Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:It's about fraud (Score 1) 494

No it depends on how you feel about fraud. The reason this is a big deal isn't the pollution though that is not a trivial part of it. No the big deal is that this company intentionally defrauded millions of customers. They promised their technology worked in a way that it didn't.

Did they really? Did they actually promise their customers in writing that their cars emit below a certain level of NOx? Did they promise anywhere that their cars would emit the same on the highway as in an emissions testing facility? If not, I'm really not sure how the customers were defrauded.

Comment Re:Judge didn't say public domain (Score 3, Informative) 102

Not only that, but keep in mind this is just a district court judge. His ruling is only binding in his jurisdiction. Warner can and almost certainly will appeal. The first appeal will probably go to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal, then possibly the Supreme Court. A decision like this, which really has an impact on the losing side's business model is exactly the type that frequently gets overturned. So, don't put on the birthday hats yet; this is far from over.

Comment What is the basis of the suit? (Score 2) 80

Twitter is a free service that users voluntarily sign up to use. I don't remember ever being promised that Twitter would not read direct messages. Where is the expectation of privacy here? Just because other users can't normally see DMs is no implied promise that Twitter isn't going to look at them. If you want private messaging, use a paid service that states so in their terms of service, or better yet, use a messaging application with end-to-end encryption.

Comment Re:IANAL, but... (Score 4, Informative) 142

Not in Canada and most non-US common law countries.

Actually, truth is a defense against libel/slander in Canada, but the burden of proof is somewhat different in Canada than in the U.S. In Canada, it is often up to the defendant to proof that what they're saying is true, whereas in the U.S., the plaintiff must prove the statements false. In the U.K., sometimes truth isn't even a defense at all!

Comment Re:Why is this being discussed? (Score 1) 151

Exactly. The article points out that the amoeba can survive in choline levels found in drinking water. That is precisely why chlorine levels in swimming pools are much higher than those in drinking water. (If drinking water were chlorinated to the level of swimming pool water, it would taste terrible and burn your throat. Try drinking a glass of pool water if you don't believe me.) Drinking water is meant for drinking; pools are meant for swimming. You can't get a N. fowleri infection from ingesting infected water; you get it from swimming in and inhaling such water. So this is all really a non-issue, unless you dunk your head under water in your bathtub.

Comment Re:keep honest people safe (Score 3, Informative) 177

Possession of child pornography is illegal in itself. Given that how would they have the original image to match against?

Almost every child pornography possession statute that I've seen has an exception for law enforcement activities. For example, a jury examining photos in a jury room wouldn't be guilty of possession if those photos are evidence presented at trial.

Comment Re:keep honest people safe (Score 1) 177

But as soon as it starts blocking my picture of my dinner as kiddie porn, having Facebook and Twitter block it becomes fairly meaningless.

The question you need to ask yourself is "Why am I uploading pictures of my dinner?" Seriously. People do that all the time, and I have to wonder why. Does anyone really enjoy seeing other people's dinner? What's next? People posting pictures of their poop?

Comment Re:Cool (Score 1) 363

Your post is trying to insinuate that they were haggling for a price of the tissue, but no, it's the transport.

That's like the old CD and record clubs that sold albums at ridiculously low prices (a few dollars for CDs that would cost $15 or more in stores) but then they'd charge absolutely ridiculous "shipping and handling" fees that would bring prices much closer to retail. The shipping and handling would be many times what it would cost by first class postage, the bulk of it being (presumably) "handling" fees, i.e. their profit. It's the same thing here. They call it "transportation fees", but it's really just so they can sell it without selling it. Who haggles over shipping costs? That's set by UPS.

"The hands that help are better far than the lips that pray." -- Robert G. Ingersoll