Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:And? (Score 1) 251

This is called suborning perjury and is a crime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

It's only a crime if you're suborning a specific instance of perjury. If I write a book saying that people should lie on the witness stand all the time, that isn't a crime. In fact there have been books written on how to be a hit man (The Death Dealers Manual). It isn't a crime to publish such a book since it doesn't advocate a specific instance of murder, but just instructs how to do it in general.

Comment Re:And? (Score 1, Interesting) 251

It won't stop until the DoJ actually starts handing out serious penalties instead of a slap on the wrist for this sort of behavior. I'm talking jail time.

It's only illegal if they counseled the cops to do this in a specific case. If they just told the cops that's what they should do in general, then it isn't a crime.

Comment Re:Overreach much? (Score 1) 216

They want to have the authority to regulate apps that after release have been linked to "safety related issues" that have an intended purpose of being used primarily while driving on a road.

Ultimately though, they only have the authority to regulate what features are sold in cars as they leave the factory (this power derives from the Interstate Commerce Clause). It's up to state governments to set the rules of the road and penalize drivers for breaking those rules. As to whether or not the Constitution allows them the authority to regulate apps isn't so clear. If they are sold commercially in interstate commerce, then they might have such authority, but there might also be First Amendment issues as software has been classified by at least some courts as a form of protected speech. And I'm not sure how freeware would fit into all this. Personally, I think it would be best if the NHTSA stuck to offering guidelines and leave it up to the states to pass the actual laws.

Comment Re:I agree Python (Score 3, Informative) 466

I've gotten a lot of mileage out of Python for cleaning and pre-processing CSV and JSON datasets, using the obviously named "csv" and "json" modules. ... However, if you are doing very much manipulation of tabular data, I'd recommend learning a bit of SQL too.

You may want to look into pandas as a middle ground. It's great for sucking in tabular or csv data and then applying statistical analysis tools to it. It has a native "dataframe" object which is similar to database tables, and has efficient merge, join, and groupby semantics. If you have a ton of data then a database and SQL is the right answer, but for a decent range of use cases in between pandas is extremely powerful and effective.

Comment Re:Programming language in 2 hours ? Yeah, right. (Score 1) 466

Because Ruby is my preference and I am more familiar with it, I can tell you that it is in continuous development, and bytecode-compiled versions are available (JRuby, which uses the JVM, and others). I do not know about Python in this respect because I haven't used it nearly as much.

Python has the default implementation CPython which compiles python to an interpreted bytecode; there's also Jython which compiles to JVM, and IronPython which compiles Microsoft's CLR. There's also Cython (which requires extra annotations) which compiles to C and thence to machine code, and numba which does compilation to LLVM. Finally there's Pypy which is a python JIT compiler/interpreter written in a restricted subset of Python.

Comment Re:Who Cares? (Score 1) 354

Seriously how often do you think people sit around thinking about the size of their dick?

Quite frequently, if they're anything like me. For me it goes something like this: if I've been looking in the mirror on a cold, winter day, I'm usually kind of depressed, cause I wish it were bigger. But if it's a particularly warm day, or if I just got out of a hot shower, I think "AWESOME. That looks great!" and I can't wait to head for the nude beach. I imagine most guys have similar thoughts even if not as frequently as I do. But it has nothing to do with guns, so I guess I agree with your basic point.

I swear we need to define a new logical fallacy revolving around this.

I guess it would be called a "phallacy".

Comment Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (Score 1) 294

By this logic, a mugger is less scary than a police officer, because a police officer has legal authority to arrest you. News flash: people do not need legal authority to fuck you over.

Well, if private credit agencies had a tendency to show up at my doorstep, point a gun in my face, and order me to hand over my credit records, then I'd say you had a good point.

Wait, you're saying government "has" a "tendency" to "show up at my doorstep, point a gun in my face, and order me to hand over my credit records?"

Paranoid hyperbole much?

Obviously, I was referring to the mugger. Did you even read what I was responding to?

Comment Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (Score 1) 294

By this logic, a mugger is less scary than a police officer, because a police officer has legal authority to arrest you. News flash: people do not need legal authority to fuck you over.

Well, if private credit agencies had a tendency to show up at my doorstep, point a gun in my face, and order me to hand over my credit records, then I'd say you had a good point.

Comment Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (Score 2) 294

As opposed to the private credit rating agencies that have all your personal credit information with zero transparency and accountability?

I'd rather this be in the public sphere where hopefully the agency has my interests at heart, rather than some private, for profit corporation.

From the article:

As many as 227 million Americans may be compelled to disclose intimate details of their families and financial lives

The key difference is that private credit rating agencies don't have the legal authority to compel you to provide them with any information. They might use some underhanded means to obtain some of that information, but they can't send you to prison for not telling them what they want to know. The government, however, does have that power. It is the powers of compulsion, not the database itself, which has me worried.

Comment Re:Why "clear commercial use"? (Score 1) 108

It depends on whether they plan to use this feature to sell more TVs.

Merely allowing the site to be accessed through the product features is not commercial by itself, but if the links are included by default in a prominent place (and we know they will), that counts as product placement and branding; and it can definitely be considered a commercial purpose - people pay money to that kind of placement.

I'm not saying that this interpretation is necessarily wrong, but... it's quite wide in scope. It seems like you are saying that not only would hosting NC content on a site with ads be disallowed, but that merely prominently linking to such content from a site with ads would be disallowed, as would any advertising for any commercial software or hardware which implied that NC content could be accessed.

Furthermore, the suggestion that if some people sometimes pay for a particular activity, then all instances of that activity must be commercial in nature -- wow, now that has some implications!

Comment Why "clear commercial use"? (Score 4, Interesting) 108

This is exactly the problem with "NC". To you, this is "clear commercial use". Is it because a big company is involved? Two companies? We assume money is changing hands, but... maybe it's not. The license says "primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation". What if the money goes towards "supporting the community"? What exactly is "commercial advantage" in this context? I'd have to ask a lawyer, and... unless I was paying them to advise on a specific case, I doubt they'd actually give a straight answer.

Overall, "noncommercial" licenses are problematic and should be avoided. I understand the intention, but it's hard to make a license that actually gets there.

Comment Re:The US needs a loser-pays legal system (Score 2) 136

Wow, you Republicans are getting more brazen. Creating a system where the poor can't afford to sue because they may have to pay for the other guy's legal costs means that only the rich would be able to afford to defend themselves.

But the poor would only have to pay if they LOSE. If they have a legit lawsuit, that wouldn't be an issue.

Slashdot Top Deals

Neutrinos have bad breadth.

Working...