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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Don't follw the rules don't get paid. (Score 1) 144

Part of the requirements to be paid a bounty is following the "responsible disclosure policy". The submitter did not follow that policy and therefore did not get paid. It seems pretty simple.

I always make it even simpler, by citing my Greedy Bastard Policy regardless of what anyone does.

Comment: Re:Who gets fired? (Score 1) 332

by aardvarkjoe (#49540879) Attached to: Drone Killed Hostages From U.S. and Italy, Drawing Obama Apology

The highest level person that explicitly signed off on the strike should be fired. That's not the president--he authorises programs like this with the intention that they're carried out properly.

Presumably every single person involved had the intention that it would be carried out properly.

Comment: Re:What? Why discriminate? (Score 1) 700

by Black Parrot (#49478369) Attached to: 'We the People' Petition To Revoke Scientology's Tax Exempt Status

Remove tax exemptions from all of them. They get the same benefits from government as any other organization does.

Also, it would take the government out of the business of deciding what is and what isn't a "real" religion, and of course keep organizations from pretending to be religions as part of a tax scam.

Comment: What is the point... (Score 2) 39

by aardvarkjoe (#49458529) Attached to: LG's Leather-Clad G4 Revealed In Leaked Images

I don't understand the fascination that tech news sites have with pictures of upcoming smartphones. Pretty much every standard smartphone looks exactly like every other damn smartphone on the planet -- a touchscreen with a bezel around it. The "interesting" part of this announcements is the color of the back of the phone -- which is the part that you're never looking at anyway.

Comment: Re:Systemic and widespread? (Score 1) 489

by aardvarkjoe (#49442105) Attached to: The Courage of Bystanders Who Press "Record"

Nope, I'm still not buying it. You haven't presented any compelling reason why those in authority should lose their human rights. If you want to introduce ways to make it easier to obtain that proof, I'm all for it, but those in authority should have all the rights that anyone else has. Dehumanizing a group of people is not the answer.

Who watches the watchmen? It has to be us. That means that making sure that the guilt of those who abuse their power -- as well as the innocence of those who don't -- is partly our responsibility.

Comment: Re:Systemic and widespread? (Score 1) 489

by aardvarkjoe (#49440773) Attached to: The Courage of Bystanders Who Press "Record"

Cops and politicians no. We have to hold them to a much higher standard if we are going to authorize the power we give them. The Sword of Damocles must hang over all their heads. We don't put a high enough price on power.

I vehemently disagree. Human rights, including the right to being presumed innocent until proven guilty, should not be waived because of someone's occupation.

The problem of guilt being difficult to prove is one that extends far beyond just police or politicians; it applies to anyone accused of committing a crime, and it means that we know that we allow some of those guilty of crimes, even heinous ones, to walk free. We have made a lot of progress in that area, and will continue to do so. It is appropriate to introduce new technology, procedures, or policies that can help make it more difficult for people to hide their guilt, but at the end of the day, a policeman is a man and deserves the same protections that you or I do.

Real Programmers don't write in FORTRAN. FORTRAN is for pipe stress freaks and crystallography weenies. FORTRAN is for wimp engineers who wear white socks.