Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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:Hopefully he'll be extradited (Score 1) 479

by Monkeyman334 (#35127984) Attached to: Wikileaks' Assange Begins Extradition Battle
Releasing the details of the investigation against him would help prove or disprove whether or not his investigation is being handled properly. So, why didn't he release the evidence against him? In most courts, this would be provided to him so he could prepare his defense. Maybe it would be illegal to release it or make Assange look bad. Hmmm...

Comment: Military lawyers are free (Score 2) 321

by Monkeyman334 (#34864168) Attached to: WikiLeaks Gives $15k To Bradley Manning Defense
In the military system, legal counsel is free of charge whether or not you can afford it. And with a high profile case like this, I'm sure they'll appoint someone very senior. If you want to pay for a civilian lawyer, usually they are former military lawyers, or they're not well suited for military court. I wouldn't donate to this even if you want to defend Bradley Manning.

Comment: Re:For how long? (Score 1) 532

by Monkeyman334 (#34765092) Attached to: Unwise — Search History of Murder Methods
I think what the original poster was referring to was if you give consent and they find evidence of the murder, then they are taking the items even if you revoke consent on your way out the door. No judge is going to allow you to search a home days after the fact if the person just gave you permission to "conduct a search of your house."

Comment: Expedia is good for consumers (Score 5, Interesting) 279

by Monkeyman334 (#34741100) Attached to: Battle Escalates Between Airlines and Online Agents
If airlines were so hurt by websites like Expedia, then you'd think they'd inform users that they could get better prices if they just went to the AA website. But every time I've tried finding a flight on Expedia, and then going and finding the same flight on AA, the price is outrageously high with AA. Really, I think it's like TV networks fighting netflix and Hulu (on TV boxes), the networks want to divide up the market and overcharge you for crap you don't want, and Netflix just makes it too convenient for people to get what they want at the lowest price. Same thing with Expedia, services like that need to stick around.

Comment: Re:So, is Wikileaks then contradicting itself? (Score 1) 228

by Monkeyman334 (#33929664) Attached to: DoD Study Contradicts Charges Against WikiLeaks
Man, I thought people would actually go look up the video instead of modding me down and disagreeing with me. Here's the link:

You'll see that RPGs were discovered at the site and one is visible on the footage. The irony is slashdotters are not better at "camera or RPG?" than the pilots who they condemn.

Comment: So, is Wikileaks then contradicting itself? (Score -1, Flamebait) 228

by Monkeyman334 (#33925960) Attached to: DoD Study Contradicts Charges Against WikiLeaks

So was the intel leak a bombshell dropping on Beaver Cleaverville? Or did it show that the US Government actually managed to write 50,000 reports about the war in Afghanistan without a mention of CIA kidnappings or that Osama Bin Laden is being kept alive as a US propaganda effort?

While the Pentagon may have done a poor job of mentioning "hey this wasn't actually particularly damaging," Wikileaks has yet to admit that the troops in Afghanistan are fighting a decent war. They also never mentioned that in the "Collateral Murder" the group that was gunned down was in fact an insurgent RPG team that the news crew had teamed up with (don't believe me, go find the RPG in the video before thinking I'm referring to the camera).

Comment: Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (Score 1) 496

by Monkeyman334 (#33333156) Attached to: Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant
How about: Everybody brings up the coup and subsequent installation of the Shah for the reason they hate us. In reality, the prior leader was anti-western and nationalized Iran's oil. They then realized that their oil industry depending on foreign investment and expertise and their nationalization led to an economic collapse. Mosaddegh was very unpopular and used dictatorship style tactics to try and stay in power. This created a ripe environment for a coup, which the CIA helped fund and internally the agents and agency claimed credit for doing their job. Externally, both the US and the Iranians deny the amount of influence the CIA had in overthrowing Mosaddegh.

Comment: Re:Transparency (Score 1, Offtopic) 545

Perhaps if his administration had the transparency he promised on the campaign trail, it would be easy to get the information people are seeking from credible, reliable sources. So you want him to tell the truth about September 11th and his birth certificate? Admit it, the Internet is full of bullshit.

Comment: Re:The right to remain silent (Score 3, Informative) 197

by Monkeyman334 (#32117628) Attached to: Brain-Scan Lie Detection Rejected By Brooklyn Court
Gosh. Legal issues are frustrating to discuss on Slashdot. People don't have the right to remain silent. You have the right to not incriminate yourself in court. That means if you are the target of an inevstigation you can be given immunity and forced to talk. If you are a witness and not the target you can be forced to talk. You can be forced to take a breathalizer test because it's not testimonial. None of this has anything to do with this case.

Comment: Searches "without a warrant" (Score 1) 161

by Monkeyman334 (#30449646) Attached to: Cell Phone Searches Require Warrant
I see all these slashdot stories that complain about government searches "without a warrant," and they all often very misleading. There are plenty of reasons the government can do a "search" without a warrant that are for very legitimate purposes. There are two categories of this misinformation being spread. The first category is like this one, where a search is valid where one of the exemptions apply, which are: in cases of an emergency, if the person gives consent, a search incident to arrest, and an inventory. If a shooting is in progress the police can kick down your door and try to save the people inside without a warrant. They have just "searched" a home without a warrant, big deal. The issue here is a search incident to arrest. If you get arrested the police can search all your belongings and within a reasonable distance to look for evidence of whatever they're arresting you for. There are very legitimate reasons for this. If the police take your car, they conduct an inventory of the vehicle without a warrant (although this isn't really a search, and they can't take apart the doors and things). The second type of misleading information on slashdot is when police get information using a subpoena or court order and Slashdot proclaims "cops conduct search of ________ without warrant!" Which, while true, ignores the fact that the "search" was subject to judicial oversight, but just didn't rise to the need getting a warrant. This is like telling non-technies that their computer is broadcasting an ip address and trying to scare them. You have to understand the 4th amendment more to understand the issues in these decisions. Here, judges are trying to say that the potential evidence of crimes that you carry in your cell phone get more protection than a briefcase with the same information (photos, ledgers, address book, etc.). Which, in my opinion, is hard to justify, and might be taken the Supreme Court.

To downgrade the human mind is bad theology. - C. K. Chesterton