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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Science vs Belief. (Score 1) 441

by AK Marc (#49194365) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills
You obviously have more spare time than I do. I note you didn't RTFA. What TFA says directly contradicts you and agrees with me. Perhaps they are wrong. I don't have the time to read every proposed bill the day is comes out. Apparently you do, but don't have enough time to read TFA related to the thing you are posting about.

Comment: Re:Science vs Belief. (Score 1) 441

by AK Marc (#49193531) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

Your SSN has nothing to do with your medical condition or status, does it? Then how could it be data that is required to analyze the results?

You are 100% right. But the law doesn't say "medical data". It says "data". The consent form I signed considered my SSN and DOB to be data. Your assertion that the law is wrong, but will be done correctly is beyond my faith in lawyers. It'll tie up every rule for 10 years, until the law makes it to the Supreme Court to define the term you assert is defined differently than the medical doctors conducting the experiments that would be covered by it.

Comment: Re:Jail time (Score 1) 535

If Bush or Cheney had done this, we'd want them prosecuted as well.

I didn't see anyone on the right go after Cheney for doing the same thing. Most "official" correspondence was handled with "personal" email. And when confronted, those official dealings were "lost". Clinton claims to have followed the law, turning over all work emails from a personal acount. Cheney told the American people to fuck off, and the Conservatives loved it.

Comment: Re:Sounds more a call for torches and pitchforks.. (Score 1) 535

"I can recall no instance in my time at the National Archives when a high-ranking official at an executive branch agency solely used a personal email account for the transaction of government business," said Mr. Baron, who worked at the agency from 2000 to 2013.

Someone else pointed out that Cheney used mostly personal email for government business, but not solely, so I guess that gets a pass.

Also I saw no rule that requires all official emails use government servers. That's what she is accused of actually breaching. At least according to the summary and posters here. There's very little fact into what she did wrong, and more a focus on blaming her for something, anything, so long as it's plausible.

Comment: Re:Politics aside for a moment. (Score 1) 535

She hasn't. At least based on the arguments here, I Haven't seen a single regulation that she breached. Just people that accuse her of things that are only backed by opinion, and unrelated to the topic of "is it illegal to use personal email for official business". Whether she used email, official or otherwise, to send classified documents to people not cleared to see them is unrelated to the question asked above.

Comment: Re:Politics aside for a moment. (Score 1) 535

She may have committed a security breach, but it's hard to tell, because of all the lies from the accusers, the answers get muddled. It's not illegal to exclusively use personal email for official work at the federal level (it is at the state level in Alaska, why Palin is held to a higher standard, as is continually pointed out by the Hillary haters). She broke no law simply by using email. Then the accusations move on to confidential information she "breached", but then, there are so many accusations that are guesses, that it's hard to tell which are based in fact.

And now your problem with her is on the level of "she made a single personal local call at no cost, from the government phone, and that's misuse of government equipment." The problem is, that everyone uses government equipment for personal business when it doesn't cause cost. The idea is that small amounts of "personal" use are "authorized" as under those rules.

Comment: Re:Politics aside for a moment. (Score 1) 535

I also saw where the existing security team said they didn't need it. You wouldn't find a group of marines that would hold up their hands and admit they can't hold an embassy. So who do you listen to, the trained security force, or a scared diplomat, who also wants more lobster shipped over.

Comment: Re:Science vs Belief. (Score 1) 441

by AK Marc (#49190777) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills
EPA will have to prove reproducibility, not actually reproduce it. Read again, slower this time, and without the rabid frothing at the mouth.

The law requires it be reproducible. If someone claims it isn't. How do you think that would be settled in a lawsuit? I think the only way would be for the EPA to prove reproducibility of it. If you think that requires actually reproducing it, then that's your opinion, not mine, even if I were to agree with it, I hadn't said it.

Comment: Re:So if it's already published... (Score 4, Insightful) 86

by AK Marc (#49190721) Attached to: US Marshals Service Refuses To Release Already-Published Stingray Info
File a FOIA request for what the head of the FBI had to eat yesterday. He replies that the FOIA request is denied, because National Security. You look and find he had lunch with the president, and that day's menu is on whitehouse.gov. So you know what he had for lunch, but he's denying other related things for National Security, when it's provably not true because you know some of it from other sources that don't think it's National Security sensitive information. Sounds like lies to get out of FOIA requests. I think that's the point.

Comment: Re:Israel got a lot of heat for much lesser offens (Score 1) 317

If Canada sent him back, it's a deportation. Deporting your own citizen is called "exile" and is illegal under modern treaties and international law. He'd be deported again to Canada when he got back to DR, as he likely wouldn't have the right to stay there permanently.

Of course, to stop the bouncing like that, International law only allows deportation to a country you have a "right" to be in.

And most places (local, not international law) don't allow someone to flee after getting stopped for an "illegal" act. You can't get stopped by customs for smuggling, and choose to return to your previous country to avoid prosecution.

Comment: Re:Yes, I agree (Score 1) 560

by AK Marc (#49190461) Attached to: Why We Should Stop Hiding File-Name Extensions
In Windows, with file extensions blocked, you look at the "file type" field to make that determination. One would be notepad, one wordpad, and one I don't know how windows would report it. They are all uniquely identifiable. If associated with different applications, the application would be identified.

Comment: Re:Insurance and registration (Score 1) 342

by AK Marc (#49190445) Attached to: Would You Need a License To Drive a Self-Driving Car?

In order for a computer driver to be a viable replacement for a real driver, it doesn't have to be perfect. It just has to be as good or better than a human driver.

I disagree. I see people calling for perfection, and I think that if every car was self-driving next year and the death toll in the USA was 20,000 dead people, that there'd be lots of lawsuits as the great macro-level reduction in deaths was objected to on a micro-level.

People are irrational about driving, and any decision that the computer makes that isn't provably perfect, will be challenged later by someone who lies and says they'd have taken the better action.

When you go out to buy, don't show your silver.

Working...