Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:So, fucking what. (Score 1) 448

My comment was about the crazy assertion that, in the year 2014, when Twitter is omnipresent on every broadcast network, overlaid on many cable shows, and routinely quoted in online news, the most likely result of bringing up Twitter to a professional law enforcement officer would be that they so unexposed to the concept of Twitter that they would genuinely have no idea what the term meant and think the person was saying their bird was stolen.

Anything you have ascribed to me beyond that would not seem to be present in either my comment, or the comment I was replying to.

Comment Re:So, fucking what. (Score -1, Flamebait) 448

Are you living in a mid-2000s late night show skit? It may shock you, but in 2014 most people know what Twitter is. Incredibly, that includes law enforcement. Heck, many police departments have an official Twitter feed. I just checked the last three towns I've lived in, and they all have up to date Twitter feeds.

Comment Re:The Human Body May Not be Cut Out For The Ocean (Score 1) 267

Far more than you would seem to appreciate a simple work of amusing text written on a forum as a morning jape. Let's see... do I understand headlines and have experience with people excited to do science? I have been running a newspaper and magazine services company for 17 years, and my wife is a research chemist who has "pretty data" pinned next to the bedroom bathroom mirror. (She thought it was funny too, when I read it to her before she left for work).

Yup. This is my wheelhouse. Now laugh at my funny, monkeyboy! You're the pink missing the point! Now off to run nude through the morning dew, free as a... holy hell it's cold! More coffee, and back to the heated indoors.

Seriously... did you really think that my little mock submission was anything other than silliness? If so, did you really think I was running outside naked as I typed the above? If so, I'm quite intrigued about your thought processes, and wish to study your life in detail. Also, judging by this pair of posts, I should probably cut back on the coffee, not add more. Either that or my flu medication is certainly doing something right.

In more calm seriousness: yes. I did understand the story itself. I was engaging in humor with my reply, riffing off the headline. There's a touch of pointed humor toward the end, but it really isn't directed at anything having to do with the submission, more the general topic of space exploration.

Comment The Human Body May Not be Cut Out For The Ocean (Score 3, Informative) 267

PersonFrom1420 submitted via church door nail, "The human body was not designed by God Almighty to live on the ocean in seafaring ships, and the longest any human has traveled has been close to coastlines. Without the protective cocoon of the coastal fish and shore leave, nautical travelers are subjected to Gout, Scurvy, and a malaise of the spirit that shall certainly result in dire consequence for any vessel attempting to find a new world to explore. In a Royal experiment, debtor's prisons are filled with scum of the streets, sealed away, and their outcome is surely the same as a nautical traveler who looks forward to a new life and possible riches from fruitful exploration. Also, if even one ship has a mutiny, NASA (the Nautical Authority of the Spanish Armada) should instantly force all manned sea faring traffic to halt for over a year, as various Royal Agencies, none of whom understand how to tie a knot, let alone sail a ship, confer over the loss, and consider halting this foolishness to focus on more incense swinging for the plague and merkin production at home. Certainly there is no profit to be gained in these new lands that are worth losing entire ships of human beings over, and there can be no future lands there that will ever be suitable for our children's children. May this missive find you in good health, Signed P.F.1420"

Comment Re:Incorrect (Score 1) 1034

It varies from state to state but you can be held for around 48 to 72 hours without any charge or reasonable suspicion. Police tend to not abuse this capability too much for fear of having the courts rescind it but there are documented cases of individuals being held the full "legal" detainment period for no reason other than an officers "gut feeling".

I believe there still needs to be a reason to hold them. Often it is to confirm identity of indigent people with no ID (or an ID that clearly was not theirs, which is fairly common), but most of my experience is with the Public Defender's office (I used to work there in IT). At least in Florida, there were attorneys would happily go after and get released people who didn't have a clear reason to be held. IANAL, I just know they could get them released on the basis of no substantiated reason to hold them, and "gut feeling" would probably not suffice.

If you AAL, feel free to correct me; I'm uncertain about this, but it does fit what I've seen in practice in criminal situations.

Of course, we also dealt with a fair amount of abuse by law enforcement as well, including physical beatings. The butt of radios was a favored (and ruled unreasonable) weapon. I printed a number of large posters with photos of people's faces bearing the very distinct marks of their use: rectangles with charger dots.

Comment Re:Creepy (Score 1) 1034

He either made a consciable decision to wear the google glasses instead of his non-camera prescription into an area that is well known to have issues with recording equipment

He had brought spare glasses in the past, but having been there many times and already discussed the Glass with employees who had no problem with him wearing them at movies (as he had done so a few times already, after getting prescription lenses for them), he reasonably figured it would be okay to not carry the spare in. He even implies he has spares, but didn't bother with them as he had already talked about his Glass with employees at the theater and the employees knew he was wearing them as they sold and took his ticket on occasions in the past with no issues.

