Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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: This is 'old' news. (Score 1) 69

by Paxtez (#43764279) Attached to: Fed. Appeals Court Says Police Need Warrant to Search Phone

If you notice ruling was from an event in 2007. This was probably one of the incidents that let to police departments having to get warrants for phones. While this is interesting because it shows that law enforcement can't do it without a warrant, I would be surprised if any of them did it anyways.

Our local police department hasn't been able to for at least 4 years, they aren't even supposed to open/look through your wallet.

Comment: Re:Don't have to be perfect, just better (Score 1) 352

by Paxtez (#43468583) Attached to: Why Self-Driving Cars Are Still a Long Way Down the Road

That data is calculated by looking at police reports, the police reports are not perfect. With fatalities they have to guess a lot of information, unless you find a cell phone in mid-text/phone call, plate of food on the person's lap, or something you're not going to be able to determine if they were distracted. Likewise people would be reluctant to admit if they were doing something distracting if it resulted in someone's death. Frankly 16% is way higher than I would be, but probably about 1/3 of what it really is.

Just think about it, what causes car accidents? A very small percentage is going to be unavoidable to someone paying attention, animals, falling rocks, extreme weather, etc. Almost all are going to be people being reckless, distracted or drunk.

Comment: Re:It's not Harassment (Score 1) 525

by Paxtez (#43328583) Attached to: Fighting TSA Harassment of Disabled Travelers

They are making no such claim. Yes they are searching everyone without a warrant / PC / RS, but you allow them to by stepping into the building, but an imposition upon the 4th amendment is hardly 'deciding that the constitution does not apply'.

There was a circuit court ruling providing an exception in the 4th Amendment for airport screenings.

I have no problem with the government being able to limit aspects of the constitution at certain locations/times/events/whatever within reason (we obviously are going to have different interpretations on what is reasonable), for example pretty much saying the word 'bomb' at the airport regardless of the context will most likely result in getting detaining, that seems reasonable to me.

Comment: Re:It's not Harassment (Score 1) 525

by Paxtez (#43328379) Attached to: Fighting TSA Harassment of Disabled Travelers

Ah, so the government should be able to arbitrarily declare that the constitution no longer applies in certain areas (airports)? Because that's what's happening: they're searching people without a warrant or even a cause.

It almost sounded like you were defending security theater in that sentence. Need I remind you that the TSA is a government organization? I certain feel I have a right to not be searched and harassed by them simply because I want to get on a plane.

Flying is an optional activity, you subject your self/property to search in exchange for the privilege of not having to drive/train/boat/etc.

Comment: Re:It's not Harassment (Score 1) 525

by Paxtez (#43328331) Attached to: Fighting TSA Harassment of Disabled Travelers

From TFA: Why not just give up my liquids and/or tell them medical info?

Because it's a violation of my 4th amendment rights, and because the law (including TSA rules) do not require me to do so. (Not to mention, they're not HIPAA compliant)

I tried to be extremely polite throughout, even though I was pretty angry. I don't think that yelling helps anything. But there's a big difference between being polite, and giving in to an unlawful demand.

I don't believe that I should have to give up my privacy *or* my ability to bring with me liquids of my choice. Their job is simply to make sure that what I bring isn't an explosive, and I totally support that. If they want to x-ray, ETD, LCS scan, whatever, I'm perfectly cool with it.

Maybe you should have read the article...
His own question implies that he would have been allowed in with his juice if he provided the medical reason why it is needed. Without a medical reason you don't have a "medical liquid" you have a "liquid".

He can't have it both ways; you can't claim to be exempt from normal procedure based on a disability and then refuse to provide any information about it.

Also "policy" is not the same as "law".

Comment: It's not Harassment (Score 1, Insightful) 525

by Paxtez (#43324559) Attached to: Fighting TSA Harassment of Disabled Travelers
First of all flying is not a right, if you don't want to deal the the TSA, don't fly.

Secondly this guy has a pretty rare medical condition that is sometimes assisted by having juice.  But then he
doesn't want to provide any documentation about his condition to support his claim that he needs his juice citing
(among other things) HIPAA, which doesn't apply to the airport or TSA since they are not medical providers.

He doesn't want to purchase his juice from the concessions because they don't have his 'favorite' brands of juice
and also is carrying 3 liters of it.

So he expects anyone to be able to get by with liquids just by saying "I need my juice, for medical reasons, I'm not
going to tell you more."

While I think the no liquid rule is silly, it is the rule.  That would defeat the purpose of it.

