Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:The argument is "leaky" at best too (Score 1) 190 190

Unfortunately even science people are afraid of using the word evolution because some religious whacko might want to shoot them. So other words are used like 'learned'.

In fact the human vaccines to treat the most virulent viruses, the one's that don't kill quickly but rather maim, have worked well. Small pox is eradicated, and Polio has not been seen in Nigeria for a year. Some people get sick from Vaccines, but they likely would have the most susceptible and the carriers anyway.

What is being seen is that vaccines used in livestock for purposes other than immunization is having significant negative side effects.

To be fair we are seeing some drug resistant strains that making people sick, but those are most bacteria, and are due to the routine use of antibacterials, even when there is little evidence that there is a bacterial infection.

Comment Re:Under what authority? (Score 1) 292 292

It is absurd on its face to suggest that a policeman should be able to take you into custody without being able to tell you what law you broke (because it doesn't exist). To suggest otherwise allows any policeman anywhere in the US to take anyone into custody for any reason ("I didn't know that sitting on your porch drinking lemonade was not a crime, my bad").

I agree with you that we have too many laws and that no one (no matter what legal experience they may have) can know them all. However, in a JUST system, the outcome of this is that the police do not enforce laws they are ignorant of, or that they do not understand, rather than enforcing "laws" that do not exist.

Comment Re:Under what authority? (Score 5, Informative) 292 292

The cops enforce the law selectively, incorrectly, or in ways they know to be blatantly false.

Your rant is dead on, but the above portion of it is accurate in even more ways than you might suspect--for example, the Supreme Court recently said that it;s OK for a police officer to arrest you, because of something that he THINKS is illegal, even if it isn't, because (and to quote Dave Barry here, "I am not making this up") it is unreasonable to expect a police officer to know all the laws they are enforcing.

So if you, Joe Citizen who has no training in law or any intersection with it, do something illegal that you did not know it was illegal, you can be charged, because "ignorance of the law is no excuse." If Joe Policeofficer arrests you for sitting on your lawn when that activity was perfectly legal, that's ok, because police can't be expected the know the law.

Honestly, the US today is like Franz Kafka, Joseph Heller, and George Orwell all got together and wrote a manual called "How to Fuck Up Democracy" and some assholes in government made it required reading.

Comment Re:Meth Hype is Common: (Score 1) 98 98

Well this is not how Walter White would have done it, is it?

That's the coward's way out, using drugs, where 90% of your synthesis has been done for you by already by some Big Pharma company selling pseudoephedrine to people who need to clear their noses.

"Now get me my phenylacetic acid... bitch!"

Comment Re:Nonsense law still can't be ignored (Score 1) 157 157

This is not something new at all, and not at all at odds with the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment protects you from "unreasonable searches" - not *all* searches, and they can't issue the warrant in the first place without probable cause (as determined by a judge who signs the warrant). Lastly, the place to be searched (Facebook) and the things to be seized (photos and comments) are well specified. Where is the 4th amendment violation?

In the situation we are discussing, Facebook cannot argue that the search is unreasonable, because they lack standing. I agree completely that the government has the power to search (when properly sanctioned by the courts) but when an argument hinges on what is, or is not, reasonable, how you can say this protection is not violated by the prevention of the argument? The government has further ensured a situation where there is no one to argue the point, since the target of the warrant is not informed, either.

The thought experiment below ("someone else stolen a fictional pig) is quite similar to something I had started to write in my post above, but abandoned because my construct was not clear and muddied my argument. Thanks to the AC for making the argument for me.

Rights must be read broadly, and powers narrowly, lest the state (which has effectively unlimited resources) run roughshod over the people.

Comment Re:"Pocket dialed"? (Score 2) 179 179

I'm sorry. I have a bonnet full of beans this morning because I have a stomach ache.

I had a doctors appointment this morning, and he did things to me that customarily involve at least dinner and a movie under normal circumstances, so I, too, feel the need to be technically correct (the best kind of correct!)

The idiom you're looking for is "bees in your bonnet" not "beans." The reference is to having a head full of ideas, though I believe you are using the more modern usage relating to irritation (which I believe comes from a time when women might wear floral arrangements in their headgear, which quite probably would attract pollinating insects. Having a bee in your bonnet would be quite distressing if it were literal. I do not, however, have any sourcing for this, it is merely an inference on my part).

