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. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:No surprise... (Score 3, Informative) 210

Do you believe that business and merchants existed long before liability protections? If so, then you have evidence that your assertion is false. If not, then history begs to differ.

But when serious risk was needed, when machinery / railroads / technology developed that might succeed but easily may also fail, it was necessary. One of the reasons that the Industrial Revolution happened in the UK at the time it did was Limited Liability being available there. I'm not say it doesn't have other potentially bad side-effects, but is very obviously necessary for any serious progress to be made.

Comment Re:Obligatory xkcd (Score 2) 246

No, really. This applies to movies too. Why spend more to see it now when you can find it in the Walmart bargain bin a year later?

Depends on what it is and whether you want to be part of the cultural experience or not. The bigger films are quite often larger events that just the act of physically taking in the entertainment, there's conversations with friends, forums, youtube breakdowns, reviews with spoilers...

I went to see Star Wars VII on a 1st-day midnight showing, and it was very exciting. I don't care *that* much for Star Wars but it was just really fun going to the cinema with a bunch of people all excited to see something. Yeah it's fake but so is most human experiences.

Comment Re:Not that expensive (Score 1) 246

Because the idea that you *have* to watch a brand new movie is pretty ridiculous and it pretty much validates anything the movie companies want to charge.

Well if you want to be part of culture now - social conversations about the film, youtube philosophical breakdowns, avoiding spoilers... they yes you probably should see it around when it comes out. You can of course save yourself a little cash and wait months, but then you won't be part of the larger cultural moment, and for many films that's part of the experience.

Comment Re:How about traveling without? (Score 1) 144

Do you think it stops at social networks? Should you leave your phone completely?

Do you really think the two are equivalent in levels of importance?

You don't? Why are they different? Quite a few people communicate almost exclusively by text, by chat mediums with the people that they know. Some people don't like phonecalls. For an increasing number of people they are absolutely the same importance.

Social networks today, your phone call history tomorrow? Is that OK?

There are nations that for years have checked visitors' phones at customs. In case you didn't know this before, US laws don't travel with you when you enter another country - you enter another country and you are now expected to adhere to their laws. If you don't like their laws you should have traveled elsewhere.

That doesn't make the procedure good or right. Jobs and family often force travel. Anyone who has a distributed life doesn't get to smugly avoid it.

You can do this at the moment. Then tomorrow when they start doing automatic searches based on your name, and show you an account they've found that looks like you and has your name, what then?

What are you talking about? This is quite a bit removed from the topic at hand. If you're worried that a foreign nation is going to ask you to log in to a social media account, then you've made yourself a slave to social media. I'm guessing you don't leave home often with that attitude, though so you're probably just fine with that.

Amazingly naive.

"If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged."

FYI (to correct your many assumptions) I'm British and have to travel to the US and other countries to see family. So yeah I'm very aware that I have no rights at the US border. If *you* don't care about rights at borders then I would say it's far more likely *you* are the one that doesn't travel.

Comment Re:How about traveling without? (Score 1) 144

Really, traveling without social media is a very pleasant option in most cases. My most memorable vacations are the ones I took where I was not worried about WiFi or 3G service. Your vacation should get you away from what consumes you during the rest of your existence; if you are worrying about that crap while you are away I'm going to tell you that your doing your vacation wrong.

*this is not a goddamn solution*.

Yes, you can, especially if you're only vaguely on social networks. But we shouldn't have to jump through hoops like this - when you're visiting friends and whatever while travelling, guess what, social networks are very useful in that case. Do you think it stops at social networks? Should you leave your phone completely? Social networks today, your phone call history tomorrow? Is that OK?

You can do this at the moment. Then tomorrow when they start doing automatic searches based on your name, and show you an account they've found that looks like you and has your name, what then?

Comment Re:mode complexity (Score 1) 144

In the strictest sense you are of course correct, but I don't really see why you're making a distinction between analogue technologies where we have an expectation of privacy, and digital ones where for some reason there is none. By your logic every phonecall you make can be public because it goes through the phone companies' equipment. Every letter you send could potentially be opened and read.

But we don't have it work like that, there are systems & laws set up to keep those things private and a huge fuss is made if those things are not private for some reason.

