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


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:How were crimes solved before cell phones? (Score 2) 113

That's how Billy the Kid got off... they tried him for shooting Sheriff William Brady, but he was acquitted because his iPhone was encrypted and they couldn't get at the data. They even tried getting Steve Jobs' great grandfather involved, but the sonofabitch insisted that he didn't even know what a cell phone was, much less how to remove the encryption from one.

Julius Rosenberg also went free because they couldn't decrypt his thumb drive to prove he was spying for the Soviets.

At least that's the impression I get from listening to these assholes whining that they can't spy on all of us 24/7.

Comment Re:That's the last straw: TRUMP IS A TRAITOR (Score 1) 528

I don't think even Donald Trump is oblivious enough to suggest that someone should hack a server that was decommissioned years ago.

I'll agree that man does a fine job of de-calibrating sarcasm detectors, but I just don't understand how anyone can take this seriously. The idea that professional journalists are doing so (apparently it was played as straight news by CNN as their top story) does not pass the smell test with me, and (in my opinion) is just an excuse to manufacture controversy.

Comment Re:What's the legal basis? (Score 1) 170

If they're basing this on owning the copyright to the Olympics, this isn't going to work - owning a copyright on the name of a thing doesn't mean that you can prevent anyone from talking about your thing, just that nobody else can sell it. Lawsuits like this fail often - confused people think that they can use copyright to do more than control the right to copy...

They don't have to (and probably don't expect to) win, but they have the power to ruin anyone they choose to that violates their demand (they will simply sue them into the ground, regardless of merits, and their resources will significantly exceed that of their targets).

Comment Re:That's the last straw: TRUMP IS A TRAITOR (Score 2) 528

Your biases have blinded you to the fact that this was humor. I admit that I laughed when I read the story today. This is the same joke my colleagues in Germany have been making to me for the last couple of years ("we don't make backups anymore, if we lose data, we'll just ask you to call the NSA so they can send us their copy")

Trump is a walking train wreck, but your apolplexy over this is just as ridiculous as his candidacy.

Comment Re: Because money (Score 1) 268

Ok, so how do you write laws that apply to a corporation as well?

I'm proposing that criminal laws applying to a corporation shouldn't be written at all. There are more than enough civil laws to go around, and any criminal liability can (and should) be put on the shoulders of those involved.

You're showing a severe lack of legal knowledge. Almost everything is codified to people. A corporation for legal purposes is just like a person. Unlike illegal aliens and foreigners (in America), they can't vote, however.

I never claimed to have much in the way of legal knowledge. I'm not a lawyer, I'm just an IT geek (I promise that is not Phil Hartman reference).

My initial point was to state "people acting together should not have fewer rights than when they act separately" and I stand behind that. That's not legal doctrine, that's philosophy. The opposite outcome in Citizens United would have enshrined just that idea into our wonderful, precedential legal system, and it would have taken decades to undo (if ever it could be).

Comment Re: Because money (Score 1) 268

You mistake me. I don't suggest picking out "one scapegoat" and holding him accountable. I am serious about "those responsible should be held accountable." In your ecological disaster, it's probably NOT just one guy that made the whole thing happen. There's probably one or more members of upper management, scads of middle management, and people on the ground that all MADE it happen (and probably some poor engineer screaming that whatever idiotic idea led to the issue should never be done for the exact reason that led to the problem).

You've also completely ignored my suggestion (WRT "billions") that there are civil remedies for that, and that the corporate entity should indeed be on the hook for those.

I realize you're just an AC, but next time you may want to consider what I actually said instead of just calling me a dumbass.

Comment Re: Because money (Score 1) 268

The above is rather nonsensical. In your example crime, there is plenty enough criminal liability to go around, and those involved should (certainly!) be tried and, if there is enough evidence, be convicted for their crimes (the negligent homicide itself, and likely conspiracy charges around whatever led to it). "Auctioning the company" etc can follow as part of whatever civil liability may exist on the part of those who "own" it.

"Corporate Personhood" is not (or should not be) a thing. "Jailing" the corporation is silly. Hold PEOPLE accountable. I'll admit (disgustedly) that our law enforcement organizations most certainly do NOT seem to do this, but that is a separate problem, and the baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater as a result of uninterested or corrupted government stooges.

Comment Re: Because money (Score 1) 268

Yes. Not for profit. Not for profit what?

