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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:There's plenty of privacy "in public" (Score 1) 197

Anyone who has pulled over to the side of the road and walked behind some bushes to take a leak, ONLY pulls their throbbing wang out to piss when they can correctly assume that they have privacy. You don't know wtf you're talking about.

Let me guess, you put your hands in front of your face and chant "nanny nanny, you can't see me" and believe that you are hidden. Have you ever heard of public urination ordinances? In Ca it falls under PC 372, but many if not most cities and/or counties have specific ordinances against it. Just because you can't or don't want to see others does not mean you are not in public. Talk about "patently absurd".

Comment Re:In other news (Score 1) 197

just because you don't like it, does not make illegal.

Correct, but people still talk about it because they don't like mass surveillance and might seek to make it illegal. Which is their right in a democratic society.

Our ideas around expectations of privacy date to a time when it was not possible for the government to "walk with" every single individual 24/7 in every public place in the country. Now it is becoming technically possible. Not surprising that someone might want to update the laws.

Please don't mistake my post as a "pro" surveillance statement. I was pointing out that many people mistake their desires for what's actually codified.

Comment Re:In other news (Score 1) 197

There is, however, the expectation that the government cannot legally track you absent reasonable suspicion.

Since we are discussing cameras in the public view, if you are in public anyone can legally follow i.e. "track" you. Just because you don't like it, does not make illegal. Also the "government" can walk with you, talk with you, and even LIE to you (gasp).

Comment Re:Science: the god that failed (Score 1) 77

Science is not to blame here, it's the media taking one small bit of info from the science, and deciding it's not dramatic enough to engage the consumer.

There's a limit to the number of times people will listen to failed prophets.

That can't be true. Most people still believe in a "God" of some form after all. Humans love to follow prophets, that way they don't have to think for themselves.

Comment Re:How? (Score 1) 156

Anyone wanting to build a gun really only needs some basic metal-working handtools and
set of plans.

I know I'd much rather have a Sten gun than a 3d-printed "one time use/explode" one.

This! Yes making a functioning, reasonably safe gun is pretty trivial. Now I admit that as I was a machinist as a younger man in the 80's and 90's it might seem easier to me than to most. Weapons were handmade for decades and they functioned sufficiently well to be used in combat. Would they be accurate and safe as a modern weapon? Of course not, but they would work. Some thick wall tubing, some misc. plate and rod, a hacksaw, a drill, a file, and some fasteners would really be all you would need. All easily attainable. A stock or handle could be fabricated out of firewood, so is New York going to outlaw firewood next? Stupid politicians=stupid laws.

Comment Re:TV makers can do what they want (Score 1) 53

You say that, but try buying a non-SMART TV nowadays...

Oh I can't argue with that... but as long as my current TV* continues to work, I'm golden.

Heck that used to be the norm - you'd buy a television and then keep that same one for a couple decades.

*Technically my Samsung TV is "smart" but I have as much of that turned off as I can. Any smart features are handled via a connected box (e.g. Apple TV, Roku).

TV's USED to be the one tech product I regularly updated. Now it looks like I'll be keeping my three yr old LG for awhile, there goes at least one sale.

Comment Re:It requires FIVE types of ID... (Score 1) 275

In that case, they should make it electronic, so that cryptographic solutions, such as hashing, can be applied to them. In fact, once they do that, they can capture everything about the person. So when that person has to show an ID, the reader of the entity doing the asking will only be able to read what it has access to. Like Law enforcement can access driver's license and insurance, but not immigration status. ICE can access passport, but nothing else. TSA can access passport, but nothing else. IRS can access social security number, but nothing else. The readers would all be exclusively electronic, so that no person can read all the details of the ID holder and gain more than s/he needs to do the job

Not everyone carries an electronic device with them at all times. So what then? The device addicted among us always seem to forget that not everyone is so afflicted.

Comment Re:Start paying people normal salaries (Score 1) 208

That's pretty much why these scummy companies are fighting it. We all know tipping in the US is mandatory in all but law, it's culturally obligatory which bears little difference to a legal mandate. Companies like to keep it this way so they can pretend their bill is lower, thus enticing people in with prices that don't accurately reflect what it will actually cost the payer. Uber et al. want to exploit this as much as they can by presenting the pre-tip price on payment and then adding the tip option so it feels like you're paying less than you are (yes, this actually works and works quite well.. Victor Gruen is famous for making a career out of things that fool consumers but shouldn't).

What is "culturally obligatory"? Are you THAT subject to peer pressure? If you don't, or do, want to do, or say, something f*&k other people's opinions. Learn to stand up and be an individual for shit's sake.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Marriage is like a cage; one sees the birds outside desperate to get in, and those inside desperate to get out." -- Montaigne

Working...