Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Others To Sue (Score 1) 24

Server companies sell servers that these pirates use, sue them also. Computer makers make computers that pirates use so sue them also. Networking companies provide the bandwidth for pirates to trade copyrighted files so sue them also. Hey, all of these things use electricity so let's sue the electric company also!

Comment Re:How durable? (Score 1) 160

Our roof runs for about half a foot past the house. So the roof above the house is warm and melts the snow (see my explanation in the next paragraph) and the edge of the roof is cold and freezes it back to ice.

We have an upstairs room that was converted (from a previous owner) from attic space. We think that they insulated the former attic area poorly but redoing it would be highly expensive and time consuming. As is often the case (especially when your home is as old as the one we own), there are other more pressing concerns to deal with. So I keep raking the roof and putting panty-hose filled with ice melt (a certain kind we know won't damage the shingles) to minimize the ice dam problem. Still, melting from our upper roof onto a lower section of the roof causes ice to build up (quicker than any other area of the roof). It's on our list of Things We'd Like To Get Done One Day but finance-wise probably won't get tackled anytime soon.

Comment How durable? (Score 3, Interesting) 160

Here in upstate NY, winters often mean that I need to get out our roof rake to pull snow off our roof. If I don't, ice dams form and then runoff from melting snow gets under our roof shingles and can get into our house. My questions for SolarCity would be: Would these solar shingles hold up to having a roof rake scraped across them? (It would be useless if I had to replace shingles every year due to roof raking damage.) Also, how would they handle snow melt getting under the shingles? Presumably, there will be wiring there. Would moisture under the shingles cause issues?

Comment Re:But But But!!! (Score 1) 189

I know you're joking but Blackberry's problem was that they DID rule the world and thought that since they were on top they didn't need to make any changes - that the market would always clamor for what they offered because they ruled. By the time they actually faced reality, it was too late, they were a distant third behind Android and iOS, and were falling further behind. Had they not taken their being #1 for granted, they might have stayed on top, but hubris did them in.

Windows is just an also-ran whose company thought they could rule the mobile OS world because they dominate the desktop OS world.

Comment Re:No broadband competition where I live (Score 4, Interesting) 104

They also will pad their cable TV numbers by pricing Internet Only plans above Internet+TV plans. So to save money, you need to be counted as a cable TV subscriber even if you put the box in your closet and never plug it in.

I'm not in Comcast territory, but I'm not much better off. Time Warner Cable... I mean Charter is my only high-speed wired option.

Comment Re:Deceptive at best (Score 1) 209

They have more information, but they don't have ALL of the information. Only when they have all of the information can they tighten their grip, crush down on those who oppose them, and serve you better.

(Anyone remember the Dinosaurs TV show? Fran convinces a store to accept returns and the owner remarks: "This is just the policy that will enable us to crush our competition, become a monopoly, and serve you better!" Basically this only with the government.)

Comment Re:G+: The Social Network for Sociopaths (Score 1) 75

The last time I checked, they got rid of it by allowing a pseudonym but requiring that the person choose a public name that included their real name. So I could be "Jason Levine (Pseudonym)", "Jason (Pseudonym)", "Pseudonym (Jason Levine)", etc. Not really helpful if you didn't want your real name publicized.

(Yes, I realize that there's something odd about me complaining about a real name policy when I use my real name on Slashdot. I signed up for this account years ago when I didn't care if my real name was out there. I don't want to sign up for a new account so this is one of the few accounts I use with my real name and I never directly reference my pseudonym account.)

Comment Traffic Lights Online? (Score 1) 203

The article I read about this mentioned that these 300,000 traffic lights are on the Internet and that's how Audi's going to receive the data. I'm hoping that the article had it wrong and these lights are just on some city intranet that Audi is going to gain access to. It would be very scary to have traffic lights online. How long would it take for someone to hack the traffic system and change all of the lights at random intervals. (Especially bad if those traffic lights happen to be hooked up to red light cameras that automatically issue fines.)

Comment Re:G+: The Social Network for Sociopaths (Score 1) 75

I really did like Google+ the best. My major beef with the service was their real name requirement. Had they gotten rid of that (maybe require real names on the account but let people use "public names" that could be pseudonyms), then I know that I and a lot of other people would have used the service more.

Comment Re:Canadian Border Guards... (Score 1) 275

I had the same experience some years back. We went to Canada with my brother-in-law and his family. One the way back the agent asked us some rudimentary questions and then asked "And which one of you was born outside the US?" We sat there stunned for a few minutes because none of us were born outside the US and we were all trying to think of what we might have said to lead to this belief. Finally, we tentatively answered "none of us" and were allowed to pass.

It was the weirdest experience. It was as if the agent thought that one of us would raise his/her hand and say "I was born outside of the US and am trying to sneak in to commit massive acts of terrorism - oops, you caught me!"

Comment Re:Either .. Or (Score 1) 465

AmiMoJo's comment puts it best: "The people complaining about this was a get-out-of-jail-free card. They want to be able to say "free speech" or "it's just a joke" or "words can't hurt you" to excuse any behaviour short of physical violence. Some even want to be able to say "religious freedom" to excuse discrimination.

Sorry, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. In most places courts recognize this, and laws against verbal harassment have been found to be compatible with the US 1st Amendment and European Convention on Human Rights."

In other words, you can't just say "Freedom of Speech" covers anything that comes out of your mouth. Just because Free Speech has limits doesn't mean it's not Free Speech anymore. There are just rules for where Free Speech ends. You can argue about where the line should be, but you can't argue that the line shouldn't exist at all.

Comment Re:Publishing mediums have changed (Score 1) 465

The problem then becomes this chips away at the safe harbor rules that lets sites host user-generated content.

Right now, if I were to post copyrighted material to Slashdot, Slashdot wouldn't be held liable. They would get a take-down notice, sure, but they would comply with it, I could challenge the notice, and Slashdot could put it back online while the alleged copyright owner and I hashed it out in court. With your "sue Twitter for their users' actions" stance, Slashdot would be liable every time someone said something about anyone else. Every single user comment would carry legal liability and few sites would be willing to shoulder that risk.

Comment Re:Either .. Or (Score 0) 465

I'm a believer in free speech as much as the next guy, but there's a limit. If you're repeatedly harassing someone for having a different opinion/nationality/religious belief, you're not engaging in free speech. If you keep making throwaway accounts to flood a person (or persons) with abusive language, you're not engaging in free speech. If you're egging others on to keep harassing someone because they "deserve it" by virtue of not being a part of your group, you're not engaging in free speech.

If someone says "I believe in X", that's free speech. I can disagree with them vehemently, but I won't push for them to be banned. I might even think that a group is scum as far as their beliefs are concerned but so long as they are smart scum and they stay to one side of the line between free speech and harassment, I'd support their right to free speech. I might not like it, but the real test of free speech is protecting unpopular opinions. However, if the group started harassing anyone that they didn't agree with, they would lose my support and I'd be in favor of banning them. Free Speech isn't absolute. It doesn't give anyone the right to engage in any behavior and say "Free Speech" afterwards.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Ada is PL/I trying to be Smalltalk. -- Codoso diBlini

Working...