Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

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:contamination? (Score 1) 117

by Zordak (#49174611) Attached to: Supreme Court Gives Tacit Approval To Warrantless DNA Collection

Aside from the huge privacy issues, I'm even more concerned that they would screw up collecting it. Everyone sheds DNA. Who is to say that the DNA they collect is actually from the person they think it is? DNA gets all mixed together after it leaves a person's body.

That's what juries are for. The prosecution presents evidence that the defendant's DNA was found at the scene of the crime. The defense attorney then attacks the credibility of the evidence, for example by offering an alternative theory for why his DNA was there, or attacking the method of collection to raise doubt that it's actually his DNA the police collected. (He doesn't necessarily have to provide his own DNA sample. Defendants aren't obligated to prove their innocence.) Then the investigator explains why the collection method is sound. At the end of the day, the jury decides whether the defense has raised a reasonable doubt.

Comment: Re:Nothing wrong here. (Score 2) 117

by Zordak (#49173589) Attached to: Supreme Court Gives Tacit Approval To Warrantless DNA Collection

This comment makes absolutely no sense. Where does probable cause come from, except from an investigation? How do you expect police to do their job if they're only allowed to start collecting evidence after they get a warrant, which must be supported by evidence?

The purpose of a warrant is to allow the police to breach your otherwise constitutionally-guaranteed reasonable expectation of privacy. A warrant permits police to search your home, person, vehicle, or other private space without your permission. Other than such private spaces, police don't need permission from anybody to investigate. They certainly don't need a warrant to search a crime scene, where you have no legally-protected reasonable expectation of privacy.

Comment: Re:As the majority pointed out (Score 1) 117

by Zordak (#49173419) Attached to: Supreme Court Gives Tacit Approval To Warrantless DNA Collection

so they follow you around until they see you throw away a cup, or a piece of gum, or sneeze and toss the tissue away in a public place. Then they amble up and help themselves.

That sounds like "police work" to me. I'd rather police spend their time doing things like staking out suspected criminals than doing what the NSA does.

Comment: Re:Viewing Launches (Score 1) 22

by Bruce Perens (#49166815) Attached to: SpaceX Falcon 9 Launches Dual Satellite Mission

With luck, they'll start incorporating our radio transceivers. I hear that SpaceX flies with several USRPs now, so that's not completely unrealistic. That might be as close as I can get. Anyone who can get me a base invitation, though, would be greatly appreciated and I'd be happy to do some entertaining speeches while there. I need a base invite for Vandenberg, too. I got in to the official viewing site for the first try of the last launch (and that scrubbed too), but this next one is on Pad 6.

Comment: Viewing Launches (Score 3, Interesting) 22

by Bruce Perens (#49164783) Attached to: SpaceX Falcon 9 Launches Dual Satellite Mission

I was in Florida to speak at Orlando Hamcation and went to see the DISCOVR launch at Kennedy Space Center. I paid $50 to be at LC-39 for the launch, an observation tower made from a disused gantry on the Nasa Causeway between the pads and the Vehicle Assembly Building. A crawler was parked next door! A hot sandwich buffet, chips, and sodas were served. It was cold and windy! I watched for a few hours and unfortunately the launch scrubbed due to high stratospheric winds.

The next day, Delaware North Corporation, which operates tourism at KSC, decided not to open LC-39 or the Saturn 5 center for the launch. This was the third launch attempt and I guess they decided most people had left. I was annoyed.

The closest beach was going to be closed in the evening, it's a sensitive ecological area. I ended up seeing the launch from Jetty Park. This turned out not to be such a great location, the tower wasn't visible at all and the first 10 seconds of the rocket in flight were obscured before we saw it over a hill.

What's a better viewing location?

Comment: Re:Climate change phobia (Score 1) 340

by Reziac (#49164459) Attached to: We Stopped At Two Nuclear Bombs; We Can Stop At Two Degrees.

Yeah, last week I pointed out the same wrt the Yellowstone dome. How much of what they're measuring is actually tectonic movement?

From the Wiki article someone linked on sea level change:
Global warming, a few mm per year.
All other causes, about 10 meters per year.
Draw your own conclusions.

Comment: Re:And blocked in court in 3, 2, 1 . . . (Score 1) 227

by SEE (#49162143) Attached to: As Big As Net Neutrality? FCC Kills State-Imposed Internet Monopolies

First, under the test used in both the majority and concurring opinions in Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League, the enacted legislation must have specifically named municipal entities in order to affect them; general wording (such as "any entity") doesn't work, and no executive action can change that.

Second, Federal law supersedes state law precisely insofar as the Federal government is allowed to legislate in the area at all, and the majority opinion in Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League says Federal law can't make states allow their own municipalities to sell Internet.

Comment: Re:One Word ... (Score 1) 227

by SEE (#49162117) Attached to: As Big As Net Neutrality? FCC Kills State-Imposed Internet Monopolies

The Federal Government can no more authorize a municipality to provide Internet service outside its "imaginary boundaries" than it may authorize a municipality to enforce its city ordinances outside its "imaginary boundaries". The geographic scope of the powers of municipalities is an internal matter of the organization of the state government for the same reasons the existence of ans such powers is an internal matter of the organization of the state government.

Comment: Re:Ah, Damnit... (Score 1) 506

by Reziac (#49161569) Attached to: Users Decry New Icon Look In Windows 10

Or you have functionally the same car each year with different upgrades, hence Plymouth, Dodge, Chrysler models with interchangeable everything.

One of my clients bought a Ford pickup, then replaced stuff with all the aftermarket Lincoln parts (who knew there were Lincoln pickup trucks!) and now he drives a Lincoln!

+ - Virgin Media censors talk of "bufferbloat" on their discussion forums->

Submitted by mtaht
mtaht (603670) writes "Given that bufferbloat is now fixed by fq_codel and the sqm-scripts for anyone that cares to install openwrt and derivatives on their home routers (or use any random linux box for the job), AND standardization efforts for the relevant algorithms near completion in the IETF, I went and posted a short, helpful message about how to fix it on a bufferbloat-related thread on Virgin Media's cable modems... And they deleted the post, and banned my IP... for "advertising". I know I could post again via another IP, and try to get them to correct their mistake, but it is WAY more fun to try to annoy them into more publically acknowledging their enormous bufferbloat problems and to release a schedule for their fixes. Naturally I figured the members of slashdot could help out Virgin and their customers understand their bufferbloat problems better. My explanations of how they can fix their bufferbloat, are now, here."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:And blocked in court in 3, 2, 1 . . . (Score 2) 227

by SEE (#49159513) Attached to: As Big As Net Neutrality? FCC Kills State-Imposed Internet Monopolies

Just like states are only part of the country?

No, not "just like" that at all. There are three basic classes of entity in US constitutional law - the Federal Government, the states, and individual people. States are not organs of the Federal Government, but legally separate entities with independent rights and powers. On the other hand, municipalities are mere organs of the state.

Comment: Re:One Word ... (Score 4, Informative) 227

by SEE (#49157235) Attached to: As Big As Net Neutrality? FCC Kills State-Imposed Internet Monopolies

Given the 8-1 decision in Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League in 2004, it's essentially certain that this FCC action will be overturned by the courts. The FCC doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.

In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that federal law did not and could not preempt a Missouri state law that prohibited municipalities from providing Internet service. Of the eight-member majority in that case, five (Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Scalia, and Thomas) are still on the court.

Badges? We don't need no stinking badges.

Working...