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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:So they don't have to ask the NSA (Score 0) 206

There's also the possibility it's there to help Russian companies (and the economy).

Facebook wants to operate in Russia? Well then they need to open up a Russian server farm and put all the Russian data in there, or pay massive arbitrary fines, or get blocked. Lots of Russian companies probably use Amazon's EC2, now Amazon either needs to put up a region located in Russia or those Russian companies need to use a Russian cloud company.

It's the same fundamental reason why Putin has been working so hard to keep Ukraine away from the EU. Russian companies suck and can't compete against the west, if cheap high quality EU goods can flow into Russia then the current Russian industry won't be able to compete. Similarly if high quality tech companies can serve Russians then the Russian tech companies can't compete. Solution? Screw with Ukraine to try and keep the EU physical goods out, and pass data laws to keep foreign websites out.

Comment Re:I'm not so sure... (Score 1) 185

If this was just a guy posting trash on Facebook I'd probably side with you. If you read the details of the case, you will find that this is not just someone ranting. This appears to be someone conspiring to commit rape, murder, and kidnapping.

I did read the details of the case and I have to disagree. He's not ranting, he's fantasizing, but there's no evidence that he ever planned to go further.

Whether the primary web site has a disclaimer or not, does not change the fact that this goes beyond the simple act of writing about a sick fantasy. He offered to kidnap someone for 5,000.00. He went and found a recipe for chloroform, then built a pulley system to string up one of the people he was talking about kidnapping and murdering.

He offered to kidnap someone, he never did kidnap them, nor did he or anyone else complain when these plans didn't happen. He said he built a pulley in the emails but he didn't actually build it, nor did he make any chloroform. Surely if you're making a criminal conspiracy involving chloroform, a human sized oven, and a pulley system then actually obtain chloroform, a human sized oven, and a pulley system.

He used a Police database illegally for the purpose of gathering personal information about the people he appeared to be conspiring against (it was more than 1). This goes well beyond simply discussing "unconventional thoughts".

Lets change the scenario a bit. If I was to claim I want to kill someone on Facebook, I'd be a person of interest but not doing anything illegal. When I go out and search for recipes for poisons, I'm still not illegal but I should be under watch, especially if the poison is generic household items which I may have on hand. Once I start illegally gathering personal information about the targets I claimed I want to kill, would I not be conspiring to commit murder? What if I owned a gun, would that be enough? (Remember that this person was a Cop and had a Gun, as well as a position of authority to abuse, and could have been legally stalking victims without anyone's knowledge on "patrols")

Ok, here's another scenario.

You really hate John and claim you want to kill him on FB. You look around for information on poisons because you're curious, or you're fantasizing about how you could kill him. And because the guy really pisses you off you become mildly obsessed and gather information using a work database (even though doing so for this purpose is unauthorized and illegal).

Yet under no scenario could you actually imagine yourself doing so much as punching John.

If you believe it's reasonable, would you want the guy as a neighbor? Invite them over over for dinner? If so, good for you. I'd prefer to see a person like this under watch and psychological monitoring at a minimum.

I wouldn't, not because he's a criminal, but just because he'd creep the hell out of me.

This is a guy who might commit a serious crime in the future, perhaps even wants to. But he has never done so, nor has he specifically planned to do so. All of his previous plans were merely elaborate fantasies that he never took a concrete step towards implementing.

Personally I'd recommend a mandatory psychological evaluation. IF that suggested he could take the step towards moving those crimes into reality then I might consider watch and mandatory counselling. Otherwise he's innocent of everything except the misuse of the database.

Comment Holy Crap!!! (Score 4, Insightful) 54

Local legends suggest that Rheithrosciurus, which is thought to mostly eat giant acorns, can be savage. Hunters say that the squirrels will perch on low branches, jump onto a deer, gash its jugular vein, and disembowel the carcass. "It sounds pretty fantastical," says a skeptical Roland Kays, a zoologist at the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences in Raleigh. "Even more than its fluffy tail."

This sounds far too awesome to be fact checked.

Comment Re:Distinct DNA (Score 2, Insightful) 1330

the idea of "when life starts" which is a philosophical, not a scientific problem

Pro-life scientists point out that an embryo is a distinct organism because it has distinct DNA. The life associated with that DNA thus begins when sperm meets egg.

Then pro-life scientists are abusing scientific terminology to justify their philosophy.

Comment Re:One non-disturbing theory (Score 4, Insightful) 304

Is that water, the ultimate solvent -- or perhaps bacteria -- are breaking down the plastics back into it's components, and the ocean (much like the oil from the BP spill) is taking care of itself.

Naw, couldn't be. Go ahead and panic, hippies!

Yeah, and everyone know that broken down oil was completely harmless.

Whatever components that plastic is breaking down into it likely contains a lot of molecules that aren't found in nature. When those molecules enter an organism there's no telling what the hell they're going to do.

I don't understand this fantasy that some people cling to that we can dump endless streams of random crap into the environment and mother nature will just magically take care of it with no consequence. People would sure as hell notice if you started dumping garbage into a lake and screwing up a beach where people swim once a week, why do you think the things that actually live in the polluted water won't be affected?

