Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Back for a limited time - Get 15% off sitewide on Slashdot Deals with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re:Not Child Pornography (Score 1) 274

I researched a bit and discovered the court case referenced in the article you linked does not appear to be based on American jurisprudence.
I further discovered that the child pornography definition in New York v. Ferber allowed the government to restrict speech that involved depictions of children in sexual acts. The Child Pornography Prevention Law of 1996 added two definitions of child pornography, both of which required sexually explicit conduct. No case I have come across has held that display of one's breasts are sexually explicit conduct. On the other hand, forty-six states and DC have laws on the books which allow women to breast feed in public. Lots of evidence that breasts aren't sexually explicit and no evidence against it.

Your concern is noted but baseless.

Comment Not Child Pornography (Score 1) 274

Maroney's pictures have been described in some detail by people with similar questions as to their legality. They aren't child pornography. The shots are just of her breasts. She isn't simulating sex, she isn't masturbating off-camera (from what you can tell, apparently), I don't think she's even touching her own breasts.

The lawyers just tried to scare people. If I had her pictures, I would share them on principle alone. As it stands, everyone should be writing to the bar association where the lawyers have membership to register and ethics complaint.

Comment Re:Boo hoo. (Score 1) 142

Huh. This seems like a comment on what I said, but it doesn't actually dispute anything.

Honeywell produced and Boeing accepted a device that experiences interference when placed in the environment where it is intended to be used, right? Yeah, that's some crazy alternate universe worldview I've got.

Comment Boo hoo. (Score 1) 142

"some airlines are balking, since the problem has never been seen in operation, that the order presents 'a high, and unnecessary, financial burden on operators'."

Yeah, it sure sucks that you're involved in an industry where hardening against air surveillance and weather radar are a pre-requisite, and you decided to buy off-spec from what I imagine was the lowest bidder.

Comment Re:So everything is protected by a 4 digit passcod (Score 1) 504

That would probably be illegal in a bunch of contexts on the basis of overly broad seizure (effectively a so-called 'general warrant'). And then there's the statute of limitations. What you propose would be a serious problem for people that have committed crimes like rape or murder, but fuck those people. ...then again, if the cops were smart they'd seize encrypted images from all suspects on the off chance that one of them is the killer and that they would be able to decrypt at some point in the future. That could be the new DNA evidence for solving cold case files.

Comment A nothing statement that means nothing. (Score 5, Insightful) 145

So Wheeler googled "ISP outrage", clicked the "News" tab, and had an intern write a feel-good do-nothing speech about the Comcast outrage?

If it were anyone we could at least momentarily pretend that this was an opening salvo in some course of action that would increase incentives to switch by doing something to promote competition to act against the disincentives Comcast forces on the consumer.

No, no, this is all about draining the political pressure that news story like the Comcast outrage foment. Its about constituents having the illusion of progress and/or representatives being able to tell their constituents that Chairman Wheeler, notable industry shill, is on the case.

Comment Sink or swim (Score 1) 665

Congress really needs to get hands-on with educational standards. There's a stronger commerce interest in all states producing only their fair share of idiots than in most of the crap Congress has regulated through the Commerce Clause. Really wish they'd do a study comparing college performance in people that weren't taught evolution versus those that were. If nothing else, the non-evo's probably have to spend more time in otherwise optional science classes to catch up. That assumes a pattern of educational control that hasn't completely retarded their ability to think critically, of course. Everyone behind these standards changes, every self-righteous blowhard and bigoted soccer mom, need to have their names inscribed on a wall somewhere, so their great great grandchildren can feel shame.

Nobody said computers were going to be polite.