Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Motion blur is temporal AA (Score 1) 177

by Jane Q. Public (#48672239) Attached to: Human Eye's Oscillation Rate Determines Smooth Frame Rate
You ALL seem to be forgetting interleave, which is the one motion-enabling technology most responsible for reasonable motion effects on television. (NTSC TV of course also has a higher frame rate: 29.97 fps.)

1080p (p for progressive, i.e. one full frame at a time like film) became the norm because of its higher pixel-per-second count. But let's not forget about 1080i, where the i is for interleave. 1080i shows motion much better.

Comment: Re:And how many were terrorists? Oh, right, zero. (Score 1) 276

by Jane Q. Public (#48653757) Attached to: TSA Has Record-Breaking Haul In 2014: Guns, Cannons, and Swords

People who need to transport their legally owned firearms can do so through the simple act of checking them.


That was GP's whole point: anybody stupid enough (or forgetful enough) to try to carry something like this onto a plane just isn't much of a threat.

Comment: Re:Crime Lords (Score 5, Insightful) 225

by Jane Q. Public (#48653647) Attached to: GCHQ Warns It Is Losing Track of Serious Criminals

I'd say that the abuse of methods used by the authorities against normal citizens was revealed and that has also caused some trouble for the authorities when trying to monitor criminals.

This is a common syndrome in erstwhile free societies: the police are always complaining that they can't catch criminals, that they need more leeway and exemptions from the law themselves in order to do so.

And when people believe them, the inevitable result is less freedom and more Big Brother.

Anybody who thinks Snowden did not ultimately do us all a huge favor isn't seeing straight.

Comment: Re:Not seeing the issue here (Score 1) 204

by Jane Q. Public (#48649359) Attached to: Judge: It's OK For Cops To Create Fake Instagram Accounts

Actually, there is.

There are exceptions, but in most states they are few and specific.

They can and have broken into buildings and houses in pursuit of suspects/criminals fleeing.


There is actually a long list of things- some of which even cause people to lose their life that the police seem to be absolved from which if you or I had done would be instant jail time.

"Seem to be absolved from" is not the same as legal. That's a straw-man argument. I wrote "they're not allowed". The dog is not allowed on the bed. That doesn't mean the dog doesn't get up there sometimes. Only that it isn't supposed to.

Having said that, again yes there are exceptions. But those exceptions are very specific and we know what they are.

Though they sometimes might not get prosecuted for breaking the rules, they sure as hell should. That's a genuine societal problem, not how things are "supposed to" be.

Comment: Re:And on the plus side... (Score 1) 330

by Jane Q. Public (#48649329) Attached to: 11 Trillion Gallons of Water Needed To End California Drought

I don't think that these two assertions are simultaneously possible. If "they" corralled the snow melt - all of it - then where did they put it?

"They" put it in huge reservoirs. I used to live there, and I know them well. Also the Central Valley, where a close relative owned a farm / ranch. I am intimately familiar with these things.

And don't ben an ass. "All"? Of course not. Being deliberately literal when I was not doesn't make for compelling arguments. It's pretty obvious that I was oversimplifying.

Still, the basic point remains. Stand at the mouth of the San Joaquin "river" most of the year and see how much water comes out. I have pictures of my grandfather with strings of large salmon caught in that river, back before it was being mostly used up. Now, it's not very common to see more than a trickle most of the year. And ask residents of L.A. about their "river". You've probably seen it in movie "chase scenes"... a vast concrete canal with seldom more than puddles at the bottom of it.

And don't forget groundwater: they've been gradually depleting the aquifers for generations, and they were aware of it.

Comment: Re:And on the plus side... (Score 1) 330

by Jane Q. Public (#48649271) Attached to: 11 Trillion Gallons of Water Needed To End California Drought

Can you figure out the rest?

Yes, I certainly can, and the answer is no.

Guess what? Oregon and Washington make use of that water. Shipping it down to California seriously diminishes quality of life for those who live there, not to mention the environmental destruction that would ensue.

Let California go broke. Hell, it is anyway. People can buy their food from elsewhere.

Comment: Re:I.D. Please (Score 1) 204

by Jane Q. Public (#48649229) Attached to: Judge: It's OK For Cops To Create Fake Instagram Accounts

And if so, what is the liability for the company if they do or don't make the account viable again.

IANAL, but my understanding is that you are not generally required to go out of your way to assist the police. You are not a policeman, you aren't being paid to be one.

