Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Blacklists (Score 1) 248

I use Ooma for my home phone service. It has a blacklist feature (both personal and a "community" shared list). You can choose whether to send them to voicemail, play them a message or what have you. It's worked perfectly for me for years, zero robocalls (other than legit ones like schools which I can always block if I need to).

I imagine it may not work forever (I remember the rise and fall of spam blacklists) but right now it's great.

Comment Re:Authoritarians will always rule. (Score 1) 444

Well, actually, two people chose to have sex. Yet the condemnation seems to fall squarely on one of them. Funny that.

And that's ignoring the whole host of other perfectly legitimate reasons why continuing with a pregnancy would be a bad idea even if both parents wanted to. Your black and white view of the world is sadly detached from reality.

Comment Re:Lightning Strikes Twice with Entitled Customer (Score 2) 338

It is just silly nonsense that misunderstands rights and prerogatives.

If a restaurant kicks you out for saying [REDACTED] in their business in front of other customers, that is not censorship.

I didn't say it was censorship, I said it was pushing people to self-censo, ie intimidating them into silence.

There is no censorship, because Tesla doesn't have an obligation to provide a platform for anybody to speak.

They weren't providing a platform or venue for anybody to speak, your restaurant analogy doesn't apply.

Them responding to negative speech by exercising their own prerogatives, that isn't censorship; that is in fact the value of speech that is protected when free speech is protected!

A private company doing it isn't government censorship, but it can be still be censorship. In fact if reddit bans a really offensive forum that can be both censorship and the right thing to do.

Of course since Telsa wasn't providing the platform for the speech it wasn't censorship.

This idea that consequences for your speech in your relationships in the community somehow implies that speech isn't free, it is just wrong and stupid.

And the consequence of Elon Musks behaviour is I'm now giving it bad PR.

Nobody is controlling anybody's speech or actions here.

Well Elon Musk is trying to, he's saying that he doesn't care if you already reserved a car, if you publicly criticize something about the company he'll take away your pre-order spot.

You're free to say whatever you want, and enter into any business relationships with other people who are willing to do business with you.

And I argue that you should be less willing to do business with Elon Musk because he's going to try and control what you say about him.

Comment Re:Good for Tesla! (Score 1) 338

I think it's good that he got his order canceled. If you are going to complain in an "open letter", you are pretty much just attention seeking. If you wanted to help the company out or support it in a positive light, you would have kept your issues between you and the company. I also agree that it must be a slow news day.

Why is it my responsibility to help the company out and support it in a positive light?

If a public company treats me badly at a PR event why can't I make my complaint in public?

Comment Re:Lightning Strikes Twice with Entitled Customer (Score 1) 338

And likewise, if you have to "censor yourself" to keep from being an asshat towards companies whose products you covet, you're probably a dick and the CEO should have an assistant put you on a list of people not to do business with, because risk.

Which is why I respond with criticizing the company so they don't feel so free to retaliate against people criticizing them.

He's not a customer, and they don't have power over him. Contrary to your implication, their act of not doing business with him prevents him from being a customer, and prevents them from having any power over him at all.

A major company who has a product you want has power over you whether you have a business relationship with them or not, that's why you pay them for the product. This is more true if there's not many companies providing that product. To re-iterate my previous example, if an ISP says they won't sell to me because I said something bad about them that's a pretty severe consequence for me.

And in this case there was a business relationship as evidenced by the $5k he gave Tesla and the hours he spent driving to, and attending, the event in question.

Also, luxury cars are not necessities. There might not be any moral angle at all to be outraged about, because Freedom. Tesla presumably deserves Freedom as much as anybody else. They can choose. They made no demands of him; there is no retaliation for not doing what they say, or any other type of "control" tactic. There is simply them exercising a choice that is theirs to make.

If I were a Tesla customer who's currently on the waiting list and experienced some really crappy treatment by Tesla (which if the blog post is to be believed, these customers did) then I think I'd be a lot more hesitant about airing my complaints publicly. So they are actually making implicit demands about what their current customers say and have demonstrated it by retaliating against one of those customers to broke this rule.

And did you actually read the blog post? It wasn't actually that rude and if it was accurate and I'd gone to that event I'd probably by a little pissed off at the experience.

Comment Re:Lightning Strikes Twice with Entitled Customer (Score 3, Insightful) 338

Surprise, surprise. Being rude to a company results in bad service from that company. Hardly news except that it was Tesla that was the victim. Maybe the blogger has learned his lesson, but probably not.

So if I complain about FB are they justified in cancelling my account? What if I complain about my ISP who's also the local backbone, do I get kicked off the Internet?

Corporations can have a lot of power over their customers, you shouldn't have to worry about censoring yourself because the CEO is a dick who might pursue a personal vendetta.

Comment Allow Moderating and Posting in the same story! (Score 1) 1826

I think /. has this view of moderators as impartial judges of comment quality but I don't think that's the case.

The times I'm most impartial and unbiased are when I'm not remotely interested, and in those cases I don't moderate because I don't even open the article.

The times when I'm most interested and read the most comments are also the times when I'm really likely to post myself. I don't know how many times I've had to choose between remaining silent when I have an important post to write or writing that post and undoing all my mods.

By all means stop people from moderating the specific thread they're involved in, but the story itself? Give the users who are most involved in the discussion the ability to moderate the discussion.

Comment Re:You must be new here (Score 1) 1826

Add a disagree mod.

Because we don't have one, people use mods like troll and flamebait inappropriately. We need an explicit "disagree" mod to allow mods to express their intent. Whether it's -1 is a different question, but I'd be OK with it either way. We really need to emphasize the idea that someone can disagree with you, but be sincere, not trolling, if we want to be different from the non-geek sites.

I disagree.

Mod scores should reflect the post, not the personal opinions of the moderator. Someone can post a well thought out post criticizing the scientific consensus on climate change. I'll disagree with their conclusion but that doesn't mean they aren't +5 insightful.

Even a "wrong" mod really just becomes a poll on whether the mods think the post is right or wrong. If the post is wrong then someone should reply with a rebuttal and if it's good it should be modded up.

I honestly think the moderation system is pretty good other than the fact that "Insightful", "Interesting", and "Informative" have far too much overlap. When I'm trying to make a serious contribution to the discussion I find it tends to be pretty random which of the three I get.

Comment Re:What's the deal... (Score 1) 262

It is also remarkably more enjoyable than it looks like. It's not that exciting to watch if you're unfamiliar with the complexities involved and what the mechanisms are. However, if you're a player then it's kind of exciting to watch. There's also an assload of physics involved and to be considered. It's rather interesting, in my experience.

I actually think it's fairly comparable to golf, a skill based sport where fitness can help at the margins. The big difference is that curling has a lot more strategy and a team component, while golf has nice scenery.

That said, I don't really watch TV so I can only speculate, more or less, but I'd watch curling before I'd watch many, many other things that are much more popular.

Curling televises surprisingly well because it does have a lot of strategic and tactical drama. Unfortunately the viewer needs an understanding of the game to appreciate it. Also if a team does build a large lead things can get dull quickly.

Slashdot Top Deals

You have a message from the operator.