Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re: Louisiana is one big sinkhole (Score 1) 301

yes, but their are several issues with 'carbon taxes'.
1) we really need to apply it to GOODS/Service based on where the worst part/service comes from. This way, it involves ALL nations.
2) we need a standard approach to measuring CO2. The ideal way is to use Japan's new CO2 sat, along with OCO-3, that trump just grounded. With these 2, we can get absolute numbers and can see CO2 moving IN and OUT of an area.
3) need a better form of normalization. Considering that ppl in general do NOT make the choies on emissions, then this should be tied to emissions / $GDP. That way, businesses and govs will work together in their local area to drop their emissions. Otherwise, as taxes go up on an area, the businesses will leave.

Comment Re:It's all in the way you pitch it... (Score 2) 345

When you decide to express your personal brilliance to the developer, take the time to word it in such a way that it doesn't come across as condescending or undermining.

He's not expressing it to the developer, he's expressing it in a posting to the Internet. I.e., to everyone. That's how people who aren't the developer are telling him it isn't a change they want.

Comment Re:Almost (Score 1) 69

Censorship is blocking speech.

True, meaningful censorship requires some official prohibition, not simply a limitation on what is said by the speaker or the owner of the medium being used to speak. Otherwise, "censorship" occurs every minute of every day in every medium, and the definition you are using is absolutely worthless for anything other than emotional impact. "Censorship bad" is a wonderful meme, but only if you limit the use of "censorship" to actually represent something bad.

I understand why you want to use the term that way, but when using your definition my only response to concerns that changing the ownership limits on broadcast media will create censorship opportunities is "so what"? The local TV station has no legal requirement to distribute your words, therefore they can already "censor" you, but only when you try to claim that every limitation on your speech in any medium is "censorship". Changing the ownership limits doesn't change anything. Censorship becomes bad when it is some official telling your local TV station that your ideas may not be broadcast at all.

Comment Re:Almost (Score 1) 69

No, I'm using censorship in the correct fashion.

Your 'fashion' makes the term meaningless. You, yourself, are guilty of censorship under your use, since you chose what words you used and prevented yourself from using ones that you did not want. I "censor" my own postings here; you "censor" yours; others "censor" theirs. By choosing not to post to Twitter, I "censor" Twitter, and ditto Facebook and whatever else. Claiming "censorship" under such a definition is hardly an earth-shattering problem; it is so common that it is meaningless. The only possible use of the term "censorship", then, is to try to evoke the negative connotations of real censorship.

Using your definition, the only reasonable response to a cry of "censorship" is "so what?" Only when it comes to true, enforced censorship does it have any negative connotations. Who in the US truly censors any of the private companies you listed? If your only answer is like "Twitter is closing accounts of people who do X", then you haven't met the burden of proof.

When you point out the TV numbers alone it does not demonstrate the larger scope of the problem.

I pointed out "the TV numbers" because this discussion is about the FCC changing "the TV numbers". They can do nothing about the numbers overall because they do not regulate the vast majority of news sources. Trying to claim that this change will create "censorship" and "monopolies" of news is just silly. It's like saying that a store that refuses to carry M&M candies is trying to deprive the world of chocolate. There are so many other sources of chocolate that you won't go hungry no matter what that store doesn't sell you.

Comment Re:Almost (Score 1) 69

but off by about 10 years

"two decades, at least" means "twenty or more years". How can a statement that has no starting date be short by ten years?

GP is correct however, that people should be bothered about further monopolization.

Changing the 39% value doesn't mean there will become a news monopoly, nor would changing the UHF discount. And considering the huge number of news sources today, claiming that anyone had a monopoly on providing it is just patently absurd.

Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, all being censored.

I understand that you are using the term "censored" in the modern, meaningless sense, hoping to evoke fear based on true censorship. None of those media are being censored, at least not in the US. Yes, German laws regarding Nazi material (as one example), that's true censorship, but we're talking about US Federal regulation of media ownership, which is based on US law, not German.

Comment Re:This effects local TV stations (Score 2) 69

The phrase Super Mighty in English sounds childish. It's meant to diminish the perceived threat from North Korea.

The problem with your argument is that this phrase was used by North Korea itself, reported by Reuters:

The Rodong Sinmun, the official newspaper of North Korea's ruling Workers' Party, struck an aggressive tone earlier on Thursday.

"In the case of our super-mighty preemptive strike being launched, it will completely and immediately wipe out not only U.S. imperialists' invasion forces in South Korea and its surrounding areas but the U.S. mainland and reduce them to ashes," it said.

It is easy to forget while living in countries where the press is free and is expected to publish things that make the government look bad, that places like North Korea don't have such freedoms, and certainly not when you consider that the source is the official publication of the ruling political party.

Do you believe that North Korea used this phrase to deliberately diminish the seriousness of their threat?

That's the kind of propaganda that'll be everywhere, not just on the major Cable networks.

I hadn't heard the phrase before, so I did a quick google for it. It seems to be everywhere, not just the major cable networks. ABC, CBS, NBC, Reuters, USA Today, and The Telegraph are all hits high on the list.

I think it is a good thing when such statements are aired openly and by every news organization. I don't see how loosening the cap on coverage areas is going to change this specific situation at all. I also think that concerns about billionaires buying up media and manipulating the news are about two decades, at least, too late. It doesn't require just one billionaire buying all the news media to have this happen, just the fact that billionaires are in charge of setting news policy for the ones they already own.

