Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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:What about the presumption of innocence? (Score 1) 1590

by The Only Druid (#32029202) Attached to: Arizona "Papers, Please" Law May Hit Tech Workers
That's never been the whole rule. You're presumed innocent as a matter of finding a verdict, but your'e not, nor have you ever been, presumed innocent as a matter of evidence gathering and investigation. This law, whether or not it is a good one, makes the correct move in requiring that the officers have some probable cause to begin investigating you (i.e. asking for papers). One question going forward is: is your skin color sufficient probable cause? If the officers think so, then that's going to be unconstitutional. However, how about if you're sitting in front of Home Depot in dirty clothes, not going in or out to buy anything. Is that probable cause to think you might be an illegal day-laborer? It's not sufficient to arrest you, but it's sufficient (most likely) for the officers to ask for your papers, i.e. to begin an investigation.

Compare it to less onerous laws. Right now, any officer in any state can ask you a question while you're walking on the street. You're entitled to ignore it and keep walking, and they can't just arrest you for that. However, let's say it is 2am and you're in a residential area. Now, the officer might have some concerns as to why you're walking around. In the interest of safety, he wants to know your name. When you're uncooperative, he might have enough probable cause to think you're there for criminal reasons. What if he sees what looks like a burglar's tool? (most states criminalize burglar tools).

If this law is enforced reasonably, it won't be trouble for anyone but criminals. If it's enforced unreasonably, it'll be wildly unconstitutional. The question is going to be the police, ultimately.

Comment: Re:Poor jerk. (Score 1) 982

by The Only Druid (#32012866) Attached to: Terry Childs Found Guilty
This is one of those situations that seems to draw out the difference between people who understand how policies work (as opposed to laws) and those who do not. A policy is an internal rule generated by an organization. Violating it exposes you to internal punishments and (in some situations) contractual civil liability. In other words, violating your policy might lead to some sort of penalty but not jail time. However, a law is above and beyond the scope of your organization, even when that organization is the government itself. The law that this idiot violated superseded the policy considerations. He was correct in his policy interpretation, I believe, but he was grossly incorrect in his legal interpretation. While the policy bound him against divulging the passwords, the law bound him against NOT divulging the passwords. He was in an ugly situation - one initiated by his boss - but this idiot is the one who broke the law to protect a policy.

Comment: Re:I have a question (Score 1) 388

by The Only Druid (#28917035) Attached to: Tenenbaum Lawyers Now Passing the Hat
Admitting you did what you're accused of is admitting "guilt". This is a factual decision, and so witnesses are able to testify on that matter. "Liability", on the other hand, is legal obligation to someone else due to your guilt. It is a legal decision, and so witnesses are (generally) not supposed to testify on that matter, especially when that legal decision is the central issue of the case. The question was improper as it apparently called for something beyond the scope of the witness' testimony. I'm not sure it actually was (the issue of "I am liability" versus "I am liable" is subtle...) but that's the idea.

Comment: Re:I have a question (Score 2, Insightful) 388

by The Only Druid (#28916979) Attached to: Tenenbaum Lawyers Now Passing the Hat
(a) The whole "life sentence" concept isn't valid. By that reasoning, poor people should just commit massive financial damages against people, because they wouldn't be subject to paying those damages.
(b) He's going to just declare bankruptcy anyway, so it's rather silly as an aside.
(c) Separately, his lawyers appear to be grossly unable to handle the case; their "fair use" defense was beyond laughable, and they failed to preserve the easiest possible appeal (which would have, at least, probably allowed a retrial).

Comment: Re:The simple one. (Score 4, Interesting) 678

by The Only Druid (#27228961) Attached to: What Filters Are Right For Kids?
Blaming everyone else is bad, but you're completely inanely conflating viruses, etc. and porn.

The truth is, the best situation is to educate the child enough that they can be trusted to navigate the online world without either visiting porn inappropriately (i.e. w/ anyone else around) or downloading malware. The reality is, you have to educate children while using some protections against their mistakes.

