Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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:Not all libertarians against safety net ... (Score 1) 327

by Required Snark (#49187537) Attached to: 'The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress' Coming To the Big Screen
"The libertarians advocate electing people who are more modest in those determination, who provide for actual needs of citizens, who don't provide mere wants as a mechanism to win favor and re-election."

Not only that, but libertarian leaders all have perfect pitch, play multiple musical instruments, speak multiple languages, can sing, dance, paint, juggle, know higher math, engineering (civil, electrical, chemical, computer), farming, veterinary science, medicine, surgery, and psychiatry. They're also perfect physical specimens, have movie star good looks, excel at all sports, know martial arts, ride horses, are expert with all kinds of guns, know how to build and use archaic weapons, and know military tactics and strategy. They are gourmet chefs. They never have bad breath, body odor, or fart.

In fact, their shit doesn't even stink. Perfect humans, just like you.

Comment: Re:So... (Score 1) 174

Yes, the banks, aka Wall Street, are corrupt. The people who run Wall Street, and the government regulators who pretend to , are personally corrupt, and always retire with vast personal fortunes.

But get your facts straight. The US government, and all other governments hate money laundering.

HSBC to pay $1.9 billion U.S. fine in money-laundering case

(Reuters) - HSBC Holdings Plc agreed to pay a record $1.92 billion in fines to U.S. authorities for allowing itself to be used to launder a river of drug money flowing out of Mexico and other banking lapses.

Mexico's Sinaloa cartel and Colombia's Norte del Valle cartel between them laundered $881 million through HSBC and a Mexican unit, the U.S. Justice Department said on Tuesday.

In a deferred prosecution agreement with the Justice Department, the bank acknowledged it failed to maintain an effective program against money laundering and failed to conduct basic due diligence on some of its account holders.

Under the agreement, which was reported by Reuters last week, the bank agreed to take steps to fix the problems, forfeit $1.256 billion, and retain a compliance monitor. The bank also agreed to pay $665 million in civil penalties to regulators including to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve, and the Treasury Department.

Money laundering is required by drug cartels and terrorist organizations, which are both pursued relentlessly by governments, It's illegal corruption.

You are confusing this with legal corruption. Legal corruption is the normal order of events where the rich and powerful are allowed to do things that would be wrong if you did them, along with getting free money from the government that comes out of your pocket. You are a source of wealth for the rich, and the government is the middle man.

An example of inequality under the law is Mitt Romney's 401K. He has somewhere between $21 million and $101 million in a tax free IRA account. Most people have around $42,000 in their IRA according to the article. Until recently you were limited to around $6000 a year contribution account, and it was just increased to $16,500. So, ignoring appreciation in your IRA account, and using the $16,500 amount, it would take you around 60 years to get $1 million.

When this came out his lawyers said it was all legal and he paid all the necessary taxes. I believe that. You, however, have a fixed amount of money that you can save on taxes retirement; it's not based on your income in any way. He lives by one set of rules, you live by a completely different set of rules. Legal corruption.

As for free money from the government, what do you think the TARP bailout was about?

The Senate Congressional Oversight Panel created to oversee the TARP concluded on January 9, 2009: "In particular, the Panel sees no evidence that the U.S. Treasury has used TARP funds to support the housing market by avoiding preventable foreclosures". The panel also concluded that "Although half the money has not yet been received by the banks, hundreds of billions of dollars have been injected into the marketplace with no demonstrable effects on lending."

Government officials overseeing the bailout have acknowledged difficulties in tracking the money and in measuring the bailout's effectiveness.

During 2008, companies that received $295 billion in bailout money had spent $114 million on lobbying and campaign contributions. Banks that received bailout money had compensated their top executives nearly $1.6 billion in 2007, including salaries, cash bonuses, stock options, and benefits including personal use of company jets and chauffeurs, home security, country club memberships, and professional money management. The Obama administration has promised to set a $500,000 cap on executive pay at companies that receive bailout money, directing banks to tie risk taken to workers' reward by paying anything further in deferred stock. Graef Crystal, a former compensation consultant and author of "The Crystal Report on Executive Compensation," claimed that the limits on executive pay were "a joke" and that "they're just allowing companies to defer compensation."

Since TARP, the Fed has had zero interest rates. That is free money for Wall Street. A senile poodle with diabetes could make money with zero interest loans. This zero prime interest rate, along with quantitative easing, are deliberately inflationary. They do things like drive up the stock market and devalue currency. They also make the rich richer at the expense of everyone else.

