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


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

Comment Re:Peter Thiel didn't bankrupt Gawker (Score 1) 241

Not ignoring the earlier ruling is a legitimate course of action in a 1st amendment case.

But it's not a First Amendment case. You don't get FA protection for this type of stolen material. If it was considered either in the public interest or political speech, that might be different because those types of speech get slightly more protection. And if Gawker had removed the tape but then said "Hogan had sex with X and Z on April 3rd," they would have been safe on First Amendment grounds. But no, that doesn't absolve them for hosting that tape and continuing to host it. The First Amendment does not cover that.

Comment Re:Peter Thiel didn't bankrupt Gawker (Score 1) 241

Pay some nobody a small lump of cash to leak the video to a news outlet with big pockets (but not so big you think you can't win in court), then sue the news outlet.

Or don't, when the news outlet shows some integrity and human decency, and doesn't publish the sex tape. Whoops, there goes your bizarre scenario.

Integrity and human decency aren't even necessary. They just ask their legal team "hey, will we get into big trouble for posting this? Oh, we will? Doesn't sound like it will be worth it."

Comment Re:End is Nigh (Score 1) 241

Keep in mind that judges and the courts have a lot of power themselves. If your lawyer or their legal team do things that the judge interprets as "wasting his time," they have a lot of latitude to put that legal team in a world of hurt. "High frequency" works in the finance world, because that world is designed to award such actions and there are basically no facilities to punish traders who do this. The legal system is the exact opposite of all those points.

Comment Re: Can't Subscribe (Score 1) 203

I think the better solution would be to break the power that prevents competition coming in. IE, the Comcasts and the AT&Ts should have exactly the same amount of access to the lines and the poles as Google or Sonic or any other provider, no more, no less.

Burying the lines means that other ISPs have LESS access to customers than the regional monopoly/duopoly. Burying lines is one large reason why a municipality would consider granting them monopolies in the first place.

Comment Re:Error in story (Score 1) 75

Careful! You'll get a lot of politicians and their apologists hemming and hawing and acting faux-outraged that you would suggest that a campaign contribution and a bribe are anything alike. Those major contributions, why don't affect the sort of access a company or individual gets, or what priorities the candidate will focus on, or in any way affect who gets contracts.

Comment Re:Can't Subscribe (Score 2) 203

In Nashville, Google is being blocked by Comcast and AT&T who are stonewalling on moving their cables out of the way on NES utility poles. It's not that Google doesn't want to offer service, they literally can't because they can't run their cables.

Bury the damn cables and eliminate those unsightly poles and wires susceptible to storm damage and outages.

Then it becomes 10x as expensive to service them if there's a problem, or if you want to upgrade them.

Comment Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 1) 679

Carbon Dioxide is the foundation of the world's food chain. It's not pollution

Water is absolutely essential to our way of life, but if you drink gallons of it, you're going to die. Water intoxication is a real thing.

Venus has a lot of carbon dioxide as well. Since it's in the Goldilocks Zone, it should be able to support life, yet its heavier, carbon-rich atmosphere led to a runaway greenhouse effect that renders the existence of liquid water, and life based on that, impossible. Having a nice amount of something required for life as we know it is beneficial. Too much.. not so much.

Comment Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 1) 679

It's a strange attitude to have, because it implies that everyone else should be trying to murder them to protect themselves

Humanity is still fairly "tribal." We appreciate local society, and tend to greatly favor the interests of our own society over that of any others. It's how we evolved, it's how we developed civilization, divided ourselves into countries, waged war, etc. It's one constant that has been mostly true since before the stone age. We pretend we are never governed by "instinct" or anything else developed thousands of years ago, but that development is hard to get away from.

Comment Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 1) 679

The deniers do not care, they will be dead before the worst hits. As long as they can live high on the hog on their imaginary money until they die, they are happy. There is not one drop of concern for the future of humanity or life on earth in general.

If you can live high on "imaginary money" until you die, then I don't think that money ended up being imaginary.

Comment Re:But outsourcing is wonderful! (Score 1) 251

Who is incompetent here?

It depends on the political leaning of the answerer. Someone on the left wing will say that the private company is trying to cheat the government out of money, and/or if they can do it for cheaper it will be shoddy work or with underpaid/abused staff. Someone on the right wing will always find a way to pin wrongdoing on the government, no matter who did the work.

Slashdot Top Deals

Did you know that for the price of a 280-Z you can buy two Z-80's? -- P.J. Plauger