Comment Re: Makes sense to me (Score 2) 157 157

The abuse of information obtained by secret warrants is a known fact and not up for discussion just because you're a government shill.

I agree wholeheartedly with your general points, but the above is simply unhelpful. People can have legitimate differences of opinion on a topic--or be ignorant of certain facts--and not be a "shill" for either side. Simply claiming that anyone you disagree with is involved in some conspiracy on the other side is not the way to win an argument.

Comment Re:Nonsense law still can't be ignored (Score 1) 157 157

2) Even if the warrant was improper, Facebook isn't the defendant here and isn't the right person to challenge it anyways. Let's say the prosecutors suspect that you used rat poison bought at the local mom & pop general store to poison somebody. And the mom & pop store doesn't have any computers - you paid cash and they just took an old fashioned carbon copy imprint of your credit card. So they get a warrant to go through all those paper receipts to prove that you bought the rat poison. The mom & pop store isn't in the position to challenge that warrant, only you are. This case with Facebook is the same thing just "on a computer"

This might be case law, but is entirely at odds with the plain language of the 4th amendment. You might be searching for information about the suspects, but you are searching the papers and effects of the mom & pop to do so! What about THEIR legal protections? Coupled with wonderful things like the good faith doctrine, and the above is, frankly, terrifying since the police could use anything they find against Mom & Pop, because they weren't searching for it when they found it.

It is apparent that the US is, if not already a police state, fast becoming one. Allowing the government even more power in criminal justice matters is a very bad idea, and we should weigh VERY heavily what we believe is acceptable.

Comment Re:Not a factor in actually secure environments (Score 1) 227 227

Which is to say that if your people do not follow policy, it is because the policy is unclear. For instance, I have had friends who worked in secure places where you cell phone could not be on in the secure area. Cell phones were not an issue because if you got caught you were fired. The policy was clear. The pay was enough to attract professionals who wanted their job. So the second part is management that is willing to support and enforce policy. Workers making minimum wage would not care so much if they were fired, and turnover would be excessive. If policy means that work is not getting done, then management obviously is going to make a judgement call to create a compromise policy. As far as pretend secure doors...I have worked in places where the official work area had secure doors, but the backend where the actual work was done was just a normal door, normally propped open.

Comment Re:Worry about drips while an river floods (Score 1) 154 154

To put this in perspective, If we were to send a single bomber to Iran with a single bunker busting conventional bomb, it would cost more than this. As far as slowness, the pentagon can't even get an American made cross trainer on soldiers feet because the bureaucracy is so vast. So yes, the pentagon does need to be slimmed down and made more efficient. On the other hand, I suspect that the reason we are spending 45 million dollars a year extra for the communication is because it would cost an order of magnitude more to refit with the new technology and train. This is not a small firm that can refit everything for 100K, and many of the soldiers are kids right of high school, many of who have trouble reading and writing. I have seen kids do well on the ASVAB that have great difficulty passing a state graduation test.

Comment Re:legal risk (Score 1) 165 165

I think the point the poster was making is that all risk has been transferred to the contracting company. If the contractors were working under the state,then yes under the new rules announced this week they could very likely sue for a big check. However, all that can happen here is the contracting company get sues and the state claims it had no idea that laws were being broken.

Comment Re: Truther? (Score 1) 309 309

When celebrities bacame a large part of the problem. After all we can't call Trump a crackpot, so we call him a truther.

I like the name because many of the problems in this world come from people thinking they know the truth when all they know is what they were taught to believe.

Comment Re:Take home real life messages (Score 1) 265 265

5. Don't you wish you had a solar panel now? That will keep working, even in cloud cover. Enough for a fridge and microwave.

FWIW, grid tie solar is typically designed in a way that it doesn't work during local outages (with the intent of preventing your solar energy from backfeeding into the grid and potentially killing or injuring line workers). That's not to say that it MUST be designed in such a manner (transfer switches can solve the problem) but that it typically is.

Comment Re:Engineering standards? (Score 1) 97 97

Honestly this is simply competent software development, like aggressively validating user input so a website can't be compromised with maliciously formed URLs.

It is understandable that a software glitch might unlock the door. But opening a door should be a more controlled thing that is designed to be secure. For instance there should be a distinction between a request to open the door by someone putting the door handle and a request from software. The request from software should have fairly low priority, so, for example, if the car is moving the door will not open.

The nice thing about software is that it is relatively easy to design safety and security in, as long as it seen as necessary.

Any given program will expand to fill available memory.