Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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:It is time to get up one way or the other (Score 3, Insightful) 1088

by msauve (#49296267) Attached to: Obama: Maybe It's Time For Mandatory Voting In US
"voter disenfranchisement doesn't help anyone"

"Voter apathy," you mean. I for one don't want people who would only vote because of a legal requirement to do so. If they won't get out and vote on their own, they're certainly not going to take the time to make an informed decision.

Then again, that's no doubt exactly why Obama wants it.

Comment: Re:WTF? (Score 2) 79

by msauve (#49273481) Attached to: Judicial Committee Approves FBI Plan To Expand Hacking Powers
"Our very Constitution says quite explicitly they aren't allowed to issue warrants for "unknown" locations."

No, it says what it says. And, it says no such thing.

This is no different than a warrant to search a specific vehicle, independent of the location it might have been driven to. "Place to be searched" doesn't need to mean a physical location, it can mean a specific person or vehicle or computer.

The intent of the restriction is to ensure specificity, so there are no blanket warrants/searches. Allowing warrants for specific computers whose logical, but not physical, location is known doesn't undermine that.

The price one pays for pursuing any profession, or calling, is an intimate knowledge of its ugly side. -- James Baldwin