Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



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

Comment Entrepreneurship (Score 1) 157

There's been multiple examples of people deploying their own connectivity solution and starting local broadband services. I think it's awesome when people solve a problem for themselves and their neighbors. Take charge, start a project and don't wait for someone else.
The examples I've seen were in rural area, and I suspect that helped. In more urban areas, the difficulty is getting a right of way from the local government (who is often in bed with incumbent ISPs).

Comment Private rules vs government rules (Score 1) 321

If yelling FIRE was disallowed by the theater owner, that would be fine.
Also no talking during the movie.
There are many extremely strong restrictions and relaxations that people can agree to, and that is fine: No swearing in my barbershop. The boxers agree to punch each other in a boxing ring. The flutist in an orchestra agrees to breath as directed.
If the rules are unpopular, then people won't participate and they will provide alternatives. If some forums want to be NSFW and some want to be insult-free, then so be it.

The trouble is with un-owned or government-owned spaces, or venues that receive taxpayer money. Those are contentious because whatever rules will be decided will be one-size-fits-all monopoly rules.
Freedom of speech only pertains to government interference. Rationally, it is hard to justify the proportionality of using coercion (for example, fines with threats of prison and armed enforcement) in response to speech.

Comment Hallucinations as evidence (Score 1) 79

This should be easy for a defense attorney to invalidate. Hallucinated images (assembled largely from a corpus of previous images to "enhance" some evidence) are not the same as an image that is run through an abstract de-blurring algorithm.
It's probably easy to demonstrate the problem with some examples, so that judge and jury "gets it".

Comment But what is the crime? (Score 4, Insightful) 94

I don't know if this information is public, but what is his supposed crime, specifically?
Did he break the rules of the exchange? Did he trespass, break in, or otherwise tamper with the system?

If you're playing poker, actually manipulating the deck, looking at other people's cards, are both against the rules. Participants agree to those rules when they join the table.
Let's say you're really good at bluffing other people or reading their bluff, you've done nothing wrong. And calling it "manipulation" or "abuse" or "profiting" or "ruining other players" is just a way to obscure that fact.

Comment Classical liberal concepts (Score 1) 1368

It's good to hear a resurgence of interest in classical liberal concepts like secession.
Here are a few more that maybe people should think about: division of powers, limited and decentralized/local government, non-interventionism, nullification.
I wish it didn't take Trump getting elected for people to take those seriously.

Comment Definition of "comb" (Score 1) 488

Comey announced they filtered out all emails that were not sent to or from Hillary, which would indeed narrow down the set. But this method may suffer other problems.
Assuming that intent is relevant to the crime for argument's sake, if you are only looking for a smoking gun of Hillary's intent ("hey could you set up a private email server so that I can avoid those pesky Congressional investigations and FOIA requests"), then such a filter is adequate.
If you think maybe Hillary asked her assistant to do such thing, but was not stupid enough to put it in email herself (what are assistants for, if not plausible deniability?), then clues may be found in emails that were filtered out (ie. not "combed through").
This is but one example where the filter may be efficient (fast) but inadequate.

Comment Dating (Score 1) 197

You don't want to associate with me, so I try to force you (via government)?
We don't accept that in dating and marriage, as it's called stalking and rape, yet somehow it is virtuous to force in the context of other human relationships?
The "cure" seems even less civilized than the problem. It is using aggressive force against people who act peaceful (although distastefully in some cases).

Comment Rights and rationality (Score 1) 149

Having your property searched (trespassed on by police) is different than not getting a loan. You own your house. You don't own the bank's money.
If police were not a privileged monopoly, they would owe restitution for bad searches, just like a trespasser does. But given that it is a monopoly, we try to rein its power in with rules.

The idea that the world is better or more rational by ignoring rational inferences is mistaken. Take for example the effort to "ban the box" (which means employers don't get to ask if you're a felon). Although such legislation are intended to help black people, but the the results appear to have been opposite [1].
People (including employers, creditors, insurers, retailers, ...) try to evaluate risks as best they can. If you make them blind to a signal, but they are unwilling to increase their risk tolerance, they will behave more conservatively, not less. They will decrease their service and use even cruder methods to control their risk.

[1] http://phys.org/news/2016-06-e...

Slashdot Top Deals

% APL is a natural extension of assembler language programming; ...and is best for educational purposes. -- A. Perlis

Working...