According to CNBC's Robert Frank, a Bank of England report shows that its quantitative easing policies had benefited mainly the wealthy, and that 40% of those gains went to the richest 5% of British households. Dhaval Joshi of BCA Research wrote that "QE cash ends up overwhelmingly in profits, thereby exacerbating already extreme income inequality and the consequent social tensions that arise from it". Anthony Randazzo of the Reason Foundation wrote that QE "is fundamentally a regressive redistribution program that has been boosting wealth for those already engaged in the financial sector or those who already own homes, but passing little along to the rest of the economy. It is a primary driver of income inequality".

In May 2013, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas President Richard Fisher said that cheap money has made rich people richer, but has not done quite as much for working Americans.

So money laundering is chump change. The real robbery is that our economic system steals from the poor to give to the rich. Any questions?

Comment: Euro Envy (Score 1) 106

Frankly, the Europeans come up with this stuff because they don't like the success of US based companies. If there was a similar European based business they wouldn't blink an eye.

For example, look at AirBus. It is a de facto EU sponsored monopoly. It has as much autonomy from the state as the Chinese companies owned by the Chinese military. No one in the EU bats an eye over this. (Note: US companies in the military-industrial complex get a similar ride to AirBus. I'm not addressing the issue of US hypocrisy right now.)

Imagine for a moment that Google was state regulated. It would end up like the banks, telcos or cable industry: the worst conceivable combination of predatory monopoly capitalism and government bureaucracy. The ability of regulated monopolies to warp the structure of regulation is unstoppable. So you get events like the 2008 Wall Street meltdown, followed a government bailout, where not one banker was even charged with a criminal offense, much less convicted. All the scum sucking bankers ended up with more money then they started with after the dust cleared. And we are no closer to effective regulation then before 2008. It's like instead of busting drug cartels, we privatized the Boarder Patrol and outsourced it to drug runners.

So regulating Google is a Bad Idea. Even though "Don't do Evil" is a lie they tell themselves, we are all a lot better off with an independent Google (and Facebook) then we would be if they got their hooks into the government.

Comment: The private email domain (Score 1) 535

Bush While House Email Controversy

The Bush White House email controversy surfaced in 2007 during the controversy involving the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys. Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available, because they were sent via a non-government domain hosted on an email server not controlled by the federal government. Conducting governmental business in this manner is a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act. Over 5 million emails may have been lost or deleted. Greg Palast claims to have come up with 500 of the Karl Rove lost emails, leading to damaging allegations. In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been deleted.

The administration officials had been using a private Internet domain, called, owned by and hosted on an email server run by the Republican National Committee, for various communications of unknown content or purpose. The domain name is an acronym standing for "George W. Bush, 43rd" President of the United States. The server came public when it was discovered that J. Scott Jennings, the White House's deputy director of political affairs, was using a email address to discuss the firing of the U.S. attorney for Arkansas. Communications by federal employees were also found on (registered to "Bush-Cheney '04, Inc.") and (registered to "Republican National Committee"), but, unlike these two servers, has no Web server connected to it — it is used only for email.

The "" domain name was publicized by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), who sent a letter to Oversight and Government Reform Committee committee chairman Henry A. Waxman requesting an investigation. Waxman sent a formal warning to the RNC, advising them to retain copies of all emails sent by White House employees. According to Waxman, "in some instances, White House officials were using nongovernmental accounts specifically to avoid creating a record of the communications." The Republican National Committee claims to have erased the emails, supposedly making them unavailable for Congressional investigators.

On April 12, 2007, White House spokesman Scott Stanzel stated that White House staffers were told to use RNC accounts to "err on the side of avoiding violations of the Hatch Act, but they should also retain that information so it can be reviewed for the Presidential Records Act," and that "some employees ... have communicated about official business on those political email accounts." Stanzel also said that even though RNC policy since 2004 has been to retain all emails of White House staff with RNC accounts, the staffers had the ability to delete the email themselves.

Smell that stench of hypocrisy? It its the smell of Republicans dropping their pants and shitting on the fire built for them by the media.

It blends perfectly with the hypocritical stench of "librul bias" in the media, which bares the scent of decades of Republicans pissing on objective facts. Fox News is where they go and swill cheap beer so they can keep going with that decades long pissing contest.

Ultimately they are pissing and shitting on the Constitution, and for some reason I don't understand nobody seems to care.

Comment: Re:Child Gender (Score 1) 199

2 teachers accused of sex crimes in San Clemente beach trip with students

Two former Covina-Valley Unified School District teachers previously charged with misdemeanors for allegedly supplying booze to underage students on a San Clemente camping trip were charged Monday with felony sex offenses.

Melody Suzanne Lippert, 38, of Covina, is accused of playing “matchmaker” for co-defendant Michelle Louise Ghirelli, 30, of West Covina, who is charged with having sex with a 17-year-old boy, according to Deputy District Attorney Kristin Bracic.

Orange County prosecutors had previously declined to file more serious felony sex charges against the two, citing insufficient information.

