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


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Penalty for obvious false claims (Score 2) 36 36

Once again we should work toward getting back to common law. A number of states have made Barratry at thing again, thankfully. What should happen is if you are right and you know your right you just ignore the bogus legal letter. If they then take you to court anyway. You phone up the local prosecutor who should go after them for filing baseless claims.

In Texas at least for repeat offenses it can be a felony! We should aim for that everywhere.

Comment: Re: We're All Dicks (Score 1) 234 234

What is Jobs doing now? Oh right he is dead.

Which he probably would still be and quite possibly would have been sooner if he had risked any of his success to tread his daughter better.

So there are two conclusions you can draw (probably others as well).

1) you only live once and death is certain; best live life to the fullest enjoy it as much as you can. If you don't think there is more pleasure to be derived from things like family or other social responsibilities than the alternatives FUCK IT and move on to something more entertaining because you will end up a rotting corpse or pile of ash either way.

2) death is certain, therefore what you leave behind matters because if you don't leave something or someone behind to be remembered for or to remember you than there will be nothing left.

Comment: Re:Knew it was too good to be true. (Score 1) 161 161

Applications for those warrants are inches thick. Do you think they like to redo them?

The is about the oldest game in business dealings and legal ranging. You toss together a huge pile of largely irrelevant material to "support" your argument, banking on the other guy deicing its to hard to go thru it all or if he can't connect the dots (because there really are none) he must be stupid and won't want to admit it.

No I am sure they don't want to redo a warrant, I am also sure if one comes over that is an inch think its 98% or more BS.

Comment: Re:The founding documents present a path... (Score 0) 161 161

Yes its sad but true. The progressives win out in then end. They have succeeded, in undoing the work Hammurabi did all those years ago. Sure we still have codified law but it really does not matter. The government is bound by common definitions of works or shared understanding; let alone the notion that laws ought to be read using the prevailing definitions of the day when they were drafted. Now anything can mean anything at all.

You are free to associate unless its with a group someone has labeled terrorists. Oh and don't go thinking you have a choice in not associating. If you say don't want to join a heal insurance pool than you shall be taxed. Sounds striking similar to what was required if you chose not to join the Anglican Church in the seventeenth century. Don't wish to allow a certain group to associate with you your business etc, to bad you will sued into oblivion by an attorney general with a chip on his should. It matters not whether your reason are simple bigotry or sincere religious conviction or anything else.

The lower house the peoples house gets to allocate the purse. Nope not since the advent of budget reconciliation, and the idea the president somehow has the power to continue to spend on "critical activities" and to decide what is critical if the body won't authorize a budget he likes.

The Senate shall provide advice and consent to treaties, well consent any way and we shall see how long that lasts, thanks to TPP Fast Track.

The president isn't allowed to declare war, oh well the war powers act gives him sixty days; what its past that well no matter, its not a war its a "kinetic military action".

Al-Qaeda / ISIS Iraq / Syria those are pretty much the same right we can just say the old the AUMF covers that..

Face it folks we have shaken off the last vestiges of any kind of "Rule of Law". With Secret courts that do whatever they want and a Supreme Court that issues opinions that seem more driven by poll numbers than ideas about language, law, and facts its all a bad joke. Freedom ends not with bang but a whimper.

Comment: Re:Drone It (Score 1) 805 805

That is the sort of lets compare penis size thinking that gets us in wars in the first place. If bravery means putting your self in harms way when there is an equally effective and far less costly solution that does not place you in personal jeopardy available, than bravery has become synonymous with idiocy.

Its costs more per hour for a maned aircraft to be in the air, a pilot who is under some threat however small stuffed in a cramped cockpit is not going to make a better last moment decision about a target than a drone pilot, who has more time to think about the immediate state on the ground.

The problem is we are selecting targets based on shitty intelligence and in many cases nothing but metadata and then dropping bombs on people. Yep drones have become a flashpoint around the world for outrage. I don't really see any evidence to suggest sentiment toward maned American military aircraft would be much better if we were using them the way we are using the drones. Most of the targets don't really have the capacity to shoot back at something like jet fighter-bomber anyway.

Comment: Re:Drone It (Score 4, Insightful) 805 805

Drone pilots don't seem to have much of a conscience either.


