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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Denial-of-Service? (Score 1) 102

Few here are probably old enough to actually know how those stickers helped.

Of course the stickers themselves did little. But the requirements to be allowed to glue those stickers to your gear are as described on the sticker. And before the stickers, electric gadgets interfering with each other was a big deal. Even well after WW2 high frequency interference from electric tools was still a big issue. Today, with electric appliances working on FAR lower voltages and using FAR less electricity, along with better parts that create less noise, this problem doesn't really apply anymore, and the FCC sticker is pretty much obsolete, because pretty much any and every power tool will be able to pass.

It wasn't always that way. And people did actually bother to check whether something had that sticker after getting burned (not necessarily only figuratively so) by electronic devices of a lower quality standard that didn't earn that FCC badge.

Comment Re:Denial-of-Service? (Score 1) 102

Understand that this was a very different time than today. When back then someone hacked you, it was for shits 'n giggles. You did it to show off, or you needed a few MB of space online so you created a backdoor to a server where you and a friend could move some data to and from. The damage was negligible. What we did was mostly repurposing resources for our own little benefit.

What you're dealing with today is criminal organizations aiming for money. To draw a parallel, what we did was going out in our little fishing boat and catching a fish because we were hungry. What's going on today is fleets of trawlers stripmining the seas because they want to sell the fish worldwide.

Comment Re:Yes but (Score 5, Interesting) 288

Thought experiment. Let's suppose you're a CIVIL engineer -- the type of engineer the regulations are intended to target. You're on vacation in Oregon, and you notice a serious structural fault in a bridge which means that it is in imminent danger of collapse.

Under this interpretation of the term "practice engineering" you wouldn't be able to tell anyone because you're not licensed to practice engineering in Oregon. In fact anyone who found an obvious fault -- say, a crack in the bridge -- would be forbidden to warn people not to use it until it had been looked at.

Which is ridiculous. Having and expressing an opinion, even a professionally informed opinion, isn't "practicing engineering". Practicing engineering means getting paid -- possibly in some form other than money. At the very least it means performing the kind of services for which engineers are normally paid.

A law which prevented people from expressing opinions wouldn't pass constitutional muster unless it was "narrowly tailored to serve a compelling public interest" -- that's the phrase the constitutional lawyers use when talking about laws regulating constitutionally protected activities. In this case the public interest is safety, which would be served by a law which prevented unqualified people from falsely convincing people that a structure was safe. But there is no compelling interest in preventing an engineer from warning the public about something he thinks is dangerous or even improper.

So if the law means what they claim it to mean, it's very likely unconstitutional.

Comment Re:Yes but (Score 1) 288

No, in the state of Oregon you can't use the title "engineer" unless you are practicing. You can be an engineer, work as engineer, etc. You can't claim the title unless you have a license. Other states are the same way but are not as strict with the usage of the term. In Texas, for example, a "professional engineer" is required to sign off on schematics and requires certification meaning you've passed tests.

Comment Re:What does this do to content? (Score 1) 43

It seems unlikely that EU law will prevent a vendor from selling something at all in selective member states if there is a good reason not to. We looked into this issue when the EU VAT mess was the big news a couple of years ago, fearful that some sort of anti-discrimination provisions would say otherwise. The experts made some straightforward arguments that, for example, declining to sell to customers elsewhere in the EU would be OK if the costs of operating the new tax scheme were prohibitive, because that would be a strictly commercial decision. Presumably complying with the law of the land would also be considered an acceptable basis for making such a decision.

Comment Re:Good or bad for customers? (Score 1) 43

The EU is working being a common market, where it started.

That's lovely, and when the economic situation in all EU member states is similar, maybe they'll achieve it. In the meantime, it is far from clear that this is a good thing.

At least in the sort of context we're talking about here, the "real market price" you mentioned is what someone is prepared to pay for something, no more and no less. Forcing people from areas with very different economic situations to pay the same price just means a lot of things won't be accessible to people from those places that can't afford the same rates as their wealthier neighbours.

Slashdot Top Deals

Mathemeticians stand on each other's shoulders while computer scientists stand on each other's toes. -- Richard Hamming

Working...