Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:duh (Score 1) 225

But hey - free market is good and socialism is bad, right?

Mostly yeah. As much as capitalism sucks, and it does, everything else we've tried has been worse. I'm open to suggestions if you have a new alternative.

As my /. name suggests, I am for a balance between capitalism and socialism. The problems are (a) gaining that balance and (b) keeping it in the face of corruption and greed.

The US was headed in the right direction for a long time but now I feel that we are heading, very quickly, in the wrong direction altogether.

Comment Re:duh (Score 1) 225

And people wonder why rich are getting richer and the middle class is shrinking.

The facts don't agree with this statement.

I don't know what 'facts' you're referring to so please feel free to present something more substantial.

Here are some references supporting my statement:

"...economic inequality has worsened significantly in the United States and some other countries. The richest 1 percent in the United States now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent."

"University of California, Berkeley research published in June showed America's richest 1 percent captured 55 percent of total real income growth between 1993 and 2014. "

"There is no dispute that income inequality has been on the rise in the United States for the past four decades. The share of total income earned by the top 1 percent of families was less than 10 percent in the late 1970s but now exceeds 20 percent as of the end of 2012."

"...with the share of total household wealth owned by the top 0.1 percent increasing to 22 percent in 2012 from 7 percent in the late 1970s"

Comment duh (Score 3, Insightful) 225

And people wonder why rich are getting richer and the middle class is shrinking.

But hey - free market is good and socialism is bad, right?

Sure - until you have to live on that socialist welfare because your capitalist company owners dumped your ass cause you cost too much.

Comment Re:good (Score 1) 164

In the long list of things that can and should make a country irrelevant, the cost of a phone plan is pretty much... not there.

Cost of communications, not to mention the related access to the Internet, enables productivity, informal education, access to employment, etc. so no, it is on that list.

Aside from this, the US is not impressing anyone with things that you might agree are important like infant mortality (34th globally), medical care per dollar spent (worst in the world), student debt (worst in the world), percentage of the population in prison (second highest in the world), percentage of the population with a university level degree (12th), etc., etc.


Comment Re:Of course, this is natural. (Score 1) 164

You joke, but what really happens is the US carriers have decided "we'll call it whatever we like for marketing purposes". Which means someone comes along, defines a standard, and then US carriers co-opt the name and say "yup, we have that", when in reality they don't have that.

This has nothing to do with metric, and everything to do with US corporations saying "Yeah, we totally have 4G", except it's not really 4G, it's some marketing term which has nothing to do with 4G.

So, you know, stop letting your companies take the name of a specific bit of technology and say they're using it when they aren't. Then you won't have the problem of the US glaringly not running the technology they claim.

But, apparently, part of corporate free speech is mis-representing your service to your customers.

4G just means 4th Generation and is not a specific technology. So whatever technology a company puts in place to replace 3G, that is 4G.

Comment okay (Score 1) 110

The problem with this is...who with any power is gonna sign it without the full on global revolution that would be need to get those that hold power to put something in place to limit their own power.

There are no longer many countries that care more about personal freedom than they care about their own powerbase.

Comment Re:Isn't pleading the fifth roughly... (Score 1) 178

The Fifth Amendment means that when they torture you into confessing, it's not admissible in court? As an American, I find the concept of throwing out evidence somewhat questionable is well, as in, if someone is guilty, they are guilty, no matter how the evidence was obtained. There should be more direct consequences for unlawfully obtaining evidence, because supressing evidence obtained by violating rights only protects the guilty, as you said. What we really need is a way of punishing law enforcement for violating the rights of INNOCENT people, as it is, they don't even say "I'm sorry". The best we can hope for is to actually get reimbursed for the property they destroy.

So the drugs and child porn found in your apartment by Bob the Bad Cop (bought and paid for by someone you pissed off last week) who broke down your door and found them there, alone with no witness to contest his story...should be allowed as evidence in court against you?

Comment Re:One of the "example" solutions (Score 1) 142

One of the example solutions in the document is to force the device provider to update the device with a malicious update the decrypts the device. Talk about a way to encourage people to allow the device update to run! They even acknowledge this. It's quite humorous, people should read it. The paper discusses how even if a solution is implemented device owners could simply layer their own encryption on and make all data inaccessible. So if that's the case, exactly what is the point in the paper or the working group? They acknowledge right at the start that whatever you propose could easily be defeated by the consumer simply encrypting things themselves. So if the entire thing is technologically unfeasible why on earth would you even study it?

The one thing I haven't seen covered in the paper at all is that IF the US were to implement these requirements that all business involved in encryption would simply move off shore and destroy a thriving US business ecosystem. The paper's assumption is that any US developed protocol would then be exported world wide. This is profoundly illogical on many fronts. There would be numerous countries that would simply not participate in some US encryption compromising ring.

Whatever you use to add a layer of encryption has to accept some form of password via device input (screen, keyboard, voice, camera, all of which will already be compromised by design at a lower level than we'll have access to.

Comment Re:The US needs a serious spanking (Score 1) 202

The US needs to wake up to the fact that it doesn't set policy for the world, and that other jurisdictions have their own laws and regulations that US companies have to abide by if they want to do business there.

That goes both ways though, with those other countries businesses wanting to do business in the US which is a large enough market that EU (and other) businesses will put pressure on EU (and other) governments over time to allow the US to do what it wants.

Comment Re:On the moon at least, Outer Space Treaty is cle (Score 3, Insightful) 162

"Neither the surface nor the subsurface of the Moon, nor any part thereof or natural resources in place, shall become property of any State, international intergovernmental or non-governmental organization, national organization or non-governmental entity or of any natural person."
( Article 11, paragraph 3 ).

On "other celestial bodies" however, e.g. asteroids, the Treaty is silent regarding property and appropriation.

The US'll just 'unsign' it like it did the Kyoto treaty.

"What the scientists have in their briefcases is terrifying." -- Nikita Khrushchev