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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Its laugh track is a crime against humanity (Score 2) 342

How do you feel about The Daily Show or (did feel about) The Colbert Report's laughing? That's exactly what they tell you at those tapings - microphones high on the ceiling, the warm-up guy, pretend you're the audience etc. I'm sure any taping has the same spiel.

Comment Re: In case anyone doesn't realize Carly is an idi (Score 3, Informative) 321

Verizon and Comcast were not pushing for Net Neutrality and saying "we need it"; they were the principal forces opposing it, and they were the reason that FCC regulations were required to preserve it in the first place. They had plans for paid prioritization of traffic that would basically amount to charging websites for the privilege of not having their traffic throttled on the "last mile" link between the ISP and its customers. Google was diametrically opposed to this, as well as most small web sites and 3.7 million individuals who sent letters to the FCC.

The fact that an ex-CEO of HP, of all people, is pontificating about Net Neutrality while exposing her ignorance of even the most basic facts about who was involved and what sides they were on seems incredible. Was she merely confused herself or just trying to confuse everyone else? I have no idea.

Comment In case anyone doesn't realize Carly is an idiot.. (Score 2) 321

Here's what Carly said about Net Neutrality during an interview back in May:

JOHN FUND: You, at Lucent, and at Hewlett Packard, began at the dawn of the internet era, seeing the possibilities of what that would bring. And here we are, 20 odd years after the World Wide Web, and we've created a marvelous industry, marvelous possibilities. The Obama administration has decided, this can't be left to its own devices, we need Net Neutrality. And even though Congress doesn't want it, and people in both parties in Congress don't want it, and the courts have blocked them consistently, they're moving forward of course with what they call executive action, which I call the divine right of kings. Uh, what do you think about Net Neutrality, and how should we fight it if we should?

CARLY: Well we should- it's ridiculous. We now have an FCC, deciding on a 3-2 vote, that the Internet will be regulated with 400 pages of legislation. Terrible idea. Terrible idea. Of course, the dirty little secret of that regulation, which is the same dirty little secret of Obamacare or Dodd-Frank or all of these other huge complicated pieces of regulation or legislation, is that they don't get written on their own, they get written in part by lobbyists for big companies who want to understand that the rules are going to work for them. And this is part of what people see. Look, crony capitalism is alive and well. Elizabeth Warren, of course, is wrong about what to do about it. She claims that the way to <airquotes>solve</airquotes> crony capitalism is more complexity, more regulation, more legislation. Worse tax codes. And of course the more complicated government gets- and it's really complicated now- the less the small and the powerless can deal with it. And so the big get bigger, the powerful get more powerful, the wealthy and the well-connected get more wealthy and more well-connected. I mean, that's a fact. It's what's happening. And it's partially why people feel so disconnected. So, the dirty little secret of those 400 pages of legislation in Net Neutrality was, who was in the middle of arguing for net neutrality? Verizon, Comcast, Google, I mean, all these companies were playing. They weren't saying "we don't need this," they were saying "we need it." And so, the only way to level the playing field, so that the small, the new, the entrepreneurial, the powerless, have a shot, is to reduce all this complexity. And meanwhile, while, you know, the big are getting bigger, we're crushing the small. So we're now for the first time in history, we are destroying more businesses than we are creating. We are destroying more businesses than we are creating- it's a terrible statistic. And it means that we're never going to get this economy growing and growing again, yes I had the great privilege of playing uh, important roles in Lucent and Hewlett Packard, but like most people I started out at a little company. I started out as a secretary in a nine-person real estate firm. My husband started out driving a tow truck for a family-owned auto body shop. Most Americans start in little humble businesses, which create 2/3 of the new jobs and employ half the people. So when we're crushing those little businesses, as we are every time we roll out a new, complicated piece of legislation or regulation, we're crushing the possibilities of this economy.

JOHN FUND: I grew up in Northern California, and part of the ethos was, reading about Hewlett and Packard starting their business in a garage.