But a school district-related investigation that uncovered alleged cocaine use at the party led Orange County sheriff’s deputies to re-interview witnesses in the case, Bracic said. Cell phone records also helped convince investigators that Ghirelli knew the boy was 17, she said.

Lippert taught at South Hills High School in West Covina, and Ghirelli was an employee in the Covina-Valley Unified School District.

Lippert organized the unapproved camping trip through a group text message/invitation to the co-defendant and five male high school students, Bracic alleged. The group camped out at the San Clemente beach Dec. 27-29 and the teachers supplied the teens with booze, the prosecutor alleged.

Lippert was charged with one felony count each of unlawful sexual intercourse and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor. She also faces a sentencing enhancement for being more than four years older than the victim.

Comment: Re:C++ is probably a little bit better (Score 2, Insightful) 395

C++11 seems to be somewhat useable. However, before that it was a complete disaster. Every time I looked at it, I saw code bases that endlessly re-implemented data structures and storage management solutions.

Even with the standard libraries, there were rarely systems without a lot of custom storage code. By it's own claimed abilities for code reuse, C++ was a failure before C++11.

Every time I brought this up, the C++ fanboys had a fit. I'm rather sure that I was forced out of some jobs because I said this. I know I didn't get hired when I expressed this opinion. I think I was better off not going to those places.

So now I'm going to make the same mistake again. If we take Stroustrup's publication of The C++ Programming Language in 1985 as the start of the ongoing C++ era, then it took over 25 years for the language to become somewhat OK. I can only come to the conclusion that C++ itself was a badly designed language, and this is proven by the time that it has taken to reach it's current state.

In my estimation, C++ was never a good idea. Even though it has improved significantly, it will always be crippled by it's basic design flaws. It is overly complex. It has a vast number of interacting corner conditions that interact in strange ways and can produce bizarre side effects. These have increased over time.

The object model creates problems and you always end up programming around it. Refactoring is invariably difficult; that's where the phrase "brittle objects" comes from. Object encapsulation works poorly. Changing the internal workings of an object is very likely to propagate outside the object. No matter how much precoding design occurs, you will always be modifying objects in ways that required a large amount of code changes in a great number of files. All of this requires a lot of testing.

Debugging has always been a problem. One of the other posts here suggested using CLANG because of it's better error reporting. Thats right now, after 25 years. Let's face it, C++ is legendary for the obscurity of it's compile and link time error reporting. Beyond that, it's not like the run time debugging environment is any better. All that it supports is the kind of break point debugging that was in C. No value added beyond K&R.

So flame away, fanboys. I'm used to it. The truth hurts, and the more squealing I get, the more I know that I am saying the truth.

Comment: Re:Secure is now illegal (Score 1) 199

"If you find CP images in a browser cache, then you've got to demonstrate that they got there by willful action and not by mistake."

This is not correct. Real actionable CP cannot be reached by accident.

I know of a situation where there was a complete web snapshot taken of a large East Coast (US) major name university. It turns out there were a lot of links to porn and other disreputable (drugs, gambling) web addresses. This was not because the school was a nest of porn watching drug taking gamblers, but due to hidden links being placed in third party advertising. It was a way to boost their web search ranking.

Obviously this was a problem, because the goal was a complete snapshot for academic archiving. Additionally,going through and looking for all the problematic links would take a lot of time and effort.

After researching the legal issues, it was determined that nothing you could find on the easily accessible internet included CP. All of that material is deeply locked up in members only sites with heavy encryption. The people engaged in this activity know how bad their behavior is, and how eager the authorities are to get them in jail. They are deeply paranoid for justifiable reasons. Someone is out to get them.

The only way that CP ends up on a machine is because someone deliberately puts it there. It may not be the owner, or any legitimate user, but it can't happen by mistake. It's not like the porn trolls who extort money from users based on legally unsupportable IP addresses. The stakes are too great for that to happen.

Comment: Re:Ripe for snake oil salesman (Score 2) 375

by Required Snark (#49160691) Attached to: Google Wants To Rank Websites Based On Facts Not Links
Yes, there's no snake oil commercial television either. Shows are not interrupted every ten minutes with loud inappropriate distractions that are used by most people to get something to eat or go to the toilet.

What universe are you from? I've never talked to anyone from that universe.

Comment: And don'tforget the tax dodging (Score 4, Insightful) 102

Remember all these companies pay shockingly small amounts of taxes, both at the state and federal level.

I have a counter suggestion: make the bastards pay reasonable taxes, and then the state will be able to afford to put up a nice shiny new building. Instead of having to say, beg $70 million in the first place.

He's like a function -- he returns a value, in the form of his opinion. It's up to you to cast it into a void or not. -- Phil Lapsley