Drone piolots have no doubt done somethings history won't look kindly on but so has basically every fighting man using whatever technology and tactics. Sure maybe some just do it for the pay check or lack of other options but most of the people that enlist in our volunteer armed services have some conviction about defending the nation.

They are fed probably ten times as much propaganda about the enemy as the rest of us and yet 9999 times of 10000 or more they continue to treat the enemy humanely and frequently place themselves in grater danger to do so. Drone pilots might not face that personal danger and not facing that choice probably makes them better not worse when it comes to "doing the right thing". Suppose all the drone missions were instead flowing with manned aircraft, with pilots always wonder when they might be surprised by some AA device left over from previous conflicts. Do think they would make more or fewer errors?

Militaries kill people and break things, its what they do on a very very fundamental level. Whatever the mission is that is ultimately how it will be effected if you employ the military to do it. Sometimes that is the right thing. I'll be the first to say the middle east aint our fight, and we should bring both the troops and the drones home. Please though lets put the blame for those casualties where it belongs. On the people giving the orders and overseeing the programs. Not on our pilots, sailors and soldiers who really are just following orders.

If your CO handed you a photo of a nondescript building and said "Intel says a terrorist cell is hiding out here, hit it with a hellfire" What would you do? You would probably do what most of us would take them at their word and follow the order. When you read next week in the Time about how the CIA fucked up again and the place was full of civilians you'd feel guilty and not re-enlist when the time come, a problem the Air Force currently is having.

I hope you take some responsibility for it when you next visit the ballot box and cast your vote for someone who will stop doing this crap.

Comment: Re:Kaspersky (Score 4, Insightful) 33 33

I would have to imagine some of it has to do with not tempting fate. Physical security companies don't generally like it publicly known when one of their higher profile clients gets broken into. The armored car services don't like to talk about their drivers being held up etc. Prior to FDIC banks frequently names themselves after heavy stones like granite to give the impression they were secure.

So much of security is people and process. The people part basically boils down to trust and often simple faith. Would you be more or less likely to purchase security software from a firm that had just been hacked themselves. I suspect Kaspersky might not have wanted to out a bunch of criminals because it paints a target on them. They know like most of the folks here know sooner or later given enough time the bad guys will probably accomplish something significant enough to get you in the news for the wrong reasons, should they be motivated to do so.

Comment: Re:Copyright Law (Score 1) 190 190

otherwise it opens up a whole legal way to expropriate property.

I generally agree with you in principle as to how trademark law ought to be interpreted.

I think its an interesting question to ask though. Does a domain name constitute property. Its not as if its tangible. Its record in a database, perhaps more importantly its a record in someones elses's database. That is before you even start to address who really owns that database. Is the 'private' organization ICANN or is it the US Department of Commerce.

In any case its hard for me to see how domain name can be rightly call property. Certainly this post belongs to Slashdot. I doubt anyone would get far asserting otherwise EULA or not. In the end its an electronic record that governs the behavior of an application (Slashdot's comment system) just like any DNS record does.

Similarly if you town decided to rename the street you live on would have any legal recourse (other than ballot box).

I can see how a digital record that you personally control, is rightly analogous to a 'paper or effect' in the fourth amendment sense. Once you hand it off to someone else though or it because a 'fact' in a public database I am not sure you can call it yours anymore and I am even less sure its 'property'

Comment: Re:Paywall (Score 2) 153 153

I think the problem is we need both. In most cases programs are not like buildings they don't fall down and kill people if they are implemented badly. Now if that program is controlling your nuclear reactor or your medical implant, flying your plane its a different story.

Look at your accounts. Sure we don't let just anyone do the books at public company. Someone with a CPA at least needs to supervise the preparation of those SEC filings. On the other hand we don't need the guy at the HR Block kiosk running TaxCut for you while you shop at Wall-Mart to have an accounting degree or a CPA either (not to say some of them don't).

Comment: Re:You think Greeks want MORE electronic money? (Score 4, Interesting) 358 358

That is only if it buys bread and milk. The trouble Greece and most of the modern world has is that its entirely dependent on international trade. Greece can't meet its needs by itself. I am not an expert on the Greek economy. Lets charitably assume they can feed themselves. What about all the drugs that are not manufactured there that many depend upon to live for example? Can a private individual order drugs from across the boarder with gold coins? Can a pharmacy or hospital buying in quantity for that matter?

