Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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

Comment Re:Don't realize who the robber barons are, do you (Score 1) 119

I'd love to get the money back that i spend on 'police' so i can instead buy another gun or maybe a personal body guard, either way the private sector would deliver me far superior security than i get from the state for 'free'.

Oh please, please, PLEASE implement this. It is so much easier to kill one or two people and seize everything they have than it is to avoid, overcome, or defeat an entire police force.

What you really want is police protection without paying for it, and perhaps some more guns. If you could truly choose to be an old timey outlaw,, i.e., someone who is excluded from the protection of the law, you wouldn't have the balls to take us up on it.

Comment Re:Who needs 4k video? (Score 2) 124

To enjoy 4k, you need a monitor that supports it, that is large enough relative to the viewing distance, enough bandwidth and processing power. You also need a 4k source. Few people produce 4k video : it is more expensive, more difficult and the result is only marginally better.

Yes. Flipping that video option toggle on the iPhone 6SE, 6s, 6s plus, etc. is so expensive and difficult. I can't believe I was able to accomplish it myself...

Comment Re:Illegal? (Score 1) 180

You sell where the buyers are or you're not a very successful businessman unless you're lucky enough to break into a new demographic and corner the market.

Nice theory. Now call your local locksmiths and ask them to sell you lockpicks.

There are restricted classes of buyers everywhere. From police (certain weapons and body armor) to geotechnical and demolitions experts (detonating caps and industrial explosives) to the everyday people known as patients (antibiotics and narcotic prescriptions).

You're free to go to where the buyers are. And prosecutors are free to go to where are you are, and then put you somewhere that you don't want to be.

Comment Re:It might be something but it isn't anti-trust? (Score 1) 121

Anti trust implies controlling prices to the detriment of the consumer. Apple in no way sets or controls the pricing. An app developer is free to charge whatever they want or make it free.

Apple controls the store cut of the software developer's asking price (30%). There is no competitive store, therefore no competition in the store cut for the application price.

Apple also limits the phone to purchasing from its own store. Apple therefore controls access to the applications market, and sets itself up as a monopsony/monopoly intermediary between developers and consumers. If you can plausibly argue that this has a monpolistic effect on price, then you have standing for a potential claim. As held by the appeals court.

Now the lower court will have to consider the actual theory of damage instead of procedurally killing the case for lack of standing.

Comment Re: Comcast customer here (Score 2) 111

Rg11 you're thinking of rj11 that's 1 pair phone, you mean rg59 or better yet rg60 that's coax.

No, he's thinking of RG11. You're thinking that you know better, but you do not.

RG11 would be a bitch to use for inside wiring, and probably unnecessary, but if he wants to put in the work it's not for us to say.

Comment Re:Just unlocked CPU multipliers... (Score 0) 71

"the handful of us (who are too time-poor to maintain libreboot) a.k.a the *actual* libreboot community"

If you can't and won't maintain the package, you are not the *actual* libreboot community. That last link is merely the flip side of the problem that the linked material is complaining about -- a person, at best formerly involved in the project, pretending that they speak for a larger community, but unwilling to *actually* do anything about the problem.

Comment Re:Only remove it for California (Score 1) 218

Create an edit button and we'll talk.

As for the rest, the burden of proof has shifted to you. Show how prohibiting a service from publishing an age, much less an age posted by a third party, is consistent with the first amendment.

It's easy to be a critic. It's much harder to make your own argument.

Comment Re:Only remove it for California (Score 1) 218

Yep. Left out the "true" in speech. Defamation and fraud can be punished, and commercial speech can be regulated to prevent omissions or misrepresentations.

Of course, the counterpoint is United States v. Alvarez. As with fraud, mere falsity may not be enough.

Comment Re:Only remove it for California (Score 2) 218

First off, "fighting words" is a bullshit argument and nobody in their right mind will argue based on it.

Well, them, it's a good thing that I said that it didn't apply.

Second, you missed "discriminatory".

You're going to have to explain that point in a bit more detail.

Go read Popehat.

I do. Likely more than you, since a regular reader would recognize that I comment there as well. You may want to read the quote from United States v. Stevens discussed here. I apologize for leaving out defamation and fraud, which don't quite fit in the topic at hand (each require falsity). But I don't see the "discrimination" among "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem" listed at your preferred resource either.

Comment Re:Only remove it for California (Score 5, Informative) 218

Maybe not. Anti-discrimination laws are allowed by the constitution. Those laws can prohibit certain speech. That's well established and tested in court.

