Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Ha hee hee ha ha ha (Score 1) 274

by bingoUV (#48623427) Attached to: Eric Schmidt: To Avoid NSA Spying, Keep Your Data In Google's Services

Yes, a curated system beats Google. It turns out to be expensive, and tech history shows that cheap+worse beats better+slightly expensive, as long as convenience of payment is similar. Our web is in an awful situation where the cheapest (advertisement supported) is the most convenient in payment. Once that problem is solved, yes curated search engines should take over.

The human expert IS a curated search engine - the right part of human brain is the best search engine ever made. It is too expensive to be of any use for casual use, like Google is used.

Comment: Re:What? (Score 1) 428

by bingoUV (#48623395) Attached to: Federal Court Nixes Weeks of Warrantless Video Surveillance

It is because you still emphasize only one difference between these, and that is the law. Now discussing law on /. is useless on multiple levels, and it is also irrelevant because in this context no one is questioning the illegality of the immigration.

Hence there is only space for deeper argument - about the purpose of the law itself. You make no such argument.

Comment: Re:this is ridiculous (Score 1) 428

by bingoUV (#48615781) Attached to: Federal Court Nixes Weeks of Warrantless Video Surveillance

Because of this enormous ease of understanding the morality of an individual that you recognize - we can simply *define* morality as applying to only individuals. Hence hierarchies are by definition amoral - neither moral nor immoral.

Now remains the question whether hierarchies can behave as if they were moral :

There will inevitably be conflicts between morality of different individuals in the hierarchy. At such a time, does an individual follow the morality of his superiors, or his own? If his own, it is not a hierarchy any more. If of his superiors, the hierarchy is not behaving morally - it could be immoral or amoral but definitely not moral at this point.

Secondly, consider individuals performing duty when they will have to answer a superior but cannot ask the superior for instructions on the field because situation demands urgent response. His thought process is not only about legal and moral implications of his action - but also how it would appear to his superior whose morality he is partially aware of. So the aforementioned undue influence on an individual is not only of his superiors' morality , but also of his perception of their morality.

Thirdly, it is possible that under some circumstances, certain individuals' morality may not permit them to do some activities but they can more easily order others to do those same activities. In their own minds, they can blame the subordinates - or rationalize it away. Human beings, especially in moral department, are not rational animals - we are rationalizing animals.

So it is like an individual can playback sing for an individual actor - but a choir cannot. Due to the inevitable differences in frequencies and timings of members of the choir.

Comment: Re:What? (Score 1) 428

by bingoUV (#48615519) Attached to: Federal Court Nixes Weeks of Warrantless Video Surveillance


Law is generally for 2 broad purposes :

1. Codifies morality : The parts of morality that can be enforced without much effort, shared by most people in the state/country/culture often becomes law. One extreme example in some places is prohibition of gay sex.

2. Convenience : Things that are perfectly morally justified in themselves, but it is very convenient if people not do it. One extreme example is driving on right side - morally there is nothing superior about left vs right but it is awfully convenient if we choose one of these and stick to it.

3. Third, false purpose, is - law for its own sake. Do this because it is law - don't question why it is law.

Some laws could serve both true purposes. Now no one will disagree with you that those immigrants are illegal ones. But what is the purpose of the law(s) that make them illegal?

From your reply, it appears that purpose number 3 is your answer.

Comment: Re:summary of SCOTUS case law: "pppphhhhhhtttttt, (Score 1) 249

by bingoUV (#48608287) Attached to: Sony Demands Press Destroy Leaked Documents

Does it ever happen? Until threshold of probability of guilt is sufficient against any one single party, that party cannot be "punished". "Acting in concert" needs much better evidence than just linking to each other.

Extended to criminal law, it means any unsolved murder mystery is solved - just say that someone in the city committed the murder, let them fight amongst themselves about who hangs. All residents of the city are acting in concert because they sell goods and services to each other.

Probably you meant this only for civil law, but even there it appears unprecedented to me.

Comment: Re:Ha hee hee ha ha ha (Score 1) 274

by bingoUV (#48608075) Attached to: Eric Schmidt: To Avoid NSA Spying, Keep Your Data In Google's Services

Google does have a practical lock-in, though theoretically there is no lock in and boobla can swoop down and eat Google's lunch.

So many people searching Google gives it the input it needs to improve itself. Even Microsoft has complained about this. So - many more people search Google, so Google can improve itself better than boobla, so that its search results are better, so many more people search Google.

Comment: Re:Despicable Greenpeace (Score 1) 464

by bingoUV (#48592509) Attached to: Peru Indignant After Greenpeace Damages Ancient Nazca Site

Greenpeace was trying to do what is illegal to attempt to do, there is no remedy possible if they fail.

BP was doing something which was legal to attempt to do, partial controversial remedies are available if they fail. BP failed, and were less than willing to remedy.

Clearly, one is much more malicious than the other at the very outset.

Some people carve careers, others chisel them.