Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



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

Comment Yes, I do. (Score 3, Insightful) 137

I DVR virtually any sports event I'm interested in. If I'm watching "live", it lets me pause the game for whatever reason, then skip over ads until I catch up again. If I'm not that invested in the game, or if I have other things interfering with seeing it live, I'll record it, see what the final score is, then decide whether I want to actually watch it. The upside is that I can skip thru ads.

Comment Re:Not a level playing field (Score 1) 2837

There are whole swaths of research that suggest teams that are comprised of a healthy mix of males and females are actually more performant than their less diverse counterparts. Therefore, it would be in the interest of economic and societal stability to not let the nation's jewels be guarded by an incestuous gentleman's club.

Speaking of which, I still don't understand society's fascination with "economic growth". I for one would strive for a comfortable equilibrium instead. But that's just me. It seems I have a fetish for balance above all.

Comment Re: Trump 2016!!! (Score 1) 2837

You should flip the order of your concerns. The tax one is the most important one.

Lower taxes for the wealthy and for corporations means the lower and middle classes are either squeezed for more money or will receive fewer benefits and shittier service, and thus have a crap life while .05% of society walks off scot free with the nation's collective resources.

This will breed poverty and discontent, which in turn might breed violence and instability, especially give the rather onerous decision to let all manner of weaponry float about in society.

Comment Re: Trump 2016!!! (Score 1) 2837

My good man! I'm not sure you have bothered to ever understand Nazi ideology. Do read up on them a bit, if you get the chance.

To me it seems that state sanctioned civil violence is a jolly bad idea. It's uncivilized, it makes your country less safe (judging by the murder rate) and what's worse, this whole poppycock about owning guns (which you shouldn't) distracts from more pertinent political debates such as poverty, income and capital inequality, employment and education for all and lastly the deplorable state of health of quite a few Americans. That last bit is one of mine... The girth of many Americans is becoming quite unacceptable, you see, and they are very poorly insured.

Socialism is just a way of looking at economic re-distribution, it does not equate a violent racist regime. I for one am a socialist. This means I am constitutionally conservative (I wish to conserve Dutch constitutional values, not the shoddy American one with the guns and distrust), progressive by nature, non-violent, in favour of greater socio-economic equality and against too much free market kool-aid. No more, no less.

Being a socialist does not mean I want to invade Poland or kill homosexuals, you see. But do carry on trying to add to this rather lively and colourful debate.

Comment Re: Trump 2016!!! (Score 1) 2837

True that, amazingly.

On the night of the election I actually spoke to a colleague of mine in Vegas. She appears to be a technician, republican, lesbian-in-wait-to-be-married (but can't, because it's illegal), Texan, Gun Lover and Pro-lifer.

When I asked her why she'd vote for a party that would stop her from marrying her love, she mumbled something about guns and freedom. Then when I asked her how she reconciles the notion of being a Gun Lover while proclaiming to be "pro-life" she basically told me to bugger off.

These people really don't like it when you start rubbing their cognitive dissonance too much.

Comment Re:Tarnished legacy (Score 1) 170

The Democrats are oddly the American party that thinks state intervention in things like healthcare and social benefits are good, so one should logically expect Democrats to not mind a bit more state surveillance either.

But then I've always thought it funny that it's precisely the Republicans who tend to cry "no government is good government" while simultaneously voting for significant government interference:
- The State should stop abortion, which is a private matter
- The State should stop gay marriages, another private matter
- The State should increase their police, surveillance and armed force apparatus
- The State should willy-nilly be able to collect large amounts of data on its citizenry

None of the above is really a move towards more "freedom" and "autonomy" for the citizens, although they do call anyone opposed to these ideas a socialist. As if that would be an insult.

I truly don't logically understand American politics, the US or its citizens very well. Having just returned from an involuntary week in Las Vegas I can only say I am happy to not be living there if only because the coffee sucks and portions are jolly well uncivilized.

