Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Thus, they fully admit (Score 1) 20

by Yakasha (#48635555) Attached to: Google Strikes Deal With Verizon To Reduce Patent Troll Suits

That patents are hindering innovation.

It only hinders innovation at companies too small to make these deals. Remember that next time you hear we need patents to protect the mythical lone inventor.

The system hinders innovation at Google, Verizon, and every other tech company as well. Verizon's public statement starts right at the top with

Verizon Signs Patent Licensing Deal with Google to Promote Innovation

then continues with

But in high-tech industries like ours, the patent system can be exploited to get in the way of innovation.

Verizon believes that even high-tech giants like themselves are hindered by the system. Hence the deal. I agree that small-time inventors are hurt more as they are unable to strike these deals, but that does not mean the system only hinders them.... else there would be no need for this deal.

Comment: Re:America, land of the free... (Score 1) 720

by Yakasha (#48621223) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Can a Felon Work In IT?

Those felons are taxpayers, aren't they?

Absolutely you bet! Just the other day I stopped at H&R Block to get some advice on reducing my liability (TAX liability lol!), but they couldn't answer my questions. I'll pose them here in the hopes that you or somebody else can help.

If I hold the drugs for a year, do I pay capital gains on the increased value as a commodity? If the value goes down, do I get to deduct the loss? Do I get to deduct the depreciation of my submarine? As I require all my sales reps to wear a blue flag on the left side and provide it myself, could I reduce my tax burden by investing in a handkerchief factory? Can I deduct the cost of the "first one" I offer to all new customers?

That is just me! How about my sales representatives? Do they get to deduct the cost of the baking soda they cut the coke with? Or does that come out of their own pocket?

And now Obamacare is just making this harder! I'm going to have to cut back hours because I can't afford the health insurance costs!

Comment: Have to admit (Score 1) 137

by Yakasha (#48610267) Attached to: Microsoft Gets Industry Support Against US Search Of Data In Ireland

This allows Microsoft (and any multi-national) additional power to exempt themselves from various US law by shopping around for favorable laws protecting their digital assets. I'm sure there is at least 1 small, poor, developing, (corrupt?) nation out there that would love to accept a few hundred million dollars to build a datacenter and pass a couple "fuck you America!" laws.

Though I also have to admit the court is not the place to prevent that. There are other ways to deal with this problem. Such as passing laws requiring US companies to submit to this and other US court orders as if all assets were stored in the US as long as US persons have electronic access to those assets. Let the company deal with the trouble of complying with Ireland's laws at the same time as US law (maybe by keeping US customer data in the US and European customer data in Europe)... or split up so they can lawfully and truthfully state "Sorry, Microsoft Corp does not control Microsoft Ireland, Ltd. We just do business with them."... and thus forgo their tax loopholes.

Comment: Re:Knowledge is power (Score 1) 605

by Yakasha (#48604651) Attached to: Waze Causing Anger Among LA Residents

Yes, but putting your own personal convenience above the well being of others simply makes you an asshole.

So what does that make you?
Buying a PC so you can work & play conveniently while the lowly wretches that mined the heavy metals required to build it are dying in a ditch.

At least the residents in these communities can claim ignorance of your philosophy. :p

*everybody* chooses personal convenience over the wellbeing of others, every day, always.

Comment: Re:FUD and kneejerk reactions (Score 2) 209

by Yakasha (#48565527) Attached to: Feds Plan For 35 Agencies To Collect, Share, Use Health Records of Americans

So we're not talking about the FBI or NSA using this to find out you have irritable bowel syndrome.
(chances are they already know from other sources like Facebook anyway...*tin foil hat*).
and they likely wouldnt care anyway (life is not a hollywood movie).

You're right. They don't care about that.
But they do care about things like prescription habits (Your receiving & your doctor's prescribing), GSWs, abortions (Did you forget Republicans are still trying to ban those?), stem cell treatments, assisted suicide, plastic surgery, and any other medical procedure they're trying to restrict or ban, or they feel indicates criminal activity (too many chemical burns? Maybe you have a meth lab).

Just because you or I can't think of a way to abuse the data now, doesn't mean the Federal Government won't figure out a way to abuse you in the future, using the data. Yes there are legitimate reasons for the Feds to have the data, but unfortunately, as has been proven over, and over, and over again, they can't be trusted.

Comment: Re:Joyent unfit to lead them? (Score 2) 254

by Yakasha (#48531993) Attached to: Node.js Forked By Top Contributors

Changing a pronoun is not worth of developer resources. I would have reversed it too -- we don't need everyone's principled opinions infiltrating the codebase and starting problems between people's values and beliefs.

