Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Legal theory -vs- reality (Score 1) 142

This is where legal theory and practical reality are colliding.
* It does not make rational sense that we allow commercial companies to use robocalls for advertising.
* It does make rational sense that my child's school can robocall the parents if there is an unexpected early dismissal.

Back when commercial robocalls were allowed, people were inundated with calls. The dinner time advertisement recorded call was a regular event in our house during the 80s and 90s. Even now, where it is mostly illegal, sometimes a person's number gets on a list and they have to get a new phone number because the robocalls make their phone unusable. This happens with email addresses all the time.

Even a strong free speech advocate can see that the practical effect of calling robocalls "speech" is crazy. Not all forms of "audible vibrations that form words" is speech. If that were so, we would have people (heck, robots!) with megaphones trolling the streets spewing advertising and scam vacations.

Comment Re:Rules for thee, not for me (Score 4, Informative) 211

For an imperfect analogy: If I loan my volunteer fire department use of my car, I haven't given up title, Nor have I indicated that anyone is now free to abscond the vehicle with impunity.

In fact, Getty not only stole these, by falsely asserting ownership rights, it's as if they took the car from my analogy, and drove it for Uber.

Her images are NOT public domain. They are her copyright, for which she waived license fees for re-use and distribution, via Library of Congress, per her attribution remain.

Comment Re:Grain of salt (Score 1) 170

I accept your point that we should not wait until a disaster to take preventative action.

The problem is that:
1. The actions they are taking are not preventative. They are overreaching.
2. They lied about their evidence.

the agency said manufacturers could eventually use it to build drones that automatically steer away from wildfire locations.

So the vision seems to be that, in the future, all civilian drones will be mandated to participate in a system that lets the government remotely steer them away from certain areas. That's fine and dandy for wildfires: can't argue with that! But if they succeed in mandating such technology, I guarantee it won't be used to protect aircraft during wildfires. It will be used to prevent news drones from covering stories that the feds don't want footage of. It will be used to prevent citizens from recording police actions. I don't think we've even begun to explore what these things can do, and now is not the time for paranoia to stop growth.

I think this is akin to going back tot he early days of the internet, and mandating a remote kill switch on all computer, to prevent hackers from taking over the internet. It sounds like a smart preventative action once you setup an appropriate "straw man." It could be terrorists, hackers, or child pornographers, or whatever ill you can imagine.

In reality, there is no credible threat to these planes. Nobody is flying drones in wildfires. (This is similar to the reports of hand-held laser pointers hitting civilian planes landing at airports. The math shows it just isn't happening, and their evidence is borderline falsified.) I do not want the government to use falsified evidence to justify a system that curtails our rights and squelches a fledgling industry. **PUN INTENDED**

Comment Re:And still people won't vote for Gary Johnson (Score 1) 692

There is a chicken-egg problem here. The plurality voting system encourages reducing down to 2 parties since voting for a party that does not have a near 50% chance of winning becomes a waste. But to fix it, we need to get 3rd-parties in place or else we can't change it. And the circle goes around.

But, psychologically speaking, is the math behind plurality voting that really the problem? Or is it that people tend to have a "my team -vs- the other team" mentality toward politics? In reality, people don't love the Republicans or the Democrats. Nor do people hate the Republicans or the Democrats. People *are* Republicans or Democrats. It's like they accept their political affiliation as a lifelong designation that they can never change. You know, like when somebody grows up as a Ravens fan, then moves to Texas. But they are always a Ravens fan for life. (Replace with preferred sports team as appropriate).

It could be that Americans are rational actors thinking "If I vote for a 3rd-party, [Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump] might win." That's an example of flawed local-optimization -vs- global-optimization logic. But I suspect most Americans are thinking "I vote for my party! I am loyal! The other side is evil!"

Do you know: Are there other places in the world with plurality voting, where >2 parties survive?

Comment Re:And still people won't vote for Gary Johnson (Score 1) 692

Your post is an awesome example of exactly what I am trying to demonstrate. You are too caught up with arguing over which lying scumbag is worse than the other to see the point of the post. The point is "stop arguing and look to the alternatives." All you saw was someone insulted your party.

Slashdot Top Deals

The trouble with money is it costs too much!