Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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

Comment Re:do you want what you buy controlled? (Score 1) 323

A cashless system could easily stop individuals from any purchase deemed unsuitable or unnecessary. Do you want that?

What a boon to those who wish to make healthy lifestyle choices the only available choice! "I'm sorry Sir, that Mt. Dew purchase has been declined by the payment system as your BMI data shared from Obamacare insurers disqualifies you from softdrinks."

NYC would *love* this!


Comment Re:Adjusting the tempo of Slashdot? (Score 1) 323

Lately it feels like looking for insight on Slashdot has become quite difficult, though I miss the humor more. I think that may be a problem with tempo. Not certain, but I speculate that the traffic volume is down, but the story tempo has remained unchanged. If that speculation is correct, then most stories fail to reach critical mass for discussion before they fall off the front page and effectively become invisible. Even worse, it would appear to be a negative feedback loop, in that less interesting discussions drives the traffic volume even lower.

I've seen the same. Slashdot has too many stories per day for the size of its reader base. Post count is starting to look like Soylent these days.

Comment Re: You know what that means. (Score 2) 109

I noticed that two of the three initial sites are train stations, not airports. I guess building entrances can't be far behind.

The TSA has had roving teams checking passengers on metro/city and Greyhound buses. Building entrances will likely be next, yes, post offices etc, then expanded to malls and stores. Soon there will be checkpoints for pedestrians. What, you thought you could risk National Security by walking down the street minding your own business? Terrorist! Gulag...err...Guantanamo for you!


Comment Re:This is why you can't use a good keyboard any m (Score 1) 269

People often don't realize how insanely annoying they are to others.

The emerging standard in open plan offices is "wear headphones, idiot, it's noisy", with anything short of shouting being dismissed as your problem. Makes sense to me. You can't expect to constrain everyone around you.

What really pisses me off is the lack of dignity (and privacy is a big part of dignity). The older you get (and the more oddball health issues you accumulate), the more this matters - to everyone around, not just you. I'd prefer to know much less than I do about my co-worker's colostomy bag, for example. Thanks, management.

Comment Re:What kind of environment did the founders have? (Score 1) 269

When "everyone gets the same space", senior managers have a desk for show, and spend all day in a permanently-reserved conference room bigger than their office would have been. (It's not really a scam, even, but all senior managers do is meetings anyway, and at a certain point everyone else comes to you for meetings.)

Comment Re:Interesting, but probably irrelevant (Score 1) 117

However, if you load up your torrent manager and say "download please!" you are making your own copy, which is then stored locally, just like pushing the button on a copy machine.

Only if you actually made a durable copy of the file, and they won't have any evidence of that from the network traffic. All they know is that someone else sent a copy of the file to you. That would support a case against the uploader, but not the downloader. It might be enough to get a warrant to examine the downloader's device for a stored copy of the file, but it's unlikely anyone would go to the effort of actually serving a warrant to recover, at most, a small multiple of the retail value of one copy of a single work, and until they do so there is nothing to support a charge of copyright infringement.

Of course the root of the problem is copyright. This is just one of the more notably absurd, and yet inevitable, consequences of trying to impose artificial scarcity on something that can be duplicated by anyone at effectively zero cost.

Comment Re:and if I shoplift a rack full of CD's it's just (Score 1) 117

Suppose I download a song to the same computer twice, as can easily happen. Technically because the thing I did wrong was copying, ...

No, you're making the same mistake as the judge in the article. The one who makes the copy and distributes it across the Internet is always the uploader, not the downloader. You didn't make a copy, the person who uploaded the file to you made a copy. The DMCA should not be considered applicable to "mere downloaders" because "mere downloaders" aren't doing anything which would infringe on copyright, namely making or distributing copies or publicly performing the work. That's all on the uploaders.

You do make a very good point, however, about the way the impact to the copyright holder for each copy is grossly overestimated when calculating "damages".

Comment Re:In other words (Score 1) 39

Eh, while most media companies have almost no editorial vetting of stories (beyond "do they fit the narrative"), that's still a little bit better than Facebook's word-of-mouth. Stories in no way related to politics are somewhat more accurate than random guessing, unlike FB and clickbait sites. Oh, and the sports page remains a bastion of accurate reporting and separation of op-ed form factual. Funny how that works.

Comment Not Unexpected (Score 3, Insightful) 117

[Fascism Intensifies]

When you give government all these powers to do all this social-engineering and other crap, you can expect that they will be corrupted and conspire against the people with those with wealth and power in the private sector. It's human nature and why the founders did not want the government having the sort of scope and power it does today. The results speak for themselves.


Comment Re:Transparancy (Score 1) 58

@ techno-vampire

        And now we know what Obama meant when he claimed that he'd run the most transparent administration in history: absolutely nothing.

You realise that you're being totally ridiculous as well as having your partisan bias show though, right?

It's insane (and party-political) to suggest that an ongoing counter-intelligence operation, that has been confirmed by a judge to meet the criteria agreed on by law, should be splattered on the front page just to satisfy your idle curiosity.

It's insane because counter-intelligence operations are needed to prevent spies and/or terrorists from being effective when they work here and in doing so and thereby to protect our security.

We have laws and procedures in place to ensure that snooping is done only when warranted. They are being followed and it has been determined that in this case the snoop order is warranted. Even the House Intelligence committee has been briefed (as it should), and apparently they agree too. So much for your smear that it might be "unconstitutional".

Yet there you are posting unjustified, snide, and derogatory comments. Well, that's your right. But it makes your comments squarely party-political because you're trying to make a government, that is simply doing its job, look bad just because you don't like it.

In a word: deplorable.

And here he is in person, kiddies!

The Tool Of The State in all his glory!

Huzzah, Sir! Tyrants past and present approve!


Slashdot Top Deals

To do two things at once is to do neither. -- Publilius Syrus