Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:This approach has gone nowhere for years (Score 2) 158

by drakaan (#46817125) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: How Can We Create a Culture of Secure Behavior?

Seconded. The people that understand the risks generally don't represent a problem, but the people that don't understand them often also don't benefit from an explanation in a way that would change their behavior. Computers are not magic, but many people believe that they are. They also believe that antivirus software catches every single bad thing before it happens.

Comment: Re:ACLU (Score 1) 1608

by drakaan (#46787323) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

So we appear to agree that the addition of hate crime legislation is not useful.

That page is interesting...It describes what caused them to begin investigating crimes as hate crimes, it looks like it primarily has to do with certain individual states not doing a sufficient or even passably acceptable job of prosecuting civil rights violations.

Comment: Re:ACLU (Score 1) 1608

by drakaan (#46781843) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

...but racketeering laws aren't about thought, they're about identifying a series of activities that indicate a pattern of crime that is worse than a single event.

There are laws, but the laws concerning racketeering activity and hate crime legislation seem completely different in intent, spirit, and word.

I'm not pretending that there aren't secondary effects from acts of violence, but the crime isn't (shouldn't be) implying a threat against people that saw or heard about a murder, it's murdering people in the first place.

This type of legislation serves to label already-illegal offenses differently based on purported intent (a hate crime), which is not an additional deterrent to someone with said hateful intent (if they're damaged enough to commit the violent act in the first place).

Why is it not enough to say that murder is illegal? Should I be less afraid of a bigot killing me, my Caucasian wife, and my mixed race children because murder with hateful intent is viewed as being somehow worse than murder without it?

My argument here is about hate crime legislation being pointless as a deterrent, not about whether violent acts by bigots cause fear among the population that they are taken against.

Comment: Re:ACLU (Score 1) 1608

by drakaan (#46779797) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

I'm trying to determine how you're applying this definition to our discussion. Your view seems to be that there is an implied threat arising from a member of a group hearing about or observing a serious offense (murder, assault, battery, etc) that has to do with intent, specifically where the attacker has negative feelings towards a group and a member of the group is the person who was attacked.

Is that right, or am I misunderstanding your position?

Comment: Re:ACLU (Score 1) 1608

by drakaan (#46778113) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

Implied anything (intimidation, threats, mugging) is non-action.

Klansmen make me (as a person of mixed race and dark skin) uncomfortable because of many of their beliefs, but I defend their right to think the stupid and hateful things that they think.

Hatecrime legislation takes the thoughts of a murderer or assailant and turns them into something that they are not, namely action.

I think that 30 counts of intimidation should be no more or less reasonable to prosecute in a situation where the intimidator holds an unpopular view (anti-gay, anti-minority, etc) than where they hold a popular one (anti-neo-nazi, anti-fred phelps, anti-klan, anti-caucasian).

Racketeering (legally) encompasses a variety of activities. Fraud is not separate from racketeering, it's one charge among many that get looked at collectively. Multiple charges within a certain time frame mean that instead of fraud, bribery, extortion, murder for hire, sexual exploitation of children, etc, the blanket charge of racketeering can be applied.

Comment: Re:ACLU (Score 1) 1608

by drakaan (#46770991) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

Going "I doubt your bullet" or "I doubt your knife" or "I doubt your fist" won't save your life, true. The first amendment is not there to assert that individuals have a right to deprive others of life with a firearm, it's there to assert that the government may not prohibit an individual from owning a firearm with which they might protect themselves.

I see many arguments against firearms as akin to arguments around hate crimes. The offending thing is not the despicable action (murder, assault), but a peripheral thing (a gun, an opinion).

Comment: Re:ACLU (Score 1, Insightful) 1608

by drakaan (#46767959) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

Why don't we just add those five words to all of the other amendments in the same manner and at the same time?

I don't want to have amendments that apply to citizens unequally on purpose...that's a pretty stupid way for a present or past supreme court justice to think about "fixing" a constitutional amendment.

Comment: Re:I Pay (Score 1) 325

by drakaan (#46757919) Attached to: Netflix Gets What It Pays For: Comcast Streaming Speeds Skyrocket

This Netflix situation is more like:

  1. I ask my cousin in N.Y.C. to drive to Auburn, Maine with a package for me
  2. He arrives later that day and we reminisce about family over drinks
  3. The next day, I move to Vermont, and ask him to deliver another package, but it takes two weeks for him to get there because my cousin can't afford to pay a fee to the state of Vermont to be able to travel at speeds over 5% of the posted speed limit

...or at least it's no worse an analogy. It's equally bad at describing what the fuck is actually happening, which is that Comcast is extorting other companies because it can.

+ - Judge Says You Can Warn Others About Speed Traps

Submitted by cartechboy
cartechboy (2660665) writes "Speeding is against the law, and yes, even going 5 mph over the speed limit is breaking the law. But everyone does it, right? You do it, your friends do it, heck, your grandmother does it. But what about when you see a cop? Some cops are ticketing people for notifying fellow motorists about speed traps. In Florida, Ryan Kintner simply flashed his high-beams to warning oncoming cars that there was a cop ahead. He was given a ticket for doing so. He went to court to fight the ticket, and a judge ruled that flashing lights are the equivalent of free speech, thus he had every right to flash his lights to warn oncoming cars. So what have we learned here? Basically, if you are a good Samaritan, flash your lights and warn oncoming traffic of speed traps, because this is America , and we are allowed freedom of speech."

+ - BOINC loosing momentum and scientists fears increased costs->

Submitted by Kenseilon
Kenseilon (3462441) writes ""The family of ‘@home’ volunteer computing projects is growing ever more diverse. Spare time on a personal computer can now be donated to anything from finding alien life to crunching climate models or processing photos of asteroids. But enthusiasm is waning. The 47 projects hosted on BOINC, the most popular software system for @home efforts, have 245,000 active users among their 2.7 million registrants, down from a peak of about 350,000 active users in 2008." Only IBM's World Community Grid defied this trend.

David Anderson, the founder of BOINC, provides many explanations for the drop. BOINC has failed to target a broader demographic, the media coverage has decreased and a shift of mobile devices has changed the playing field. There is now a fear that this will make running computer simulations more expensive.

Link to Original Source

The first version always gets thrown away.