Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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:Of course! (Score 1) 305

by fafalone (#49265801) Attached to: Prison Program Aims To Turn Criminals Into Coders
New York, at least, does have such a law. In addition to not being allowed to ask about arrests that didn't result in conviction, they can't use an actual conviction to disqualify a candidate unless it was a very serious crime that would represent someone legitimately dangerous to the public, or if the crime is directly relevant to the job (e.g. thieves handling cash, drug offenders working in a pharmacy, etc).

Comment: Re:HOWTO (Score 1) 1080

by fafalone (#49260137) Attached to: How To Execute People In the 21st Century

So the State, having decided that murder is illegal, resorts to murder as "punishment". That is hypocrisy of the highest order.

Not that I'm advocating the death penalty, but that's a bad argument. It's quite illegal for me to put a gun to your head, drag you off to a tiny room, and hold you captive for decades (even if you murdered my family). If I do that to you, the State is sure as hell going to be doing that to me.

Comment: Re:It doesn't matter (Score 1) 284

by fafalone (#49214553) Attached to: UK Gov't Asks: Is 10 Years In Jail the Answer To Online Pirates?

I'm not even going to cite the near zero chance to actually get caught because the sentence for armed robbery of a bank is already at 10 years around here and the chance to get caught is near 100%. Still, people do it. Why? Because that's not on their list when they commit that crime.

Clearance rate for bank robbery is on the high side, but 100%? Try closer to 60. Bank robberies happen often because when you're desperate, those odds become acceptable. Not to mention the odds for a level headed pro vs. detoxing junkie on getting caught. I've met a bank robber before. He did get caught on 1 job but had been successful many times. Put a lot of thought and planning into it, was white and even had some college education. The police would certainly like to make people think youd never get away with it, but unless you screw up bad it's 50/50 for a reward of up to 1000s.

Comment: Re:Terrorists (Score 4, Insightful) 270

by fafalone (#49132937) Attached to: It's Official: NSA Spying Is Hurting the US Tech Economy
9/11 tore down the last bits of restraint for sure, but you need to look at the War On (arbitrarily chosen based on historical racism) Drugs for the foundations. 4th Amendment? Gone. Due process? Turned into a bad joke by a overflowed court systems coercive plea bargaining and the horrendous situation with assett forfeiture not requiring even being CHARGED, much less convicted**. Cruel and unusual punishment? I'd say years in prison just for having a drug that's not alcohol/tobacco, and decades to life for selling it to other consenting adults, it pretty damn cruel. And it's the original cause for the shift to militarization and war-like mentality for the police, because the only way to enforce this law turns people and communities against the police.

Oh, and guess what the vast majority of PATRIOT Act powers are used for, and what the 'anti-terrorism' grant dollars buy... the largest category is by far drug crimes, with terrorism coming in dead last. Law enforcement was foaming at the mouth over all the post-9/11 authority, but it sure as hell wasn't because it helped them fight terrorism- it let them make even more money, through grants and forfeitures, and superior-pleasing arrests, by fighting more drug crimes.

**And it was not 'ended' or 'reformed' by Holder, worst case of wholesale swallowing of media spin ever; it merely made it a requirement to only forfeit under federal law if you make it a joint investigation, makes it no harder to forfeit under state law, or for the feds on their own, or really at all since all it takes is putting a feds name on the paper to say it's joint)

Comment: Re:Overstamp twice. (Score 1) 133

by fafalone (#49109337) Attached to: Crystal Pattern Matching Recovers Obliterated Serial Numbers From Metal
Actually I'd think it would be the opposite... the criminals who are already going through the trouble of erasing serial numbers would be exactly the type to know about how to do it properly. Because it's usually not done by the lowest level guys. Guns are an organized crime type deal, and when it comes to things like that, only the very bottom rungs are populated by truly stupid people. Especially for larger gun running or drug dealing or car theft rings, towards the top you tend to find fairly intelligent, if not educated, people. (people that are educated AND criminals steal their money through "white collar" crimes).

Comment: Re:I recall... (Score 1) 207

by fafalone (#49109263) Attached to: Wired On 3-D Printers As Fraud Enablers
Well to be fair... out of that $20,000, $5000 probably went to regulations compliance, $10000 to patent holders if not the company itself, $4950 to the companies profit, and $45 ancillary manufacturing costs with $5 in actual materials cost.

That's the objection to 3D printing... it cuts out all the middlemen.

Comment: Re:ummm... (Score 1) 81

by fafalone (#49058845) Attached to: The Revolution Wasn't Televised: the Early Days of YouTube
I remember having a movie collection on my computer years before YouTube, comparable to DVD quality using the newly developed xvid codec. As usual, piracy led the way in online distribution. I fondly remember watching in awe as I could now download a full 700MB full movie in a minute or two over my university connection in 2003, remembering it taking longer when I did it at home over cable at home. By late 2004 I had 260 dvd-quality movies in 700MB or 1.4GB XviD format (can't believe hypermart still lets me view my ancient site where I uploaded that list)... the year before YouTube first came out. It was inevitable that video would be more easily accessible via the web, but as always, YT's legit offering was far lower quality than us evil pirates were already used to.

Comment: Re:Freedom Will Not Be Tolerated (Score 1) 215

by fafalone (#49053433) Attached to: Silk Road Drug Dealer Pleads Guilty After Federal Sting
You're advocating for decriminalization, which is a ban on all but simple possession. I was addressing this- not once did anything I say apply exclusively to simple possession. Everything I pointed out about your flawed reasoning, ignorance, and failure to identify the main issues is on display once again as you've mistakenly concluded that the fact you think simple possession alone being legal has any bearing on ANYTHING. Nothing I said is inapplicable to your position and your inability to grasp this makes me think you're seriously suffering from a deficit. You advocated for prohibition and blanket bans- that you exempt simple possession makes zero difference. tl;dr- you make yourself look less informed and intelligent with every word you type.

Comment: Re:Freedom Will Not Be Tolerated (Score 1) 215

by fafalone (#49036461) Attached to: Silk Road Drug Dealer Pleads Guilty After Federal Sting
You've once again failed to identify the salient issues. That harder drugs are harmful is not in dispute. The issue is that making them illegal under all circumstances increases the harm they cause, while doing nothing to reduce the number of addicts. If making them illegal actually prevented people from abusing them, sure it would help- but that's pure fantasy and decades of harsh enforcement and mass imprisonment have proved that being illegal doesn't stop abuse and addiction. You're completely unable to grasp the finer points. You've also ignored the issue of alcohol: this fits your criteria of being both highly inebriating and highly addictive; why again should it be legal?

Typical ignorance on display again, all your arguments consist of is "BUT DRUGS ARE BAD!", while completely failing to address why this should mean they are banned.
Drugs are addictive. Drugs can be abused to blot out the world. Drugs can destroy your life. But they should be LEGAL, because this will REDUCE those harms.

Get it? (your argument is also faulty in its implication that harder drugs cannot be used safely in moderation without negative consequences not attributable to legal status, but one step at a time)

At the source of every error which is blamed on the computer you will find at least two human errors, including the error of blaming it on the computer.