Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:What law was repealed? (Score 1) 347

Anybody can file a lawsuit against anyone else for anything, at any time.

That's not true if the "anyone else" is the FCC. The state AG's are able to sue on behalf of a state, though, which is why the AGs can take this action.

The possibility of court challenges AND/OR actions by congress are the checks and balances on the regulatory agencies, and in this case at the very least the FCC should have some explaining to do if their action is not inline with what the law says the FCC should be doing, or the actions aren't in character with the rulemaking processes of regulatory agencies, OR if the process seem'd to have been tampered with, or the proper public comments not given the correct consideration: for example, if the process was tainted by boatloads of fraudulent / fake comments.

Comment Re:Which would do preciously nothing. (Score 1) 347

Anyone that tries to compete at this point can't. Comcast would just drop its pants until the competitor was run out of business. That's exactly what happened to Google fiber.

Google could compete if they were willing to --- by creating exclusive content available only to customers who choose Google fiber, and marketing the hell out of it. For example.... what if they created a new Youtube Live TV service of some sort, and a portfolio of other services that required you get fiber from them.

How about if Google negotiated an exclusivity deal with ESPN and some sports networks for that network which would prevent Comcast users from accessing the content.

Then Google Fiber might have a chance of providing a differentiated service people would buy against Comcast shenanigans.

Comment Re:Poorly worded (Score 1) 117

Couldn't it?

It is not impossible -- there are various theories that could made about the price,
but the study does not offer any evidence or lend any valid credibility supporting that theory,
and this article is listed as a News / Study, not an editorial, therefore an objective reporter should not be suggesting this....

Comment Re:What did you THINK would happen? (Score 1) 419

because he had incited them with a lurid report of violence and mayhem.

It is not unusual for people calling in police for help to panic and overstate situations, and possibly relay some incorrect information --- the call to the police emergency line is not the formal police report, and their job is to respond to the situation objectively -- and not "incited".

In 99% of SWAT'ing attempts nobody died, and the effect was an annoying prank --- the phony caller Ought to have but MIGHT NOT have considered the risk. Certainly we cannot infer intent to cause physical harm, AND it's a little bit unreasonable to call it reckless as well.

The reason the SWATer should go to jail for 20 years is for tampering with law enforcement that can cause lives to be lost at other places while they're busy responding to a fake incident, AND not to mention the inconvenience and damages to innocent people -- which I believe the SWAT'er ought to pay a financial penalty to provide reparations for.

Yes, the policeman was way too trigger-happy and shot way too early, which is "malpractice" at the least. The swatter deserves death by slow torture.

He shot and killed someone who was not remotely a threat, and you think the LEO might be guilty of ONLY malpractice, what??

Comment Re:Poorly worded (Score 1, Insightful) 117

This is more evidence that Slashdot editors are non-neutral reporters pushing an anti-Cryptocurrency agenda and
happy to include fake news in order to further it. I am not asserting the study was biased, but the bias is being shown in the SELECTION OF ARTICLES that
Slashdot chooses to post on this topic, AND the biased wording of the summaries.
This makes me sad.

I mentioned previously the copy+pasting of articles misrepresenting the South Korean position on virtual currencies.

The study this article is talking about is not news, and it's sure not news for nerds.... we know about price manipulation in 2013;
and we know about the reports on it, AND everyone with a few brain cells who knows about the markets back then should have a story or two to
tell about the rampant manipulation they saw.

The fake news bit is the article implying without saying that the LAEST / Current rise could be related to manipulation.
That implication the only thing possible that could make the study pertinent to "news"....

Comment Re:Wrong move South Korea (Score 0) 74

I'm beginning to wonder if the Slashdot editors may be shorting BTC or otherwise hold a strong anti-Cryptocurrency/pro-Banking/pro-Authoritarian agenda or bias. This is the second time in a week that a Slashdot article has copy+pasted the fake news tidbids directly misrepresenting what the South Korean government is saying their actions and positions on virtual currencies are.

I understand when some local media outlets are confused for a bit, but Slashdot is supposed to be News for Nerds --- honestly, the editors here ought to know better.

The government is not stating the plan is to ban cryptocurrencies or exchanges in South Korea.

There is an impending crackdown against some of the exchanges that were too flagrantly ignoring the country's existing regulations, whereas those that are compliant are fine, and the issue is with some exchanges allowing anonymous accounts which had become associated with some criminal activities.

The move comes as South Korea is scrambling to rein in the virtual currency frenzy in Asia's fourth-largest economy, including preparations for a bill to ban cryptocurrency exchanges at home.

That bit is pure speculation, as government officials have spoken to the direct opposite and asserted no attempt to ban is planned.

On January 15, in a public press conference, South Korea President Moon Jae-in’s executive office Blue House spokesperson Jeong Ki-joon, emphasized that there will be no cryptocurrency trading ban in the near future.

In an official announcement, spokesperson Jeong noted that the cryptocurrency regulation task force created by the government will improve and alter the original proposal by the Justice Ministry to ban cryptocurrency trading and introduce practical regulations to foster the cryptocurrency market.

