Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment FCC wants this? (Score 1) 157

So, I haven't looked at the latest FCC rant, but is the push towards specifically not allowing alternate firmware (are they afraid some one will be able to remotely install new firmware on random routers?)?
Or is the push to secure routers in general, and this company completely screwed it up by locking out one method of securing routers by replacing their crap firmware?
Who messed it up? FCC? or TP?

Comment good or bad implementation, still a good attempt (Score 1) 263

This idea actually seems to be a good one. Not sure if the law is worded well enough to stand up to abuse but it actually puts legal definitions around what should be known already: when you end a relationship, it changes how you relate to the things shared with that person.
I'm kinda surprised so many are considering this a "change in consent" or "going back and changing your mind after the fact". It's not. When a relationship changes, the way you relate to that person changes. Another way to think of it is: the consent for sharing intimate things changed when you are no longer intimate with that person....so no "changing your mind" but it's recognizing what already happened.
As far as comments of "if you don't want pictures shared, then don't let them be taken". So, because something might be abused later, don't partake in it? What a sad way to live. Safe yes, but so is never drinking, never leaving the house, etc. Pick your risky behavior and insert here.
Being in a relationship is by definition trusting that person more than others, otherwise it's just, at best, friends with benefits. Ending the relationship is backing down on how much you share with the other person, so of course trusting them with pictures like that has changed.

Comment Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition (Score 1) 204

Look at insurance policies and such and DECIDE if you feel safe with the insurance you have...it's your choice to drive people around but if an accident happens, the driver is the person in the car that needs to cover the damages if liability falls on that car, not the passengers. That means DRIVER insurance may not cover all the damage and the driver themselves have to fork over the cash...
Problem is if you ride on someone's car you assume they will cover in case of the worst, but that may not happen and probably wouldn't happen for commercial drivers if the driver or company could get away with it: that's the difference that matters : how often do you have passengers and how many. Requiring more coverage for commercial drivers to have more coverage and training is a way to mitigate the number of times a person gets injured as a passenger and doesn't realize until too late the driver doesn't have it covered. Commercial drivers have a higher tendency to drive with passengers in the car, hence making them have better coverage at least tries to cover the case.

Comment who do you call for help (Score 1) 283

Most of the comments seem to be focused on the paranoid idea (justifiable in a lot of cases) that the US is doing a land grab.
What about from the other way? you have a moon base (say Space X or such went there "because it's there") and China's rocket lands 10 feet away a few years later. They open the door and tell you to get off their land. Who do you go to to keep 'em from doing that?
Jurisdiction issues cut both ways.

Slashdot Top Deals

Help fight continental drift.

Working...