Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

+ - Reddit's Top Forums are Shutting Down to Protest an Admin's Removal->

Advocatus Diaboli writes: Some of the most prominent parts of the social media site Reddit are going dark in defiance of the removal of an admin who organized the site’s popular “IAmA” interviews with celebrities, politicians, and other people of note. The subreddit /r/IAmA was the first to go dark following the departure of administrator Victoria Taylor, a Reddit employee who was let go, according to the forum moderators. Taylor scheduled and ran many of the forum’s Q&As.
Link to Original Source

Comment: ITT: Textualists of the world, unite! (Score 4, Insightful) 591 591

Most of the comments here seem to be saying that the case was decided incorrectly because the text of the law was clear and the intent doesn't matter. However, there are lots of other cases where the text of the law is equally clear and yet SCOTUS has ruled that intent matters. Let's start with the First Amendment. It's obvious that slander laws run afoul of the plain text of the First Amendment. Which part of "Congress shall make no law..." is unclear? None at all. Yet SCOTUS has ruled slander laws are allowed, as well as laws preventing inciting a riot (e.g., yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater).

For another example near and dear to conservatives' hearts, consider the Second Amendment. The Roberts court has ruled (District of Columbia vs. Heller, 2008) that the Second Amendment establishes an individual right to carry arms, despite the fact the amendment only mentions carrying arms in the context of a militia.

With the current case, the intent of the law was clear (and most of the drafters are still around to ask), so that's what SCOTUS used. Judges aren't just implementations of parsing algorithms that spit out yes or no results based on the text of the laws.

Comment: Re:Gonna buy a ticket to Star Wars this December? (Score 1) 614 614

Isn't this incredibly risky for Disney? the government could cut down on the numbers of h1b's any year and then they would be boned.

No, it's not risky. First, any reduction in H1-Bs would only affect future years. It's very unlikely that Congress would throw out existing visa holders. Second, Disney wouldn't care even if they do throw out existing visa holders. This is because the newly-trained Infosys employees are probably already back in India, where their wages are much, much lower than comparable wages in America. If these workers stayed in America, they would be entitled to pay comparable to those of the recently laid off workers, so there would be no savings to Disney.

Comment: He can tell us, he just chooses not to (Score 4, Insightful) 107 107

The first paragraph of Article 1, Section 6 is (emphasis added):

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

See the Wikipedia article on the Speech and Debate Clause or read it for yourself in the Constitution. So he can talk all about the program during a speech on the floor of the Senate, and nothing can be done to him.

Comment: Re:The fine wasn't all of the punishment (Score 3, Informative) 192 192

If Knight had put the $460 million in a pile and burned it, there would be no fine. The problem was that their algorithm was wildly buying and selling shares in the open market, and thus distorting that market. See the graph at http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-06/the-knightmare for an example of a stock that was affected. What if you were an investor in that stock who had set a stop-loss at $10? Knight's wild selling would have triggered the stop-loss, and you'd lose money because of Knight's actions. This gross market distortion is what the fine was meant to punish.

Comment: Use standard software and keep it up to date (Score 4, Insightful) 116 116

From the way you describe your goal, you are building mostly one-off websites. For small companies and the like? You'll be best off just using popular open source products like Drupal, WordPress, or ModX and keeping up to date with security updates. Many of these will automatically notify you of security updates and you can apply them right away. Don't try to host the websites on your own server either. Get a hosting product from a company that will keep the underlying OS, Apache, and PHP up to date and secure. This will reduce your exposure quite a bit. You still need to make sure to choose good passwords. Nessus or OpenVAS are also an option.

Comment: Re:This case is a joke. (Score 2) 383 383

Huh?

I missed the part where Kim Dotcom was uploading his own personal BluRay rips to MU.

I *remember* the part where his users did.

I don't give a shit how he made his money or whether or not you consider it "ill-gotten" simply because MU hosted some copyrighted material uploaded by users. It's an absurd contortion of logic and reason to say that he deserves none of his money because some of his users misbehaved.

$100m is the equivalent of one mid-tier movie budget. If you think Hollywood actually felt that tiny financial "hit", you're the one who's hopelessly naive.

The computer is to the information industry roughly what the central power station is to the electrical industry. -- Peter Drucker

Working...