Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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

Comment Re:Not unreasonable (Score 0, Troll) 121

Product Manager: We're not making any revenue on this.

MBA: We can sell more ad revenue....

Product Manager: How?

MBA: Force them to re-up whilst showing them an ad. Free ad view whether they like it or not.

Product Manager: Brilliant!

Users: Well, that was nice while it lasted. On to the next free VPN.

Comment Re:How is this not wiretapping? (Score 2) 161

Wiretapping means listening to the wire, or in this case, the signal of the audio conversation. That wasn't done.

Instead, the metadata details were sold, meaning things like what time a call was made, where the tower locations were, the duration, and so forth.

Not wiretapping, but still ratting out customers.

Comment Re:So why hasn't the video creator counterclaimed? (Score 2) 219

I, too, believe it's Fair Use, and he has a right to counterclaim. But this takes money, and the desire for a long fight, going through Discovery, showing damages, and all the other processes of tort law.

It's better to raise this issue and show that Samsung did the totally wrong thing, starting at their bad QA, bad engineering, bad process control for field testing, and an even worse procedure once the problem was found.

Corporations don't like to eat humble pie, eat crow, or whatever metaphor you'd like to use for admitting they screwed up. This is a PR disaster, IMHO.

Comment Re:Sigh (Score 1) 287

The propagandist at work, attempts to shed decades of not-invented-here, reminiscent of the Reality Distortion Fields of Steve Jobs, and hopes, no prays that the Gartner audience will swallow it whole.

Such tortious, mind-numbing blather is uncharacteristic of an organization that desires to be judged by its actions, not its lapdog propaganda.

The secret hope: The Stock Price Soars!!!

Comment Re:It worked for ancient Rome (Score 1) 75

While there's some truth to what you say, I have yet to see a medium where there can be a considerable amount of dust-- read that lack of trust-- in sources, coverage, attribution, and significance.

Part of the problem of media is that the public's ability to discern what's controlled media vs what's real and live and truly happening is weak at best, viz the current situation. "Follow The Money" isn't quite the best method to judge the content, although it's a good way to understand bias.

Yet there are really good journalists out there, and differing covering entities that sometimes do a really good job, only to be knee-capped by proximity to truly evil, spoon-fed lackeys of moneyed sponsors. It's not the fine print I'm really worried about, rather the capacity to present facts in a way where the chain-of-authorities for those facts can be referenced in a way that allows context. Context is key to trust.

Comment Re:Imagine what Google could do (Score 4, Funny) 131

Imagine the cognitive dissonance during the next election. Or let's see, eight heteros, five homos, two unsure, what do we throw onto the billboard?

I envision a person walking with their soon to be ex while the billboard says: bought that pistol yet? Funeral arrangements? Mexico vacation?

Comment Re:Privacy Fees (Score 1) 83

Let me disambiguate your response.

Somehow, you have the pomposity to believe your own PR. That's not unusual.

Whether de facto, de jure, de legis, amazingly, you agree that there is a monopoly, so there's hope for you. When the TCA wrested control of communications infrastructure away from the states, who in turn made sure that they could give it up by strangling what was left of Tariff 12 and any other theories of local communications companies, this legislation was bought and paid for. Fie on you for asserting any other theory.... I watched the fleets of lawyers make the rounds of the congressional buildings in DC.

But this is also about the topic of privacy, and where DNS comes in is pretty amusing. There's a lot of $$$ being made selling DNS hit info to the miners of ads, not to mention those that extract ostensible meaningful trend data, or perhaps worse-- dark data. It's revenue based upon the emaciation of privacy, and as onerous as deep packet filtering.

Summary: yes, monopolies, yes litigious, yes they'll go kicking and screaming through the courts dragging things down for decades, no they have no interests in giving up any of their revenue streams because it took a lot of bribery/campaign contributions/"PR" to get their way and finally yes they're claws have even more entanglements whose talons will be exorcised one at a time, causing the great Satans of monopolies to scream.

Comment Re:Privacy Fees (Score 2) 83

And each of these clawed-in data providers will go kicking and screaming through court fight after court fight until all is won or lost, because they need the data as an extra layer of revenue.

So, you can weasel-word what you'd like, but most people have no choice in their provider, so it is a de facto monopoly, and in some cases where legislatures were bribed to inhibit/prohibit communities from doing their own networks de jure monopolies.

And once this is through the courts, then what of the DNS data they collect? What of how they actually calculate data caps, and by what means?

Consumers are pretty much f#cked when it comes to cable and broadband "service providers", their lousy services, their monopoly-ingrained mindset, and their revenue-at-all-costs stance.

Slashdot Top Deals

You can tune a piano, but you can't tuna fish. You can tune a filesystem, but you can't tuna fish. -- from the tunefs(8) man page