Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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

Comment Re:Unbelievable (Score 1) 591

I don't think it was legally brilliant at all, because it wasn't legal. While many countries (such as the UK) created zones where foreigners were not permitted to reside, none except the USA created areas where their own citizens of a particular ethnicity were excluded. It could have been argued that this was permissible if Habeas Corpus had been suspended, but it was not.

That's the difference. American citizens of a specific race were barred from residing in the vast majority of the country. Nobody tried to intern the descendants of Italian, German, Austrian or other enemy immigrants. Only the Japanese suffered this fate, possibly because it was easy to identify them and so they became natural suspects.

Incidentally, many white people have some difficulty telling the difference between Chinese and Japanese features. However, the Chinese population apparently had no such difficulty as they were the most active in identifying Japanese Americans to the authorities, especially those who failed to report for internment.

Comment Re:Unbelievable (Score 3, Informative) 591

That's incorrect. Japanese Americans were rumored to be spying against the USA, and the court ruled that the need to protect against espionage outweighed the rights of the American citizens not to be interned.

However, the Solicitor General failed to not provide a report from the Office of Naval Intelligence that stated there was no evidence that Japanese Americans were acting as spies or passing information to the enemy.

In 1983, Korematsu's conviction for failing to report to for internment was overturned on the grounds that the government had knowingly submitted false information to the Supreme Court that had a material effect on the court's decision.

Comment Re:Unbelievable (Score 4, Insightful) 591

It was against the Constitution to place American citizens of Japanese descent in interment camps without being convicted on any crime back in the second world war. That didn't stop it happening. The Supreme Court even said it was OK back in 1944, in possibly one of the worst decisions in the history of the court.

The people who were held were unable to earn a living and were unable to pay outstanding income taxes or the taxes on their property. Even if they had the money they had no access to it. Their property was seized and sold as a result. Those that survived the camps with a minimum of food and no heath care had lost everything they had worked for by the time they were released after the war. Only a few suggested putting people of German or Italian descent in camps, and they were ignored.

It's a short step from identifying those of a particular religion to government discrimination in travel, jobs, housing or freedom.

Comment Re:Serves them right (Score 5, Insightful) 328

It's very likely that if they had driven their vehicle at a police officer rather than Tesla security they would have been shot, and if they survived they would have been charged with attempted murder.

They were lucky that the Tesla security people either were not armed or chose not to shoot at them.

Comment Re:having trouble finding maintainers (Score 1) 182

If this stream of 250 you speak of actually exists, why is Linus saying he's having problems finding people?

Are they of suitable quality - this isn't crappy application code. Are they thick skinned enough to be willing to put up with the legendary abuse from the LKML? Are they willing to work 7 days a week for little reward?

Comment Re:Shop elsewhere if you need this drug (Score 5, Insightful) 372

There are no generic manufacturers for Daraprim because of the low volumes sold. This startup bought the exclusive right to sell the drug in the USA, which is why they can jack up the price.

Other countries still sell it for low prices. The cost of the drug in Canada, or the UK, or Mexico (if you trust their pharmacies) make a trip out of the country worthwhile.

Comment Shop elsewhere if you need this drug (Score 5, Informative) 372

Daraprim (generic name Pyrimethamine) is also used a alternative treatment for maleria where quinine cannot be used, although resistance is now prevalent worldwide. The manufacturing cost is roughly $1 per 25 mg tablet, so even the old price of $13.50 per tablet is a very substantial markup. A typical course of treatment requires around 90 to 120 tablets.

Anyone in the USA needing this drug should fly to the UK where it is still manufactured by GKN and sold for the equivalent of $70 for 90 tablets. Those same 90 tablets would cost $67,500 at the new price in the USA, so the saving would be substantial even allowing for air fare, hotel, etc.

Some enterprising company willing to spend the money to get approval to import the drug from the UK would put this startup out of business. Hopefully.

Comment Re:What is UNUSUAL (Score 3, Informative) 275

The two women are identified "Miss A" and "Miss W" in Sweden to protect their identities.

On 11 August 2010, Assange arrived in Sweden to speak at a seminar partly arranged by "Miss A". He had met her before but he stayed at her apartment. They had sex on 14 August 2010.

At the seminar, Assange met "Miss W" and they had sex on 17 August 2010.

On 19 August 2010 the two women (who are friends) discovered that both of them had had sex with Assange. Up to this point neither had suggested that the sex was anything other than consensual, but that day they decided to contact a journalist and complain about their sexual encounters with Assange. The journalist insisted they contact the police and the two women went to the police together. They both say that what started as consensual sex became non-consensual, which is rape in Swedish law. The two women were interviewed together by police and this allowed contamination of their evidence.

On 20 August 2010 a warrant was issued for Assange's arrest. On 21 August it was withdrawn by Stockholm's Chief Prosecutor. On 30 August, Assange was interviewed by police.

On 1 September 2010 a different prosecutor announced that she was reopening the investigation. This is not a normal procedure in Sweden. Furthermore, the prosecutor identified Assange to the press, which is against Swedish law. On 2 September she re-interviewed the complainants, but she did did not interview Assange, which is required within a week - she said this was not done because of a police officer being sick.

On 5 September 2010 a journalist reported that the two women did not want to proceed.

