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


Forgot your password?
Check out the brand new SourceForge HTML5 speed test! Test your internet connection now. Works on all devices. ×

Comment Can we see the actual notices? (Score 1) 71

These transparency reports are quite informative. But I'd love to see the actual removals. At some pont, we need to see if the removals have any validity or not. We just can't tell from this data. Is there any legal reason they can't be publicly posted? Actually, I wonder if the DMCA should *require* that they be public, so that the public at-large knows who the bullies are, or maybe who the jerks who keep copying people's stuff are. If you don't want your notice public, don't file it.

Comment Re:Only problem: This is not a "camera" (Score 1) 57

Please tell us what three-letter-agency needs a camera that:
* Has a focal length of 3mm
* Cannot store images on board or wirelessly transmit images
* Has a 5 foot fiber-optic cord

This article is simply about a new kind of lens. It's not useful for surveillance. It's useful for looking at tissue very closely.

Comment Re:Just amazing (Score 5, Funny) 194

This is great, because I am on the other side of that, possibly building that 500,000€ paperweight right now!

Security: You must provide a way to remotely update your medical devices so they aren't vulnerable to zero-day exploits!
Me: Okay, I will turn on automatic updates.
Regulatory: Wait! Software changes must be tested and approved first. That takes a few months.
Customer: Our regulatory group says the lab must be air gapped.
Everyone: *Head explodes*

Comment Re:Freedom of religion and freedom of life (Score 3, Insightful) 224

Does being a religion give you a license to say anything you like?


We have laws against hate speech even though we have free speech in general, and we have laws against speech that encourage a specific crime.

The US does not have laws against hate speech. The article you linked to explains that.

We guarantee freedom of religion, but we also guarantee freedom of life. Which one has priority?

I acknowledge your intent here: Islam calls for the deaths of many kinds of people. But religion and life are not in conflict. Be careful: that is a false dichotomy and a dangerous generalization.

Maybe we should say categorically that you *can't* preach that it's OK to kill people of a certain class, whatever the class might be.

Hmmm... Now this is interesting... let us think it through. It sounds like you propose some kind of criminal penalty for a religious group to call for people to be killed. Does this affect only groups, or individuals? What about secular people who do the same? Should it become illegal to threaten someone in general?

Threatening someone with harm, when you show capability and intent to carry out that harm, is called assault. Assault is a crime in the United States. Assault is defined carefully, because really, how many people have called for the death of celebrities or politicians? Or call for the death of immigrants? Or certain classes of criminals? The average Joe calls for the death of lawyers on a daily basis. ;-) Perhaps it should be illegal to call for the death of any group of people?

Implementing this would be hard. Would we round-up religious leaders who call for the death of gays? I'm not sure how many of them are really living in the US anyway. You cited Westboro, which is a good example, but they haven't actually killed anyone... hmmm.... I suspect we could round-up the Westboro folks on assault already since they have carried out a number of their threats, but so far just protests. Seems like they would have a good chance of winning such a case. Although it would certainly send a message.

Suppose we did round-up such people: would it help, or would it merely cause the crazies to lash out? There is a thought that by allowing racist nutjobs like the Nazis and the KKK to go about their business in public, they demonstrate that they are crazy, and actually limit the growth of their own organizations. Some feel that by banning such things, they go underground where they are not publicly criticized and can quietly proliferate. There is a real fear of that kind of thing in Germany.

This becomes a slippery slope, which is why the founders of the United States wrote the first amendment.

Comment Yay! What's old is new again! (Score 5, Interesting) 184

This is how internet service used to be! The current generation growing up just naively assumes that your local telecom company is your ISP, and can't even wrap their head around this idea that you could choose an ISP separately from the company that shows up to your front door to wire it.

This is the market solution to Network Neutrality. The "golden age" of the internet was back when the telephone companies just provided the wires, and people could sign-up for whatever ISP they wanted. Then, when telecom companies bought out the ISPs, and the two markets combined into a single vertical slice, is when the problems started. With monopoly came DNS servers that redirect you to ads, paid prioritization of traffic, no more static IP addresses, no more allowing people to run servers, etc. Network Neutrality is so much a battle about restoring the internet to the way it was. I fear it won't be successful unless we restore competition to the ISP market again.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The eleventh commandment was `Thou Shalt Compute' or `Thou Shalt Not Compute' -- I forget which." -- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982