Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:They have the freedom to leave it they want (Score -1, Troll) 873

by will_die (#49338635) Attached to: Gen Con Threatens To Leave Indianapolis Over Religious Freedom Bill
There are plenty of legal things with pedophilia that are total legal just read the works of richard dawkins.
Besides there are plenty of companies already that will discriminate if you are not a couple, male, white, etc while are you singling out being gay as deserving special treatment.

Comment: Re:Republicans are totally out to lunch on this is (Score 1) 234

Except that is an idealistic definition and also coming from real world examples also wrong. If that was the definition was what was used most people would not have a problem.
The problem with net neutraility as it comes from the FCC is that it could possibly outlaw the following items:
My ISP setting up mail filters for SPAM. Most of the SPAM I currently get blocked would on the look of it be legal, using the definition of net neutrality most people are using the methods to determine it is trash would not be allowed.
Can schools and businesses still block various web sites; since based on definition they are ISPs? From what is known from the FCC ruling that could be a problem unless the site is dealing with illegal operations.
Or how about something like ISPs blocking common ports used for various attacks but not for other types of traffic? The ports are most likely legal ports and the traffic is probably legal, I presume ICMP is still legal, even if is not something someone should be doing out side of their own network?

Comment: Re: Wait ... (Score 2) 196

by will_die (#49094279) Attached to: A123 Sues Apple For Poaching Employees
Most states that allow non-compete had requirements that you be compensated about the normal amount, that there be a time limit and resonable geographical limitation and that your job be have responsibilities that make major changes for the business.
So a cook at a restaurant would not have a valid non-compete but if you were the head cook who designed all the recipes and the menu and were paid above what the other cooks made and were limited from working with-in 100 miles of the restaurant for the next two years then most states would accept that agreement. Some allow some consideration so if you were getting a whole lot of money that 100 miles range could be extended alot further.
If these are just regular workers then few states are going to accept the non-compete besides this is in california which outlaws all non-competes except for some very strict allowances.

Comment: Re:What a bunch of A-Holes (Score 1) 255

by will_die (#48914037) Attached to: Verizon, Cable Lobby Oppose Spec-Bump For Broadband Definition
I live in a smaller village in the Rheinland-Pfalz; and if I lived a few streets over I could get Kabel Deutschland. Not as bad as some other around here, 3 km from me the village did not get broadband until around 7 years ago, and villages out from there still deal with ADSL.

Comment: Re:outsider question: why the USA embargo on Cuba? (Score 4, Informative) 141

by will_die (#48913153) Attached to: Young Cubans Set Up Mini-Internet
The embargo against cuba did nto really start until the 1960s, before then there were arms embargoes.
It did start as you mentioned after Cuba seized a few US companies assets, US did a minor embargo, Cuba went in seized all other companies and the US started embargoing most trade.
Since then the embargo has been attempted to be lifted but the political backlash from Florida and a decent amount of voters in the rest of the US has stopped it. With Fidel gone and the communist threat basically dead it is now just the voters in florida, and sugar producers who really care about it.
As for all those properties that is something that is being discussed now and will have to be decided upon. Another major problem is going to be who owns the trademark names to various products. For example Bacardi, now USA but originally cubian, has trademarks they say they own while a company in Cuba also claims it; while there is an embargo and neither company can sell in other place it is meanless legal fight once the embargo is gone now it is a major international legal dispute.

Comment: Re:outsider question: why the USA embargo on Cuba? (Score 1) 141

by will_die (#48913045) Attached to: Young Cubans Set Up Mini-Internet
There is a saying in the US "All politics is local" it is not really that those people value the outside country more it is that they know the money will be spent and the local voters have an personal interest in some policy dealing with that country. Since the money will be spend no matter what why not fight for what you think the money should be spend on.
If a large body of voters have a problem with it the Congressman and Senators will most likely vote for/against unless it is major contradiction to their own beliefs.

Comment: Re:outsider question: why the USA embargo on Cuba? (Score 4, Insightful) 141

by will_die (#48912631) Attached to: Young Cubans Set Up Mini-Internet
It stays because there is a large group of voters in Florida who still want it and the rest of the country that could care less if it is there or not. Then on the Cuba side they have always done what they can to keep it because it gave Fidel a ralleying cry on why Cuba is in so bad of shape.
With current talks will have to see what happens.

"I may kid around about drugs, but really, I take them seriously." - Doctor Graper