On 27 September 2010 Assange left Sweden with the agreement of the authorities.

On 18 November 2010 a court approved a request to detain Assange for questioning. On 20 November an international arrest warrant was issued. It was possible to interview Assange in the UK, as there is a mutual legal assistance agreement, but the prosecutor went for the arrest warrant instead.

That's where we stand at present. Assange has not been charged with a crime as yet.

Frankly it looks like a case where two women discovered that they were both having sex with Assange and decided (together) to come up with a way to get back at him - there's no way to prove that sex becomes non-consenual while it is in progress. It's a classic "he said, she said" situation. It's strange that both women claimed the same thing happened, but not until they had discovered they were sharing his favors.

It appears that the prosector has an agenda, but I have no idea why.

Comment Re:What is UNUSUAL (Score 4, Insightful) 275

Both the women in question are adults and both have said that they do not wish Assange to be prosecuted. After the original complaint was filed, Assange was told he could leave Sweden, and so he went to the UK.

Then a Swedish prosecutor decided to reopen the case (exactly why has never been fully explained) and she wants him back in Sweden. For some reason it wasn't sufficient to interview him by phone or Skype, or by traveling to the UK. The prosecutor wants him in Sweden, to the point of issuing a European arrest warrant - not because he's been charged with anything, just because she wants to talk to him.

The whole thing seems quite strange. Sweden and the UK seem to be treating this as a major incident, even though the complainants have no interest in pursuing the case. In fact, the UK is complaining about the very high cost of watching the Ecuadorean embassy, which they reckon is over 15 million pounds so far.

Comment Yes, unprovoked (Score 5, Insightful) 207

You do realize that the only reason Clarkson was not fed is because he went drinking at a local pub after shooting was completed for the day. He arrived at his hotel after the restaurant was closed (but some people were still there chatting) and then blew up because there was no hot food for him.

Clarkson went on a 40 minute rant blaming a producer named Oisin Tymon. Clarkson called the producer lazy, told him he would make certain he lost his job, and used a racial slur describing him as a "lazy Irish cunt". All this in public in front of many people. Eventually he punched the producer, who was taken to the local hospital for treatment of facial injuries.

Clarkson's show also claimed a Tesla ran out of electric power after 55 miles when the claimed range was 200 miles. Tesla sued for libel but the lawsuit was dismissed because "rectification of inaccuracies is not a function of the courts"! However, the BBC admitted in court that the scene where the car ran out of power was faked. I hope Clarkson and friends don't have the same leeway with the truth under Amazon.

Comment Re:Be pro-active (Score 1) 213

I ran my credit reports and there's nothing adverse on file at any of the three CRAs. The credit card company says it reports FICO scores from Experian. I contacted Experian and they said there's nothing that can be done as there's no adverse information on file that can be challenged. It's a mystery.

Perhaps the FTC site is out of date, or perhaps Experian is using different criteria than the FTC expects. I have no idea.

Comment Re:password recovery to defeat reverse identity th (Score 5, Insightful) 213

My policy is to never respond to emails that I receive if they are intended for other people. Here's why.

Back in 1998 I received an email intended for an attorney at a personal injury law firm. The firm's domain name is very similar to mine, the only difference was that they have a hyphen in their domain name and I don't. Being a good guy, I replied to the sender saying he had the wrong email address. That was a serious mistake.

I was accused by their office manager of hacking their emails. I told her that I don't control who sends email to my domain. She said I shouldn't open email not addressed to me, and the firm reported me to the US Attorney for their location for violating attorney/client privacy. Back then, the name, address and phone number of domain owners were always public so it was easy to discover my details.

The US Attorney passed the information to the FBI and I received a visit from two agents who were polite but computer clueless and somewhat concerned about what had happened. As I said, this was 1998 and the whole concept of malware and hacking was somewhat new and esoteric. I explained to the agents in detail what had happened, showed them my email setup and explained how email works. They thanked me and left saying they would be in touch. I haven't heard a word from either of them or anyone else about the complaint since.

However, this experience did change my attitude to incorrectly addressed email. I've received several emails for this law firm since then and I ignored them. These days a complaint of this nature would be ignored but why take the chance.

Comment Re:Be pro-active (Score 4, Interesting) 213

Just something to beware of with security freezes. A few months ago I did freeze my accounts at the credit reporting agencies because my tax preparer recommended it as a proactive move to prevent identity theft.

I have a credit card that reports my current FICO score monthly. The month after I froze my accounts my FICO score dropped by 57 points. Looking back over the last year, my rating had moved up 11 points before this unexpected drop, so I think it's likely that the change was caused by initiating the credit freeze.

It doesn't matter as my credit history is frozen, but if I do need to give someone access to my credit ratings for any reason (buying a new car, getting a new job, whatever) then I presume the much lower score will be shown.

Comment Re:Go Solar, it can make good financial sense. (Score 1) 259

Then you didn't do a good site survey before installing your panels. You should have considered that before installing panels.

At my request, 32 of my 48 panels face south west. On a per panel basis they produce about 91% of the 16 panels facing south, but they peek about 4pm during the summer. I know this because I have monitoring on my system that records energy production and panel diagnostic data every 5 minutes, and 10+ years of data sitting in PostgreSQL database.

Many people are unenthusiastic about their work.