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 Easy target for enemies... (Score 2) 30

Such a tunnel seems to be an even easier target for a Russian submarine or a well-equipped terrorist, than a regular bridge or a tunnel in solid soil.

And the results will be spectacular — once a wall is breached, everybody inside drowns... No escape, no rescue... Unless, maybe, individual segments can somehow be made to self-seal and automatically surface in an emergency.

Comment Re:Welcome to Libertarianism (Score 1) 263

is a moral imperative not a logical one

It is moral because it is logical — like the rest of Libertarianism. But this is irrelevant to the conversation...

That's not true of our more recent social media companies.

But it still true of GoDaddy et al. Their UI and horrible customer service makes them the equivalent of GeoCities of the past.

The government could step in to regulate these companies to make sure their users' rights are protected.

Please, cite the right currently being violated. Thanks.

Comment Re:Welcome to Libertarianism (Score 1) 263

When a given company represents 90% of the daily information stream of your average citizen, it is a monopoly.

That may be relevant, if it were to try to use that monopoly status to get into a different market. Facebook is not doing that, so let them be. The barrier to entry into their market is none-existent — various snapchats, instagrams, et al. have done that. Facebook itself unseated MySpace in front of our eyes.

In the meantime, we need a way to ensure that citizens actually get all information that is relevant to their vote

Who are these omniscient benevolent "we", that need to ensure something for the "citizens", god bless their pretty little heads? No, the "we" and the "citizens" are the same people — and your sentence makes no sense.

A pragmatist would also acknowledge that making the public more informed is more important than giving FB freedom to censor whatever they want.

So, your proposal is to surrender an essential liberty in exchange for a hypothetical temporary gain?.. Don't we already know something about this approach?

The outrage is not that Facebook is censoring whatever they please. The outrage is that others aren't afforded the same liberty.

Comment Welcome to Libertarianism (Score 3, Informative) 263

They are a private company. They can filter, block, promote any speech that they want.

I always said the same about TV and radio companies, but various Statists from FCC and FEC down to Slashdot cowards always disagreed.

Good to see some turnaround in public opinion towards liberty. Except, oh, wait, TV, radio, and even web-sites may not be able to do what they want... Even texting in support of a candidate may be illegal.

Unless, obviously, the candidate is from the Party of Government. For a few decades we had something called Fairness Doctrine, which allowed FCC to enforce "fairness". Libertarians fought it, but at least, with it on the books, one could formally complain against "unfair" coverage. Not any more — with only 7% of journalists being Republicans, the game is played with only one set of goal-posts...

Comment Re:What exactly is the problem? (Score 1) 220

You don't have to open the door to your house for example.

I doubt, that's the case, but IANAL. All of the "layman" guides out there emphasize, that you don't have to open your house unless police have a warrant, which would seem to imply, that, when they do have it, you must open.

The police instead have the right to break in likely damaging your property to execute the search

Or they can go back to the judge, who issued the warrant, and complain, And the judge may then find you in contempt — which is exactly, what happened in this case...

Also, quite obviously, if you think police are justified in applying violence, they'd also be able to forcefully apply the suspect's fingerprint to his phone — it would, of course, be far less painful and damaging to him, than the forced entry, which you've already allowed, and other aspects of a resisted arrest, that is sure to follow.

Comment Nobody cares about Russia (Score 1) 761

You're assuming that it's equally easy to get damaging materials from both countries. That's an incorrect assumption.

It may not be equally easy with Russia, but it is quite easy nonetheless. It is just very few people care. Ukrainians, for example, have been collecting undeniable proofs of Russia's official involvement in the alleged "civil" war in Ukraine's East. They don't have governmental backing, but they have patience enough to sift through social media looking for selfies, that Russian conscripts post online (with geotagging enabled). And yet, you can still encounter people even on Slashdot, who would deny Russian involvement...

Similarly, there is solid evidence — put together by volunteers and governmental investigators, that a Russian SAM shot down the Malaysian Boeing in 2014... And yet, a Google search for it today still brings up a theory, that it was a Ukrainian jet (top altitude 5000m), that shot down the airliner (flying at 10000m)...

Comment What exactly is the problem? (Score 1) 220

The original problem — one with actual passwords — came from the painfully perverted reading of the Fifth Amendment (I wish, ACLU et al were as liberal reading the Second!). If you have to tell police your password that could be used against you, then the password became testimony (written or verbal) and so the police could not compel you to do that under the Fifth Amendment.

Well, fingerprints are neither said nor written, so the Fifth Amendment does not apply. End of story — whether police can look at your smart phone's contents is now controlled by the Fourth... If the judge issues a warrant, you have to open up...

Comment Re:Impressive (Score 1) 106

When I said, an Individual's rights ought trump the Collective's wishes, you called me a "toothless hillbilly". That, really, is all anybody needs to know about your political opinion.

And believe me,you, as nothing but a mouthpiece for the Queen, don't represent anything close to human rights

Why should I believe you? You haven't posted a single actual fact or even a sensible opinion in the months of rather active Slashdot participation.

No, "believe me" is not going to work. Remember to logout.

Comment Re:Impressive (Score 1) 106

Having you on record objecting to — indeed, jeering — the Individual human rights is enough for one evening. Living in the city, according to you, one surrenders his rights — and anyone objecting must be having severe dental problem... Ok...

Next time you peep about an unwarranted search or some other violation of an Individual's freedom by the Collective, I'll have a handy link to rub into your face.

Comment Re:Voice of Trump: HATE (Score 1) 190

Very feeble, but you are just proving my point about the insincerity and intellectual dishonesty of Trump supporters.

You mean, recognizing evil, even when it does not target you personally — that is an indication of "insincerity and intellectual dishonesty" in your opinion?

What do you think of White supporters of Black Lives Matter in that case? Insincere, dishonest, Ok, anything else? How about "race-traitors"?

Are you actually trying to say that you are Ukrainian?

Not sure about JustNiz, but I for one certainly am a Ukrainian expat, thank you very much.

I'm inclined to think you won't be able to explain why you hate Putin so much

Having Ukrainian roots helps me know about his evil better, and I'm happy to educate you... Putin is the most hate-deserving of today's world-leaders, because he is the only one to have openly invaded another country. And not to prevent something like a genocide (real or incisively feared), or correct some other wrong (real or imagined), but to simply grab land.

The last asshole to do the same was Saddam Hussein — in 1991...

Now, the feeble-minded you joined the biggest protest in world's history in 2003, when Bush was invading Iraq — even though that invasion was not meant to grab land (nor oil), but to dislodge a mad man. Whether the war was the right step to take back then is besides the point — its justification was sincere.

Where were you — and the countless other protestors — when Putin invaded Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014? Even if you don't buy my defense of Bush, Putin's actions were, as a minimum, equivalent to Bush's. And yet, you did and said nothing... Who is "feeble" now?

Comment Re:Impressive (Score 2) 106

Telecoms object to competition.

Everybody objects to competition. That's a meaningless truism.

But in this case telecoms have a legal point — nobody should be getting preferential treatment from the city hall.

local democratically elected governmenst being allowed to make decisions that their citizens ask for

You mean, like the poisoning of Socrates? That's your "democracy in action"...

Sorry, but I'd like to keep the country, where guarantees given to an Individual, however obnoxious and cantankerous, trump the will of the Collective, however glorious.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Open the pod bay doors, HAL." -- Dave Bowman, 2001