Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:They're getting it wrong! (Score 1) 115

Whether or not they experience it doesn't affect my argument. Just reminding the reader that circumstances like that have and will arise whether they know it or not. You taking it too literally is a lack of proper judgement on interpretation, and is your own fault.

Comment Re:They're getting it wrong! (Score 1) 115

The biggest thing is, if that law was in place before Youtube had been created, then Youtube would probably not be around today. What you're saying is too Utopian. Of course Youtube will be affected. Have you ever tried to watch a Youtube video, only to find the link was dead and replaced with "This video was taken down due to copyright infringement'? Besides torrenting sites, Youtube users are one of the biggest abusers of copyright infringement. After this law gets in place, companies wont expect to have to look through the piles of videos to make sure that they're videos or songs aren't being used without permission. AND there will be some sort of delay in place anytime someone posts a video, being as Youtube will have to sift through hundreds of videos that are uploaded every minute.

What you're saying just seems downright naive. (Not trolling.) If the user base was large enough to be downright appalled, then that should scare lawmakers NOW. Not after the fact.

Comment They're getting it wrong! (Score 1) 115

Users should be responsible for their own actions, not the enabling institution or service. Installing a gatekeeper on sites like Youtube totally ruins the exchange that happens on there every single day, connecting countless people together without restraint. And what about all of the videos that are already uploaded? Do they have to sift through every single video to make sure it's 'kosher'?

Comment Re:Makes sense to me actually (Score 2) 639

Of course I wouldn't risk MY computer or MY work computer. I would just use the separate box I have set up for these sorts of situations that may lead to malicious behavior. More and more people have extra computers just laying around for this type of thing, right? It's 2011!

Comment It comes down to two things. (Score 1) 265

The main topic of concern is priority access. And in the end it comes down to two things.

1) There will be an incentive to keep bandwidth as it is and offer a premium service to websites willing to pay for more. Not only is blocking content illegal, but it would actually hurt internet providers to offer a lower quality service to their customers.

2) The only reason why websites would pay for a premium service for their content is if there was a noticeable improvement. Which means a noticeable lower quality of service for other websites.

And when it comes to the internet, no one can truly predict the future.

Submission + - QuantumTeleportation Achieved Over Ten Miles->

staryc writes: "Scientists have had success teleporting information between photons over a free space distance of nearly ten miles. However, rather than picking one thing up and placing it somewhere else, quantum teleportation involves entangling two things, like photons or ions, and then moving the quantum state from one to the other. While photons are good at transmitting information, they are not as good as ions at allowing manipulation, an advancement we'd need for encryption."
Link to Original Source

Comment Interfering (Score 1) 257

Anytime you're dealing with intellectual property laws there is also a bit of gray area that can ultimately turn into a slippery-slope. Where does the regulation stop?

This is more on par with what should be happening:

As I have explained elsewhere, policy-makers should be helping consumers get relevant content, not enacting laws to take it away from them.

What we anticipate seldom occurs; what we least expect generally happens. -- Bengamin Disraeli