Bernard Goldberg wrote a book about his experiences at CBS. It's a fascinating read, and it was written almost 20 years ago.

Comment Re:Perhaps an over-simplification (Score 1) 131

Why does that need a separate decree, rather than just being prosecuted...?

Because to prosecute someone for taking secret pictures of someone in the shower, you need to prove that that specific person took the pictures.

To prosecute someone for posting them online, you only need to prove they posted them.

They may have been taken years before they were posted, or they may have been taken by someone else. They may have been taken with permission, but not with permission to post.

Comment Re:So... (Score 2, Insightful) 323

I think anyone who doesn't care, is uninterested in maintaining a rePUBLIC based on trust between the elites and the drones

That's funny. Anyone who cared about "day one" promises from the last president was racist. Now it is good to care about promises.

God, I wish /. could get back to the topics it was created for and stop being this political discussion hellhole.

Comment Re:Im curious (Score 1) 122

Obviously, comprehension is not your strong point.
In a 10 year period of early 80s to the early 90s, we say a 100% rise. The OP mentioned 88% over a 10 year period from 2006-2016. So, how much did it rise in 16 years? well, roughly 100% every 10 years. So, by 2000, the price would be $200, and then 60% or so ON THE $200 for the 6 years would make that around $320. 88% for the last decade would make that around 600 on up.
So, last I check, $600+ falls in between $500-1000, but perhaps you have some new math? Perhaps GOP math?

Comment Im curious (Score 1) 122

Back in the late 70s and early 80s, we typically paid around $10/ gen ed books, except for science/engineering (which were always changing), and IIRC, the most expensive one was $40.
Then in early 90s went back for another degree, and noticed that upper end had moved to around $100/science.

So, what are these now? It almost sounds like these are $500-1000 for a single text book? But that would be insane.

Comment Re:I find this thoroughly unsurprising (Score 1) 343

while using a $100+ Garman device mounted to the exact same spot for the exact same purpose is legal.

The Oregon law as introduced makes no such distinction. It would be a "mobile electronic device" being used for navigation. And Garmin has a pretty large facility in Salem, OR...

Comment Re:I find this thoroughly unsurprising (Score 1) 343

In this configuration, futzing with it is exactly like someone futzing with their stereo controls.

The proposed Oregon legislation that I linked to earlier would make this use of your mobile device illegal.

Standards for "car-safe" apps when hooked to a BT source would be a really good start.

My HTC phone has a "car" mode with limited apps. I never use it since I never find myself needing the artificial nanny to keep me from texting. It is interesting that some of the apps in the limited set include navigation, music, phone, and texting (at least receiving them -- "car" wants permission to access SMS.)

Comment Re:I find this thoroughly unsurprising (Score 1) 343

I can use all the basic controls in my car without looking.

Not everyone can, because not everyone memorizes where they are or which function is at which detent. And advanced controls are worse. But then, there are people who can operate their phone without looking at it, too, so if the controls of your vehicle are exempt from consideration as distractions, so to should cell phones be exempted.

Note that the "controls" of your vehicle would include the display from your Sirius radio, and if you don't think that looking at the display to see the name of the artist playing that song you're listening to is a distraction, then you don't own a Sirius radio.

The problem is, the issue is not what highly capable people can and are doing, it is what normal people do. Normal people are distracted by tuning the radio and other people in the car.

I don't care what someone does with their phone while driving, as long as they don't have to look at it.

Perhaps you missed the point that I was making, in that the argument about distracted driving that most people make regarding phones applies just as much to a lot of other things, like tuning the radio, and sometimes even just listening to it.

But that's not what happens - people read social media while driving, FFS.

Sadly, while that is the way the argument against using cell phones while driving is typically presented, eliminating that is not the result that anti-phone zealots seek. They wish the elimination of the "use" of phones, not just the obviously serious distractions they can present.

Oregon House Bill 2597 says, in part:

(c) "Using a mobile electronic device" includes but is not limited to using a mobile electronic device for text messaging, voice communication, entertainment, navigation, accessing the Internet or producing electronic mail.
(2) A person commits the offense of operating a motor vehicle while using a mobile electronic device if the person, while operating a motor vehicle on a highway:
(a) Holds a mobile electronic device in the person's hand; or
(b) Uses a mobile [communication] electronic device for any purpose.

The emphasis is mine. The law is specific in saying that you cannot use them for entertainment (playing audio) or for navigation. That means it would be illegal to start up a five hour audio book on your cell phone to listen to during your one hour commute, even though you don't have to touch the phone in any way from the time you press play while parked in your garage until you press "stop" after parking at work. "Any purpose" would be illegal. As is just holding it in your hand.

But holding a cup of coffee in your hand is not illegal.

The existing Oregon law has exemptions for ham and other licensed radio operators, and people participating in emergency service or public safety activities, but those exemptions would be removed.

So, while you cry about "people read[ing] social media", stopping just that is not the goal. If eliminating distracted driving were the true goal, then there would be a law that children under the age of 14 would need to be stored in the trunk.

I would argue that there be sanity in any regulation on "distracting" devices. Either accept that there are a lot of them and go after them all, permanently installed or not, or accept that there are times when it is NOT a problem for someone to use a cell phone in a car.

For example, while at a complete stop at a red light. OMG, someone stepped out in front of your car and you didn't see them! BFD. You aren't moving, and the only way they will come in contact with your car is if they walk into it themselves. They can do that whether or not I'm changing the playlist on my audio player.

Slashdot Top Deals

panic: kernel trap (ignored)

Working...