Even phone companies insist on payment for allowing wiretaps, or government requests for information. And even those are only mandatory because there are specific laws that say so (such as CALEA).

Comment: Re:here's a real-life case to explain criminal int (Score 1) 204

by Jane Q. Public (#48649209) Attached to: Judge: It's OK For Cops To Create Fake Instagram Accounts

Ignorance of the LAW generally isn't an excuse, but mistake of FACT IS an excuse.

Unfortunately, though, we now have far too many laws, including contradictory laws. Even if somebody had their own legal library, every year some things change. A hypothetical typical, reasonable citizen could not possibly know them all, much less be reasonably expected to. They wouldn't have time to do anything else.

So here's my question: since our common law system is supposed to be based on the reasonable man principle, and it is provably not reasonable to expect the average citizen to know most laws, much less all, how could ignorance of the law NOT be a valid excuse?

Comment: Re: Why wouldn't it be? (Score 2) 204

by Jane Q. Public (#48648825) Attached to: Judge: It's OK For Cops To Create Fake Instagram Accounts

I don't think anyone has yet fought this one in the courts, so it may not stand up to judicial scrutiny, but it is most definitely used as the "stick" to convince someone to accept a plea bargain.

Have you been living under a rock the last 5 years?

Yes, prosecutors have tried to use the TOS thing as an excuse to prosecute. But that is being actively fought by EFF, EPIC, and a whole alphabet soup of other organizations acting as amici to the courts, and with actual legal defense as well.

It is pretty clear that Congress never meant the law to apply to situations like Aaron Swartz, for example. Government prosecutors have been fighting actually getting that one to court though because they know they'll lose, and they want to retain the ability to threaten people with it.

Comment: Re:Not seeing the issue here (Score 1) 204

by Jane Q. Public (#48648791) Attached to: Judge: It's OK For Cops To Create Fake Instagram Accounts

Also, and undercover cop can smoke a bowl with you and still arrest your ass for having/selling/using.


Police are not allowed to break the law in order to enforce the law.

I'm not saying they never do it, but if they do, they're just as much criminals as anyone else. There is no law or principle that gives police a pass for breaking laws.

Comment: Re:Not seeing the issue here (Score 1) 204

by Jane Q. Public (#48648699) Attached to: Judge: It's OK For Cops To Create Fake Instagram Accounts

Cops should NEVER be allowed to lie outside of specific, warrant backed undercover operations. I will never understand when it became ok for those charged with enforcing the law to lie without shame.

Lying, by itself, is not a crime. So why should they not be able to lie?

Generally speaking, they may not commit a crime in their pursuit to solve or prevent crimes. Police don't have diplomatic immunity. Again generally speaking, the same laws that apply to you also apply to them too.

What they are NOT allowed to do is commit crimes. They might be able to lie, but not commit fraud or "entrap", which basically means to talk or fool someone into doing something illegal they would not normally do.

In one state I know of, the police were trying to have it both ways. They claimed they were "always on duty", even though of course they were only being paid for 8-hour shifts. They wanted to be able to do whatever they wanted when not on shift, yet still carry their guns and make arrests, and act like police, any time of the day or night, whenever they wanted.

The State said no, if they were "always on duty" they'd have to be job-insured 24 hours a day, and get "on-call" pay in addition to their regular wages. Since the State wasn't about to do that, it declared officially that police were only "really" police when they were on their paid shift. Any other time, they can only make citizen's arrests, just like everybody else. Also, as a result, the few exemptions the police got for firearms carry are only in effect when they're on paid duty. All firearms laws in the state apply to off-duty police in exactly the same way they do to everyone else. The police really howled about that one.

Prior to the State "cleaning house", the police were also busting prostitutes by paying them and having sex with them, then arresting them and taking the money back. The state said "no way". No more hands-on for the police. They howled about that one too.

Comment: Re:Study financed by (Score 1) 281

by Jane Q. Public (#48647433) Attached to: Study: Red Light Cameras Don't Improve Safety

The article is written as if the yellow-timing issue was something the newspaper had previously caught the city on,

No, it isn't. It says

allowing the tickets even when cameras showed a yellow light time just under the three-second federal minimum standard. That shift earlier this year snared 77,000 more drivers

[emphasis added]

It is very clear that the cameras showed yellow lights under 3 seconds, this year.

"Don't talk to me about disclaimers! I invented disclaimers!" -- The Censored Hacker