Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Misleading headline (Score 1) 562

The fee is being charged for _credit card_ (and other indirect) forms of payment online. If you authorize a onetime payment from your checking account (ACH) the fee is waived, and you don't incur the worst risks of automated bill pay. Yes, they have your bank account number, but you've only authorized a one-time transaction, so they can be fought if they try to take additional payments out.

On the other hand, this is a good argument for using a bill-pay service from your bank instead. At least until _they_ start charging a buck or two for each transaction.

Comment Re:Sigh (Score 1) 348

We went through this already in the 1980's with the PC: PCs were the great liberator from corporate IT. Then the PsBCAK started bringing floppy-borne viruses into the workplace and sharing corrupted files. As the anti-virus movement grew, corporate IT regained control.

As long as there are bad guys out there trying to infiltrate your network or even just screw with your data, companies have to exercise control over what accesses their sites and their data. The shareholders will demand it, regardless of what the employees want. Yes, this is another example of security requirements driving up costs and destroying efficiency, but it's there, just like TSA at the airport only with (hopefully) less theater.

Comment About the only consolation... (Score 3, Interesting) 302

in this mess is that if SOPA really ends up being as bad as it is currently, its powerful enough to use AGAINST big media.

Warner Brothers links to a Youtube video? Google should file a SOPA complaint against them. After a few such episodes, file for a site takedown and payment blocking to shut down WBs internet presence. EIther WB pays a heavy price in the market, or Google gets a court precedent weakening SOPA. Same goes for CNBC CNN, Fox or any of the other big media sites.

Even better, when the politicians who vote for this farce post infringing material on their own websites or their campaigns' websites, use the same approach. Sue their campaigns out of existence.

Comment This ought to be fun to watch... (Score 1) 548

assuming there isn't too much collateral damage.

As powerful and fearsome as the Zetas are in Mexico and the surrounding countries, they would have a harder time carrying out revenge operations in, say, Europe or Asia. So there is a decent sized group of Anonymous members that might be willing to take this on.

And if Anonymous carries out their threat, and the other cartels respond as expected, the Zetas could be seriously weakened.

What would really screw anonymous is if the cartels decide to collude to wipe them out before they even get the chance to do the data dump.

Slashdot Top Deals

I judge a religion as being good or bad based on whether its adherents become better people as a result of practicing it. - Joe Mullally, computer salesman