Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale Extended! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 20% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY20". ×

Comment Re:Why is prostitution illegal in the first place? (Score 1) 136

The expected moral indignation of those in our population who believe prostitution is just bad. I don't think there's much constructive discussion to be had here one way or the other.

And yet this discussion - to what extent do you have a right to force your moral standards on me - is the important one.

2. Prostitution is *heavily* associated with human trafficking, along with other behaviors that boil down to a girl being forced to sell her body, rather than wanting to. This is the reason that really matters.

Right, so the same people who consistently vote conservative positions because justice is something to be had only on the other side suddenly become concerned about human suffering when sex is involved. I call bullshit.

Comment Re:Enjoy having the crap sued out of you, L.A. (Score 1) 136

Morons. They'll ruin peoples lives, likely based on some moron that saw Minority Report and thought it was a Good Idea.

The surprising thing, to me, was that the people making the movie and TV show seemed to really think it was a good idea. They didn't think they were making a dystopian cautionary tale, they thought they were making a clever crime story set in an actually desirable future.

Comment Re:Stop Hazing Us (Score 2) 158

US trash collectors are actually 90% male. You don't hear a lot of complaining about that gender imbalance. By the same link, US high tech workers and managers are both roughly a quarter female which is much better than you claim.

Just covering your ears and going "la la la it's perfect" isn't really a solution.

Actually, it is. A key step you are missing here is a demonstration that there is a solution that we can take here which is better than doing nothing about the problem.

Comment Re:...would smell as shitty as any browser (Score 1) 118

That is what I have done. I run CS in a virtualbox container. Works great for my uses. I like being able to move my whole environment from desktop to laptop and back.

I tried that originally. I had the Windows version of CS6 Production premium suite on my macbook pro, running Fusion VMWare. Trouble was, that Premier and especially After Effects just were slow as mud, and it didn't really work well, due to not being able, apparently to hit the GPU and other hardware directly. So, I sent back the Win version and have the Mac version.

Now...if I could figure how to "freeze" a version of OS X, and be able to run that in a VM, maybe it would work to keep it indefinitely, but I"m not sure how to do that with OS X....?

Comment Re:Fundamentally Flawed (Score 1) 85

Your whole extended statement fell apart with the title.

"NSL = for things that DO NOT require a warrant"

Actually, warrants are the mechanism by which a free society achieves balance between personal and collective rights. Absent that...

Nope. Not everything government does requires a warrant. That is an undeniable fact. The case law which says metadata, for example, affirmatively does not require a warrant, has no expectation of privacy, and is not covered by the Fourth Amendment, is over 35 years old.

It got even weaker when you stated that "NSLs DO have massive amounts of LEGAL oversight..." States facts not in evidence. What, exactly, are these "massive" oversight mechanisms?


"Hey, can you help us out..." is laughable because you characterize this as a friendly understanding between actors who know each other. In fact an NSL is 100% coercive, cannot be challenged, and it's secrecy is the ultimate weapon. An NSL compels the recipient to do as demanded and never tell anyone else. The NSL itself could be illegal but the recipient cannot even inform a lawyer, as that would violate the secrecy provisions. Oh, but do tell us about the "massive" oversight.

But NSLs -- which are nothing more than a letter -- are not illegal. That's the point. In fact, the only thing found unconstitutional about NSLs were the extent and length of the gag orders accompanying them.

By your logic, any law enforcement or government entity should NEVER be able to approach a business about anything and ask for help. It should ALWAYS require a court order, no matter the information requested. That's how you might think it should work, but that is not compatible with reality.

When you state "...if a NSL is used, the person is almost certainly a foreign intelligence target under active investigation..." you put the cart before the horse. Your language is that of conclusions concerning a criminal, as found by a court of law. Except this comes before a court of law has had any chance to hear a case. This is lazy argumentation to support a flawed process.

No, you are putting the cart before the horse by implying that a warrant is required for information or persons who fundamentally DO NOT require a warrant. What you are essentially saying is that a warrant-like approval process needs to happen for any sort of action or information request government takes or makes, ever, to ensure that the government isn't "lying" about it not needing a warrant...which defeats the whole purpose, and timeliness, of not needing a warrant.

Finally, you mention FISA. This joke of a process has a 97% warrant approval rate. Standard court warrants have about a 60% approval rate. Literally nothing else needs be said about how weak the FISA process is; statistically, this approval rate cannot be explained or justified. Except, by repeating what the FISA court really is: A one-sided process meant to produce a Yes answer, with no right of reply or rebuttal. Retroactive FISA warrants are further evidence of the corrupt/flawed/lazy thinking that produced FISA in the first place.

This comment truly shows your ignorance, because you have no idea how FISA works. At all. The IC does not approach FISA with requests that will probably get denied, because it is a massive waste of time and resources for the literal armies of lawyers who submit FISA requests -- for FOREIGN intelligence collection -- on behalf of IC agencies. Law enforcement agencies, however, do this all the time because they have no other choice but to try. So your assumption that just because the approval rate is high is because it's a "rubber stamp" and really doesn't care about what it's approving is false.

Of course, you have already made up your mind and use a lot of specious and absolutely false logic to arrive at your conclusions, so this conversation is moot.

Computers can figure out all kinds of problems, except the things in the world that just don't add up.