Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Is Scientology Really Different? (Score 1) 353

I have yet to read about any religion doing anything to anybody. On the other hand, I have read and seen plenty about people who profess a religion who have done shitty things to people. But there is a difference between what a religion (or one's own life philosophy) says and how well the individual follows it.

So the Crusades & the Inquisition had nothing to do with the Catholic Church?

Comment Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute (Score 1) 400

But according to anything I can find related to his indictment, the charges had nothing to do with copyright infringement & everything to do with unauthorized access to a computer.

From Wikipedia:

On July 19, 2011, a federal grand jury indictment was unsealed, charging Swartz with wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer and recklessly damaging a protected computer.[52][53] According to the indictment, Swartz surreptitiously attached a laptop to MIT's computer network, which ran a script named "",[9] allowing him to "rapidly download an extraordinary volume of articles from JSTOR."[54] Prosecutors in the case said Swartz acted with the intention of making the papers available on P2P file-sharing sites.[46]

Swartz surrendered to authorities, pleading not guilty on all counts, and was released on US$100,000 unsecured bail.[55] After his arrest, JSTOR put out a statement saying it would not pursue civil litigation against him,[47][55] while MIT did not comment on the proceedings.[56]

The New York Times wrote of the case: "A respected Harvard researcher who also is an Internet folk hero has been arrested in Boston on charges related to computer hacking, which are based on allegations that he downloaded articles that he was entitled to get free."[57]

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Stephen P. Heymann and Scott L. Garland were the lead prosecutors, working under the supervision of U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz[48][58][59] The case was brought under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which was passed in 1986 to enhance the government’s ability to prosecute hackers who accessed computers to steal information or to disrupt or destroy computer functionality.[60] "[I]f convicted on these charges," said Ortiz, "Swartz faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million."[61]

The original poster has an axe to grind & is doing it poorly.

Comment Re:So.... (Score 1) 304

Apparently, this is all legal in TX, where courts have already decided that ANY agreement between employer and employee is legal and binding, and that there is no concept of duress or pressure to sign.

Are you sure about that? From my viewpoint here in FL that's pretty much the opposite of how a "right-to-work" state functions.

Slashdot Top Deals

People are always available for work in the past tense.