The thing is, the change was done by some third party. Rejecting it and justifying actually took *more* work than just accepting it.

THIS time. When the next 1,273 "single word in a comment" submissions come in to be reviewed, is the total time spent on them still 0? He is "not interested in trivial changes like that." Accepting one invites more.

Comment: Re:5th Admendment? (Score 1) 446

by Yakasha (#48523541) Attached to: 18th Century Law Dredged Up To Force Decryption of Devices

1. Any and all laws can be twisted and abused. Your litmus test approves of only anarchy or automatons with no imagination.
2. The law is 200 years old. Its not new. *Eventually* seems to be a very long time in this case.

The law simply gives the courts some teeth to do what it needs to do. It is vague in what it allows, requiring reasonableness and interpretation, but that is the very basis of our government. The Constitution uses words like "reasonable" all over it, requiring the readers to think about what is in the best interest of society (or themselves if they're inclined that way).

By your standards of law making it seems our entire system of government and every law on the books, since they all use the vague Constitution as their backing and are therefore open to interpretation and abuse, are "bad".

Comment: Re:5th Admendment? (Score 1) 446

by Yakasha (#48509369) Attached to: 18th Century Law Dredged Up To Force Decryption of Devices

This just goes to show that "shredding the Constitution" has been going on for a very long time. The feds pretty much started as soon as they possibly could.

There's always some idiot that thinks a small dose of tyranny will be OK.

Except the OP & article misquoted the law (for click bait? Maybe, IANAL). But I have a feeling the rest of the sentence people are misquoting is relevant as well:

The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.

Emphasis mine.
If another law or the Constitution does not allow the action, it cannot be granted via this law. The court order being discussed even specifically states the obvious and adjudicated limitations of the law:

t]he All Writs Act is a residual source of authority to issue writs that are not otherwise covered by statute

You cannot be forced to testify against yourself. Apple and every other phone manufacturer however, is not you, and can be forced by this law to decrypt your phone, if possible and there is no other law preventing the court from ordering somebody to do that.

Personally, I don't like the idea of being forced to do anything., so this law angers me on that side... but my reasonable side does "think of the children" and can see the law being used responsibly. This specific application does, to me, seem a responsible use.

Comment: Re:Occams razor says this girl is lying (Score 1) 189

Subject sums it up really.

It does? I would have figured Facebook's past actions, the actions of their "partners", previous similar complaints, and Facebook's TOU would make it not only possible, but very probable, this woman's account is accurate.

Seriously, if you were starting a "social network" site, would you rather:
1. Spend thousands to millions of dollars advertising your site; wait for people to join; wait several years for enough people to join to make it "social"; or
2. Spend a few thousand dollars to sign up as a Facebook "partner" / advertiser and use the existing API to build your network from those hapless twits that still have Facebook accounts and think they're customers?

Occam's razor says you have never started a social network site.

Comment: Re: Wait what? (Score 1) 173

by Yakasha (#48429693) Attached to: US Gov't Seeks To Keep Megaupload Assets Because Kim Dotcom Is a Fugitive

I am a legal layman; but that is what struck me. We have an extradition treaty with the Kiwis. Based on our 'enthusiastic' diplomatic style it's probably even the one we wanted.

To assert that somebody currently in extradition proceedings is a 'fugitive' is either to claim that the terms of extradition of that country are total bullshit, or basically the same as saying that appealing a conviction is a subtype of prison escape attempt.

"Fugitive" is a term, not the law. The law allows judges to remove your right to use the courts if you so much as refuse to return to the US.

(1) after notice or knowledge of the fact that a warrant or process has been issued for his apprehension, in order to avoid criminal prosecution—
(B) declines to enter or reenter the United States to submit to its jurisdiction;

So, yes, if you go to an extradition hearing, instead of hopping on a plane, a judge can immediately bar you from using the courts for any purpose.

IANAL... So I really don't know how this law passes the 1st Amendment...

Congress shall make no law... abridging ... the right of the people ... to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Comment: Re:Ya...Right (Score 1) 285

by Yakasha (#48371193) Attached to: U.S. and China Make Landmark Climate Deal

Just because we did not ratify it, does not mean that we did not actually honor it.


And yet, America has met the terms of the Kyoto agreement.

Wrong. Seriously, why do you think that?

The initial aim was for industrialized countries to stabilize their emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000.

Our emissions have gone up since then. We're now higher than our 1990 levels.

I never cheated an honest man, only rascals. They wanted something for nothing. I gave them nothing for something. -- Joseph "Yellow Kid" Weil