Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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:Ah, come one, don't we trust the Feds? (Score 4, Insightful) 60

Actually, I would say we can't trust law enforcement these days ... because when law enforcement cites a corporate NDA to not be able to tell us how they're using software which is designed to violate your constitutional rights ... law enforcement is fucking lying to you.

Law enforcement is consistently trying to hide what they do, consistently saying the law means what they say it means, and consistently ignoring the constitutionality of what they do, and colluding to commit perjury by hiding the truth about how they found certain information.

When law enforcement stops caring about the law ... it's time to stop treating them with trust or respect.

Pretty much all law enforcement these days feels it operates in a special magic bubble.

The rest of us say "fuck that, follow the low, or be charged under it".

General warrants, probable cause, free from unreasonable search and seizure ... these things tell me most people in law enforcement are committing treason.

So, no, we cannot fucking trust law enforcement. Because they are no longer trustworthy.

Comment: Re:The poison pin ... (Score 1) 241

Somewhere else, maybe... at the border crossing they have near infinite power to mess with you by insisting on an extended identity, security and luggage check and usually to detain you for a short while too for almost no pretext at all. In fact your "defective phone" is now a possible terrorist bomb, let's just put you in a holding cell until we can determine it's not.

Comment: Re:Interpreting these conditions (Score 1) 71

by Kjella (#49190929) Attached to: Software Freedom Conservancy Funds GPL Suit Against VMWare

The controversial part, as I understand it, is the difference in interpretation of a license's conditions. For example, the difference between an "aggregation" and a "combined work" in the GPLv2 confused at least one Slashdot user.

Actually the ugliest part of the GPL which is clear as ink in law is what - if anything - makes inter-module communication derivative. The theory of derivative works mainly involve sections or elements reappearing in the derivative, like a composite made from a photo. It doesn't cover interfaces where independently developed code calls each other at all. If I wrap a GPL library into a web service, is calling it derivative? If the answer is yes, the GPL is extremely viral. If the answer is no, the GPL is in big trouble. Which is why you never get a straight answer.

This directly links in with the "mere aggregation" clause, if you can for example distribute a distro that has an application that sends mail and a mail server without those being derivative, can you also distribute proprietary software and this web service? Your software needs it, this software happens to provide it but it could in theory be provided by a different implementation. I'm sure Stallman says no, but it's entirely unclear to me if a judge would agree.

Comment: Re:Israel got a lot of heat for much lesser offens (Score 1) 242

Why can he not?

Because, as much as our current government wants to think so, there is no legal basis to deny a citizen re-entry.

Certainly not on a whim. Certainly not at the discretion of a border guard.

I suspect this is true in a lot of places, because the UN has rules about making people effectively stateless.

Governments would typically have to demonstrate a lot of things in order to say "this citizen can no longer come here" ... and they'd probably be stripping of you of citizenship to send you back to your country of birth.

A natural born Canadian citizen? Good luck trying to deny them entry to Canada.

The fact is, there is no legal precedent in Canada for this, and it comes from increasing government overreach and redefining policy without any court backing.

Border agents should require some level of suspicion or proof to do this, not arbitrary whim of an asshole with nothing better to do.

Comment: Re:Ah, come one, don't we trust the Feds? (Score 2) 60

WE DONT trust them, thats why we didnt push hard for regulation in the 90s. The latest FCC actions were DECADES in the making. SO to the uninformed like you it might seem like we are championing the FCC, when in reality we are fucking giddy to see our enemy take such a hard strike against them. No informed person thinks this was the best choice, it was the only choice the ISPs left us with.

Comment: Re:Hmmmm! (Score 1) 403

by gstoddart (#49190311) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

Of course, the problem with that is taking a corporation on face value when they say "our product is safe, we promise, and until you can prove it is we assume it is".

Because, let's face it, corporations are assholes, and injecting genes into a plant which have no natural way of getting there ... and assuming that is safe in the long term isn't based on anything meaningful.

It's based purely on "we have no evidence to show this is safe, but we bought off politicians who agree with us that we'll let you guys be the guinea pigs".

Comment: Re:I'm dying of curiousity (Score 2) 72

by gstoddart (#49190207) Attached to: Software Freedom Conservancy Funds GPL Suit Against VMWare

They're a for-profit corporation, who see this as their bread and butter technology.

All you need is an idiot CEO to say "I want this" and an asshole lawyer to agree with him.

Are you honestly expecting principle, logic, and honesty from this?

It's a corporation looking out for its own interests. If that means fucking everybody else over or coming up with your own interpretation of the law? So be it.

I expect nothing less from this kind of situation.

Comment: Re:If "yes," then it's not self-driving (Score 1) 334

by Kjella (#49190145) Attached to: Would You Need a License To Drive a Self-Driving Car?

It's worth noting that there is one piece of automation in cars already that does give a different kind of driving license in a lot of places: automatic gear change. If you get a driving license in a car that has an automatic transmission then you can't drive manual cars with it, though the converse is allowed.

And it's silly. You can give an 18yo (around here) that just got his license a Ferrari, that's legal. You can give him a 3500 kg van + 750 kg trailer, that's legal. Of course you shouldn't drive a car you can't handle, but learning it on your own would be no worse than a lot of the other "self-learning" on the road.

If at first you don't succeed, you must be a programmer.