Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: What a load of BS (Score 1) 572

You have bought the "not marked" lie Clinton hoped would confuse uninformed people. General Petreus pled guilty to disclosing unmarked handwritten notes of meetings to his mistress. "Marking " is irrelevant. Knowing or being on notice is sufficient. Hillary's only real defense is "I didn't know". But that defense hurts her because it demonstrates utter incompetence so she hasn't been using it.

Comment Attorney goof? (Score 2) 138

The cost of a credit protection service enrolled in as a precaution is damage enough. This is a forseeable injury regardless of actual fraud. The class representatives could have subscribed to some service and pled the class as existing of all persons that incurred this expense. The result is the negligent company is held accountable and other companies are on notice that they will be held accountable. If there was actual fraud for some persons, it would destroy the commonality requirement for class certification; the persons suffering fraud would all have had different levels and types of damages.

Comment Maybe Slashdotters need a tech analogy. (Score 1) 348

As usual for Slashdot, the article description doesn't track TFA (any of them) and misses the truth. First off, the cited article doesn't talk about this guy convincing banks to create products he bet against. Rather, he noticed that the market was using insane valuations for subprime mortgages and bet against them. That is smart, not evil. To use a tech analogy, what if IT Joe recognized a Zero Day exploit, implemented a fix, warned everyone, then sat back as his network survived and everyone else's were trashed? No one here would call IT Joe a villain. No the real reason Paulson is hated is envy. Just be real, he has more than you and you want it.

Comment Re:Peculiarities? (Score 1) 307

"Buying bits of corporations" does not avoid tax on income. Income is taxed when it is recieved. Investing after tax income allows dividends to be taxed at capital gains rates. This rate is set to encourage investment in the economy and to recognize the corporation already paid taxes on money distributed to investors.

Placing income producing assets in a corporation will, however, cause income to be taxed at the corporate rate and avoid tax.

You should be "buying bits of corporations" every chance you get. Not because it avoids taxation but because your money is rotting with the high inflation created to artificially lower interest rates.

Comment Re:Peculiarities? (Score 1) 307

This is normal - the rich don't pay tax.

The normal thing here is someone on Slashdot didnt read the TFA. The debate is about corporate taxation not "the rich". The individuals still pay the tax on wages.
It is fair (intellectually, not necissarily a correct posititon) to argue that income should be taxed twice, once at the corporation an once with the investor / employee. It is also fair (intellectually, not necissarily a correct posititon) to debate deductions. But it is knee jerk illogic to confuse a debate about corporate taxation with the debate whether "the rich" pay their fair share.

Comment Re:Remove the yoke of Monsanto! (Score 1) 377

FYI the cleaning and planting in season 2 is an intentional act. The farmer that buys the Round Up Ready seed is well informed and actually signs an agreement not to clean and re-plant. The agreement actually requires practices to reduce cross-pollination. For example, in corn crops, detassling

The usual poorly informed Slashdot debate has focused on accidental cross-polination. That is not the issue. We can debate the efficacy of patents and other intellectual property protections in spurring innovation and I am not completely convinced either way. I know Round Up Ready is very effective but over used to the point of creating resistant weeds. But that doesn't change the issue at work here that Monsanto is targeting intentional conduct not accidental. Granted, accidental cross-pollination may occur.

Signed: A farmer's son.

Comment Is surplus corn good or bad? - make up your mind (Score 1) 226

"It grows in much of the two thirds of the planet that is underwater, so it wouldn't crowd out food crops the way corn for ethanol does. "

There is so much uneducated FUD about biofuel which only goes to show that the best of intentions among environmentalists and world hunger activists can have adverse environmental and social impacts. If use of corn for ethanol was an issue I would expect the vulnerable third world countries to be crying out for the US to sell them corn, but that isn't the case. The third world is attempting to curb the expansion of US production of corn. See e.g.

If people want to solve a problem, at least decide what the problem is. What is the greater evil, too much or too little corn?

As a side note, seaweed biofuels may be a better solution to bio-fuels - or it may not. Treating the environment and problems of world hunger as questions with such a simple answer is dangerous.

Comment Re:Mixing Worlds (Score 1) 516

The fundamental error here is a confusion about what a virtual world is and how virtual worlds relate to the real world. A virtual game world must, to be worth the name, and to be worth entering, be like our world: a world with physics and freedom of individual action. Any restraints on action of the players must arise via social organization within that world. If the characters want to create laws and build prisons, or apply peer pressure to others, fine. But for the human beings running the game to reach in and impose what amount to magical constraints from the in-world point of view, such as striking characters dead every time they commit certain actions, is deeply wrong and undermines the whole business. It's worse than playing God.

The appropriate response then, is a virtual Hague.

Comment Due process has been afforded (Score 1) 132

"We have to have the same civil rights online as we have offline. Imagine if the U.S. authorities wanted to do a house search at my home, go through my private papers."

The right to free speech is not infinite. Especially when your speech infringes on the rights of others (try right to life of soldiers and CIA),

This woman would be subject to having her home searched and private papers viewed if she were physically in the US. Physical papers could be searched if they were in a US bank vault. The same rule applies when she stores her private papers here electronically. If you don't like a jurisdiction's policy calls on the lines drawn regarding speech and privacy - don't speak in that jurisdiction (servers located there).

Due process has been afforded and civil rights upheld. From TFA - the justice department followed the law and the use of the law was allowed to be challenged.

Comment Re:So basically... (Score 1) 391

That's the case I just settled. My client's didn't trust banks (go figure) and kept their cash in a safe. They got most of their cash from a legal action but they couldn't account for all of it because their job was tip based and they couldn't prove their expenses. Long story short, they went to make a large purchase, people got suspicious, and 90% of American currency has cocaine residue (either from being used to snort or simply going through money counters at a bank). Under a few states' laws and the former federal law, known as civil forfeiture, you are guilty until proven innocent. See e.g. USA v. $124,700. Only property connected with drugs is forfeited, but the raw deal is that innocent people must prove their innocence and guilty people must prove the proportion of their guilt to get the property back. Double Jeopardy does not apply and so the guilty person that proved his guilt to get his property back has proved the states' later criminal case.

My clients settled for less than their entire amount (like everyone does) because of the uncertainties of trial - they couldn't prove how much money they spent from their legal award and they couldn't completely prove how much they made in their jobs. Further, my clients were minorities and the case was venued in a minority unfriendly county.

Submission + - Wi-Fi hacking, with a handheld PDA

JimMcc writes: "The Zero Day Blog over at ZD Net has an article describing a PDA sized hand-held device made by Immunity, Inc. which provides automated penetration testing of Wi-Fi networks. It will also, it instructed to do so, automatically launch known exploits. It is designed for use by a novice.

The idea is to give pen testers a tool to launch exploits wirelessly in the most covert fashion. At startup, Silica offers the user the option to scan for available open Wi-Fi networks. Once a network is found, the device connects (much like a laptop at Starbucks) and asks the user if it should simply scan for vulnerable/open ports or launch actual exploits from CANVAS.
They say that they try to thoroughly vet purchasers to determine if they are legitimate, but admit that the device will certainly fall into the wrongs hands."

Slashdot Top Deals

"Mr. Watson, come here, I want you." -- Alexander Graham Bell