How many times would you carry a spare set actually on your person before you trust your new eyewear? Two weeks and three visits to the movie theater seems like a reasonable amount of time and visits to assume you don't need to worry any more.

Comment Re:Planned intimidation tactic (Score 1) 1034

And yet people like you still haven't explained why the questioning of the BJ happened in the first place. I'm impressed that after the right gave Ken Star unprecedented special prosecuting powers the ONLY thing he could come up with was lying about a BJ.

Because he was being sued for sexual harassment by Paula Jones who claimed he propositioned and then showed her his penis while he was governor. That case was settled out of court with a $850k settlement and then dismissed. It was during the deposition to that case that he committed perjury, and that case had nothing to do with Monica Lewinsky or anything William Clinton did in the office of the President. Monica was simply one of several women who were brought forth under subpoena to testify under oath if he had propositioned or had sex with them to establish a pattern of behavior. This is a fairly common thing to do in cases of sexual harassment. It was only later, when the physical evidence was presented (the "blue dress"), that it turned out that at least one of his denials was perjury.

There's more to it, of course. I'm only answering your specific question as to why the question even came up in a court of law. The nature of their sexual relations was asked of and about many women who had been in his employ or otherwise worked with him because he was being sued for harassment and exposing himself when he was governor. Monica just happened to be one who had physical evidence supporting her claims and refuting Clinton's denial on the stand.

Comment Re:Bloat. (Score 1) 196

Well for one thing, the Google boys like to spy on us.

To date, they have been open about it. Startlingly open, to the point that they have working groups like the Data Liberation Front and clear documents that state that you can delete your data, but they can't wash your meta and abstracted data from their summarized data, only your identity, if you delete it.

They are in a business where the SOP is not to explain what they do and push the boundaries of what they can get away with without getting caught. Google, on the other hand seem to be honest, to the point of penalizing internal divisions that have made ethical missteps using the same rules they hold outside groups accountable to.

Have no illusions: they do collect data, and are a commercially motivated company, and no amount of good behavior should result in a lax approach to watching them carefully, especially given their scope. But to date they are the best option out there, allowing and encouraging people to give informed consent (having two versions of all legalese, one legal, one plain language to communicate) and giving people the ability to opt entirely out of their constellation of services, even after having been a user in the past.

Comment Re:Cost? (Score 1) 310

How much do they pay per square foot for your office? For your furniture? For your break room? Do you have any equipment? A computer? A laptop and/or tablet? A phone? Business bandwidth and phone lines/accounts for them? As a business owner, I can tell you that full time employees in an office are danged expensive.

Even still, it seems like the OP was being a bit over zealous. While I do think you're low-balling the overhead of your employment, their figure seems like they were likely exaggerating (unless they are in an exceptionally expensive city, which I wouldn't have experience with).

Comment Re:Or, stay low tech ... (Score 1) 133

Heh. I'm one of those notebook enthusiasts. I use fountain pens on notebooks in a customized zippered case, plus an index book. My wife is a research scientist and uses lab notebooks. We both enjoy sniffing around office supply stores and both carry small notebooks on us at all times.

I was looking for a brand name to see if there was something new to poke at. Thanks for the lineup, and I'll agree with pretty much most of what you said (I could get into hyper details, but not in a casual thread like this).

Just in case somebody else is reading this thread, you left off the Leuchtturm1917 series of notebooks, which are similar, but a touch nicer than the Moleskine brand moleskines.

Now as for pens... *that's* a crazy group of enthusiasts. They buy the really expensive stuff. Seldom do we notebook hounds go after anything over $100.

Comment Re: Or, stay low tech ... (Score 1) 133

The Galaxy Note has a 5.3" screen, according to the specs. Unless there's some other one that I don't know about?

Galaxy Note is a series of devices, all of which use stylus input. You linked to the phone, which is the smallest device in the line (barring the Gear watch, which is often marketed as a companion device to the Galaxy line). Devices in the Note line are also available as 8 inch and 10 inch tablets (Wikipedia, Samsung).

I'm interested mostly because I used to use a Palm, and I like stylus devices. Incidentally, the Note 3 phone has a screen almost identical to an index card, which is nice (if you use 3x5 cards for notes). I asked about your size preference because I would like a roughly A4/US Letter sized tablet, but they don't seem to be readily available currently. If you're like me and looking for even larger than 10 inches, I will also point out that Samsung is rumored to be announcing a 12.3 inch Galaxy Note within days (article).

Comment Re:Or, stay low tech ... (Score 1) 133

Thanks. I was hoping you would turn me on to a specific brand to watch out for. I already use them, as does my wife (she's a research chemist). Years ago I used to use composition books, and between the two I have a shelf of them that I've filled over the years. Plus boxes and expanding folders full of index cards for projects where they work as tools.

Slashdot Top Deals

A freelance is one who gets paid by the word -- per piece or perhaps. -- Robert Benchley