Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
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:Uh.... what? (Score 1) 103

I was once asked to list every address I had ever lived at. That's just about impossible unless you stayed in the house into which you were born for your whole life.

That's highly individual but I think a lot of people can do that. I tried to do a count for myself and arrived at eleven, I can name all the cities and most the roads, but if I dug through all my papers I could probably find all the addresses. I don't think I know any that's literally lived all their lives at the same address, but I know one that's only had two. Now this might be statistically biased since the only people I can follow through most their lives are the people who stayed in my home town, but I know quite a few that are between five and ten. The stereotype is often:

1. Birth home. Because parents don't want to take kids away from friends etc. same place ~20 years.
2. Collective or other shared accommodation, often combined with studies.
3. Own apartment / relocate for work
4. Share bigger apartment with partner
5. Get kids, buy house or the other way around. Stay in house (see 1)
6. Sell house, buy apartment for retirement.

And maybe few extra that is essentially the same, but nicer. Like going from a basement to a penthouse apartment or one house while you had babies/toddlers but then a nicer one with more space to kids' rooms before they start school or stuff like that. Or they're looping a bit on that move together, move apart but really most couples hold off until they're fairly sure this is a keeper. Now there's exceptions to this, people who rent with furniture and switch places al the time but for most moving is a giant pain in the ass that they don't do very often.

Comment Re:the Snowflake Jihad (Score 1) 143

If a private business has a right to limit offensive speech on a social media platform in the name of moral righteousness, they have just as much right to deny service to people they find objectionable on the same grounds such as homosexuals or muslims.

Not if they want to do business in the the United States they don't. Religious groups are a federally protected class, and with very few exceptions, cannot be denied service on that basis. Sexual orientation is gaining traction as a protected class at the state level; any web-based service discriminating on that basis is likely to run afoul of some of these states' laws (for clarity, "public accommodation" in the context of that map means a business that is open to the public).

Would you be OK with ISP's being pressured by moral crusaders to not provide connectivity to people who host "offensive" content because the moral crusaders decide to label everyone they don't agree with "neo-nazis"?

No, I wouldn't be OK with that because the moral groups would have no standing or injury. Unlike YouTube and its advertisers, the moral groups in your scenario are not party to any contract with the ISP or its customers. Further, I'm of the opinion that ISPs should be regulated as utilities and required to serve anyone who's capable of paying their bill, just like the electric company. That, I suppose, is another discussion entirely.

Comment Re: Plutocracy (Score 1) 352

Home market, maybe, but both Xerox and IBM tried to sell low-end business computers (without much luck, at least at first), in the part because the micro upstarts were undercutting them on price. Thus, they did see a market for desktop biz and education computers.

And there is some evidence IBM's anti-trust lawsuits affected its behavior concerning how it competed in desktops.

Slashdot Top Deals

You mean you didn't *know* she was off making lots of little phone companies?