You are absolutely correct that the law can prohibit certain speech. Yet there are only three categories of speech that can be prohibited. 1. Obscenity 2. Fighting words and 3. Threats or incitement to violence. Let's see if this fits within any of them:

1. Reporting age is not obscene. Miller v. California (1973) requires that:
*The average person, applying "contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
*The work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, "sexual conduct or excretory functions" specifically defined by applicable state law; and
*Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

The average person does not believe that discussions of age are prurient. Nor does reporting age involve sexual conduct or an excretory function. Finally, reporting age is of serious "scientific" value -- we do everything from condition certain privileges and benefits based upon age to discuss accomplishment with respect to age. Even if you dispute the latter point, it's an "and" test, so you would have to satisfy the other factors as well.

2. Reporting age is not fighting words. Cohen v. California (1971) and Snyder v. Phelps (2011) limit that doctrine.

*Cohen held that wearing a jacket that said "fuck the draft" was outside the doctrine because it was not a "personally abusive epithet";
*Snyder held that the Westboro Babptist Church's funeral protests were outside the doctrine because the speech was was not personal but instead public; and
*Most courts also require physical proximity between the speaker and the target -- and there's no such proximity here.

You're not going to get a jury to unanimously hold that reporting someone's numerical age is a personally abusive epithet. Reporting an age is also speech that is public rather than personal -- it is not made at or to the person, but the public at large. Finally, there's no proximity between IMDB and the person that could permit an immediate breach of the peace, i.e., a physical altercation.

3. Finally, reporting on age does not constitute a threat, whether personal or general. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) requires that:
* the speaker intend to incite a violation of the law; and
* that the violation is both imminent and likely.

You're not going to get a jury to unanimously hold that reporting someone's numerical age is intended to create age discrimination. Also, there's no imminent, i.e., immediate, connection between reporting the age and any individual incident of age discrimination, nor is any such discrimination likely as opposed to merely being "possible."

So the issue here is if publishing actor's ages against their wishes is possibly discriminatory.

No it's not. The issue here is whether the reporting fits within any exception to the first amendment. It does not.

You could have figured this out without much familiarity with the law. Publishing information itself is not "possibly discriminatory" -- it neither conditions nor denies a privilege or benefit based upon the person's age. You're arguing that someone else might use that information to discriminate -- but that's an entirely different and separate kettle of fish.

Comment Re:Flight Simulators (Score 1) 67

Having built 3 flight simulators around the i7 we took a risk on the AMD 8350 for the next machine. The risk paid off. The savings in the CPU allowed us to use dual Nvidia 1070s as opposed to the 970s that are in the other machines.

Or you could simply back off to an i5.

Since the majority of the workload falls on the Nvidia GPU (3 screens at 5760x1080), for our purposes the AMD based machine is far superior to its Intel counterpart for significantly less money. I would be willing to recommend it for any gaming rig.

We're GPU limited but insist upon using a top tier Intel CPU and it's all their fault... Hint: each chip has only 4 FPU units... whether it's the i7, i5, or 8250. Most games and simulators also don't make real use of anything above four cores, if even that.

Comment Re:This is an automatic process (Score 1) 159

As they said in the article they are processing million of images and that's expected to have some false positive. There is no way in the world a human can review every single photo posted. I think it's a story out of nothing special.

The fact that they use an automated process that might make mistakes does not excuse a human-generated policy that wholeheartedly embraces such "mistakes":

The company added: "The usage of images or video of nude bodies or plunging necklines is not allowed, even if the use is for artistic or educational reasons."

It can't be a "false positive" if your actual policy is to apply it to art and educational materials. It's an actual positive in response to an actual policy that is arbitrarily rescinded on an ad hoc basis if the target can generate sufficient negative PR.

Comment Re:Pretty good for dishwashers, but computers? Meh (Score 1) 212

The F-150 is the most popular vehicle amongst people making more than $1 million a year. It's, pretty much all, contractors and ranchers. You know, people who actually use pickup trucks.

Then you're free to go out and publish "Contractor and Rancher Reports." Otherwise, it's perfectly rational to rank automobiles based upon the criteria that a majority of one's readers will apply to the vehicle. And the majority of even the F-150 market is not ranchers and contractors or people who actually use pickup trucks. It's suburban wannabes who occasionally need to haul large but comparatively lightweight items but for some reason won't simply rent a work truck.

BTW: The Ridgeline is back, so I'm also questioning your knowledge of the market.

Slashdot Top Deals

Hackers are just a migratory lifeform with a tropism for computers.