Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Submission + - DARPA wants you to verify software flaws by playing games->

coondoggie writes: Researchers at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) think so and were so impressed with their first crowdsourced flaw-detecting games, they announced an new round of five games this week designed for improved playability as well as increased software verification effectiveness.
Link to Original Source

Comment Re:More than PR (Score 1) 385

As a person adherent to the "dimwitted ideology", I concur and I don't think he believes what he preaches. He's not his father. He can scream civil liberties but refuses to answer why he voted for Feinstein's version of NDAA 2013 which had a huge gaping loophole that was on its face supposed to fix the provision that allowed the indefinite detention of Americans without trial. Even his buddy Congressman Amash publicly criticized the amendment and voted against it, but Rand went and voted for it anyway.

Submission + - Rand Paul Begins Filibuster Of PATRIOT ACT Renewal->

SonicSpike writes: Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is filibustering the Patriot Act on the Senate floor, and it doesn’t look like he’s going to stop anytime soon.

The Republican presidential candidate took control of the floor Wednesday afternoon at 1:18 p.m., simultaneously explaining on Twitter that he is filibustering the renewal of the Patriot Act because of the National Security Agency’s program that collects bulk phone record data of American citizens.

The ongoing filibuster can be watched live here: http://www.c-span.org/video/?3...

Link to Original Source

Comment Re:Already illegal (Score 2) 256

Article I Section 8 gives also gives them the right to regulate interstate commerce. Tesla is trading from California to Michigan. Even beyond that, the 10th amendment puts the power into the states to handle things not enumerated to the federal government. Michigan chose to regulate this for better or worse, so it's out of the rights of the people. And yes, Michigan citizens can and should question why these protectionist regulations exist.

Comment Re:huh? (Score 1) 269

Sullivan v Gray, 117 Mich App 476, 481; 324 NW2d 58 (1982) clarified it:

The operative language of MCL 750.539c; MSA 28.807(3) prohibits a person from "wilfully [using] any device to eavesdrop upon [a] conversation without the consent of all parties thereto". As used in the statute, the term "eavesdrop" means to "overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of the private discourse of others without the permission of all persons engaged in the discourse". MCL 750.539a(2); MSA 28.807(1)(2). We believe the statutory language, on its face, unambiguously excludes participant recording from the definition of eavesdropping by limiting the subject conversation to "the private discourse of others". The statute contemplates that a potential eavesdropper must be a third party not otherwise involved in the conversation being eavesdropped on. Had the Legislature desired to include participants within the definition, the phrase "of others" might have been excluded or changed to "of others or with others".

Plaintiff argues that MCL 750.539c; MSA 28.807(3) must apply to both participants and nonparticipants since it relates to "[any] person who is present or who is not present during a private conversation * * *". We disagree. Although the phrase arguably creates an ambiguity as to the persons affected by the act, the interpretation requested by plaintiff would render inoperative the words "of others" in the statutory definition of eavesdropping. A more logical interpretation may be made that gives full effect to that statutory definition. The words "[any] person who is present or who is not present" merely acknowledge that eavesdropping may be committed by one who is actually in close physical proximity to a conversation or by one who is some distance away but eavesdrops utilizing a mechanical device. Quite plainly, one may be "present" during a conversation without being a party to the conversation and without his presence being apparent to those conversing. For example, the eavesdropping party could literally be under the eaves outside an open window.

Source: http://www.expertlaw.com/forum...

Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.

Working...