Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Amazon...paperweight (Score 1, Troll) 259

What? Amazon has a device called the "Paperwhite"? Did anyone else initially read that as "paperweight"? I guess technically it's the Win10 system that because a paperweight, but if you can't charge it because it crashes your computer, the reader will eventually become one too.

Who names these things?

Comment Re:Is this so hard (Score 1) 113

This can be ended quite easily, blacklist numbers that receive a large ratio of complaints to calls. Make it possible to rate received calls.

Requires users to spend extra time after making a call, and could be confusing. It could also get legitimate numbers (collection agencies following the law) blacklisted wrongly because people don't like them, or allow people to now SWAT phone numbers of people which could be a serious safety concern given how many households rely on only a single cellular line.

Extra time? I already blacklist numbers that spam me now the new versions of Android make it easy, so no extra there. They simply need to share (with opt-in user permission, of course) our personal lists of blacklisted numbers. They'd pretty easily sort themselves out into very high blacklisted numbers and everything else. When the phone companies start running out of phone numbers that aren't blacklisted, they'll agitate regulators for a real solution.

And as for collection agencies, let people blacklist them. It may be legal for them to call, but it's also legal for me to ignore them and for me to freely share their numbers with the public so everyone else can do the same. If they want someone's money, use the courts instead of harassing people.

But what I really want is punishment. Let regulators work their way down the list of highly blacklisted numbers and fine companies into oblivion when once they collect evidence of illegal abuse.

The collection agencies can skate on the punishment front since they're legal, but we still get to blacklist them so they don't bother us.

Comment Justice is blind (Score 5, Insightful) 284

Justice may be blind, but she sure is greedy. Not that I'm a huge gawker fan, but clearly having a billion dollars lets you have your way in the courts. Had they posted a sex tape of some average Joe and/or not somehow pissed off Thiel, Mr. Average Joe would just have to live with it because he wouldn't have the money to fight it in court.

Comment Re:Privacy (Score 1) 158

Open source (well, sort of) means that we know our Android devices are tracking our every move. Apple isn't defending your privacy. They're defending your false beliefs that they don't track you.

That said, so long as I can use the fact that my phone wasn't at the scene of the crime as an alibi, I'm all for the government having such data (after getting a warranty, of course). That way we only have to worry about the criminals with IQ scores of 10 or better.

Comment Ha, suckers! I'm getting NextLight (Score 1) 218

I live in Longmont, Colorado. The city government is running fiber to the entire city. A guy just strung a piece of glass into a box on the side of my house the other day. Next Monday they come to install the inside port and give me my fiber modem. I'll be paying $50/month for 1Gbps and I can't wait to give Comcast the boot.

So HA! Suck it all you capped mofos. Looks like your big commercial ISPs have put a cap in your arse, so to speak.

There's a house down the street from me for sale if anyone's interested. ;)

Comment Re:Ok, why? (Score 1) 311

This is the same issue as the mortgage loan robosigning thing. Did anyone go to jail for that? Or loose their job? Or even face a meaningful fine?

The law is clearly there to make non-super-rich individuals suffer at the hands of the very wealthy. Both the judicial and executive branches make that abundantly clear.

Comment Re:Ok, why? (Score 2) 311

> "Your video has been subject to a DMCA claim, filed by someone who has been identified as submitting excessive numbers of fraudulent or unproven claims. Contact our legal department at xxx for assistance."

Or better yet "click here to automatically file a counter-claim using our one-click-counter-claim feature". Of course, Amazon them would probable sue Google because Jeff Bozos thinks he owns anything "one click".

Comment Re:Ok, why? (Score 2) 311

In this particular case, it /could/ be automated if Google simply required the DMCA filer to provide the date of the copyright they say is being violated. In this case, this weekend > 2009, so clearly the claim is false. Could they not refuse on those grounds?

Additionally, can this guy not file a DMCA notice with Fox itself, forcing them to take that episode of Family Guy off any of their streaming services until it went to court?

Comment Re:Pragmatic judge, but... (Score 1) 54

...won't be able to alter them without being detected, that is.

