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


Forgot your password?

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:Be careful making stuff cheap and easy. (Score 2) 63

by DRJlaw (#49425699) Attached to: Radar That Sees Through Walls Built In Garage

By making intrusive surveillance devices available inexpensively (perhaps by showing hobbyists how to build their own), such devices could move (as planes have) into "general public use" and then be usable by police without a warrant to surveil areas normally off-limits to them without a warrant.

I cannot fault your analysis of that particular sentence since I'm certain that some lawyer somewhere will eventually argue that when the "not in general public use" criterion is absent it somehow becomes a "reasonable" search.

On the other hand, simply because a technology becomes available to monitor something formerly private does not mean that that technology will stay available and become something in "general public use." The now classic evolution-begets-prohibition example is radio frequency scanners. Making or using scanners to listen to analog phone transmissions for fun or profit became a bad idea, not something in general public use.

If you consider that merely listening to something that people voluntarily broadcast, in the clear, was deemed illegal, what do you think the reaction is going to be to your nosy neighbor bathing your home in artificial radiation for the purpose of peeping at things going on that are not ordinarily visible from the outside? That everyone will accept that shielding their home is impractical and simply shrug? Not once some git uses the technology to surveil a politician it won't.

Comment: Re:Hmmm... (Score 1) 341

by DRJlaw (#49332975) Attached to: Feds Attempt To Censor Parts of a New Book About the Hydrogen Bomb

He submitted the book voluntarily for review. What did you expect the people who reviewed it to do? Declassify stuff just because he had it in his book? Why did he do that? I'm guessing Streisand Effect.

He submitted the book for review because if the book was cleared, the government would have a very difficult time prosecuting him for anything included in the book after it was published.

However, he was not actually obligated to follow the recommendations made in the review, nor can the government prevent initial publication of the material by his publisher regardless of whether he followed those recommendations.

What the government can do is attempt to prosecute him after the manuscript is disclosed or published by proving that the book violated the law or the non-disclosure agreement that he signed for his pre-1953 government work. The fact that the information is already publicly known would greatly affect that. There's also very little that the government could practically do to his publisher. You should read up on the Pentagon Papers to see how this works in the real world.

Comment: Re:Hmmm... (Score 2, Insightful) 341

by DRJlaw (#49331737) Attached to: Feds Attempt To Censor Parts of a New Book About the Hydrogen Bomb

Even if withholding that information only slows down a terrorist by mere days or hours, it's worth it.

No, it's not.

In addition, our Constitution lets the author make that decision, not the government. We have a whole theory concerning "prior restraint" that cannot simply be tossed away because "why make it any easier for a would-be terrorist bomb maker to find it and make use of it." You only get to challenge the author for allegedly disclosing critical secrets after they're published. That helpfully prevents the government from suppressing embarrasing, non-secret information by fiat.

Comment: Re:Hmmm... (Score 4, Informative) 341

by DRJlaw (#49331689) Attached to: Feds Attempt To Censor Parts of a New Book About the Hydrogen Bomb

The First Ammendment doesn't trump and never has trumped public safety.

The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with you. The author would have to be inciting imminent lawless action. Reporting on the history of the hydrogen bomb is neither inciting nor likely to produce imminent 'safety' effects.

Comment: Re:As a recent buyer of a mid-2014 MBP (Score 4, Insightful) 204

by DRJlaw (#49323831) Attached to: Apple Doubles MacBook Pro R/W Performance

You bought a Haswell-based MBP knowing full well that Broadwell had been released and would work its way into the MBP line shortly.

You also ignored the fact that Apple has been updating the Retina MacBook Pros like clockwork.

If you're miffed, be miffed at yourself. Nobody hid this from you.

Comment: Re:Send the water back (Score 1) 417

by DRJlaw (#49312819) Attached to: How 'Virtual Water' Can Help Ease California's Drought

Companies in other states that buy CA produced crops should have to send the watere equivalent back to CA.

Yes, because California imports nothing from other states, and there's no logical way that other states could 'charge' for rest-of-US produced products, CA is sure to come out a winner.