Comment Re:Censorship has never improved society (Score 1) 117

Well... If you say a couple of evangelical DJ's caused the genocide in Rwanda, you are casually sidestepping 200 years of colonialist politics on the African continent where western powers (In the case of Rwanda Germany and mostly Belgium) defined borders that went straight across areas regardless of culture, tribal status or inhabitants. What's worse, the propensity of the Belgian colonialists to incite the population divide by elevating one of the present tribes to a position of privilege so as to secure their own footing in said colony didn't exactly stabilize the region either.

But hey, I do doubt said evangelical DJ's helped matters much, I'll give you that.

Comment Re:Censorship has never improved society (Score 2) 117

I wonder why such a misinformed and misleading post is deemed insightful by forum members.

Firstly, in most European countries, the right to free speech is not actually legally or even constitutionally enshrined. There is the usual right to assembly, free thought and a freedom to adhere to any creed one wishes, but in most European countries Slander, Inciting to Hate or public unrest and Defamation are all illegal under criminal law, mind you. Therefore, as a default, there are legal limitations to how free speech actually is. And this is a good thing.

When the "free speech" mob starts trotting out "censorship" as a mule to flog, I get a little tired. In a world that contains 7 billion people of all colours, creeds, genders, races and beliefs, one should not strive for completely unmoderated speech. Because there are too many narrow minded morons in this world, it would descend into chaos and anger. As my grandfather wisely used to quip: You can think what you like, but you can't say whatever you think.

That out of the way, the legal definition of hate speech is quite well defined in a number of European countries as well, and prosecutions can actually be realised. Specifically the Germans have *ahem* learned a couple of painful lessons from their own history, although it must be said that Europe between 1860 and 1940 had large institutionalised racist agendas with the so-called "Race-biological Institutions" in various countries, so by no means do I want to single out the Germans as the only purveyors of a certain breed of thinking. So while this is not a reductio ad Hitlerium argument, one must be vigilant of the possible consequences of unchecked hate speech, "Volksverhetzung", "Aanzetten tot haat", "Agitation publique" or whatever you wish to call it.

As for those who actually use social media to spread poppycock, hate-speech, racism, bile, xenophobia and religious fervour alike, I for one do think it would be great if these people be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The law is there to be enforced, whether you intend to kill, steal, embezzle, con or incite to hatred. But the lack of editorial decisions from Facebook's side is something they should indeed be held accountable for. Facebook serves as a news outlet to some 38% of the American public. I shudder to think about that, given the amount of moronic vitriol and cat video's that permeate that network. The likes of Google, Facebook and Twitter wield quite a bit of power, and their corporate nature drives them to shun any form of responsibility.

From my perspective, it is heartwarming to see a nation state such as Germany finally spring into action to protect the education, sovereignty, privacy and safety of its citizens by holding these media corporations (which they are by now) accountable for the information they provide to said citizenry.

DRM

DRM is Used to Lock in, Control and Spy on Users, Says Free Software Foundation (torrentfreak.com) 72

In a scathing critique, the Free Software Foundation is urging the U.S. Government to drop the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions which protect DRM. From a report on TorrentFreak:Late last year the U.S. Copyright office launched a series of public consultations to review critical aspects of the DMCA law. FSF sees no future for DRM and urges the Copyright Office to repeal the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions. "Technological protection measures and Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) play no legitimate role in protecting copyrighted works. Instead, they are a means of controlling users and creating 'lock in'," FSF's Donald Robertson writes. According to FSF, copyright is just an excuse, the true purpose is to lock down and control users. "Companies use this control illegitimately with an eye toward extracting maximum revenue from users in ways that have little connection to actual copyright law. In fact, these restrictions are technological impediments to the rights users have under copyright law, such as fair use." Even if copyright was the main concern, DRM would be an overbroad tool to achieve the goal, the foundation notes. FSF highlights that DRM is not just used to control people but also to spy on them, by sending all kinds of personal data to technology providers. This is done to generate extra income at the expense of users' rights, they claim. "DRM enables companies to spy on their users, and use that data for profit," Robertson adds. "DRM is frequently used to spy on users by requiring that they maintain a connection to the Internet so that the program can send information back to the DRM provider about the user's actions," he adds.

Slashdot Top Deals

Line Printer paper is strongest at the perforations.

Working...