Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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:Musashi (Score 1) 41

A lot of ships were sunk during the battle, but it was a very far-flung battle. I believe Musashi was the only Japanese warship sunk in the Sibuyan Sea during that battle (a Japanese heavy cruiser was crippled during the action). In fact, the sinking was not due to magazine explosions but rather to flooding, finally capsizing. I'd expect the turrets to be quite some distance away, but there's no reason to expect the hull to have broken up badly.

Comment: Re:Yes, and? (Score 1) 146

The assumption is that, if you're conducting $10K transactions in cash, it might be worth taking a look at you, because a lot of people who do that are criminals. Same principle as suspecting the husband if the wife is murdered: it may not be fair to any individual husband, but the husband is involved in enough murders to make it worth checking out.

Comment: Re:Same guy? (Score 1) 96

by david_thornley (#49184469) Attached to: The Mexican Drug Cartels' Involuntary IT Guy

At a quick read, the difference I saw was that Clinton handed over relevant emails (we have no way of knowing whether they're all the relevant ones, but this problem was solved by a law passed the year after she left the office), while the White House staffers apparently didn't. The Presidential Records Act requires that certain communications be delivered to the archives, and apparently that wasn't done in the Bush case.

Comment: Re:God Republicans are Stupid (Score 1) 96

by david_thornley (#49184433) Attached to: The Mexican Drug Cartels' Involuntary IT Guy

Which laws did she break? Apparently she did turn over the relevant emails, if a little late, and I don't know what the law says on that.

If she was acting so nefariously, why have previous Secretaries of State done the exact same things? Have they all been nefarious? Including Colin Powell?

I would think that one way the law matters here is whether she actually broke it. The fact that she did something that would be illegal if she did it now is irrelevant.

If you want me to believe that Clinton was sleazy, instead of ScentCone, please give me some actual reasons why standard practices that were legal were sleazy.

Comment: Re:Obama should Pardon Snowden (Score 1) 631

by david_thornley (#49182959) Attached to: Snowden Reportedly In Talks To Return To US To Face Trial

What would be awkward about a public trial? Snowden violated the law in a big way, and it's very clear that he did it. If Snowden returned and had an absolutely fair trial in the best traditions of US jurisprudence, he'd be in prison for a long, long time. In what way would that be awkward to the government or anybody in it?

Due to lack of disk space, this fortune database has been discontinued.