Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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

Comment They let the ban on propagandizing citizens expire (Score 4, Informative) 208

Three and a half years ago the US government, under the Obama administration, let the ban on propagandizing US citizens expire - and immediately began writing and spreading "fake news".

From an FP article dated July 14, 2013:

U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News to Americans

For decades, a so-called anti-propaganda law prevented the U.S. governmentâ(TM)s mammoth broadcasting arm from delivering programming to American audiences. But on July 2, that came silently to an end with the implementation of a new reform passed in January. The result: an unleashing of thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and TV programs for domestic U.S. consumption in a reform initially criticized as a green light for U.S. domestic propaganda efforts.

So the only thing new here is US citizens noticed one of the government's renewed, official, domestic propaganda operations.

Comment Re:LOL (Score 1) 76

Yeah, because that is exactly what I said.

Let me ask you a simple question, does any regulation state its goals, and if it doesn't (or no longer) reach those goals, is it repealed?

I don't know of ANY regulation that has a repeal clause in it if it doesn't meet its goals.

I don't know of ANY regulation that has a cost benefit analysis requirement before being employed.

I don't know ANY regulation that self monitors for effectiveness.

I don't know ANY regulation that was revoked when it was found to be ... ineffectual. Just more regulations to fix the broken bits of the previous (and bad) regulation.

So, yeah, "No" regulation is an option. AND not all regulations need to apply everywhere in a "one size fits all" over the top method.

I'll give a really good example of bad regulations that can be completely avoided by changing the term of the problem, CableTV (and Internet) franchise agreements. The whole "Net Neutrality" is a top down draconian implementation of regulations that is completely avoidable if you change where the problem exists; the last mile. Fix the last mile problem (monopolistic franchise agreements) AND you don't need a whole bunch of Government red tape on how Internet traffic is handled.

Freedom is expensive, and tyranny comes with a costly price tag. So, yes, I err on the side of Liberty.

Comment Re:Still a need for what he was origally doing (Score 4, Insightful) 73

There is a strong vision in something like CyanogenMod, and that can be leveraged into "profits" given the right view.

I personally thought the original vision of Cyanogen Inc was towards the right track. However, once they kicked OnePlus to the curb for "more" (India) they lost almost all credibility they had in going that route. No real Handset Maker would ever do business with them after that.

The rest of whatever credibility they had left over , was gone the moment they were "bought" by Microsoft and started to Bing up the joint.

I don't care what the reasons were for either of those two "missteps", they killed Cyanogen Inc.

There are two valid moves Steve can make at this point, both I've seen mentioned elsewhere. First is take CM, and put it under a 501.c.3 Umbrella, and crowd source development. The other option is to "restart" the Company, but without a douchebag running it, and focus on taking lagging older handsets and getting them patched and updated, with (preferably) the blessings of the maker (good PR for both) or without.

IMHO these are not mutually exclusive either. The latter is going to take some time to get trust rebuilt, but it would pay huge if he found someone who knew the vision and could keep the focus tight (I volunteer, but I rather doubt anyone would take me up on it). There is still a need for custom/slim ROMs out there that aren't branded Nexus/Pixel/Chrome/Whatever

Comment Re:Go ahead. (Score 1) 1042

Also, crying wolf ("racism") randomly regardless of whether or (usually) not there is a wolf, tends to desensitize people to the point when there is an actual wolf ("racist") present, nobody is listening.

The problem is that nobody is listening (except in the echo chambers) to the cries of "racism". A black man with a gun, shot by a black cop is now considered "white racism". And they all wonder why they aren't getting any real traction.

Comment Re:Twitter, aka @Jack, doesn't care about hate spe (Score 0) 1042

Well, if you listen to the SJW types, there can be no racism against "whites" or sexism against "males" or whatever, because those people have "power". Ask them to define what that is, and they will all cry about "privileged". Ask them to define their solution to "Privilege" and it is to enslave everyone at the lowest common denominator of social status, rather than trying to elevate everyone not yet there.

So the whole thing is nothing short of Reverse racism tied with white elitist guilt.

Comment Re:Oppression (Score 1) 1042

I am a US Citizen because I was born here. I didn't ask to be born nor did I ask to be a citizen.

And people are afforded the "privilege" of being able to leave, freely, of their own accord, anytime they'd like. Yeah, that sounds a lot like "oppression" and "abuse" by our government to me.

The real abuse of our government is done by the increasing bureaucracy, unelected, unaccountable and otherwise out of control of the people it is supposed to serve.

Comment Re:"Hate speech" is protected by the 1st Amendment (Score 1) 1042

Free Speech is being suppressed by who? Alt-Right "racists" or Left-wing "loons"? IMHO the greatest threat to "free speech" isn't the anti-flag burners like Trump, it is the pseudo elites proffering up "safe zone" echo chambers for the people so without a single decent logical thought can hide from opinions that hurt the poor snowflake's opinions.

You know what constitutes REAL racism in my opinion, is the low expectations white liberals have of all the various ethnic and cultural subgroups. "Blacks can't get ID because they don't know where the DMV is". The problem is, they think they are "helping" the poor oppressed black people, when it is their own views that are the real oppression ... "Black people can't..."

Comment FTC, not FCC, is the correct agency. (Score 2) 191

Most of the harm from ISP misbehavior is the manifestation of one of two perverse-incentive situations:
  - integration of an ISP into a content-provider megacorp, leading to penalization of competitors or other perceived threats to the larger content-providing component.
  - an under-competitive market situation (monopoly, duopoly, other under-four-competitors) situation, allowing ISPs to provide less than they promised or less than what is expected of "internet service" without a "vote with their feet" option for customers.

Both of these are not internet-technology issues and both are things the FCC handles poorly, and which are outside its mandate. They're better handled by such agencies as the FTC and DOJ, under antitrust and consumer fraud models, than by the FCC.

With respect to the content-provider/ISP vertical integration issue: Trump has already come out opposing the ATT/ Time-Warner merger. Additionally, the mainstream media's pile-on against his campaign has left him with no love for the "content providers". I'd be willing to bet that he'd be all for antitrust action to split up the other ISP ("content transport") / news reporting ("content generation") partnerships under the rubric of "breaking up anticompetitive vertical integration". B-)

Comment Re:LOL (Score 1, Interesting) 76

And let me guess, your answer is overly intrusive government regulations that end up doing the exact opposite of whatever it was that was intended, requiring ever increasing and Draconian modifications to existing regulations whenever someone finds a effective work around. All run by unelected bureaucrats who can't be fired short of Rape or being a KKK member.

On the other hand, THIS IS A FUCKING VIDEO GAME why the FUCK do we need government involved?

Comment Re:Well then... (Score 1) 586

Why didn't they start this years ago when Obama extended and expanded the Patriot Act?

Probably because:
  - Servers in the US have First Amendment protection
  - Servers in other countries have whatever protection - or restrictions - the other countries have.

In particular:
  - Moving certain data (such as encryption software) from the US to other countries may violate US export laws. (Backing up a server in the US to a server outside the US is more clearly an export than serving in the US something that was downloaded in the US.)
  - Storing certain data - such as personal information, NAZI propaganda, or criticism of various governments - may be illegal in various countries.

So setting up a backup in some other country was probably perceived as more risk than leaving the data solely in the US under Obama, while the perceived risk to the data under Trump may be enough to move the volunteers to take on the extra trouble .

(If Brewster hasn't commented on this by then, I'll try to remember to ask him the next time I see him. But that's probably most of a year away...)

Slashdot Top Deals

The price one pays for pursuing any profession, or calling, is an intimate knowledge of its ugly side. -- James Baldwin