Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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

Comment Re:Great (Score 1) 142

Gotta call bullshit on this.

No court in its right mind is going to force a manufacturer to repair or refund a failed item that's "a few years out of warranty" without the customer having been the victim of some sort of fraud (which a random out of warranty failure is not). That would be an excellent way of killing small businesses, and not a few large ones (or at least driving them out of the area).

Unless you want to tell us where you are, and provide citations for the cases in question?

Comment Re:It does not fairly represent the voters (Score 2) 1081

Put yourself in the shoes of someone in, say, Michigan. That is a state that (at one time) had a huge impact on the country just in terms of the automobile industry alone. I haven't done the research, but I'll bet that Michigan contributed significantly to the federal tax coffers in that period. If only the California and a few other states matter in the vote due to their population, how are you going to feel?

That's your answer to why the EC should stay intact.

Your statement presumes that there is no cultural difference between any two states. That is far from true. You would be allowing the larger state's city cultures to dominate the vote. The rest of the country would be S.O.L.

Yeah, that sounds fair to me... Not.

You also presume that these large, populous areas have, per capita, more value to the country than any other area. That is false. CA is better off than most because they have a lot of agriculture, but you'd probably be in trouble pretty quickly without the rest of the country.

Comment Re:should or could? (Score 1) 1081

Because the minorities don't have the convenient ability to secede from the Union (well, they could leave, but that's about it). The states, on the other hand, can secede any time they damn well please. It'd be ugly, but it can be done -- and if they start feeling like their votes don't matter, you can damn well bet that they eventually will.

And then you'll lose the food supply you're getting from those states...

Perhaps you should be asking yourself why you want all those useless, sparsely populated states in the middle. Because if you want to keep them, you can't try to make 'em slaves to your every whim.

IOW, not the same thing at all.

Comment Re:Why is everyone against Uber? (Score 4, Interesting) 230

On its face, Uber is an end-run around laws restricting taxi companies (it may not have started that way, but it definitely is now). Uber's whole scheme is analogous to patenting something that's already been done before by adding the phrase "on the internet". They're using weasel words to do things they're not supposed to be able to do by law.

Whether you think the law is fair or not is a different issue.

Because I feel that the laws there are too restrictive, I'd normally not really care. But then they get petulant. Did you know that Austin doesn't have Uber service? Austin wants all ridesharing services to fingerprint their drivers (which I believe the taxi companies are already required to do). The voters voted, and the law passed. Uber's response?

They took their ball and went home.

I use Uber fairly regularly. I love the service. I think it was needed, and for that reason I give them a pass on the medallion laws or whatever; the taxi companies needed a kick in the ass, and many of those laws probably exist due to corruption. But I [i]do not[/i] think it's unreasonable to comply with requests from municipalities that go to the safety of passengers -- or, for that matter, mandates to treat their employees fairly.

And when they're so petulant that they'll pull out of a municipality instead of complying with the laws there, well... That just makes it clear that those whiners think they're special snowflakes, and have no qualms about punishing their customers in an attempt to obtain the special treatment they think they deserve.

Comment Re:DDOS will continue until we decide to stop them (Score 1) 264

(1) The owner of a device attached to the Internet must make a reasonable effort to maintain it. Specifically, they must install security updates in a timely fashion. In addition, they must disconnect the device if they are unable to maintain it. No device or piece of software lasts forever. You don't get to keep using a PC with Windows XP, or a 10 year old router with dozens of known security holes -- you need to throw them away. Failure to do so will make the owner liable for damages if their device is used in a DDOS attack.

Useless. New devices are at nearly as much risk as old devices; that it's new should not in any way make you feel secure. You'll also be fighting legitimate businesses with legitimate use cases for, say, Windows '95. Specifically, that their legacy software and drivers have never been upgraded by the people who wrote them, and don't work on newer versions of Windows.

(2) Network operators shall be required to ensure that packets originating on their network have a valid source address (e.g. use filters at all ingress points). Failure to do so will make them liable for damages related to the DDOS attack.

(3) Network operators shall be required to provide rapid technical assistance to trace DDOS traffic that is passing through their network, so that it can be traced back to it's source. Failure to do so will make them liable for damages related to the DDOS attack.

Also useless. The modern day DDoS isn't necessarily about flooding a site with spoofed packets from a small number of high-bandwidth machines. It's about sending a tiny number of legit packets from an enormous number of compromised hosts. No outbound packet filter is going to be able to discern the good from the bad (and since the host is already compromised in the first place, there's no help there either).

There are exceptions, of course; for example, many IoT devices should be nuked from orbit, as they have no legitimate reason to EVER talk to most web sites.

I do agree that people should be held accountable for having insecure crap on the Internet and allowing it to participate in attacks. Detection and enforcement, however, is much more difficult than one would think.

Comment Re:The eternal balance question... (Score 4, Insightful) 264

The dynamics of this issue have changed considerably.

Five years or so ago, going offline was a Big Deal. Nowadays, people (both users and CxO's) don't seem to care as much; outages are transient, and accepted as a part of the cost of doing business. It's kinda sad for those of us who build high availability systems, but at the same time it's probably a lot more realistic for the budgets of most businesses.

Part of it, IMO, is that the Internet has been around long enough now (in a commercial sense) that the users are finally more prone to saying "my Internet is down" than "my Twitter is down".

Perception is everything.

Comment Re: Advertising/Commercials Killed TV (Score 1) 200

Tell that to Netflix.

And to my $70/mo "basic cable" bill (of which only about $20 is 'taxes and fees' -- wtf?!).

I don't mind paying for what I use; that's fine. What I do mind is that the content providers are so entrenched that they can charge far more than their content is actually worth. I also object to both paying for cable, and being saddled with a ridiculous number of commercials, some of which actually play over the program I'm trying to watch!

Enough is enough. I'm moving in a couple of months; I'm going to put a TV antenna up in my attic. Cheaper, better quality, and carries the four to six hours a week of TV that I actually watch.

Slashdot Top Deals

After a number of decimal places, nobody gives a damn.