Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment It's a cartel (Score 2) 55

Good luck being an AI dependent/AI producing startup now. Maybe you could have been purchased before if you started doing well against one of these companies. Now, they're sharing research, so you have to beat their entire combined effort,. And their research will be fed back into the group, so no bidding war for your tech.

But hey, you could always create a search engine that produces better results than Google/Bing/DDG (choose your favorite), get VC, and eventually supplant them. Also, you can buy this nifty bridge and charge tolls on it.

Comment Re:I'm confused (Score 1) 375

This is kinda my point. British law does not "allow" foreign soldiers to invade. Britain has laws promising not to prosecute foreign soldiers ordered to invade Britain. Destroy the country ordering them to do so, fine. Place them in a POW camp until the war is over, fine. But after the war they have to be allowed to go back home. During the war, no more reprisals are allowed against the soldiers after they are captured.

Comment Re:I'm confused (Score 1) 375

A declaration of war is quite irrelevant. All that matters is that the president ordered them to do it.

Heck, the president could order the US Army to invade Britain tomorrow, and, by treaty, those soldiers would be immune to prosecution. The President would not be immune to impeachment. There would be Supreme Court cases and generals refusing orders and courts martial aplenty. But the soldier who complied with an order would be immune from prosecution.

(At least international prosecution.)

Comment Re:I'm confused (Score 1) 375

A soldier committing a crime is still a criminal

A soldier committing a war crime is, sure. A soldier killing another soldier (authorized by his country) is most certainly not. There are treaties that recognize that face.

.

t goes against basic decency

I live in the real world where governments are endowed with the ability to do a lot of things we don't allow individuals to do. Use deadly force without facing eminent harm, for instance. Intelligence services tend to save more lives than they cost. When you look at a real war, they are important as troops. But they cannot be deployed as easily. They already have to be in place (to a large degree).

Also, I'm not sure what the common decency argument is supposed to mean. I tend to think it violates common decency to take pictures with someone else in the background an upload them to Facebook, yet people do it all the time. Why is this crowdsourced panopticon okay, but a concentrated one not?

Comment Re:I'm confused (Score 1) 375

The letters of marque clearly contradict it. They are not criminals. They are soldiers.

The fact that de jure it was illegal to wiretap is pretty meaningless, because unenforced laws may as well not exist.

Lastly, usually the people doing so are embassy staff, but then we get into PNG and diplomatic immunity.

Comment Re:"My upgrade is better!" "No, mine is!" (Score 1) 147

Oh, is that all you're talking about. Bundled peripheral? That was blatant and obvious? On a device where "the same configuration everywhere in the world" is the primary selling point?

I mean, I grant it may not have been a good move. But compared to removing the OtherOS functionality after they sold the PS3?

Comment Re:Don't be afraid of this! (Score 1) 527

Western companies will run the internet. Google, Apple, Microsoft, dare I say PornHub. They only thrive in an open internet

The US government has a history of not censoring the web. Those sites have a history (with the possible exception of PornHub) of doing underhanded/shady things to close down the competition. Do you really think that its int their interest to let the next huge startups thrive. Or will a set of "neutral" rules slowly accumulate that favorite incumbent companies.

Comment Re:Does anyone care what Trump thinks? (Score 1) 527

Fact is not opinion. Liars may have interesting opinions. More importantly, as the Republican nominee he already wields political power. His stated opinions aren't just "opinions" like you or I have. They're also clear signals to Republican representatives.

Comment Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... (Score 2) 527

So, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Good to know.

I mean, the US has the least regulated airwaves in the western world, Britain has far stricter libel laws, the US doesn't actually have "no hate speech laws" (neonazis are allowed to march in the US, the name is illegal in Germany), "fighting words"/incitement means you're not allowed to encourage people to commit crimes.

And the anti-obscenity laws not struck down basically say you cannot use the 7 dirty words repetitively and frequently in front of a minor.

Slashdot Top Deals

Is it possible that software is not like anything else, that it is meant to be discarded: that the whole point is to always see it as a soap bubble?

Working...