Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: not profitable (Score 0) 222

As an actual libertarian, and not the OP, first off: fuck you and your broad brush assumptions. Second, under the laws of the State (and without the unnecessary moralizing from the OP), privatization is probably the only answer that stands a chance in hell of succeeding. That said, libertarians aren't anarchists. Anarchists are anarchists. Privatization, by and large, is pushed by crony capitalists who call themselves libertarian because libertarians are the next-strongest party they have yet to co-opt completely. There is no conflict at all in allowing a legally constituted municipality from extending service to their borders. It becomes problematic when they reach beyond, because they will always have their powers limited by the laws of the State that grants them their very power to exist /at all/. Ultimately, the best thing that could happen is a peering agreement and setting up a legal entity, of whatever stripe necessary, within Pinewood in order to administer the portion of the service in operation outside of the jurisdiction of the county. Jurisdiction is of great importance in US law, and is certainly a significant part of this ruling. It is almost unheard of for a legally-constituted arm of government to operate outside of its jurisdiction. It requires utmost adherence to all applicable laws, and is even then undertaken with kid gloves for the most part.

Comment Re:Work around? (Score 4, Insightful) 222

What the US has is crony capitalism. All of the drawbacks of socialism with none of the benefits. It doesn't help that people use terms interchangeably that mean vastly different things. There is a revolving door between big business and the government, so risks are nationalized while the rewards are pocketed. The entire system is fundamentally at odds with laissez faire capitalism, so when people yell that this is what happens in a free market those who actually care what words mean discount them as the ignorant buffoons they are.

Comment Re: They don't answer the only question we care ab (Score 0) 177

They probably didn't address it because it's obviously heritable. Genetics 101. There's no mechanism by which those genetic changes could be prevented from potentially passing to offspring, except not having offspring (or making a custom gene drive to reverse the changes before spawning).

Comment Comprehensive defense testing (Score 2) 53

Taking a page from the State actors comprehensively exposing the defensive capabilities of the Internet core, there needs to be a distributed network setup to calculate and correlate all physical cell site information. When shared between a large number of users, it would be trivial to map all permanent physical infrastructure such that any IMSI catcher would light up like a bullseye the second it was turned on. Then that hardware could be targeted for comprehensive testing and exploitation. It wouldn't surprise me to see a future cellular botnet set up to do something just like that if it's not done for more above-board accountability reasons first.

Comment Re:I simply can't understand... (Score 1) 180

I haven't seen it increase significantly in the last 10 years in any but the most densely-populated metropolitan centers. Slightly smaller urban areas (not to mention anything rural) have been completely ignored. The only places in the US this is not true are those rich enough to fight monopolies and install municipal networks. The US having /average/ Gb+ speeds in 10 years is a joke.

Comment Re:No, we need to stop doing illicit things online (Score 1) 126

You forget that someone controls the cameras, where they're installed, where they're aimed, and who watches them. There will never be zero privacy as you envision, because those who control the cameras will never allow the invasion of their own privacy. Eventually, the post of camera controller will be filled with the worst criminal elements, because that's where it's now safe to be a criminal.

Comment Re:who'd have thunk? (Score 3, Insightful) 402

No, they'll let private companies continue to do something they are not (publicly) allowed to do themselves. Then they'll simply buy the data using taxpayer money. This is something that's been ongoing for a long time, so it should only come as a surprise to those dipping their toe into the waters of "security" politics for the very first time.

Slashdot Top Deals

Nothing recedes like success. -- Walter Winchell