Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment In other news (Score 3, Interesting) 384

Arresting people occasionally puts innocents in jail.

It's impossible to completely avoid civilian casualties in war unless you conduct absolutely no military operations whatsoever. The subtext of this is, of course, that the US should have avoided this, but how? Never go to war? That's obviously impractical.

Okay, so how about only going to war when you have a really good reason? If that's your plan, and you do approve of war as long as there is a really good reason, then (since some civilian casualties are inevitable) you've just said that you're okay with civilian casualties as long as the war is for a really good reason. Needless to say, you never see anti-war people saying this.

Being more careful in war? Well, you can be more careful, but nobody's perfect; there will always be *some* civilian casualties. So you're not really objecting to civilian casualties; you just think there are too many, but fewer but still some is okay. I've never seen anti-war people saying that either.

So what exactly should be done, other than never going to war, ever?

Comment Re:This author clearly is a Google marketroid (Score 1) 142

Support for Android phones and tablets.

Read carefully. The support for Android means that it can connect to an Android device, not that it can be used on Android to view ebooks. (And to use even that functionality, you need a paid Calibre Companion app. This app cannot view ebooks either and needs to pass the ebooks to your own separate ebook viewer app.)

Comment Re:Sandy Hook (Score 4, Insightful) 1145

I can only imagine someone saying this after 9/11. "Once America decided that allowing terrorists to kill people was bearable, it was over."

Gun control after a mass shooting is exactly as bad as terrorism control after a terrorism attack. It's the perfect time to propose a measure that isn't actually going to help save anyone but does a great job of cracking down on people's rights, and pass it based on outrage.

Comment This is terrible (Score 4, Insightful) 322

And not because it lets the car companies get away with something.

The prosecutor is considering prosecuting Volkswagen for "lying to the authorities". "They lied to the authorities" is a catchall crime that the government often brings when it finds itself unable to convict someone for an actual crime. This is a bad, bad, thing because you can't just refuse to speak to the government, and pretty much anyone is going to say something when questioned by the government that can be spun as a "lie", even if they just forgot, were misheard, or told an actual lie but one that has no bearing on the case.

The people cheering for this are really cheering for the idea that the government can put anyone in jail at a whim, because that's what the crime of "lying to the government" amounts to. It makes a mockery of the idea of a fair trial, and the fact that in this case the government decided to use this trick on a deserving target doesn't make it any less horrible.

Comment Re:Tit for Tat (Score 4, Informative) 14

Cancer clusters are subject to the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. If you search a country with hundreds of millions of people there will be lots of places where the incidence of cancer is high, purely by chance. Also, you picked the Wikipedia article that lists cancer clusters, but the Wikipedia article about cancer clusters mentions that 5% to 15% are statistically significant. And even statistically significant clusters can end up being caused by chance if you search enough places for them.

Also see this (PDF linked from the Wikipedia article on Texas sharpshooter fallacy).

given a typical registry of eighty different cancers, you could expect twenty-seven hundred and fifty of California's five thousand census
tracts to have statistically significant but perfectly random elevations of cancer. So if you check to see whether your neighborhood has an elevated rate of a
specific cancer, chances are better than even that it does--and it almost certainly won't mean a thing.

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

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.

They can't, because of the loophole (which is not explained in this article, but is in other articles like http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pi... ): You are not allowed to sell a generic equivalent unless you can prove it is as effective as the nongeneric version. In order to prove it is as effective as the nongeneric version, you need to do trials that compare it to the nongeneric version. The company that owns the nongeneric version refuses to sell you any, so you can't do trials, so you can't prove it's effective, so you can't sell it.

Comment Re:Stop the panic! The headline is click bait. (Score 1) 242

Read again. The rules in your own quote require that "the device is not easily modified to operate with RF parameters outside of the authorization". That doesn't prohibit modifying the device with such parameters, this prohibits having devices that are even able to be modified, and a device that is merely able to be modified, period, is able to be modified with such parameters.

Furthermore, #1 says they must ensure that only properly authenticated software is loaded. It doesn't say "they have to ensure properly authenticated software if it affects RF parameters, but the rest of the software can be unauthenticated". And even if it could be interpreted that way, the easiest way to prevent unauthenticated software from modifying RF parameters is by preventing unauthorized software, period. Sure, in theory, the manufacturers can split the software up into a RF portion and a non-RF portion and let you modify the non-RF portion, but we both know that that's not going to happen.

Comment Re:First things first. (Score 1) 842

I saw a reddit thread that specifically suggested going to a lawyer and accountant that normally deal with big corporations with lots of money. If your lawyer routinely deals with similarly large sums of money, the lawyer and accountant won't be tempted to do any funny things to you, and they probably have more experience dealing with it anyway.

Comment Re:Lying scum (Score 4, Insightful) 303

What she probably said was "I want a server that isn't subject to legally mandated retention or public records requests". The IT person then responded with "Sure ma'am" like you suggest.

The fact that doing this also makes security hard is just a side effect. The security problem didn't happen because she told someone to make it secure without supervising them closely, the security problem happened because she decided she'd rather not be subject to the rules, and not being subject to the rules automatically comes with bad security unless you're really careful.

Comment Re:Remove KB 2952664 and what else? (Score 5, Informative) 394

3021917 (update for Windows Customer Experience Improvement Program
3068708 (update for CEIP and telemetry)
3080149 (update for CEIP and telemetry)
3075249 (telemetry)
2990214 (Windows 10 upgrade) (I suppose this isn't technically privacy. And Microsoft claims you actually need it; your choice whether to believe them. Also, 3044374 for Windows 8.1.

Comment Re:Summary is rather vague (Score 1) 179

He can't sue HR, because HR is not going to be dumb enough to send him a rejection letter saying "we won't hire you because you were accused of rape". They're just going to reject him without giving him a reason. There's no way he could prove that this particular rejection happened because of the false accusation.

The program isn't debugged until the last user is dead.