Comment: Re:I think this is a good thing. (Score 1) 321

by Paxtez (#33248468) Attached to: Drunk Driver Mugshots Featured On Facebook
Remember driving is not a right, it is a privilege.  When you signed up for your drivers license you agreed to take blood/breath test if asked by a law enforcement officer, if you refuse, the state says 'Ok Fine, if you won't honor your part of the agreement, you aren't allowed to drive for a year.'

In fact I heard about some states looking into passing laws that say: "Refusing to take a blood/breath test is a misdemeanor."

People always think they 'passed' sobriety tests, they are wrong most of the time.  The things that cops look for are really small.  For example for a walking test people think they have to fall down or something to fail, it is really small things like feet being inches away.  Did your friend fail the blood test?

I think the amphetamine pills were used more to keep people awake when working long shifts, not because it made them better pilots.

At the very least being forced to pay a bunch of money might be considered a punishment, and would hopefully reconsider doing it again.

Comment: I think this is a good thing. (Score 1) 321

by Paxtez (#33245770) Attached to: Drunk Driver Mugshots Featured On Facebook
Remember DUI is different then theft or whatever, the crime is driving with blood or breath over XX.  In order to be charged with the DUI you have to either 1) Take and fail either a breath or blood test, 2) Refuse to take a test.

If it's #1 your only hope of getting off is by a technicality.

The only people who do #2 are people who are drunk enough to know they are wasted.

Comment: Re:Advertisers are deceptive assholes, film at 11 (Score 1) 192

by Paxtez (#32560270) Attached to: Tearing Apart a Hard-Sell Anti-Virus Ad
Oblig Quote.

<wolf> 1. Save every Free Credit Card Offer you get, Put it in pile A
<wolf> 2. Save every Free Coupon You get, put that in pile B
<wolf> 3. Now open the credit card mail from pile A and find the Business
       Reply Mail Envelope.
<wolf> 4. Take the coupons from pile B and stuff them in the envelope you hold
       in your hand.
<wolf> 5. Drop the stuffed to the brim envelopes in your mail and walk away
<wolf> I have now received two phone calls from the credit card companies
       telling me that they received a stuffed envelope with coupons rather
       then my application. They informed me that it they are not pleased that
       they footed the bill for the crap I sent them. I reply with "It says
       Business Reply Mail" I'm suggesting coupons to you to ensure that your
       business is more successful. They promptly hang up on me.
<wolf> Now, I did this for about a month before it got boring, so I got an
       added idea! I added exactly 33 cents worth of pennies to the envelope
       so they paid EXTRA due to the weight. I got a call informing me about
       the money, I said it was a mistake and I demanded my change back. After
       yelling at the clerk and then to the supervisor they agreed to my
       demands and cut me a check for the money. I hold in my hand at this
       very moment a check from GTE Visa for exactly 33 cents.

Comment: Re:Interesting, but... (Score 1) 131

by Paxtez (#32306004) Attached to: Russian Man Aims To Reinvent "Taser" Technology

I would doubt that is the case, I seriously doubt any cop would take a taser to a gun-fight, the range is limited, it is not as accurate, limited reload speed, etc. Tasers are normally used on the level below deadly force, the same level where bean-bag shotguns, batons or certain physical attacks might be. In theory these devices shouldn't kill, but they might. Theoretically, they are used when 'this person is actively trying to hurt someone'. But some areas might have tasers on the 'person is doing stuff to not be controlled, but it shouldn't really hurt anyone (running, balling themselves up, etc)' level.

BTW being tased isn't a big deal, it is not like on TV, after the 5 seconds, you are fine, you can hop right back up. That is the problem, a taser is a 'pain-compliance' tool, like pressure points, if someone wants to they can go right back to fighting, or at least resisting right after the 5 seconds, so the cop will use it again, etc. That is how you get stories of cops tasing someone 15 times, because (in theory) the person continued to resist 14 times.


Are Googlers Too Smart For Their Own Good? 307

Posted by kdawson
from the keep-it-complicated-smarty dept.
theodp writes "If you're a mere mortal, don't be surprised if your first reaction to Google Storage for Developers is 'WTF?!' Offering the kind of 'user-friendly' API one might expect from a bunch of computer science Ph.D.s, Google Storage even manages to overcomplicate the simple act of copying files. Which raises the question: Are Googlers with 'world-class programming skills' capable of producing straightforward, simple-to-use programming interfaces for ordinary humans?"

Money can't buy happiness, but it can make you awfully comfortable while you're being miserable. -- C.B. Luce