Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Not inherently unreasonable (Score 1) 165

Oh right, because your government has laws that remove a person's right to speech if said government deems said speech to have some vaguely negative effect on something, somewhere. So basically the only information the public recieves regarding ongoing issues is the nicely scrubbed, sanitized version approved by TPTB.

I prefer our way, thanks. Much better to receive the info and make my own informed judgement. Besides, 'trial by media' is only really an issue because of stupid people who believe everything their favorite echo chamber tells them, so I vote we go for the root cause.

Comment "Read on for the rest" (Score 1) 238

I.e., the last line on every single Bennett Hasselton blog post that gets put on the front page, masquerading as a news item.

Oh, wait, this poll is for "favorite clickbait line," not most stupid.

Numbered lists. I can't get enough of "X crazy things that happen" lists.

Comment Re:You're all wrong... (Score 1) 165

Let's imagine a scenario whereby "cyber-attacker X" takes over an air-traffic control system and starts crashing planes for ransom. I can see the argument that that's a life-worthy crime.

Intentionally endangering the lives of hundreds of other people is already a life-worthy crime, no new laws needed.

"Devil in the details" indeed, perhaps you should consider knowing them yourself.

Comment Re:Don't do the crime (Score 1) 165

If you're a kid and your mother says you can use the computer for 10 minutes, but you use it for 15 minutes, that's technically carrying out "an unauthorized act on a computer."

In the UK, that action can now carry a sentence of up to life in prison (as defined in the UK, anyways).

Does that seem a rational and fitting punishment?

Look - it's already illegal to break into other people's systems; it's also already illegal to damage things in the process. So what justifies this new law and the unusual sentencing guidelines attached?

Comment Re:Not inherently unreasonable (Score 1) 165

So, if Aunt Tilly intended to send that emoticon, then she can be prosecuted regardless of whether she intended harm. As the GP noted, she likely wouldn't be, but someone not as sympathetic might be.

Unless, of course, Aunt Tilly got busted for pot once back in the 70's. Then the media will prattle on about how she has an "existing criminal record" and convince the unwashed masses she's a filthy criminal not worthy of compassion.

Comment Re:Not inherently unreasonable (Score 1) 165

This kind of legislation would apply even if nobody died in the carrying out of the activity.

And there's nothing wrong with punishment without someone dying.

True. But there is something wrong with cruel, unusual, and downright insane sentencing guidelines. Life in prison for embarrassing a politico seems a bit over the top, doesn't it?

Comment Re:Finally, some sanity (Score 1) 287

the view of the gateway arch is much better across the river at certain spots in east st. louis than it is right at the base of the monument...

I'm not sure the risk of being mugged, raped, and/or murdered is really worth the view. There is never any reason to intentionally enter East STL... unless you're in the market for a 14-year-old prostitute.

Slashdot Top Deals

The Tao is like a glob pattern: used but never used up. It is like the extern void: filled with infinite possibilities.

Working...