Seriously though, this makes the Wayback Machine a huge target for hackers, doesn't it? Imagine advertising on darknet the ability to plant evidence in the Wayback Machine. I expect someone would pay a pretty penny for that.

Comment Re:interestingly (Score 1) 54

Digital signatures (assuming you mean the cryptography ones rather than a .jpg of your handwriting) require that the user appropriately protect his or her private key. The average person doesn't know how to do that and even for those of us who do, it's inconvenient and error-prone. (I assume my personal PC hasn't been hacked, but I have no way to know for sure.) Digital signatures are therefore not really much more secure than paper+ink+analog phone line sort.

Since they involve what the public and many judges think of as "computers magic", using them run the very high risk of treating them as a form of non-repudiation even when limited ability to ensure the secrecy of the private key makes that inappropriate.

Comment Re:solve a small problem (Score 1) 255

Small problem is the ticket. Scratch your own itch. Anyone who can't think of something they want a computer to do that their computer doesn't already do just isn't thinking very hard.

And I don't mean something there isn't an app for. There probably is an app for almost everything. But programming isn't really that hard and finding apps among the gazillions is, so it's often easier to just code your own. If and when it breaks in ways that annoy you, it's much easier to fix yourself.

Of course the real problem isn't the processing and display of data, but getting the data in the first place. Big companies and lazy/unfriendly governments (as if there were any other type) make getting the data you want really hard and/or expensive. Try getting "public" property records for the entire US. Or court records. How about just the complete list of UPC codes and a text description of what they translate to, much less pricing various businesses sell that product for. Or how about just your own financial or medical records. Some of those things are "sort of" available in a programmatic way, but I long for a future where they're all available in their entirety via simple ssl-protected REST API calls. Today we have a gazillion useless apps. Maybe someday we'll get access to the data to create a few useful ones.

Comment Re:So what? (Score 1) 357

I didn't say we had to have a 2-party system, nor did I say "sure, throw your vote away". I said that you actually have to do the hard work of campaigning for your 3rd party candidate (lots of time) rather than just voting (5 minutes). If you're unwilling to put in the effort it would take to actually give your 3rd party candidate a chance then you're just a lazy bum and you are throwing your vote away. If all you're willing to do is spend 5 minutes voting, you should probably vote for someone who's electable without all that effort you're unwilling to put in.

Comment Re:So what? (Score 1, Interesting) 357

> I'm voting Libertarian. Don't blame me for what happens when people elect the unqualified and the scoundrels to office, I vote, just not for any of them.

That attitude is what gets us into this mess. Voting takes you as little as 5 minutes if your jurisdiction allows mail-in ballots, and not really much longer if you have to actually go to the polls. You think you can get a worthwhile government with that sort of minimal effort? No, you get exactly what you paid for -- someone else's very poor choice of elected officials.

If you have any confidence in your views about how the country should be run you have to find a candidate (or run yourself), advocate for him or her with everyone you know and enlist others to advocate with you. And then work on everyone you don't know too. That's a LOT of work. At least a full time job and then some. So choose among the electable candidates or field your own if you think someone you like have a shot. But don't just vote for someone you know will loose and blame the rest of us.

Democracy is ugly and messy and hard, but I haven't thought of a better solution (except pseudorand for emperor, of course, but how do I get you all to agree to that? ;).

Comment Re:So what? (Score 2) 357

So are you suggesting the government should decide which stories are true and which are false and potentially punish anyone publishing things it decides is false? That sounds way more scary to me than Facebook censoring certain things (which we should all assume all private media companies are doing).

While a agree with your lament at the state of media, I hardly thing it's anything new. The pen (or at least the stump before literacy was wide-spread) has been mightier than the sword and powerful people have therefore always done anything they could to control who sees what information.

The only difference is that the internet makes it very obvious how much contradictory info really is out there and how horribly wrong most of it must be. Believe nothing you haven't experience for yourself over a long period of time!

Slashdot Top Deals

If you can't understand it, it is intuitively obvious.