Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:All bullshit (Score 1) 204

because there are many sexists and misogynists on slashdot, and in life

there is such a thing as false charges of rape. but actual rape greatly outnumbers false charges of rape

but hear it according to the prejudices of sexist people, such as many comments here, and the discussion is immediately about fake rape charges. there is no thought or consideration to the more likely possibility the girl was actually raped. because that possibility goes against their misogyny. they have to reinforce their hate. so all of the "she's faking it" information-free comments get voted up and discussed. without the slightest shred of actually looking into the case and possibly discovering that there is solid evidence of rape

many people, as the comments in this thread show, are prejudicial assholes and morons, and don't think before opening their blind ignorant mouths, to pass shallow judgment on situations they don't know, and don't try to know, just so they can preserve their ignorance, hate, and prejudice

it's a window onto the souls of some people around you, as you can see in many of the comments here, some people are hardcore shitbags

Comment Re:You Can't prove Nothing (Score 1) 138

That has nothing to do with it. Sovereign immunity is almost never invoked, because it is unnecessary with the system rigged the way it is. And besides, as long as you can show standing, suits involving Constitutional violations cannot be subject to sovereign immunity - it's part of the Ninth Amendment. Note that this particular suit names several federal agencies, executive officials (ALWAYS subject to torts for Constitutional rights violations), as well as the telecommunications and ISPs involved in the data collections.

Comment Re:You Can't prove Nothing (Score 4, Informative) 138

Weird isn't it? If I witness a crime and fail to report it, I can get in trouble. But this? WTF? I mean, if a witness has no standing, then his testimony should be worthless.

As a victim of the State, you must prove harm to have standing for redress court. However, the State has no obligation to prove ANY harm to ANYONE to have standing to prosecute YOU.

Seems fair.

Comment Re:Networks are not private (Score 4, Insightful) 63

No, they're not. Networks are supposed to take data from one machine and deliver it to another. They're not designed to deliver it to anyone else along the way. That's an attack on the network, not part of the design.

And automatic encryption can easily be handled by pushing public keys into DNS. Yes, the NSA could force people to push fake keys into DNS, but then no-one would trust it any more.

Comment Re:Networks are not private (Score 5, Insightful) 63

There's a big difference between freely exchanging information and having someone scoop up all that information when it's not addressed to them.

When you sit on a bench in the park talking to your girlfriend, you don't expect some stranger in a trenchcoat to lean in between you and listen to everything you say.

But, yes, it's unfortunate that the warnings from the 90s were ignored, and we didn't get automatic encryption by default across the Net to ensure this couldn't happen.

Comment these guys are so amazing: (Score 2) 93

resistant to heat, cold, vacuum, desiccation, radiation, pressure, toxins, etc.

you realize they could leave earth (ejecta from a sever impact) and colonize other planets

then you think... wait a second, maybe we're here because these guys colonized earth

Comment Re:That's messed up (Score 1) 198

I'm assuming you're talking about desalination.

There is that. The bigger issue is transportation. There's plenty of water, just not where we need it at the moment. And we have to restore contaminated water. Time to build some big-ass, nuclear powered tunnel boring machines, and pipe it around like oil, gas, and battery acid. And after bailing out the bankers, I don't want hear anybody crying that we don't have the money. There's plenty of that also, just not where we need it at the moment...

It's not like this is a new problem. Solutions were developed as far back as the 1960's, and many politicians promoted those plans as early as 1978 and warned of the dangers of doing nothing. But nobody listened. And it kept getting worse, and still nobody wanted to invest in it. There just wasn't enough corporate profit in it, politicians can succeed by ignoring it, and there is simply no stomach in the US electorate for taking on some pain to alleviate future problems.

So here we are. Carly Fiorina called out Jerry Brown for decades of needing infrastructure and the blockage of any progress by back-to-nature ideologically opposed to dams, canals, even reservoirs in California, so nothing got built and their paying for it now.

And no, it's not like "Climate change" where huge investments are maybe going to mitigate some warming, how much and whether any of it will work is questionable.

We have proven, practical solutions for storing and transporting water and, yes, even desalination where it's needed (just check out the projects in Dubai). But nothing happens. Worst drought ever in California, and what does the leadership say? Saving water for the future is "utter ignorance". Really? Seems I remember ancient Egyptians even knew enough to store food in case of famine.

The test of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts. -- Aldo Leopold