Stop throwing in the towel just because it's easier to look down on people who use social networks. It is within possibility to fix this in law.

Comment Re:mode complexity (Score 2) 144

It isn't technology nor laws. It is pure and simple ROI, as viewed by social media companies. To them:

Security has no ROI.
Privacy has no ROI.

If it were in their interest to have security, we would be seeing social networks supporting client certs, reduced functionality modes, duress passwords, and many other types of security architectures, as opposed to just nothing like what we have now.

So ROI does not fix the problem? So we need laws then?

The market doesn't fix everything - that's why we have law.

Comment Re:"[I]f we do nothing to resist" (Score 1) 512

I'm not sure that leaving your phone at home counts as "resistance" - it sounds more like surrendering.

When at the border you have pretty much no power at all, and if you're not a US citizen then you definitely have no power at all. It's no use calling it "surrendering", but then offering no alternative action. What are we to do instead?

Comment Re:Ways around this (Score 1) 512

Simpler way: just don't visit the United States.
As a bonus, you will miss all the other airport humiliations: mass-fingerprinting, world's worst security theatre (you want my shoes off?), and risk of arbitrary refusal of entry without right of appeal or even explanation.

Yeah great, unless of course your job requires it, in which case you kindof have to. But you can just get another job that doesn't, right? Right. Unless you have family and friends there, in which case you have to. But you can just get other family, right?

Your simple solutions do not help people in the real world.

Comment Re:No, you don't get it (Score 1) 144

I think the better rhetorical question is: why are some people so amazingly stupid, that they are incapable of telling the difference between these two scenarios? What is causing this stupidity? Is there anything we can do about it, and if there is, should we do it?

When Facebook purports to give you control over your data, privacy settings, then yes it is absolutely reasonable to expect that stuff to be private to the people you choose. Yes, we know that their impenetrable contracts give them loads of rights, but the site does not communicate that in how it works. Despite your colourful analogy, very little about how Facebook works would make a normal person believe that they are in a fully public place.

I know it's superfun to call people stupid, and it makes you feel really great about your level of intelligence, but I would put real money on you believing stuff about other fields (law for example) that you're not personally involved in that are simply wrong. People do not have time to understand everything and they have to live their lives using reasonable expectation. The reasonable expectation of Facebook posts is that they are private to your group of friends.

Comment Re:What is the problem?.. (Score 1) 341

What's so outrageous or even particularly newsworthy about this?

The news is that Facebook rats you out. So don't use Facebook if you don't want its database wielded against you.

Before you get too smug, think how far this can go - your phone, without Facebook, collects your location constantly, should that be available to any policeman that wants to look? What about all your email history? All the calls you've made? We've already placed limits on what's reasonable to be used by law enforcement, Facebook is just another thing that we will have to make decisions about because it's *not just Facebook*, it's every piece of technology that you interact with that stores personal information.

Comment Re:So now under Trump... (Score 3, Interesting) 341

They don't listen.

Seriously? Listen to what? You have a press secretary that doesn't respond to questioning, that spouts obvious bullshit about trivia, making anything he says about anything extremely untrustworthy. You want people to not assume the worst, you need to command trust.

Comment Re:Before you think about this, answer me that: (Score 1) 460

They're in shit plans with shit companies that cost way too much, and way WAY too much for what they get. Doesn't sound like much of a loss, to me.

But still costs less that their alternatives? It might not be very good, but if the alternative is... no insurance...?

I hear lots of criticism, but no better plans that avoid the dreaded 'socialism' label that Americans hate. And certainly no better plan from the current Administration.

Comment Re:Before you think about this, answer me that: (Score 2) 460

Yikes. OK, how about healthcare. Are 20 million people who could well be without healthcare shortly an insignificant detail? Is not having healthcare insignificant? It is until you're ill, then there is nothing more significant in the world. Same with gay marriage or abortion - insignificant, until it really really isn't.

You're looking for a different economic system that isn't on offer, and that sucks. But the things you mention as "insignificant bullshit" is a colossally dismissive attitude to take. You don't care about those things, but then I'm guessing you're not gay or female.

Slashdot Top Deals

Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons.