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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:$1000 Flashlights? (Score 2) 191

by sabri (#48527447) Attached to: Every Weapon, Armored Truck, and Plane the Pentagon Gave To Local Police

And why did they give our local PD 145 flashlights worth $130K? What does a thousand-dollar flashlight even /look/ like?

I was going to post exactly the same thing, so you must be from Santa Clara County as well.

$896 for a flashlight... But what about the 6 camouflage sets for $26k? Do they fly?

Comment: Re:I wonder who bought him (Score 1) 216

I doubt that the sensors you're talking about are for speed enforcement: That's easily done with radar and photos.

In many countries fixed-base speed traps are built using inductive loop detectors (the pneumatic ones aren't that good). One of the reasons is that radar-detectors won't work...

Comment: Re:Soccer and other helmetless football codes (Score -1, Troll) 233

by sabri (#48493859) Attached to: Football Concussion Lawsuits Start To Hit High Schools

Good, hand-egg is for pussies; it is a bunch of obese men tackling each other. You want athletic, go football.

Fixed that for you.

What North-Americans call "football" is nothing more than a bunch of men holding an egg-shaped object in their hands, hence the term hand-egg. The rest of the world calls the game where 2 opposing teams of 11 men touch a ball-shaped object with primarily their feet football.

Comment: Re:Don't fight it (Score 2, Interesting) 720

by sabri (#48488603) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Making a 'Wife Friendly' Gaming PC?

The living case of "I'll format him when we get married".

Between the time of engagement and the wedding, I behaved like an absolute baboon. I farted, burped, left my dirty socks (and worse) everywhere around the house. Every time I got a complaint, I smiled and asked her "Are you sure you want to marry me? I'm not going to change after we're married".

The "idiot"* still married me, and the few times when she does complain, I'll point her to our engagement period.

* idiot because she was the only person of womankind stupid enough to marry me :)

Comment: Re:Don't fight it (Score 4, Insightful) 720

by sabri (#48487489) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Making a 'Wife Friendly' Gaming PC?

There seems to be a double standard where people are expected to make all sorts of completely unnecessary sacrifices to appease some control freak partner, but the partner doesn't take into account the other person's feelings, as if their own are any more important.

This is the type of thing you keep in mind before getting married...

Comment: Re:Birds (Score 1) 115

by sabri (#48486839) Attached to: FAA Report Says Near Collisions With Drones On the Rise

Consider that most 'drones' are very tiny light weight items more akin to a good old fashion toy R/C model airplane than what people think of as 'DRONES' as in war planes. When a real drone gets hit by a full size airplane, such as the 767 mentioned in the article, the real drone is destroyed and the 767 will not even notice the gnat with the possible exception being if a big drone went through the engine which would possibly cause damage but be unlikely to disable the large aircraft.

I've seen (and reported to ATC) a drone flying at 3500ft over Palo Alto. I was flying a 172 at the time. Do you have any idea what happens if I would hit that thing at 140mph? It could severely damage flight controls (image the tail being hit), engine, prop or air intake. Not to mention the damage if it somehow got through the windscreen (they're not bulletproof, you know).

As far as I am concerned, drones are aircraft and should be regulated as such. Manned or unmanned. If someone is flying an aircraft (whether the pilot is on the ground or inside) s/he should know the rules of the sky.

Comment: Re: *sigh* (Score 1) 115

by sabri (#48486795) Attached to: FAA Report Says Near Collisions With Drones On the Rise

Dji phantoms won't let you fly near airports, the onboard gps knows the location of every airport and will not allow it. The app even displays a message saying restricted airspace and will not allow flight into it.

If they're that smart, why not do it for class A (IFR only), B (PPR), C (2 way communication and transponder required) and D (2 way communication required) airspace as well?

I'm pretty sure those things won't be carrying transponders (or ADS-B as required in a few years), nor will they be able to talk to ATC.

Comment: Re:But correct != complete and fairly representati (Score 1) 193

by sabri (#48483315) Attached to: Google Told To Expand Right To Be Forgotten

Yes, of course. And domain names are utterly irrelevant to this.

A state can only impose sanctions against a business to the extent that the business falls within its jurisdiction, but otherwise no business has any power to override national laws in nations where it operates, so it has to play by the rules or accept the consequences. It really is as simple as that.

I think you have just proven my point. Google operates in Germany with its domain name and its own Google legal entity for Germany. Google operates in The Netherlands with its domain name and its own Google legal entity for The Netherlands. Google operates in Belgium with its domain name and its own Google legal entity for Belgium. Google operates in the US with its domain name and Google Inc.

Why would some local I-feel-important politician that hasn't even been chosen directly in The Netherlands be in the position to dictate a foreign entity what to do? Let them have jurisdiction of

Lawmakers need to simply accept the consequences that connecting to a global network (the internet) means that there are boundaries with regards to their legal jurisdiction. If the EU does not want to deal with American companies, they should choose to disconnect. If China can do it, then the EU can do it as well. And I honestly, honestly do not see a difference between the censorship in China and the censorship of the EU. Well, maybe one thing: at least China does it openly.

Comment: Re:But correct != complete and fairly representati (Score 1) 193

by sabri (#48481439) Attached to: Google Told To Expand Right To Be Forgotten

In law, you can only ever go after someone within your jurisdiction, and in this case either or both of the original source and a search engine that directs people to it would be required by law to comply if they are within that jurisdiction.

Ok, so your point is that as long as Google operates within a certain country, it should comply with all laws in that country? Take this one step further. Google operates in China, do you expect Google to comply with all Chinese laws, including censorship, as well? No of course you don't. Chinese law is applied on, not on

And this is exactly what's going on here, according to TFA, or even the summary:

Google currently de-lists results that appear in the European versions of its search engines, but not the international one.

This would imply that China (or the EU for that matter) is now forcing its own laws on the international version of Google. Which means that they would be grossly overstepping the bounds of their own jurisdiction.

And for what it's worth: there is no such thing as EU law. There are EU directives, which have to be implemented into local law by its member states. Which means that, assuming you agree with me on the China analogy, Google would only have to censor individual country-specific TLD search results such as,, etc. And what is happening now is that the EU tries to force Google to change the international version of Google, meaning it is attempting to shove EU directives through the rest of the world's throats.

Money is the root of all wealth.