Forgot your password?

Comment: gloves? (Score 1) 632

by still cynical (#43583681) Attached to: New Smart Gun Company Hopes To Begin Production This Summer

Wonder what they plan to do with these things in the winter. For that matter, if they want to sell to police or the military, they're going to tell the potential buyers that they can't wear gloves at all? How well does this mechanism handle dirt, mud or blood? None of those things are unusual in combat, nor in the field for LEOs.

Comment: Re:The Virtual Fence was always a dumb idea (Score 1) 437

by still cynical (#34890972) Attached to: US Scraps Virtual Fence Along Mexican Border

I read some statistics showing that almost all illegal guns in Mexico could be traced back to legally bought guns in the US, and we're not talking hunting rifles here.

You read wrong. Only a fraction of all weapons seized could be traced back to the US. Of those, some were stolen, some purchased illegally, and some purchased "legally" for resale. The real figure for what can be traced back to the US is probably around 1/3. See http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/counting-mexicos-guns/

And the military weapons (machine guns, full-auto assault rifles, grenades, etc.) being used by the drug gangs certainly didn't come from the US, where automatic weapons are heavily regulated and controlled, and grenades and explosives are banned from civilian possession. The heavy stuff is stolen or bought from the Mexican police and military, or smuggled in from the south where they were bought or stolen from the military and police of other countries.

Comment: Re:Not again. (Score 1) 283

by still cynical (#33982160) Attached to: ACLU Says Net Neutrality Necessary For Free Speech

This is my last post on the subject. After this I give up. I'm tired of arguing with people who try to make it appear that they're blowing holes in arguments that I never made.

The ISPs are entirely private, and the fact the government gives them money doesn't change that, any more than a private grant would

NO ONE has said that the ISPs are not private. NO ONE has claimed that getting government money changes that!

(that is, you can make the grant conditional, but that doesn't mean you get to order them around after!)

You bet your ass they can! If grants, subsidies, and monopoly protection are given subject to government regulation, you do not get to take the cash and then say "kiss my ass", if you don't like the regulations and controls.

Additionally, the commerce clause does not allow the Federal government to regulate Intrastate trade or own or operate the Internet, such as how an ISP will regulate their own network (outside of the necessary and proper clause which would let Congress manage, for instance, a military network for the military to use, but this wouldn't be open to customers)

This is why I'm giving up. I'm either being trolled for the fun of it, or I'm arguing with an idiot. Are you seriously claiming that the Internet is "intrastate"? Do you seriously believe that a company that sells international communications access is not subject to the Commerce Clause? Tell that to the FCC.

I'll leave that, because even if you do believe that everyone on Slashdot is a resident of your state, it doesn't matter. Call it terms of service, consent decree, contract, whatever. If companies agree to be regulated in return for subsidies, protected monopoly status, etc. THEY CAN BE REGULATED. THEY AGREED TO IT WHEN THEY TOOK THE MONEY TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE.

Comment: Re:Not again. (Score 1) 283

by still cynical (#33980078) Attached to: ACLU Says Net Neutrality Necessary For Free Speech

It is entirely relevant. It has nothing to do with the First Amendment. The First Amendment prohibits the government from interfering with free speech. This is not a free speech issue, but rather the use of public property (airwaves, government-controlled rights-of-way). No one is restricting speech based on content. But if a company wants to restrict the speech, content, or access to information of others, it better not be using public facilities, tax-funded subsidies, or government-granted monopolies to do so. How is this so hard to understand? If you claim to be offering a public service, and take public money to do so, you have to play fair. If you don't want to play fair, no one is forcing you to take public money.

Comment: Re:Not again. (Score 1) 283

by still cynical (#33973010) Attached to: ACLU Says Net Neutrality Necessary For Free Speech

The lines that carry Internet traffic are run on public ("government"-owned) land using right of ways granted by "the government".

Wrong. Most of the Internet exists because the lines run along railroad right of ways (which are owned by the railroads, not the government) and on peoples private property.

The lines don't run down the middle of the road, they run along side it ... in or on the land that someone paid for and is responsible for, even protecting someone elses internet connection from being damaged.

The government created the Internet, but its unlikely you'll send a packet in the next year that goes over a government owned link unless you're specifically communicating with a government organization.

Your post is simply not true in reality, at least not in the dimension most of us live in.

I never said anything about packets going over "government owned link[s]", I said the lines were on public land and on right-of-ways granted by the government. When telcos run copper and fiber, they don't call up the property owners and ask for permission to run the lines, they use the same government-granted right of ways that they've always used. Yes, the property owner is responsible for maintaining that property, but they also are legally required to allow access to these right of ways so that public utilities and private corporations may run lines, place equipment, and maintain same. Most of these companies and utilities are given exclusive rights to use these strips of land, and are guaranteed by this same government that their competitors will not be given access.

