Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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:Unfortunately (Score 1) 143

by Kaenneth (#49308925) Attached to: Excess Time Indoors May Explain Rising Myopia Rates

"Between 1990 and 1995 the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children handled only 515 stranger abductions"

100 stranger abductions a year vs. 166,000 non abused kids taken by CPS.

literally more than 1000 times as likely your kids will be kidnapped by the government than a 'stranger'.

Comment: Re:Space for solar hasn't been much of a concern (Score 1) 437

It is things like this that push my face into the "humans are rational" notion.

Environmental arguments aside*, burning things of limited stock** and with other more practical uses to make electricity when we could make electricity from sunlight seems irrational.

That economics ( expensive ) enters into it strikes me as saying that economics as practiced isn't tracking real value very well.

What makes sense is to minimize burning things. So, doing that at night only/mostly strikes me as an improvement.

* limited in supply, burning produces poisons that are released into the atmosphere, killing many each year, argued as contributing to climatic warming***
** not making a "peak oil" argument, but even if the entire earth was made of refined oil, it is limited in supply
*** I personally believe it is adding to the temperature. if you honestly don't, well and good, there are many other strong arguments for not burning carbons.

Comment: Re: HOWTO (Score 1) 1080

by Duhavid (#49261243) Attached to: How To Execute People In the 21st Century

"Being wrongly convicted and dying in a gas chamber due to organ failure is different from being wrongly convicted and dying in a cell due to organ failure how, exactly?"


Time for research to be done, for evidence to be gathered that exonerates the wrongly convicted.
There have been a couple recent articles in the news about people released after long periods of incarceration.

Comment: Re:As if SMTP were ever secure... (Score 1) 609

by Duhavid (#49242285) Attached to: Clinton Regrets, But Defends, Use of Family Email Server

I thought I had made it quite clear that I was not defending HRC.
If you speak to others, well and good. If to me, see above.

My point is that many bash/defend depending not on right / wrong, but my side/ their side.
I would love to be able to take everyone's comments from the Bush era issue and this and see how many changed.

I understand you see HRC's failing as "much much worse". In a sense, as you argue, coming on the tails of the Bush administration's failing on this, and ( I'll take your word she came out against it ) her comments against it ( and in disciplining another for similar actions ), it *is* worse on her part, but both were simply wrong, neither are justifiable.

Comment: Re:As if SMTP were ever secure... (Score 1) 609

by Duhavid (#49237299) Attached to: Clinton Regrets, But Defends, Use of Family Email Server

"No, ALL. As in 100%. If any (R) had set up a private server, and never used a .GOV email account, ALL of them would be going apeshit crazy. ALL of them."

ALL? Hyperbole. ( who are "them" )
And during the Bush admin, many had dual blackberrys, one "in", the other hosted on RNC systems, to avoid oversight, apparently. And, IIRC, emails went missing from this system when requested by authorities. ( sidebar, how many of those howling about the IRS disks being destroyed howled about this? )

"I'm not a (R), so I can't speak for (R). The hypocrisy is HRC railing against all the (R) for doing LESS than what she has actually admitted to. So, which is it? Cool idea or criminal? Depends on which HRC you ask and when, doesn't it?"

I'm assuming "HRC" is Hillary Clinton.
The hypocrisy of Hillary does not in any way remove the hypocrisy of others.
And I agree, it is hypocritical of her.

If you assume I am defending Hillary in this, you are mistaken.
My take:
The intent was clear that emails were to be preserved.
Bush Admin was wrong to subvert this
Hillary was wrong to subvert this.
Nixon was wrong not to produce the full tapes, assuming the claim of damage was subterfuge
The IRS ( whoever within ) was wrong not to produce the disks, assuming the claim of damage/destruction was subterfuge
The Bush admin was wrong not to produce the emails during the AG firing investigation, assuming the claim of them being lost is subterfuge.

What I find interesting in all this is that many think it is OK for "their team" to do wrong.

And that the question of when the Bush admin used the RNC email system to avoid proper oversight, who condemning HRC now also condemned the Bush Admin is avoided.

Comment: Re:As if SMTP were ever secure... (Score 1) 609

by Duhavid (#49236351) Attached to: Clinton Regrets, But Defends, Use of Family Email Server

"My guess, is that all those supporting Hillary right now, all of them, would be apoplectic if anyone with an (R) after their name did the same thing. There is a double-standard in politics, people EXPECT the Clinton's to be sleazeballs, and all but excuse it as SOP."

All? Not. Most? Sure.

I find it interesting how many (R)'s and (D)'s condemn an action when committed by someone "not theirs", but justify it when committed by "theirs".

Tell me, everyone on the (R) side, when the Bush administration had their RNC hosted email system, did you justify that?
Those on the (D) side, did you attack then and justify now?

Comment: Re:Clinton followed a Presidential trend... (Score 1) 609

by Duhavid (#49234397) Attached to: Clinton Regrets, But Defends, Use of Family Email Server

"So the defense now is "Bush did bad things, too?""

For me, it is really incredibly funny how many people line up on one side then the other side of this issue and the only thing it depends on is the party of the perpetrator.

It was wrong for Hillary and wrong for Bush.
There are laws, follow them or change them.

Comment: Re:Do we want 100% crimes solved? (Score 1) 163

by Duhavid (#49226725) Attached to: On the Dangers and Potential Abuses of DNA Familial Searching

"The "(un)reasonable" standard is so vague, almost anything can be argued in and out of it."

I find that an unreasonable stance. Joke aside, that is true of any standard, really.
You know that when you attempt to spell everything out, you will miss some, include incorrect things, etc. You cant enumerate it all.

"The anonymous grandparent is right in that DNA-samples (and fingerprints) could be collected from everyone, and it would help police immensely."

True. I never said it was not possible.
It is liable to use and misuse.
Governments should be mistrusted, as should people ( and corporations ).

"The question then boils down to whether we want the police helped so much. More generally, do we want 100% of crimes to be reliably solvable, or would we rather some criminals remained able to escape today in exchange for it being possible (however remotely) for some future subversives to succeed against some hypothetically oppressive government, which would have already illegalized all ordinary methods of opposition?"

Police have their workflow already. For things that pass the standard, they can get what they need.
I see no need to grant them access to things they are liable to misuse.
The request for a warrant spells out what they want to look at, what they intend to access.
It keeps the fishing expeditions lower than they otherwise would be.

I doubt crime would be 100% solvable with 100% DNA collection in place.
DNA would have to be available, to start with.
It would have to be un-subverted/uncontaminated.
So, criminals will still be around.

Future subversives of an oppressive government will find a way.

You know you've landed gear-up when it takes full power to taxi.