it and it will have to be bundled with cable to get that price. Comcast has no real interest in offering better speeds and are being forced to because other companies are. That is the bottom line.

Comment Re:Not all workers are equal. (Score 2) 430

Why are we assuming the other employees are not capable of understanding this? When they ask, the company says "Joe makes more because he has specialized skill X that the rest of you don't have". They may then learn that skill and be more useful to the company in which case they should make more or they don't learn the skill and stay where they are.

And what of the more real life version of this? A company needs to hire 3 people and find 3 equally qualified applicants that they want. The company has budgeted $50000 per job for salary. They offer the first $40000 because they only made $40000 at their last job and they accept. They offer the second $40000 and he counter offers with $44000 and they accept. The last comes from a high paying company so they offer him $55000 and he accepts. You now have 3 equally qualified candidates doing the same work making 3 completely different salaries and overall, the company is coming out ahead because they aren't spending as much as they thought the jobs were actually worth. When they compare salaries and see the difference the lower 2 should demand an increase since they are doing the same job as the highest paid one for less money.

Comment A mixed bag (Score 2) 490

I can definitely see where this could become a problem. A lot of the "girl" toys are playing directly into the gender stereotypes to get girls interested. If you want girls to like it, make it pink and put flowers on it. Instead of working to actually make it something that would actually interest girls (or god forbid both boys and girls) they just slap some paint on it and give it a girly name.

The bigger issue though is that they have to make "girl" things because most of them are specifically geared towards boys. That is why the answer they come up with is to make it girly. There is no reason we need special Legos in a pink box with cats and houses specifically for girls. Just stop specifically targeting boys with your marketing and girls will want to play with it (see the ads from the 70s that have both genders in the ads). More stereotypes are not the answer to the current stereotypes.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is contrary to reasoning to say that there is a vacuum or space in which there is absolutely nothing. -- Descartes

Working...