Comment Re:Just creating them is dangerous. (Score 1) 148

immune to small arms fire, able to target accurately out to 100 yards, and able to negotiate stairs and open doors, what do you do, wait for the military to respond?

You need a swarm of remote-controllable drones able to get within sufficient range of the offender and deploy an artificial EMP.

The real problem is how much more quickly an autonomous attacker can kill/hurt a lot of people with precision BEFORE a credible response could be launched, and the fact the terrorist might have the advantage of targetting the very location, people, or things they need to target in order to snuff out or delay response efforts.

So I say you need a partially autonomous automatic response with no single or centralized point subject to attack..... this suggests surrounding the public with fleets of surveillance drones whose purpose is to identify and alert on potential autonomous (or other) threats And upon a risky enough situation begin the response process on their own.

Comment Re:They're ready: except costs (Score 1) 148

I think we have well and truly crossed the cost line now. trained soldiers are expensive.

I think the greatest concern with autonomous weapons is they can entirely change the rules of the game re. asymmetric warfare.
Autonomous large-scale-deployable indiscriminate weapons can be just a less-efficient form of other WMDs such as Chemical Weapons, which are also banned.
Imagine a country deploys 10000 killer drones over a small county to spread panic and fear.
If the assailant has autonomous weapons in sufficient number that can effectively target and kill any human before they can so as much get a shot:
traditional ground troops cannot counteract these kinds of attackers, and 10000 drones with say 1000 bullets each and a perfect shot every time = 10 Million dead humans, and no risk of loss of life in those conflicts to the attacker.

Yes.... Autonomous Weapons are going to happen: what needs to be banned internationally is the use of Indiscriminate Autonomous Weapons, especially Mobile indiscriminate weapons that can move a long distance on their own power or be deployed to a remote target, and the deployment of Autonomous Weapons designed to target humans even if unarmed in general or carry or release explosives.

Indiscriminate: Autonomous devices that you drop at a location that will immediately activate a targeted attack against any human or any animal that moves: regardless of whether the person is a threat or not.

We should be trying to actively develop Autonomous defenses against other weapons systems, and Autonomous devices that Monitor, Identify, share information about, and Destroy potential autonomous threats.

Comment Re:What did you THINK would happen? (Score 4, Interesting) 419

It's called proximate cause

Only in a Civil case.

The responsibility for this man's death lies solely with the criminal who made the call.

Obviously not..... there's something wrong here, that a random person anywhere in the world can make a caller-id spoofed VoIP call to a police department anywhere in the US: impersonate the addressee/target, conjure up a pretend emergency, and incite sufficient panic that the police go on a shooting spree and kill people.

How about: The simplified proximate CAUSE of the death is unreasonable actions by the police, which the SWATter could not have entirely anticipated, But the police in this situation Violated their Duty to serve and protect the public and killed innocent people. What about that? Where are the consequences for that, for the officers' gross misconduct?

Comment Re:What did you THINK would happen? (Score 1) 419

In the end, the prankster didn't pull the trigger and there is no reasonable world in which one should expect to be killed by police over a prank phone call.

Exactly. That's why the police/man who pulled the trigger ought to get Life imprisonment, and the person who did the SWAT'ing should get 20 years.

Comment Re:I will tell you where it will go first! (Score 1) 275

We do not live in a world where planes take off and land while pilots sit in the back and booze it up with the rest of the passengers

Of course not..... blazing through the 3-dimensional airspace with hundreds, perhaps thousands of lives at stake if a mechanical instrumentation failure occurs in flight and the one pilot is not there to compensate.

I don't think there will EVER be a time when a human flight crew is not required to monitor the operation of passenger aircraft, but the things that can go wrong in air navigation are much more complicated than the things that can go wrong in 2-d ground navigation.

Comment Re:Not analyzing payload (Score 1) 97

They are not analyzing metadata, as most malware C&C now pretends to be web traffic.

They could look at the IP addresses of the connections (Check against blacklist of malicious IPs); SSL Metadata, e.g. the SNI hostname from TLS, then look at reputation data regarding the hostname; certificate and public key information, common crypto parameters (Maybe some malware configures a HTTPS client uniquely). They can detect whether the SSL connection "Looks like" a normal web connection, or whether it looks like a VPN or continuous stream of data such as C and C.

Comment Re:That's some serious irony right there (Score 1) 135

Also ironic given that the initial justification for bitcoin was to minimize transaction fees

This is called Bitcoin breaking. That doesn't mean it's irreparably broken though.... it just means BTC is broken for now and currently isn't offering the main advantage that should incentivize merchants adopting it.... IMO They should consider Litecoin instead.

Comment Re:$30+ fees? (Score 1) 135

If bitcoin is not currency, what is the driving force behind owning it?

Just think of it like this: Bitcoin is a viable currency, BUT the smallest spendable denomination is the $500 bill. You can make change easily, but you can't make a $5 payment easily, because getting a 5 note requires $15 in fees for some reason.

Slashdot Top Deals

Promising costs nothing, it's the delivering that kills you.

Working...