Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard? (Score 1) 1045 1045

That's not destruction of property, that's maintenance of property. Want a better analogy than the soccer ball? If your neighbor parks in your driveway without permission you can probably have him towed. What you can't do is take a 9 Iron to his headlights.

Comment Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard? (Score 1) 1045 1045

No, that would still be destruction of property. The fact that it's on your property does not give you the right to destroy it. If the neighbor's kid kicks a soccer ball over your fence does that give you the right to slash it with a knife before you return it to them? Of course not.

Comment Re:A simple proposition. (Score 1) 357 357

Slashdot sels no product. Sells no service. And wouldn't get enough donations to cover its costs. So they deserve to die?

They used to sell a service where you could subscribe to Slashdot for some nominal fee per 1,000 page loads. The fact that they quit selling this service is their own problem, the scaffolding is all there. It just needs to be turned back on and made worth the investment.

Because people generally don't want to pay for anything. And running these things isn't free.

Our next stewards should revisit the freemium/subscription model. I used to pay $5 a month for TotalFark, now I spend around $3 a month for reddit gold, lots of people pay $10+ for Something Awful, but I never saw any compelling reason to buy a subscription here. I can suppress ads without subscribing, and the other features weren't appealing enough to make it worth a few bucks. Get rid of the page count model and switch to a couple dollars per month. Then ask the community what features would justify those dollars. Comment editing, a richer set of supported HTML tags in comments, the ability to revert to the layout from 10 years ago, etc.

Comment Re:Forget party, all that (Score 1) 21 21

What's so damned special about relationships? If it's about equality, then tell me, why does a childless married couple pay less in tax than a widow with a child who earns the same as the couple? I'd say the widow's relationship to the child matters to society, the couple's relationship doesn't matter to anyone but them.

Why is it legal to discriminate on the basis of marriage?

Why does any government in a secular country have anything at all to do with marriage?

Comment Re:Investigating if laws were broken (Score 5, Insightful) 312 312

This is a legal principle that literally goes back to Greek antiquity.

In Common Law jurisdictions we have another principle that goes back for 800+ years: mens rea. Meaning that you have to have a guilty mind (i.e., intent) to have broken the law. Unfortunately this principle is being steadily eroded in favor of "strict liability" laws that require no intent, thus criminalizing more behavior and further expanding the power of the State.

Comment Re:nothing new under the sun (Score 1) 446 446

Source?

The Krebs article linked in TFS mentions as much.

"We're on the doorstep of [confirming] who we believe is the culprit, and unfortunately that may have triggered this mass publication," Biderman said. "I've got their profile right in front of me, all their work credentials. It was definitely a person here that was not an employee but certainly had touched our technical services."

Real programmers don't bring brown-bag lunches. If the vending machine doesn't sell it, they don't eat it. Vending machines don't sell quiche.

Working...