Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror

Submission + - Shunting the FCC To the Slow Lane (neocities.org)

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes: Following the FCC's proposal a couple weeks ago to allow an internet fast lane, a group of activists have come up with a fun counterproposal: force the FCC itself into the slow lane to show them how bad it is. They write, 'Since the FCC seems to have no problem with this idea, I've (through correspondence) gotten access to the FCC's internal IP block, and throttled all connections from the FCC to 28.8kbps modem speeds on the Neocities.org front site, and I'm not removing it until the FCC pays us for the bandwidth they've been wasting instead of doing their jobs protecting us from the "keep America's internet slow and expensive forever" lobby.' They've published the code snippet that throttles FCC IP addresses and encourage other web admins to implement it.

Comment I thought this was already a law in the EU? (Score 1) 415

by xaj (#44984323) Attached to: EU Committee Votes To Make All Smartphone Vendors Utilize a Standard Charger
Doesn't anyone else remember a similar ruling a few years back in the EU, but apple managing to skirt it that time by offering the 30-pin to MicroUSB adapter, and then subsequently releasing the same adapter for the new lightning pin connector? The thing that really needs to happen is that phone manufacturers need to be forced to utilize open source/copyright-free connectors, and prevent requirements of licensing fees. This will generate two effects: Apple and other companies that try to follow its profitability chain will lose the incentive to create and utilize proprietary connectors (since they will not see monetary gain from it), and phone manufacturers can follow suit with better adapted connectivity designs in the future. Innovation will come freely then.
Cellphones

Submission + - FCC To Update 15-Year-Old Cell Phone Radiation Standard (cnet.com)

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes: It's been more than a decade and a half since the FCC adopted a set of standards for radiation exposure from cell phones. The guidelines set in 1996 (and based on studies from the '80s) have applied to all cell phones released in the U.S. since then. Now, the FCC has decided that modern devices are just a tiny bit different than models from the '90s (where did those suitcase phones go?), so they're going to review and update the standard. 'Even though the FCC hasn't changed its standards for evaluating the safety of cell phones, it has provided consumers with information about how to minimize the risk of exposure to cell phone radiation. For example, the FCC recommends people use the speakerphone feature or an earpiece when talking on the phone, since increasing the distance the device is held from the body greatly reduces exposure. But the agency has not advocated for stricter warnings nor has it even endorsed these safety measures as necessary. The current review of the standards could change that as the agency will look at its testing procedures as well as the educational information it provides to the public about cell phone safety.'
Crime

Submission + - DOJ, MIT, JSTOR Seek Anonymity in Swartz Case

Submitted by theodp
theodp writes: Responding to an earlier request by the estate of Aaron Swartz to disclose the names of those involved in the events leading to Aaron's suicide, counsel for MIT snippily told the Court, "The Swartz Estate was not a party to the criminal case, and therefore it is unclear how it has standing, or any legally cognizable interest, to petition for the modification of the Protective Order concerning others' documents." In motions filed on slow-news-day Good Friday (MIT's on spring break), the DOJ, MIT, and JSTOR all insisted on anonymity for those involved in the Swartz case, arguing that redacting of names was a must, citing threats posed by Anonymous and LulzSec, a badly-photoshopped postcard sent to Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Heymann and another sent to his Harvard Prof father, cake frosting, a gun hoax, and e-mail sent to MIT. From the DOJ filing: 'I also informed him [Swartz estate lawyer] that whatever additional public benefit might exist by disclosing certain names was, in this case, outweighed by the risk to those individuals of becoming targets of threats, harassment and abuse.' From the MIT filing: 'The publication of MIT's documents in unredacted form could lead to further, more targeted, and more dangerous threats and attacks...The death of Mr. Swartz has created a very volatile atmosphere.' From the JSTOR filing: 'The supercharged nature of the public debate about this case, including hacking incidents, gun hoaxes and threatening messages, gives JSTOR and its employees legitimate concern for their safety and privacy.'

Comment A suggestion for the reader; author (Score 1) 247

Author: Best way to deal with the issue is simply to filter out and trash all messages from that unique address and move on with your life. Done it many times myself. If they subscribe to a service such as SendGrid, MailChimp, or the like you may be able to have their mail provider ban or warn them. Just check the headers and look up the sending server. Readers: If you add a pattern of periods in your gmail account you will still receive the mail, but it becomes a fingerprint of the original receiving list (Of course this is limited by the length of your email handle, 2^(length-1) unique addresses are possible). You can also use yourname+tag@anygoogleappsdomain.com to achieve the same effect, but some overly strict (Read: invalid) mail parsers won't accept tagged addresses.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Take that, you hostile sons-of-bitches!" -- James Coburn, in the finale of _The_President's_Analyst_

Close