So, teach her about sex, etc. Explain the issues as best you can, and discourage her from visiting it too much (and certainly set rules). But don't pretend she'll never check it out. The truth is, there's no harm in her checking it out occasionally.

Malware, on the other hand, is actually destructive, hence the use of spam, virus, etc. filters. So, teach her about it, hope she doesn't accidentally infect your system, but use tools to support her.

The key idea is to support your child's growth, not to restrict it.

Comment: Re:No, I think the converse is true (Score 4, Insightful) 693

by The Only Druid (#26801665) Attached to: You Are Not a Lawyer
It's sort of fascinating that you've posted the exact sort of response TFA expects. I'm tempted to think you're being ironic.

Here's the thing: a lot (i.e. the majority, actually) of these technical arguments you've referred to here are just silly. For example, you complain that the RIAA evidence links only to the computer, not the user. This is, of course, true. However, in the case of a family home that means the prosecution can narrow it down to the household members, so your argument would merely be "Well, you don't know if it was the dad or the son, so you can't sue", and that'll end up just bumping into group liability (which I won't bore everyone with here).

In the case of a shared computer, you'd have more of an argument, e.g. one a library computer or whatnot. But realistically, how many prosecutions have involved such a machine? So far, as far as I know, all the prosecutions have involved machines in private homes or apartments, so what exactly are you arguing?

Comment: Re:Capitalism at it's best. (Score 2, Interesting) 333

by The Only Druid (#26576703) Attached to: RIAA Threatens Harvard Law Prof With Sanctions
I don't think it's revisionist at all: the reason you couldn't be aware of the law was not just your illiteracy, but the difficulty in distributing the information. Today, it's not a function of literal illiteracy (i.e. inability to read) but rather figurative illiteracy of the law (i.e. inability to digest the readily available legal materials). We can solve that need by (a) educating everyone on all law, (b) continuing to rely upon lawyers, or (c) re-writing the law to be accessible to everyone.

Everyone (especially on forums like this) likes to jump on option (c), forgetting the basic problem that a system is definitely not automatically bad just because it's complex. Far from it, when you're describing a tremendously detailed world such as our own, it is inevitable that your laws would become complicated and labyrinthine.

Comment: Re:Capitalism at it's best. (Score 4, Informative) 333

by The Only Druid (#26573371) Attached to: RIAA Threatens Harvard Law Prof With Sanctions
The law has not "become" so complex; from day one, the entire reason for the legal profession was that the average citizen (then, in the European nations) couldn't possibly be expected to know all the procedures of the courts, not to mention all of the details of substantive law.

Samurai-Sword Maker May Cool Nuclear Revival 317

Posted by kdawson
from the can't-cut-it dept.
NobleSavage sends a story from Bloomberg about Japan Steel Works Ltd., a company that still makes Samurai swords, and how it may control the fate of the global nuclear-energy renaissance. "There stands the only plant in the world, a survivor of Allied bombing in World War II, capable of producing the central part of a nuclear reactor's containment vessel in a single piece, reducing the risk of a radiation leak. Utilities that won't need the equipment for years are making $100 million down payments now on components Japan Steel makes from 600-ton ingots. Each year the Tokyo-based company can turn out just four of the steel forgings that contain the radioactivity in a nuclear reactor. Even after it doubles capacity in the next two years, there won't be enough production to meet building plans."
PlayStation (Games)

+ - Surgical success linked to skill at video games

Submitted by mjh
mjh (57755) writes "According to The Guardian, "A study has found a direct link between skill at video gaming and skill at keyhole, or laparoscopic, surgery. Young surgeons who spent at least three hours a week playing video games in the past made 37% fewer errors, were 27% faster, and scored 42% better overall than surgeons who had never played a video game at all." The sample size they quote seems rather small, but it suggests that Steven Johnson might be right."

Is your job running? You'd better go catch it!