This is my main problem with people who complain about the Citizens United decision--none of them ever seem to stop to think about what a "corporation" is, they just yell "four legs good, two legs bad" and talk about "corporate personhood," ignoring the real problems with the idea that people acting in concert (i.e. "corporate entities") should not have the same rights as people acting independently.

Comment Re:ABM systems equal escalation? (Score 1) 67

America promised not to do it and signed treaties and such. But they have now changed their minds. Seems pretty obviously untrustworthy to anyone who isn't a shill or has an ounce of common sense.

The ABM treaty had withdrawal provisions, and the US exercised them. It's not untrustworthy, and saying so probably indicates the person doing so is either "a shill, or [doesn't have] an ounce of common sense." They could also simply be uninformed and wearing their ignorance as a badge of honor, YMMV.

Comment Re:Advertised as unlimited, yes (Score 1) 420

I still have the unlimited plan for myself and my daughter. This month I used 14.5 GB and my daughter used 7GB so it looks like we will be left alone. But on my bill is states " Unlimited Plan" in several places online and on paper bill. Just saying .......

a notice or announcement in a public medium promoting a product, service, or event or publicizing a job vacancy.

So no, they aren't advertising "unlimited" anything.

Comment Re:Sue them for FRAUD (Score 1) 420

The problem lies in that they are selecting which users to disconnect based on their data usage, so they are explicitly discriminating against users based on their usage of an unlimited plan. If they cut off ALL unlimited plans, that would be a non-discriminatory act.

It's perfectly acceptable to discriminate against your customers. "Heavy bandwidth user" is not a protected class that invokes various laws designed to protect the marginalized.

Comment Re:If they didn't want unlimited use (Score 1) 420

This is more akin to having a contract with an $8 Chinese buffet so you can get all you can eat for $120/mo. You then go to eat there every day so you end up eating there for $4 every day. The restaurant can't just break the contract because they didn't expect you needed to eat every day.

They're not breaking the contract. That's what everyone seems to be missing. The contract has ended. Many contracts have a "month to month" provision that says "at the end of this contract, we continue with the same terms unless one party decides not to." In the case of heavy users, Verizon is deciding not to.

There is nothing unethical or illegal in play here. VZW has decided these users are not worth catering to, and elected not to continue the relationship under the existing terms. This isn't even a stupid "we reserve the right to change the contract whenever we want to whatever we want" EULA bullshit. It's simply one party saying "we want out of this."

Comment Re:It is not unlimited. (Score 2) 420

Your latter metaphor is better, since both parties initially agreed on the dog being okay. If you were throwing loud parties, which you were explicitly allowed to do in your initial contract, then you should kind of be able to tell said neighbors to shove it.

Except that your contract has expired, so those "original terms" are in place only upon the goodwill of both parties (no pun intended). If one of those parties (the landlord) decides that making complaints from the neighbors go away is worth more than your continued tenancy, then no, you shouldn't be able to tell someone to shove it.

Are they still offering unlimited plans? Because this whole stupid thing was caused by them calling it that in the first place; now we're just looking at debris left over from that initial bad decision.

No, they're not. These are people who originally had "unlimited" plans but have been month-to-month customers since VZW discontinued those (and who VZW has elected to allow to remain grandfathered). VZW is now saying, "use what you want, but if you exceed this amount we will not renew your sweetheart deal" and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Comment Re:If they didn't want unlimited use (Score 1) 420

Certainly Verizon has the right to change the terms on grandfathered month-to-month plans whenever they see fit. I believe the issue is that they're doing so while continuing to call the plan Unlimited If they instead simply transferred all their Unlimited* plans to a newly created "100GB Bargain" plan, then there would be far less justification for calling them out. No doubt many would still call it a jerk move, but it would be an *honest* jerk move.

The plan actually IS unlimited. They've also defined a number they consider "reasonable" (whether or not it is so is immaterial) and said if you exceed this number, we will cease doing business with you, but if you used 1TB of data this month, they would not charge you an overage.

While analogy is always suspect, look at it this way: You go to the local Chinese Buffet which is "all you can eat for $8.95" and proceed to eat enough food to fill a small SUV. The cashier politely charges you the $8.95 and asks you to never return.

That's what we're talking about. You had all you can eat, but you're not welcome back.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love." -- Albert Einstein