Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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

Comment Re:poor vim users (Score 2) 488

It feels like Apple just missed being able to be the king of platforms for network admins too.

Just as they got their OS truly ready for Linux and UNIX users to jump-in, they removed some of the page navigation keys. Many users put up with it anyway. Then they started downsizing on the ports. Many users put up with that too even when they had to now use a dongle to connect to a friggin' Ethernet jack.

Now they're getting rid of the vast majority of physical ports, so no more console access, and they're now cutting-bone, not merely flesh, by removing the Escape key, a key used all the damn time by a lot of us.

Comment Re:Sweet tears (Score 1) 112

A drone needs a camera to manually navigate the thing whilst out of line-of-sight.

And there is your problem. Operating it out of line-of-sight. Perhaps the Swedish ruling is based on the nature of constitutes acceptable use, and out of line-of-sight does not meet their criteria.

As to the argument about acceptable use versus unacceptable use, while the courts and legislatures often do side with if something has an acceptable use then it won't be banned for having an unacceptable use, there are exceptions, and those exceptions are often based on the nature of the unacceptable use, and how widespread that unacceptable use is compared to otherwise. Often that kind of consideration is based on how the unacceptable use affects other people.

Comment Re:Sweet tears (Score 2) 112

The user of Google Glass is immediately identifiable because he has to be present. The owner of an RC aircraft with a camera on it may not be identifiable because that person does not have to be in line-of-sight to the people being filmed by the RC aircraft in order to control that RC aircraft.

Comment Re: Bravo indeed (Score 1) 424

Actually it has everything to do with her decisions. She knows how to copy a file. She knows how to send a file to other people. One can even argue that she knows how to receive a file shared with her to then turn around and share it. It's not a great leap to the realization that anyone that receives the file can turn around and redistribute it.

The only failure here is that she did not consider the full ramifications for her actions, and she has paid a terrible price for those actions. People have tried to counsel against this in the past, "don't do anything that you wouldn't want your grandma reading about in the newspaper," "don't write down anything you don't want others to read," etc. This problem has been known forever, and basically boils down to not doing things that one will be ashamed of, or to at least not document those things.

Comment Re: Right to be Forgotten (Score 1) 424

Have you ever actually gone through the legal process of getting a favorable ruling and then trying to get that ruling enforced? Because you don't sound like you have any idea what that involves. Trying to enforce this ruling would be playing whack-a-mole on an infinitely large grid where each time it pops up a new legal battle has to be mounted.

Comment Re: Bravo indeed (Score 5, Insightful) 424

Despite the apparent acquiescence of neck-beards on Slashdot, having the ability to share personal information without sharing it with the entire world is something greatly desired by actual human beings.

And this capability has never, ever existed. Even huge corporations have tried to make it happen through a collection of technologies and laws called Digital Rights Management and despite tens of millions of dollars and system after system, DRM falls or is circumvented through the final 'analog hole'.

It's possible to have sympathy while still acknowledging that the risks that led to this outcome were entirely hers to bear in her obviously ill-thought actions that started this. The extreme nature of her particular extreme cultural influence is certainly abnormal, but it does show how ridiculous it is to expect the right to be forgotten to actually do a damn thing.

Comment Re:Neener neener (Score 1) 111

Why didn't the copyright flunkies say, "Sorry, prior art. Tough noogies."?

This is what I'm wondering, that and since a phone itself is a manufactured device that originated from a specific entity, if anyone could legitimately claim any kind of rights, that entity should have any copyrights and trademarks, not some media company attempting to use it.

I wish they'd ruled for the right reasons, but at least the ruling itself is better than if it'd gone the other way.

Slashdot Top Deals

He keeps differentiating, flying off on a tangent.