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

 



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

Comment Re:Does not compute (Score 1) 522

That story was a little local for me.

The story I remember was a local union squaring off against management. Management said they couldn't afford to keep loosing money. The union said they wouldn't budge on salary demands, the management said they couldn't pay them what they demanded. The union stood firm and the company closed. Everybody lost jobs. Yay union?

Hostess had a net loss of $1.1 billion in fiscal 2012, on revenues of $2.5 billion. In January, the company filed for Chapter 11.

Unions aren't intrinsically bad or good, but Hostess provided the prime example of how they can cause more harm than good. It doesn't necessarily need to be that way, but if the union leaders aren't able to see reality, then *boom* death of Twinkies!

Comment Re:Better be ready to be beat up when layed off wo (Score 4, Insightful) 522

I certainly don't think I'd be useless without my current job. I love baking, drawing, painting, hiking, camping, fishing, kite flying, movies, tv shows, books, hanging out with friends, learning new skills and programming. I don't get paid for most of those and the one I do get paid for is only fun about a third of the time. Given my current level of comfort, I'd love to spend an extra thirty hours a week on more of those other things.

Take away any single one of those things I enjoy and I'll spend more time on the others. Heck, take all of them away and I'm confident I'd find new hobbies. Woodworking looks interesting.

Comment Re:Better be ready to be beat up when layed off wo (Score 1) 522

I'd love to work ten hours a week for my current forty hour pay. I already spend around ten hours every week listening to podcasts that increase my understanding of the tech industry as a whole and my particular work areas. Given an additional thirty hours in a week to spend as I choose, I'd probably spend another ten on self education, another ten on personal enrichment like reading for pleasure and the last extra ten with my family.

Maybe I'd balance that a little differently. Perhaps I'd get a little more sleep and spend a little more time on slashdot, who knows. I'd like the opportunity to find out.

Comment This is a good thing (Score 1) 251

Nothing could be better for the business of providing privacy supporting VPNs and proxies than this. Every privacy service sees this legislation as a sudden boon to business. In six months there will be more and cheaper VPNs and proxies available all over the world. What could be better for proxy and VPN service providers than having governments produce an incentive to use them?

The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. - John Gilmore

Perhaps we'll look back some day and see this as the thing that created the generator of an economy of privacy.

Comment Of course it is legal (Score 2) 112

If Spike TV finds a website streaming the Garcia vs Vargas fight tonight and they can identify which of their broadcasts is being streamed.... they have every right to turn that particular broadcast off.

That's all this is about. It isn't shutting down someone's site. It isn't spying on someone's data stream. It's not a wiretap.

It's a way to put different identifiers on the service you're providing to different customers. Once you have that, you can identify which of your customers is abusing your service and stop providing that service.

Comment Air above your backyard is already public property (Score 1) 307

TL;DR version: The "dystopian future has really arrived" because the US Supreme court disagrees with you.

your own house and garden suddenly become public places where your asshole neighbor can film you and your children

It's not happening suddenly. It happened twenty years ago.

Annoying people is sometimes illegal, sometimes not, but the law doesn't (and shouldn't) consider using "shitty tech gadgets" any worse than lawnmowers, drums, or a ladder. At the same time, the US has strong legal protection for people who want to take pictures, videos or otherwise gather information. You can't make it generally illegal do those things without infringing on the freedom of the press.

All the discussion about drones specifically is due to the human tendency to see actions as being tied to tools. It is the same fallacy that drives laws to be disproportionate where a crime is done "with a computer." Even if you get laws to protect your privacy in your back yard "from drones," you will still have your privacy invaded completely legally by people with actual airplanes, or ladders, or model airplanes, or mini-blimps.

The core issue is defining what the law should treat as your right to privacy. (Not what tools people might use to infringe on it.) So far, the courts have determined that you have property rights extending about to shotgun height above your property and you have the right to privacy where you are not visible or try to keep yourself from being visible from public property. (The air above your backyard is public property at sufficient altitude.) For example, it's perfectly legal to take pictures of your neighbors if they're in front of an open window (or their backyard.) It's illegal to take the same picture if they have blinds on their windows which are failing to actually hide the people on the other side. (Indeed, you in some states, even being naked at home in front of an open window is illegal.

Comment Re:Thanks to (Score 2) 369

I agree that adding limits like that is just adding potential for abuse. However, that doesn't mean there is no possibility for an edit option that is both sane and relatively safe.

My favored option at the moment is to put an "Add Edit" button on a person's account page. (Where it shows your previous posts.) The "Add Edit" button would give you a box where you could type in updates, corrections or whatever as a clearly delineated separate addition to your post. It would look like what we see on featured articles from time to time when new information becomes available.

Edit 2016-07-19 18:57CDT: It wouldn't be easy to abuse as the original content would remain, but it would make it possible to correct or clarify when appropriate.

Edit 2016-07-19 18:59CDT: Maybe limit the number of characters to something small and the number of edits to a maximum of two or three.

Comment Re:Thanks to (Score 1) 369

This sounds like a recipe for saying something popular to get modded up to visibility quickly, then editing it to inject your particular spam or trolling preferences while you've got the greatest visibility possible.

I would rather see an "Append Edit" option which would allow you to add something to your post, within the post, but clearly delineated as a separate entry. We see these on the the featured articles all the time.

Comment Re:Stack Overflow provides revision history (Score 2) 369

I don't know how SO works, but I like the concept. Edit your own posts if you like, but each edit draws a box mostly overlapping your previous one so that people who want to see the original edit can click on the bottom box. Essentially if somebody edits their own post 52 times, it should look like a deck of cards. Discourage unnecessary editing by limiting edits to 2 or 3 and knock any post back to -1 immediately if it's edited to avoid abuse.

Slashdot Top Deals

All life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities. -- Dawkins

Working...