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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Illeagal Teaching? (Score 1) 245

I feel like teaching anyone anything should never be illegal. Wanting to learn is the most natural human trait in the world.

Great. I'll open up a terrorism school where I teach people how to fly planes into buildings, assassinate government leaders, sabotage trains, make poison gases, bombs, and other weapons of mass destruction. I'm just teaching so it shouldn't be illegal.

Comment: Re:The trick... (Score 1) 245

I teach people how to relax, control their heart rate and galvanic skin response. It's actually a pretty trivial technique, basic meditation and centering exercises. We use a machine that measures heart rate and galvanic skin response to test our students. Once they learn the techniques, they can do with them what they want. It's not on me.

And that by itself is not illegal. But, if one of your perspective students said to you: "I think your techniques might help me to beat a polygraph test for a federal government job that I'm applying for. Where do I sign up?" And you say: "Right here, just give me a deposit check for $50 to guarantee your spot in the class." then you are an accessory to fraud. And because your student has said they are applying for a FEDERAL government job, you've committed a federal felony which carries some serious prison time.

Comment: A lot of other things are challenging too... (Score 1) 182

by BitterOak (#49660153) Attached to: The Challenge of Web Hosting Once You're Dead
There are a lot of other things that are challenging once you're dead too, like brushing your teeth, combing your hair (and it's a real pain when it starts to fall out), and even scratching an itch. Being dead sucks, actually, and you'll have a lot more on your mind than keeping your WordPress site up to date!

Comment: Re:Nope (Score 3, Informative) 90

by BitterOak (#49660089) Attached to: How To Set Up a Pirate EBook Store In Google Play Books

The DMCA safe harbor protects them as long as they take it down immediately on request, and google is big enough to weather any lawsuit. Now if you or I were running an app store...

No, the DMCA provides no safe harbor for anyone profiting directly from the unauthorized sale of copyrighted works, intentional or otherwise. As long as the Google bookstore gets a cut of the profit on the sale, there's no safe harbor.

Comment: Re:'Hidden city' explanation (Score 1) 126

by BitterOak (#49597711) Attached to: Judge Tosses United Airlines Lawsuit Over 'Hidden City' Tickets

How exactly is the seat unsold in this case? It was sold, it is simply unoccupied.

I agree. If anything the airline made *more* money as it didn't have to expend the fuel to get the passenger from Chicago to LA.

Not only that, but if the seat is unoccupied when they're ready to close the doors, they can let a passenger on if the flight is overbooked, saving the airline both a seat on the next flight, and whatever compensation they had to offer the passenger who would have missed his flight because it was overbooked.

Comment: Re:The author forgot one other option. (Score 4, Informative) 105

by BitterOak (#49573891) Attached to: Why Crypto Backdoors Wouldn't Work

If you had read the article you link to (and I just did) you'd see that it does not conclude the same thing you do. Instead the article points out that it is far from a settled question on whether or not a defendant or suspect can be compelled to decrypt files. The Supreme Court has yet to deal with that issue directly, and the Circuit Courts of Appeal that have considered the issue have adopted a standard in which the government must first show they know the location and existence of encrypted data. If they've seized a suspect's phone, they certainly can know these two things, so the Fifth Amendment, under that analysis, would offer no real protection.

Comment: The author forgot one other option. (Score 4, Interesting) 105

by BitterOak (#49573317) Attached to: Why Crypto Backdoors Wouldn't Work
I just read the entire article and the author forgot one other solution: the British solution Instead of putting the burden on app developers to include backdoors, or on Google to block apps that don't, put the burden on end users to turn over their keys to police when asked. I'm not saying I like this solution, but it is a solution the author of the article didn't consider. If you make the sentence for non-cooperation long enough, it doesn't really matter if the police find what they're looking for: they can just lock you up for not handing over the keys.

Comment: Re:This never works (Score 4, Informative) 304

by BitterOak (#49547571) Attached to: Microsoft, Chip Makers Working On Hardware DRM For Windows 10 PCs

Whatever they design, it'll be broken fairly easily and circumvented just like DVD and Blu-ray and every other DRM format. This is just keeping the plebs from making easy copies.

"Keeping the plebs from making easy copies" would be a huge victory for the movie industry. There will always be some piracy, but the piracy the Industry fears most is that which occurs solely in the home, without the use of file sharing sites, cause it is ultimately the hardest to police.

Comment: Re:Acid is not a power source. (Score 1) 118

by BitterOak (#49532903) Attached to: Swallowing Your Password

on the other hand, your stomach could be a good power source -- kinetic energy, electrolyte source, AND it keeps a steady temperature. I think your colon would be even better though :)

YES! The colon produces methane which is a fuel and could be used in some kind of fuel cell, perhaps. It's a win-win: you'd fart less and not have to remember passwords!

Comment: Re:Dissenting 3 votes (Score 1) 409

What was the reasonable cause?

Three things. 1. The Officer noticed a very strong scent of air freshener in the car when he approached, which is common in cases where people are trying to mask odors. 2. The two occupants of the vehicle both appeared quite nervous. 3. When questioned about their travel plans, the reasons given were fairly implausable: they claimed they were driving back to Omaha, Nebraska from Norfolk, Nebraska after checking out a vehicle that they were considering purchasing, this was suspicious according to the officer for various reasons including the fact that the vehicle's occupants admitted having not seen a picture of the vehicle and they drove for two hours late at night to look at it. These three things, taken separately, would probably not arise to the level of causing reasonable suspicion, but taken together it seems reasonable that they would.

Comment: Re:A sane supreme court decision? (Score 3, Informative) 409

No, the point is that in order to use the dog, they need to have probable cause of another crime having been committed. There wasn't any probable cause here, so they couldn't use the dog (whether it took longer or not).

That is simply not true. Read the opinion linked to the in summary. The finding is solely based on the fact that the duration of the traffic stop was increased while the officer waited for backup to arrive before conducting the dog sniff. The question of whether or not dog sniffs require reasonable suspicion or probable cause during a traffic stop was already decided in Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U. S. 405, 407, a case cited in the present opinion, and it was found that no reasonable suspicion or probable cause was required unless, according to Caballes: the stop “become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission.” (That mission being to deal with the traffic violation.)

It's time to boot, do your boot ROMs know where your disk controllers are?