Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive
Unfortunately, the US does not have free market capitalism on broadband communications. In most areas it is either monopoly or duopoly, with local government regulating it. So it is really like having the worst of both systems and the best of neither.
I can't tell if this story is interesting or not since I don't know what containers are. Maybe it is just an industry term I don't know, but I think it needs to be included in the submission.
It was fixed a while ago:
...it was fixed on May 21, 2013...Unfortunately, it was not recognized as a security threat; as a result, most stable and long-term-support distributions were left exposed (and still are)
Another reason to stay current.
Fair enough. I never bother to go there. But I'm heading to http://slashdot.org/recent now.
Hmmm... Hovers over color icon with tooltip "Filter firehose entries rated blue or better." What colors are better than blue? *facepalm* Well, I'll try it out.
News for nerds. Stuff that matters.
Bad example: Whining about how a snowstorm wasn't big enough.
Good example: A discussion about the mathematical modeling used to predict the snowstorms, and a historical graph comparing predictions to actuals. Oooh, how about graphing the delta between the two by color and overlay it onto a map so we can see where predictions are more or less accurate.
Ahhh, I get it. Thanks.
The reason for that 'ridiculous' law was that a nosiy car could, in fact, scare a horse and cause it to bolt,
One needs the historical context to make sense of the law. At the time, many of those laws really were created just to stifle the car industry, not to protect citizens from horses. Another example: In some state, the law required the driver to get out of the car, honk a horn, then fire a gun, then do something else equally ridiculous, then they could drive the car.
Perhaps we need to create a tailpipe that can clip-on to the back of a Prius, that spews actual hydrocarbons.
I don't think the term "probable cause" means "can conduct a search without a warrant." Rather, "probable cause" is justification for a warrant to be issued. But I think people get confused on this point because the courts have made exceptions for motor vehicles and that gets mixed up with "probable cause."
From the article:
...without providing any specific details as long as the target computer location has been hidden through a technical tool like Tor or a virtual private network. It would also allow nonspecific search warrants...
Text of the 4th amendment to the constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The article is light on details, but if it is accurate, this looks like a straightforward violation of the 4th amendment. The devil is always in the details though. The article may be an oversimplification.
One has to look out for engineers -- they begin with sewing machines and end up with the atomic bomb. -- Marcel Pagnol