Comment Re:RTFA (Score 2) 268

I heard about a guy who went through multiple marriages and divorces, did multiple stints in prison, and eventually got some political offices.

I'm naturally talking about Nelson Mandela.

Even if the facts are true and presented impartially the selection of which facts to present or emphasize can give an inaccurate total picture.

I don't know enough about libel law or the guy in question to know if the case is legit, but you seem to have already formed an opinion of him as a scam artist based on the Wikipedia article which may not be a reliable source.

Comment Re:Jerk off material for the Greenies (Score 3, Informative) 96

We we had a similar plant in Ontario, it was shut down because of the air pollution. It is still the biggest, by far, smokestack in the city. Burning garbage does not make it disappear, and people would rather the garbage be put somewhere they do not see it, instead of blown into their faces.

I'm not sure if it will smoke since according to the article the stuff won't actually "burn"'

There, it will be heated in a low-oxygen atmosphere. This will cause its chemical bonds to break (without the material actually burning), releasing their carbon and hydrogen content to form what's known as syngas. This will in turn be cleaned up and converted into chemical products and biofuels – such as methanol and ethanol.

Either way if the emitted chemicals are what you're looking for you're not just going to dump them out a smokestack.

Comment Re:Jerk off material for the Greenies (Score 3, Interesting) 96

The province is conservative but Edmonton is fairly liberal (as are most cities). I actually took a tour of the waste treatment plant a few years ago and it was pretty impressive (and smelly). Back then they were talking about grinding up the non-recyclable/compostable bits and using them for asphalt filling as a way to get over 90% non-landfilled, I'm not sure if this is any of the same material they're talking about here, I don't think I'd want my highways degrading.

Comment Re:Jerk off material for the Greenies (Score 4, Insightful) 96

I predict within 24 months this plant will be shut down. Write it down. This is just more bullshit left wing crap that someone somehow got funded. Many people will lose their jobs and some may lose their retirement savings. Why Canada is fucking around with this when they enormous reserves of tar sands and other conventional fuels is beyond me. Huge fuck up.

On the contrary although this plant is new they've been doing stuff like this for years, and it makes economic sense.

The problem with garbage is you have to put it somewhere. Landfills fill up quickly and use up otherwise useful land, and the further you ship it the more expensive and polluting it is to transport. The waste reclamation centre drastically reduces the amount you need to dispose of.

Eco-stations claim a lot of the electronic waste, the company that gets the material actually turns a profit on breaking them down.

Compostables get turned into topsoil, traditional recyclables get pulled out and turned into economically useful items, etc.

If your city thinks shipping wealth away burying it with all the resulting externalities is a better alternative then they can keep with their current setup. I prefer the Edmontonian model.

We also treat our sewage rather than dumping in raw into the ocean like some coastal cities.

Comment Re:Right decision, wrong reason? (Score 1) 109

Indeed you are very correct, this government is become a dictatorship, abetted by a feckless Congress. It matters not whether you're lib/con or dem/repub, this is dangerous when the next changeover of power occurs, and it will occur. What the President has loosed now will be used against his party in the future.

Too bad my mod points are all gone now, you deserve +3.

So what is the appropriate role for Obama in this? It seems odd that he would be expected to act as a passive administrator when he was elected with a policy based mandate to a much greater degree than congress.

Comment Re:First Amendment implications? (Score 1) 646

How is the government refusing to enforce a restriction on free speech rights (which is what a trademark is) an infringement on free speech rights? 'splain, please.

I propose a new bill.

Doesn't Infringe the First Amendment Copyright Act: Whereby the government will only grant copyright to works of art that endorse the ruling party.

Still think it's not a free speech issue?

Comment Re:Chicago Blackhawks too? (Score 1) 646

I really hate this kind of crap. If it's alright for one group of people to use a term, but not another it's racist. Either the term is offensive, or it isn't. There's no modifier because of the color of your skin, your ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. And what ever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me"? We've turned into a society of whiny little bitches. Oh damn, someone is going to accuse me of being discriminatory toward female canines and claim that I kill puppies.(/sarcasm)

Until I hit this paragraph I actually thought you were actually going in a completely different direction.

The thing you're missing is words have context.

If I call a good friend moron it's a term of endearment, we both understand I'm not actually calling him dumb, if I call a stranger moron I'm potentially starting a fight.

Alec Baldwin calling someone a cocksucking fag as an insult is homophobic. Buddy Cole using fag is not homophobic. We call fag homophobic because it's most commonly used in a homophobic context, but that's not always true.

The context of the Redskins is the term was denigrating when it was chosen as the name, the team was notably against black integration, Native American discrimination is still rampant, and the name and logo conjure a stereotype of a native warrior. Not everyone will find it racist but some obviously will. Would the Washington Poles be racist? Probably not. Would the Washington Jews? Maybe. Would the Washington Bankers with a Jewish mascot? Definitely.

Slashdot Top Deals

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Working...