Hint: CA had better become even more vegan, since it's only 4th in beef, and pretty much in the bottom tier of poultry and pork.

Comment: Re:Slippery slope (Score 1) 362

by DRJlaw (#49305493) Attached to: OEMs Allowed To Lock Secure Boot In Windows 10 Computers

First they invented SecureBoot, but that was OK, because you could turn it off.

Then they prevented disabling it, but that was OK...

Because they didn't. "No worries, because Microsoft also mandated that every system must have a UEFI configuration setting to turn the protection off, allowing booting other operating systems. This situation may now change. At its WinHEC hardware conference in Shenzhen, China, Microsoft said the setting to allow Secure Boot to be turned off will become optional when Windows 10 arrives."

They didn't prevent disabling it. They no longer mandated providing the option to disable it. If your device manufacturer suddenly decides to remove the previously mandatory "off" setting option, that's on them, not Microsoft.

We're still back at "first."

Comment: Re:What on earth (Score 4, Informative) 234

by DRJlaw (#49293599) Attached to: No Fuel In the Fukushima Reactor #1

What on earth is "an Uruguay syndrom", and why does google have no idea either.

An attempt to be cute with the concept of the "China syndrome," but since the reactor is in Japan you name somewhere in the Western Hemisphere. This is actually a marginally better form of cute since China and the US are both in the Northern Hemisphere, and Japan and Uruguay are actually separated by the equator as well. Your seemingly self-sustaining molten nuclear fuel melts its way through the earth - then up and out the other side (*eye twitch*).

The problem being it's utter bollocks. Anything that becomes molten will mix into the fuel and dilute it, lowering the reaction rate and moving you further and further away from a self-sustaining reaction.

The real concern is that you melt through the containment vessel (apparently not likely; but then explosions within the containment vessel and seismic activity aren't helping you any), through the earth, and down to the water table so that there is a steam explosion. That potentially scatters the nuclear fuel and fission products out the containment vessel.

Comment: Re:Yeah.... (Score 1) 106

Try that as a business. If Google arbitrarily decides that you no longer show up on search lists, or even that you no longer show up on a map--your business basically ends, unless all your business comes from the sidewalk.

So is the Zagat guide a monopoly that must take all restaurant entries?I mean, if you run an eatery and don't appear in the Zagat guide, then you may as well not exist to people who use the Zagat guide to determine where to eat.

At what point does the Zagat's guide turn into such a monopoly? How many competing food guides must exist before Zagat does not have a monopoly simply by dint of how many people use it? Why must the Zagat guide seek out and find your eatery to list it, as opposed to you providing the information that the Zagat guide wants?

Your complaint that you can't 'quit' using the advertising channel that customers choose to pay attention to does not confer magical monopoly status on that channel. There are many others. While you may not like that you have do deal with one particular one, it is your customers who get to chose which advertising channel to pay attention to, not you who get to dictate what the advertising channel does.

Comment: Re:I wonder why... (Score 1) 193

by DRJlaw (#49138917) Attached to: Uber Offers Free Rides To Koreans, Hopes They Won't Report Illegal Drivers

had shills packed to the rafters demanding that the program stay in place

Not everyone who opposes you is automatically a shill.

Claiming so doesn't show insight, it shows an utter lack of awareness that unbiased observers may weigh things differently than you.

Show us that they've been paid or have some other financial interest in the outcome.

Otherwise recognize that you yourself could be labeled a shill by your own particularized definition.

Comment: Re: I wonder why... (Score 1) 193

by DRJlaw (#49138757) Attached to: Uber Offers Free Rides To Koreans, Hopes They Won't Report Illegal Drivers

But not by the city. Learn to read.

By god, you're right! And that makes people who are not licensed by any governmental entity entirely equivalent to those who might be licensed by a county, a state, a Federal administrative agency, or the like!

the citya regulatory body

Crumb. Now you need to address the actual argument instead a pedantive construction of a sentence.

To spot the expert, pick the one who predicts the job will take the longest and cost the most.