So while my post may not be true in whatever "dimension most of us live in", it is in fact quite true in reality. Your imaginary dimension and its population are not correct.

Comment: Re:Not again. (Score 1) 283

by still cynical (#33962092) Attached to: ACLU Says Net Neutrality Necessary For Free Speech

Why? Because the Internet was created by "the government", is regulated by "the government", and subsidized by "the government".

in a dictatorship country, that's the reason given by the ruler to control all media.

So if these corporations don't get a big government handout and aren't allowed full control of the public lands and airwaves at the expense of the public that owns them, we're slipping towards dictatorship? Pure BS.

Here is a decent reference of the term "dictatorship". I don't see anything about not giving huge corporate handouts as qualifying.

Comment: Re:Not again. (Score 4, Insightful) 283

by still cynical (#33960846) Attached to: ACLU Says Net Neutrality Necessary For Free Speech

Why do people confuse the first amendment's prohibition against the government limiting free expression with somehow mandating that private people and/or the companies they form being obliged to provide a platform for everything that everyone wants to say? The first amendment isn't about forcing a guy with a printing press to do what you say, it's about preventing the government from stopping you and the guy who owns the printing press from doing what you like on whatever terms you arrange between the two of you. Same thing goes with the guy who owns the DSL line you're using, or the WiFi hotspot and the network it's wired up to. And just like the printing press, if you don't like the terms of use, build your own or shop around.

Why? Because the Internet was created by "the government", is regulated by "the government", and subsidized by "the government". The lines that carry Internet traffic are run on public ("government"-owned) land using right of ways granted by "the government". Wireless carriers are granted licenses to use public airwaves, and must provide a public service to do so (not just rake in money). At the local level, most of the carriers are monopolies granted by "the government". These monopolies are free from having to worry about competition because "the government" has agreed to lock out anyone else from access to these same right-of-ways.

THAT'S why it's a First Amendment issue. You want to be free of government rules? Get off the government tit. The government has provided a source of huge income to these companies. If they don't like "the terms of use" associated with being a government-subsidized monopoly, they are free to "build their own" Internet and run the lines over their own land. The wireless carriers can just "build their own" airwaves, I guess.

Comment: Re:Taking Apple's side on this one... mostly (Score 1) 348

by still cynical (#33878198) Attached to: iPhone 4 Screens Break 82% More Than 3GS

A protective case would seem to be only common sense. Unfortunately, Apple bizarrely decided to make the BACK out of glass as well. There are a lot of reports of small bits of dirt or other abrasives getting caught between the case and the glass back, and the subsequent scratches causing the back to break as well. What would just be minor scratches on any other phone can cause serious damage to the integrity of the iPhone 4 casing. That's not sloppy handling, that's piss-poor design (IMHO).


UK ISPs Profit From Coughing Up Customer Data 59

Posted by Soulskill
from the they-call-it-monetization-of-assets dept.
nk497 writes "ISPs in the UK are charging as much as £120 to hand customer data over to rightsholders looking for proof of piracy, according to the Federation Against Software Theft. While ISPs have to hand over log details for free in criminal cases, they are free to charge in civil cases — and can set the price. 'In 2006, we ran Operation Tracker in which we identified about 130 users who were sharing copies of a security program over the web,' said John Lovelock, chief executive of FAST. 'In the end we got about 100 names out of them, but that cost us £12,000, and that was on top of the investigative costs and the legal fees.'"

Doctor Invents 'Zero Gravity' Radiation Suit 83

Posted by samzenpus
from the baron-harkonnen-approved dept.
DrFrasierCrane writes "You think you feel weighed down when your dentist lays that lead apron on you to take X-rays: how about the doctors who deal with radiation treatments and have to wear those aprons all day long? A Dallas, Texas, doctor has created a 'zero gravity' radiation suit for just that problem. From the article: 'Physicians are supposed to wear a lead apron during those procedures. It is back-breakingly heavy and doesn't cover the body completely. The zero gravity suit eliminates the weight and the exposed openings.'"

Comment: Re:What about the presumption of innocence? (Score 1) 1590

by still cynical (#32013998) Attached to: Arizona "Papers, Please" Law May Hit Tech Workers

The same way when you are pulled over without a license now you prove that you do have a license. You tell the officer your number, or you give him your name and address and he pulls it up on his snazzy little car computer. Same with social security number. The fact is this law parrots federal law, so if you don't like it change the federal law.

No, it does NOT parrot federal law. Federal law does not say that suspicion of being in the country illegally is sufficient probable cause to stop and detain someone and compel identification. This is NOT the same as forcing people to provide ID when they're pulled over for speeding or arrested for another crime, and I really wish people would stop trying to pretend it is.
