Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:So let me get this straight (Score 5, Insightful) 680

by JimFive (#49537263) Attached to: Except For Millennials, Most Americans Dislike Snowden
I agree. I can believe that Snowden's revelations hurt National Security and anti-terrorism and ALSO believe that what he did was a great service to the country. Unless they specifically asked something like, "Do you support Snowden's actions?" then I don't think you get a good sense of what people think about him.
--
JimFive

Comment: Re:America! Fuck yeah! (Score 1) 271

by JimFive (#49512643) Attached to: Gyrocopter Pilot Appears In Court; Judge Bans Him From D.C.

Did he even need a pilot's license? The article doesn't seem to mention anything about licenses, and the 'copter looks like it *might* full under the weight limit to be classified as an ultralight, which does not need a license to operate

I could be wrong, but I think that only applies in uncontrolled (Class G) airspace. In most places airspace is Class G within some distance (700 ft?) above ground level but around airports and in other areas airspace is controlled all the way to the ground. I suspect that the capitol (if not all of D.C.) is controlled all the way down.
--
JimFive

Comment: Re:Hasn't this been proven to be junk science? (Score 1) 313

I think they set up a fund that grows interest at something like 3% a year, and invest a dollar. By the time they're ready to be reanimated, each of them will have accumulated enough interest to be richer than Google.

That math clearly doesn't work out. At 3% a year an investment doubles in 24 years. So in 96 years that dollar doubles 4 times to become $16. To get to $1 million you need to double at least 20 times which will take 480 years. But really you never get to $1 million because you have to keep the lights on.
--
JimFive

Comment: Re:No they can't ignore consumer protections (Score 1) 247

by JimFive (#49489115) Attached to: EU To Hit Google With Antitrust Charges
Anti-Trust Law is about preventing dominance in one market being used to create an advantage in a different market. Google is accused of using its dominance in search to give itself an advantage in online shopping. Simply not selling your product to a competitor would not be anti-trust.

Google's defense could be "we don't have a dominant position" but they have 90% of the EU search market so that's a loser. It could be, "we don't manipulate the search results to give advantage to our shopping sites", which would end up requiring them to give the code (and history) to the court for analysis. Or it could be a lot of technical legal wrangling which is probably what will happen. It definitely WON'T be "you're anti-trust laws are stupid".

An analogy, if I own 90% of the billboards in a state I can't refuse to sell billboard space to Jack's Auto Repair just because I also own John's Auto Repair.
--
JimFive

Comment: Re:This sh*t again? (Score 1) 247

by JimFive (#49488959) Attached to: EU To Hit Google With Antitrust Charges

I am questioning if Google is abusing or is in a position of dominance. A large market share is not a monopoly position.

The allegations are that Google is abusing its position in one market (search) to give itself an advantage in other markets, specifically online Shopping, by promoting sites on its own Google Shopping platform over other sites, and doing so without indicating to the consumer that Google has an interest in those sites. So, Google has a financial interest in people buying from certain retailers and is using its search engine to push consumers toward those retailers without disclosing that interest. This is giving Google Shopping a significant advantage over competitors, not because it has earned that advantage, but because Google Search has a 90% share of that market. This is, arguably, anti-competitive, even without a 100% monopoly position.

If this goes to court the EU would have to show that all of the above is true.
--
JimFive

Comment: Re:the real crazy: (Score 1) 327

by JimFive (#49488717) Attached to: Gyro-Copter Lands On West Lawn of US Capitol, Pilot Arrested

propose a law that prevents people from gathering together in a group, pooling their resources, and using those resources to express an opinion about politics ... and which doesn't break the first amendment.

McCain-Feingold was not an attempt to "prevent people from gathering together in a group, pooling their resources, and using those resources to express an opinion about politics". It was an attempt to say that you can't use a giant megaphone to express those opinions within a certain time before an election. Did it succeed? The Supreme Court said, "No".

Is money corrupting the political process? Is there a way to stop it? Reasonable people can disagree about those things.

Do you think that laws against libel and slander violate the first amendment? What about a law requiring that political ads not be misleading? What about a law requiring that using someone's name in an ad requires the permission of the named? What about a law requiring that any factual statements in an ad or speech be given a reputable source (and what would reputable mean)? What about a law saying that all donors must be disclosed?

By the way, it wasn't Citizen's United ruled that money is speech, it was Buckley v. Valeo(1976)

Comment: Re:Systemic and widespread? (Score 1) 489

by JimFive (#49442097) Attached to: The Courage of Bystanders Who Press "Record"

That's not how the burden of proof works in the American judicial system. Not collecting evidence (i.e., the camera was turned off) is light years away from the destruction of evidence (i.e., deleting footage after its shot)

Turning off a camera can be treated in the same way as destruction of evidence if that is how the law is written. There's nothing magic about it, if evidence should (In this case "is required to") exist and doesn't then we presume that the evidence goes against the person that should have it.

You're going to automatically side against the LEO because the camera was disabled?

Yes. They can turn the camera back on if they are interacting with the public.
--
JimFive

Comment: Re:Systemic and widespread? (Score 1) 489

by JimFive (#49439165) Attached to: The Courage of Bystanders Who Press "Record"
Most of your concerns are addressed by ensuring through law and policy that the purpose of the camera is to act as a witness to the actions of the officer, not the public. To respond to each point:
1) I doubt the cameras are more intimidating than all of the rest of the trappings of a witness interview.
2) Don't allow access to the videos without a specific complaint and legal process (subpoena, etc).
3) Allow them to turn it off, but if a complaint is made and the interaction is not on video then it is presumed that the complaint is valid, just like any other destruction of evidence.
4) The recordings would only become public record if there was an investigation and associated subpoena/warrant activity to get the video into court.
--
JimFive

When it is not necessary to make a decision, it is necessary not to make a decision.

Working...