CARLY: A garage. Two guys in a garage. By the way, Google started out that way too, in a dorm room. But they seem to have forgotten that. [audience laughs]

JOHN FUND: Well, uh, they have new friends in Washington.

CARLY: Yes, they do. Yes they do.

The transcript doesn't do it justice at all- her tics and mannerisms while shoveling this horseshit will make you want to smack her upside the head. Carly is a clueless liar- but I have to admit, I can never tell exactly when she's lying and when she's just being clueless.

Comment Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs? (Score 1) 184

That makes sense! Let's create that rule.

Oh. It already exists as 14 CFR 91.119c: "[in sparsely populated areas] the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure."

Some other kinds of aircraft other than airplanes can fly lower and closer in certain situations (maybe even drones?), but here's the dirty little secret: the FAA figures out if they want to punish you, and then they figure out how to do it, and then they succeed. It's a privilege, not a right, so while there's a sort of a farce of due process it's not remotely as strong as even what you'd find in a traffic court. If you're being a jackass and flying too low and pissing people off, they'll probably bust you for the catch-all 14 CFR 91.13"careless or reckless operation". So even if it seems like technically you're being legal flying within 500' of someone's structure, you'll still lose.

There's no such thing as a loophole when it comes to the FARs. If you think you've found one, the FAA will smack you down as an example to the rest that - no, there really aren't any loopholes. This happens all the time. The question is "does the FAA want to punish me for what I'm doing?" and if the answer is "maybe" think very, very hard.

Comment Re:Were the nameservers updated? (Score 5, Informative) 70

No, he never owned the domain. is registered through 2020 so the registry (Verisign) would've refused, and they certainly wouldn't have allowed the delegation to change. Even their system thought he had the domain for less than 1 minute. Clearly just a glitch.

Comment Re:You're naive. (Score 2) 411

Here in socialist NJ you can go to the state inspection center and they do it for free. It's about 15 minutes from my house and I'm in and out in ~3 minutes - get out of the car, they plug you in, rev the car in neutral, check the headlights and blinkers and wipers, get out, get the new sticker, and put it on the windshield. There's sometimes a line, but they have a webcam so you can see if they're busy before making the trip.

Or you can pay for it to be done at the private shop right down the street - round trip 10 minutes - but if they gave me a hard time I'd refuse to pay and go to the state facility instead.

Comment Re:Stupid people are stupid (Score 2) 956

There is absolutely no 100% guarantee that this kid wasn't carrying around a bomb.

Nothing in life is guaranteed. There is no "100% guarantee" that a white kid won't show up with a bomb either.

Even if only 10% of Muslims are 'radical' that means there was a 10% chance this kid wanted to martyr himself that day. Wake up.

Out of whose ass did you pull that 10% figure? If I lived in Texas I'd be much more worried about my kid's teacher packing heat.

Comment Re:Why start now? (Score 1) 124

Uh, I don't know what you're putting scare quotes for, but that's just the definition of regulation. You're right that the summary is mistaken in describing legislators as the people who need "accurate information from which to design regulations".

"Committees of unelected people working for the agency who make rules" is a decent definition of a federal agency. The job of the legislature is to pass the law establishing the agency and, by passing a law saying "it is the law to follow the regulations they create", cede authority over that part of the "tree" to the agency. It's an eminently reasonable way to do things - get a group of people whose job it is to focus on one specific aspect so they can do it properly. It's not like you can just make up a regulation for fun - in the US, the process for promulgating regulations is highly standardized. You can read more at Wikipedia.

Imagine if Congress had to pass a law specifying the technical standards your local taxi-dispatch company's radio had to meet. It would be utter chaos. Instead they create the FCC and the FCC has people who think about that kind of thing, and then a process for saying "hey we plan to make a rule" (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) and a public comment period.

You know, Callahan's is a peaceable bar, but if you ask that dog what his favorite formatter is, and he says "roff! roff!", well, I'll just have to...