Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Who cares? (Score 1) 237

More importantly, nobody is being forced. Every developer and contributor anywhere is completely free to make their own Linux distribution without systemd, or fork an existing one.

you don't have the right to make other free software contributors use the specific tools you like.

That's disingenuous and contradictory. By adding SystemD dependencies to all sorts of unrelated software (including the entirety of GNOME), Lennart et. al. really are asserting that they have some right to make other free software contributors use the specific tools they like.

It is insane to be forced to choose my desktop environment based on its compatibility with my init system.

Submission + - Comcast Proves Need for Net Neutrality by Trying to Censor Advocacy Website (

mrchaotica writes: As most Slashdot readers are probably aware, the FCC, under the direction of Trump-appointed chairman Ajit Pai, is trying to undo its 2015 decision to protect Net Neutrality by classifying ISPs as common carriers. During the recent public comment period, the FCC's website was flooded with pro-Net-Neutrality comments from actual people (especially those who heeded John Oliver's call to arms) as well as anti-Net-Neutrality comments posted by bots using the names and addresses of people without their consent. The fake comments use boilerplate identical to that used in a 2010 press release by the conservative lobbying group Center for Individual Freedom (which is funded by Comcast, among other entities), but beyond that, the entities who perpetrated and funded the criminal acts have not been conclusively identified.

In response to this brazen attempt to undermine the democratic process, the Internet freedom advocacy group Fight for the Future (FFTF) created the website to call attention to the fraud and allow people to see if their identity had been misappropriated. Comcast, in a stunning display of its tone-deaf attitude towards free speech, has sent a cease-and-desist order to FFTF, claiming that violates its "valuable intellectual property[sic]."

According to the precedent set in Bosley Medical Institute, Inc. v. Kremer , websites created for the purpose of criticizing an organization can not be considered trademark infringement. As such, FFTF reportedly has no intention of taking down the site.

"This is exactly why we need Title II net neutrality protections that ban blocking, throttling, and censorship," said Evan Greer, campaign director of Fight for the Future, "If Ajit Pai's plan is enacted, there would be nothing preventing Comcast from simply blocking sites like that are critical of their corporate policies," she added. "It also makes you wonder what Comcast is so afraid of? Are their lobbying dollars funding the astroturfing effort flooding the FCC with fake comments that we are encouraging Internet users to investigate?"

Could there be a better example to illustrate why ensuring strong Net Neutrality protections by regulating ISPs as common carriers is so important?

Comment Re:Haha (Score 1) 520

I guess you missed the memo. There is no such thing as the alt-right. They were trying to associate themselves with the right, they are leftists. Fascist are always leftist. Between Communism and socialism.

Absolute nonsense!

You, completely idiotically, are trying to pretend that it's possible to present political ideology along only a single axis. This is false. Once you recognize that politics exists along at least two axes (liberal - conservative along X, and libertarian-authoritarian along Y), you realize that fascism is actually centrist authoritarianism.

KKK (founded and run by the Democrats - look it up)

LOL! FYI, dumbass, the Democrats -- and especially the "Dixiecrat" faction -- were not leftist at the time.

Comment Re:Haha (Score 5, Insightful) 520

It is odd that the joke is being labeled "homophobic."

What's actually happening is a bunch of alt-right dipshits are pretending to be offended because they can target a liberal by doing so. It's essentially a false flag operation. Moreover, they lack the self-awareness to tell the difference between what Colbert said and actual homophobic slurs, so it's no wonder they're labeling it inaccurately.

Comment Re:Leading the way to a police state (Score 4, Insightful) 213

I was speaking generally about what it means to be a police state. But if you want to go back to the narrower topic at hand, that's fine too:

All they need to do is not illegally stream copyrighted content.

Oh it's that easy, eh? I'm not sure I agree.

First of all, consider the fact that pretty much everything on the Internet is copyrighted. That means -- technically -- this law applies even to web pages as much as it does audio or video.

Second, remember that this doesn't just criminalize knowingly uploading something without authorization, or even downloading it and knowingly keeping the local copy without authorization; it criminalizes mere "streaming." Consider the fact that in many cases, you have to "stream" something (i.e., download it to your temporary cache, without intending to save it permanently) -- such as a web page -- just to see what it is. You literally can't know if a particular act breaks the law until after you've done it!

Third, copyright infringement cannot be determined just by looking at the act of streaming itself the mere fact that a copyright on the content in question exists, but instead hinges entirely on whether you have permission from the copyright holder or not. In many cases, even seemingly-legitimate downloading could turn out to be copyright infringement. For example, even mainstream, legitimate sites like Youtube have infringing content uploaded to them all the time and there's pretty much no way for you as a third-party to know whether the uploader had permission from the copyright holder or not. Moreover, even if you're downloading/streaming from a site controlled by the copyright holder himself (which you would think should imply tacit permission), you might be violating something in the fine print of the ToS which revokes your permission and thus criminalizes you.

And sure, you might say -- like the copyright-maximalist quoted in the article does -- that "the new law will most likely target individuals and groups making a business out of selling illegal content." But the fact remains that this law could be used to nail pretty much anyone to the wall for a 10-year prison sentence, if the prosecutor was pissed off at them enough. And that's fundamentally unjust.

To illustrate my point: if you're in the UK, you are now a felon. Why? Because of the following:

I, mrchaotica, as the author and copyright holder of this Slashdot post, hereby declare that any access, streaming, or downloading of it by the person with username "91degrees" is unuthorized and thus copyright infringement.

Too bad you had to commit the crime to find out about it, huh?

Comment Re:I still have a landline (Score 1) 133

My wife and I do the same thing, except with Google Voice and an ObiTalk. Since Google Voice does not provide 911, my account is hooked up indirectly through a third-party VoIP service (PhonePower). It works out to be slightly cheaper than your solution ($50 up-front and $35/year for the ObiTalk + PhonePower vs. $200 up-front + (apparently) $5/month for Ooma).

Comment Re:Leading the way to a police state (Score 2) 213

The first step is to criminalize enough normal, common behavior that everyone becomes a criminal. The second step is to selectively arrest dissidents and people with inconvenient ideas not for opposing the people in power, but for breaking the "legitimate" and "reasonable" laws.

For example, the United States has been a police state since at least the Nixon administration. Here's a quote from Nixon's former aide, John Ehrlichman, illustrating the point:

"You want to know what this [the passage of the Controlled Substances Act and the "War on Drugs"] was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

Comment Re:Truecaller (Score 4, Insightful) 95

There's a spectrum of acceptability here. I was* okay with Google knowing my contacts because it's clearly necessary in order to (for example) make Gmail or Google Voice work properly. However, I'm not okay with LinkedIn exfiltrating my entire address book just because I installed their Android app (because my entire list of contacts is absolutely not either required nor desired in order to use LinkedIn). This Truecaller app is even worse than that.

(* This was before they started tying everything to everything else such that contact info now shows up in Google Maps and whatnot. Now I'm in the process of ditching Google entirely.)

Comment Re:Wileyfox Swift Owner here.. (Score 3, Insightful) 95

GIven the shady behavior, I have to question whether the phone uses actual CyanogenMod (or rather, LineageOS, these days), or if it uses a vendor-controlled fork of CyanogenMod that the vendor infected with malware. It could be that everyone who bought the device was trojaned from the beginning and didn't realize it because of the branding.

Slashdot Top Deals

Kiss your keyboard goodbye!