Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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

Comment Re:Wow, just... I mean, wow. (Score 0) 189

I see, so now Uber, who you basically just said yourself is *saving people from starvation and death* is a husband who beats his wife?

So what you are saying is that the wife that is being abused is actually unable to survive without the husband, is that what you are implying? So is it the economy that makes the wife unable to survive or is that only something that exists in her (your) head?

You are now comparing people, who are driving for Uber to wives that take a beating but cannot leave their husbands because *they believe* they cannot survive in the world without the husband?

You see, I wouldn't make claims similar to yours, so I wouldn't put myself in such a precarious position in a conversation.

I think that people driving for Uber are not on the brink of starvation and hunger death, they have other choices, *you* implied that they are starving and cannot survive without Uber.

I think that they are making a conscious decision to drive for Uber because it works for them better, maybe it gives them extra income, maybe it gives them the flexibility, maybe they like not going to an office and like being treated as independent adults who are perfectly capable of making their own life choices.

You, on the other hand, are implying all sorts of things about these people that I think cannot stand to any type of scrutiny. These are not starving people, they are driving cars, they wear clothes and they have mobile phones and they are able to afford all of that and still they can eat something (or they wouldn't be driving).

You should stop attacking companies simply because you think they are not providing the type of work conditions that you expect them to provide, instead maybe (if you think you can do it better) you should run a competitor to Uber or to WalMart or to McDonalds or to Apple or to whatever and see if you can do better and if you can provide those jobs under the conditions that you are promoting here.

Comment Wow, just... I mean, wow. (Score 2) 189

Are you seriously that dense? Or do you work for one of those Russian pro trolling sites? If you do see your boss, you need to brush up on your work.

Should a woman who gets beaten by her husband stick around because it's a "good economic move"? If you're answer is yes, then I suppose in that light, yeah, keep driving for Uber without complaint. Just ask your sugar daddy to buy you some nice sunglasses to cover up the bruises.

Comment That's only because we're not there yet (Score 1) 189

give it 20 years with the current policies and we'll get there. We were there for hundreds, if not thousands of years. The current situation where people aren't constantly being abused everywhere is a blink the the eye (and if you live in large swaths of China or India not what's happening at all). What makes us 1st world countries such a bunch of precious little snowflakes that It Can't Happen Here, huh?

Comment That's fine for lemonade (Score 2) 189

It's a luxury good. It gets a lot iffier when you start talking about health care. And basic housing. And enough access to food that you can't be pressured into effective slavery. Do the folks in China working 16 hour shifts 6 days a week really have a choice?

No market is ever free. Money is power. The one who controls your access to food, water, shelter and health care controls _you_. You can either support democratic socialism, dream of joining the ruling elite (you're on /., so it's safe to say you haven't done that yet) or wallow in the muck while dragging us all down with you. Even if you don't choose one of those 3 options one will be chosen _for_ you.

Comment Re:Public information? (Score 1) 71

No, it differs from Stingray in that fundamental respect.

Cell phone conversations are presumed to be private. If you make a cell phone call from a private place, to someone else who is also in a private place, you most certainly have a reasonable expectation of privacy for that call. But Stingray could be intercepting that.

On the other hand, when I post this on Slashdot, I can't reasonably expect that to be private. I'm posting it for anyone who wants to read it.

That's the fundamental difference. It's the difference between someone using a long zoom to take photos through your bedroom window, and you happening to appear on a security tape when you go to the grocery store. You have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your bedroom. You don't in the grocery store.

Comment Re:Public information? (Score 1) 71

Well, just like it's Twitter's service, it's their API. They can restrict access to it in any way and for any reason they see fit.

If you're in public and attracting attention, it's foolish to presume you're not being recorded. With everyone having an audio and video recorder in their pocket, as well as the massive number of stationary recording devices, chances are good you probably are being recorded at any given time, especially if you're attracting attention. The stenographer would be largely redundant. You can consider that good, bad, or mixed, but such is the world we live in.

Comment Re:Don't worry (Score 1) 189

This has nothing to do with 'deserving', the point is that nobody at all is forcing anybody to drive for Uber.

I run a company of my own, at times I made not simply less than minimum wage would be, but in a number of cases I was paying people who work for me out of pocket, as in I was losing money, not making it. *Nobody* forced me to do this, it's a private personal decision.

Comment Re:Public information? (Score 1) 71

It's certainly my hope that Twitter's API doesn't allow access to private or "whitelist only" communication. If it does, that's a problem that goes well beyond this one instance. I can't say I'm terribly familiar with it myself, but I imagine if it had massive security flaws in it like that, we'd have heard about it by now. And if it does and we haven't, we certainly should.

As far as allowing access by non-blocked or logged in only users, that's such a low bar that you're still speaking publicly. For the blocked users, it would be equivalent to that speaker on the soapbox having a restraining order against someone. That one person (or even more than one person) can't come to hear them speak, but everyone else in the world still can. That is, for all intents and purposes, still speaking to the general public.

Comment Re:Enforcing rights (Score 1) 71

I could see that to a degree. But that's a different question.

Right now, the First Amendment only covers government action. The Fourth does too. Now, when the government was seeking records, that absolutely should implicate the Fourth Amendment. That should similarly happen with the First if it's the government asking for certain types of speech to be disallowed somewhere.

But the Fourteenth and Nineteenth don't create those employment and public accommodation laws. They, too, only restrict the government. It's laws, like the Civil Rights Act, that put into place the actual protections against discrimination by private actors.

I'm not sure how the constitutionality of requiring Twitter, or Slashdot, or any other platform to let anyone use its services without restriction would come out. I suspect they could readily argue that it violates freedom of association; that they have the right not to be associated with those people, and to kick them off their property. But there might be some success in making "political persuasion" a protected class. Of course, the lawsuits over what exactly falls under that would be nothing if not endless.

But realistically, I think the whole thing is overblown. I saw tons and tons of pro-Trump stuff on social media. Trump himself was certainly never barred from using Twitter, and does so to this day. If Facebook won't even stop flat out lies masquerading as news from being posted, I think they're being pretty permissive.

Slashdot Top Deals

Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso