Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Follow the scientific method. (Score 1) 126

The company hasn't released enough information for you to know it's bullshit. Scientists aren't supposed to debunk things by saying "well I've never heard of anything like that so it must be impossible." Science has a hard time advancing in a climate like that.

That said, they haven't proven any of their claims. If they had done any of the things they said they've done on their website, they would tell you who their customer was so you could look them up and ask them if it was true. Basic fact-checking like that is a requirement of true journalism. If the company refuses to provide any evidence, the journalist should report the claims as being highly suspicious and call attention to the fact that the company has been unwilling to provide evidence of their claims. Unfortunately, this kind of basic work has been replaced by reporters taking claims made by scammers like this at face value and reporting them as fact.

Comment Re:frosty piss (Score 1) 664

What the law literally says doesn't really matter in a case like this. Even if the police would ask the prosecutor to bring charges against you (which they wouldn't) there's no jury on the earth dumb enough to to take the letter of the law more seriously than their own sense of justice. And even if there were, there are few criminals bold enough to report a crime like this to the police, since they'd likely face jail time as a result of it.

Comment Re:Micro transactions. (Score 1) 192

I can understand wanting a free market system to avoid tragedy-of-the-commons types of issues with Netflix customers causing other non-streaming subscribers to get worse performance

Non-streaming subscribers?! How many internet users are there really who don't stream video? Isn't that the reason people buy the top-tier internet connections? It seems more like a case of ISPs not wanting to render services their customers have already paid for. Or it's a case of ISPs who also happen to own content providers, working to promote their content over a competitor's content. Either way, the ISP is abusing their position to screw over their customers.

It's the same kind of anti-compeditive bullshit we've seen time and time again in the US. There is definitely something wrong with the way the government works that they keep allowing abusive monopolies to spring up with every new technological innovation.

Comment Printers (Score 1) 482

Printer manufacturers use the same pricing model (they lose money on the printer and make it back with the ink/toner). You tend to see this anywhere a product is tied to a single recurring cost that can some from a monopoly provider. If it were legal for a real-estate developer to sell a house at a loss and gouge you on utilities, you can bet they'd do that too.

Comment Re:Liability (Score 2) 427

Blocking access to a service someone has paid for is "damage." The extent of the injury is mostly financial, and hard to quantify because there are a lot of injured parties who were effected over a two year period (none of whom will actually be receiving compensation). However, it easily could have contributed to personal injury and it would be very hard to know.

The purpose of the fine is not to compensate the injured parties, that would be very hard to do. It is meant to dissuade him and others from undertaking these kind of activities in the future. The jamming was a nuisance and a potential hazard.

Cars are screened for safety before they are allowed on the road, there are a number of safety regulations manufacturers have to meet before they can legally sell a car. Manufacturers are required to recall and remediate defects when they become aware of them, and they are fined if they fail to do so, so this isn't a double standard. Unfortunately, car manufactures sometimes learn of defects from accidents, and they don't always report them. That is a crime, it is not legal for them to do that. But sometimes they do get away with it, much the same way this asshole got away with operating a jammer for two years.

Comment The USPS is totally obsolete. (Score 1) 338

I really doubt our founding fathers had protecting junk mailers in mind when they penned the Constitution. I don't want to receive junk mail, and I don't know anyone who does. I doubt there even is such a person. Even junk mailers probably hate receiving junk mail. I'm happy to pay FexEX or UPS to carry my mail, they do a fine job and they can get it there tomorrow morning. I only send a few letters a year, and several dollars isn't much in that context. The claim that private businesses can't do parcel delivery as efficiently as the USPS is absurd. The USPS is totally obsolete. We don't need them for anything at all.

Comment That's not how memory works. (Score 3, Informative) 338

The problem you're having is that you don't understand how memory works. Your brain isn't a tape-recorder. You remember some of the ideas expressed, and then use those to reconstruct the conversation after the fact. Everything you remember is paraphrased. It's not creative license, nor is it a lie. You simply don't remember the precise details.

Slashdot Top Deals

Suggest you just sit there and wait till life gets easier.

Working...