Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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).


New Bill Would Repeal Patriot Act 185

Posted by Soulskill
from the would-also-bake-cookies-for-every-citizen dept.
schwit1 points out a new piece of bipartisan legislation that aims to repeal the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act, which the NSA has used to justify broad domestic surveillance. House Representatives Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Mark Pocan (D-WI) introduced the bill yesterday, calling it the Surveillance State Repeal Act (PDF). Pocan said, "This isn't just tinkering around the edges. This is a meaningful overhaul of the system, getting rid of essentially all parameters of the Patriot Act." The bill also attempts to dramatically strengthen whistleblower protections, so situations like Edward Snowden's and Thomas Drake's don't happen in the future. This legislation is not expected to get the support of Congressional leaders, but supporters hope it will at least inspire some debate about several provisions of the Patriot Act coming up for renewal in June.

OS X Users: 13 Characters of Assyrian Can Crash Your Chrome Tab 119

Posted by timothy
from the cat-like-typing-detected dept.
abhishekmdb writes No browsers are safe, as proved yesterday at Pwn2Own, but crashing one of them with just one line of special code is slightly different. A developer has discovered a hack in Google Chrome which can crash the Chrome tab on a Mac PC. The code is a 13-character special string which appears to be written in Assyrian script. Matt C has reported the bug to Google, who have marked the report as duplicate. This means that Google are aware of the problem and are reportedly working on it.

Comment: I think I can contribute to making LA even safer (Score 1) 160

by idontgno (#49249885) Attached to: LAPD Police Claim Helicopters Stop Crimes Before They Happen

I think I'll form a corporation to tender a proposal to the authorities to provide my world-famous crime-prevention rocks.

It's pretty obvious how effective they are. Neither I nor anyone else who has one of these has ever been victimized by crime. Hell, as far as I know, we've never even seen a criminal. Clearly, ne'er-do-wells and nefarious malcontents are strongly repelled by the magnetic forces projected by these stones. (I think it's magnetic, anyway. Who knows how that works? You just can't explain that.)

Anyway, I figure a modest delivery and support contract is an extremely cost-effective alternative to the clearly supersticious voodoo of these magic "helicopter" crime preventers. (Who the hell believes in that kind of woo, anyway? "Flying machines?" Feh.)

Comment: Re:It's a model (Score 1) 230

by idontgno (#49243553) Attached to: Man 3D Prints a Working 5-Speed Transmission For Toyota Engines

Alas, this is Slashdot. Not only does the readership not read TFA, they generally don't read TFS, so if the title lacks succinct and complete literal accuracy, it runs the risk of telling a story completely counter to the real story.

The only ones who do read TFS are generally looking to karma-whore pedantic moderation points by manufacturing 3d-printed recreational outrage, so I guess it works out for someone.

At the end of the day, it's the soi-disant editors' fault. As usual.

(Yes, I note that the original submission had the same regrettable discrepancy between summary and title. Too bad the editors didn't do any actual editing when they had the opportunity.)

Comment: Re:Innovation vs. Commodity (Score 1) 392

by idontgno (#49235899) Attached to: Does USB Type C Herald the End of Apple's Proprietary Connectors?

You disagree with the OED here. The OED says that making changes to an established product is innovation.

Is it accidental that you truncate your quote by leaving off the actual innovation?: "Make changes in something established, especially by introducing new methods, ideas, or products". And your second point clearly proves you didn't actually read the OED dictionary entry in its context. If you look at it (go ahead, I won't tell), you'll find that the phrase you're latching on to is actually an example of the use of the word in an external context, not part of the definition. The OED call this an "illustrative quotation". Whomever OED is quoting is using the second phrase in contrast to the first, which uses "innovate" in its correct literal meaning.

The grievous deficiencies in Slashdot's ability to cleanly transfer markup in quoted material is largely to blame. Also to blame is my desire to preserve all info rather than editing to prove my point (something evidently not everyone shares), and a foolish hope that people would study source material for themselves.

Innovation requires actual novelty. Anything else is hype and hucksterism.

Comment: Re:Innovation vs. Commodity (Score 1) 392

by idontgno (#49226555) Attached to: Does USB Type C Herald the End of Apple's Proprietary Connectors?

Here's a definition from an actual dictionary, not something drafted by an Apple apologist:

1. Make changes in something established, especially by introducing new methods, ideas, or products: the company's failure to diversify and innovate competitively

1.1 [with object] Introduce (something new, especially a product): innovating new products, developing existing ones

(BTW, that's Oxford. As in, Oxford English Dictionary. If your definition disagrees with OED, that's because your definition is objectively wrong.)

"New", for-real-new, not "pretend it's new", not "new because the actual innovator doesn't count", not "new to us and our spellbound customer base and captive press".

Actual creation is not negotiable. It's an absolute unavoidable criterion of "innovate". "Creating novel things" is the only definition of innovation. And also something conspicuously absent from Apple engineering. About the only thing I can see Apple innovating in is marketing.

To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so.