Sure there are exchanges for gold abroad, ultimately the answer is yes; for some quantity of gold you can obtain enough Euro to buy what you need. Now if the banks are closed where you are that might mean sending someone abroad to physically execute these transactions where trading desks and banks are open.

If the economy becomes truly unhinged, people stop working, stores close, etc than gold really is not all that great. If I am hungry and you are hungry, and neither of us imagines that changing anytime soon do you think I'll trade my pound of cheese for your gold?

I am supportive of a gold standard in general because I think inflation and debt based currency is an insidious trap used to enslave all of us. A gold standard would prevent the vipers from manipulating things and causing recessions that last half of peoples productive lives, it would reduce inequality, it would reduce war, in exchange for more frequent smaller booms and busts. In short it would shrink many of the worlds problems. If you already have problems like Greece does it won't provide some magic fix, don't have any illusions about that.

Comment: Re:Not me (Score 2) 152 152

I am not sure how much that will help you. Its still on your premiss associated with your device. The prosecutor is going to just say to the judge or jury, "Which is more likely that Bob here singed on to the guest network that is always available to him in an attempt to hide his activities or that someone sat in car outside Bob's house and did all this bad stuff."

Its not right, its not fair, its certainly not really beyond a reasonable doubt, but I would not want to bet my future on it in a court room.

Comment: Re:Prime Scalia (Score -1, Offtopic) 591 591

Would that be the party that insisted and using parliamentary tricks to prevent debate on a giant controversial piece of legislation, finally resorting to abusing the budget reconciliation process to pass it without the normally require floor votes. Next even though the law was and still is unpopular with the majority of the public continued to prevent any of the repeal measures passed in the House from ever seeing the Senate floor? That party?

See they are all petulant children it cuts both ways. At the end of the day though DNC politics always stink worse. That is why Obama wins the RNC folks at least keep trying to hold to some form of normal procedure. Bush gets a congressional authorization for his war, even goes to the UN. Obama just does whatever they hell he wants in Libya. Nancy Pelosi and friends use budget reconciliation to enact the AFCA. The RNC tries to use the budget to shut down the government and default in order to make they president bend. What the administration do they threaten to basically just pint money if congress won't act. Liberals when because they don't care about the rule of law. They don't care about freedom and what it takes to protect it. If the rules get in the way of their agenda they change them.

Comment: Re:Roberts admits to being wrong (Score 0) 591 591

What is written is not what is meant by intent, what is meant by intent is what the law was meant to accomplish

That is a dangerous and STUPID precedent to set. That is how you get the NSA collecting phone records for the entire nation when even the PATRIOT act never authorized it!

What you suggest essential dismantles any notion of rule of law. It essentially frees the administration to do whatever it wants. Independent of the current congress, no matter what the laws actually read on the books. You have essentially no recourse.

Naturally the SCOTUS will rule this way because it HAS NOT REAL CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY either except what it imagined for itself.

Comment: Re:what is interesting is not that it won (Score 5, Insightful) 591 591

Bullshit! Words need to have meanings and laws need to have concrete meanings to whatever degree is possible. Its the whole reasons things are struck down all the time as 'void for vagueness.'

If congress is allowed to retroactively decide what they intended, never mind what the wrote than we might has well go back to a monarchy and whatever the King thinks today goes. A system of laws is absolutely useless when anything can mean whatever government wants it mean. You and I just suffered a blow to any real protection any real possibility of justice. This is just one more example of turning the rule of law into a bad joke. The SCOTUS, POTUS, and Congress should be ashamed of themselves.

There is plenty of evidence in the form of Gruber to suggest that congress did indeed intend to write what they wrote to cajole states into compliance. Sates called their bluff and now congress gets a pass.

Comment: Re:This is not news... (Score 1) 328 328

I agree with the parent they *can* do these things, and nobody ought should stop them. I hope the reaction from users is "Fuck you I am going to avoid using your products and those of the people you are advertising for like Yahoo whenever possible in the future."

Bad business practices should be rewarded with less business. People need to stop being sheep and just accepting it.

This is clearly another case of too many mad scientists, and not enough hunchbacks.