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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Anyone here qualified to comment? (Score 2) 192

by NoKaOi (#48678217) Attached to: MIT Unifies Web Development In Single, Speedy New Language

The language definition is complete gibberish to me...I do see some red flags, though

You don't need a CS background to see the red flags. You don't even have to get as far as the summary.
"Unifies Web Development" - red flag #1
"Single, Speedy New Language" - red flag #2

Comment: Re:Violence against police ... (Score 1) 361

by NoKaOi (#48669459) Attached to: Study: Police Body-Cams Reduce Unacceptable Use of Force

People who are compliant tend not to get shot. People who react violently are far more likely to get shot.

The problems occur when the person is not compliant, but is not violent either. Informing an officer verbally of what you believe your rights are is not reacting violently - and yes, I know in most cases of that an officer will just roll their eyes, but it's times when the officer treats peaceful noncompliance as violence that problems occur, and is the reason for these cameras. (I don't disagree with you that we should care about violence against the police, just making a point)

Comment: Re:Many people have thunk it. (Score 5, Insightful) 361

by NoKaOi (#48669417) Attached to: Study: Police Body-Cams Reduce Unacceptable Use of Force

I will admit that I am pretty quick to shout heads up and escalate the verbal stakes (e.g. cursing) when motorists honk if I (for example) legally and quickly take the full lane, but I only do so in the interest of encouraging safer driving and cycling. I have zero interest in provoking a fight.

"Quickly?" In other words, you're riding along the right hand side of your lane, and as a car approaches intending to pass you, you quickly move into the middle or left of the lane to force them to quickly slow down to prevent passing. Doing anything "quickly" that obstructs others is a dick move and you know it. You're an asshole who makes the rest of us cyclists look bad. Only in very rare situations would that "quickly" move promote safety. It's unsafe to anger another driver, both to you and the next cyclist they come upon. You're not doing it to promote safety, you're doing it to express dominance, like a gorilla beating its chest.

Next time you try that, think about this - are you doing it to promote safety, or are you doing it to try to express dominance by proving that you can legally be a dick? Believe me, the other driver doesn't care how big your penis is, so be the better person and don't be a dick or a dumbass to cars when you're on your bike, you're making the rest of us look bad, and it hurts us when we actually want to promote safety or policy changes (who wants their tax dollars to pay for bike lanes for a bunch of assholes like you?)

Comment: Re:No s**t Sherlock (Score 1) 361

by NoKaOi (#48669243) Attached to: Study: Police Body-Cams Reduce Unacceptable Use of Force

Regardless of how you want to argue semantics, what the officer did was against policy, and it was against policy for a reason. What happened in this situation is the reason - because it could kill or do serious harm to somebody, especially if they have certain medical conditions. The existence of the policy proves that the officer should reasonably have known that this move could have killed somebody, therefore he is guilty of negligent homicide.

Comment: Re:Proving Again that Dictators Lack a Sense of Hu (Score 1) 239

by NoKaOi (#48648503) Attached to: Anonymous Claims They Will Release "The Interview" Themselves

You just gotta figure no matter who loses, Humanity wins.

Unfortunately, in this case, both sides win. Does that mean humanity loses? North Korea gets to flex its muscles and show that it has the ability to censor the US for awhile. Sony had a movie that was going to flop, but now they just need to hold on to it for a little while before releasing it and they'll rake in the millions.

Comment: Re:And where is my money?? (Score 4, Insightful) 51

by NoKaOi (#48639377) Attached to: T-Mobile To Pay $90M For Unauthorized Charges On Customers' Bills

Consumers who believe they were wrongly charged will be able to apply for refunds at a website set up for the purpose.

So pretty much T-Mobile could have made hundreds of millions of dollars off of this, but they won't have to pay more than $67.5 million of it unless people realize they were being overcharged, and go to the trouble of applying for a refund. How many people will actually do that? Most people who were wrongfully charged probably don't even realize, especially when it's tucked in between the various ridiculous "fee" line items on the bill. And even if people do realize they are being wrongfully charged, and even if they do know where to go to apply for a refund, unless it's a significant amount most won't bother because either they'll "get around to it later" or figure the slim chance of actually collecting isn't worth their time and hassle.

There should have been a few more million added to hire a team of forensic accountants.

Comment: Re:Land of the free (Score 1) 580

by NoKaOi (#48628353) Attached to: Reaction To the Sony Hack Is 'Beyond the Realm of Stupid'

Or when I pull up in my driveway and see that someone is already inside my home or garage, I should just let them finish stealing whatever they'd like and file a report.

Well, yeah, actually. In this case, you'd have to be really stupid to try to have a gun battle with them (assuming in your scenario that most people carry a gun, so presumably the intruder has a high probability of having a gun). Even if you think you have the skill to shoot your average criminal before they can shoot you, you don't know the skill level of this particular intruder. Even if you are more skilled than the intruder, let's say you have a 75% chance of winning the fight (50% if the intruder is equally skilled, which you don't know going into the fight). Is not losing your stuff worth a 25% chance of losing your life? Voluntarily avoiding that confrontation doesn't mean you're a wussy, it means you're smart.

Anyway, point being, it doesn't matter how much of a badass you are, voluntarily going into a gun fight by yourself just to protect some stuff is really fucking stupid. Unless you're Chuck Norris, but I doubt Chuck Norris would post as Anonymous Coward.

Comment: Re:Who are you defending against? (Score 1) 170

by NoKaOi (#48613543) Attached to: Verizon "End-to-End" Encrypted Calling Includes Law Enforcement Backdoor

Also, FTA:

Verizon believes major demand for its new encryption service will come from governmental agencies conveying sensitive but unclassified information over the phone, says Tim Petsky, a senior product manager for Verizon Wireless.

Sensitive, but unclassified. That should give an indication as to the level of security they expect it to provide.

Comment: Re:CALEA says it must (Score 1) 170

by NoKaOi (#48613525) Attached to: Verizon "End-to-End" Encrypted Calling Includes Law Enforcement Backdoor


Phone carriers like Verizon are required by U.S. law to build networks that can be wiretapped. But the legislation known as the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act requires phone carriers to decrypt communications for the government only if they have designed their technology to make it possible to do so. If Verizon and Cellcrypt had structured their encryption so that neither company had the information necessary to decrypt the calls, they would not have been breaking the law.

I never cheated an honest man, only rascals. They wanted something for nothing. I gave them nothing for something. -- Joseph "Yellow Kid" Weil