Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Curious, what gives them the right to destroy? (Score 5, Informative) 508

In the first place, they had no right to detain the personal property. I wish the officers joy in explaining why he thought these items were "evidence in criminal proceedings" or were relevant to a "deportation order".

You misread it. It takes practice to read legal documents and you made a common error. You missed the 'or'. Case (a) is in use right now, but it has a 7-day clock. Case (b) or (c) would be used if they want to hold something indefinitely.

My suggestion for reading legal documents would be to be very, very careful about punctuation and ands/ors. Highlight or underline them if you need to.

In the second place, nothing I can see therein allows them to destroy detained property, which is a very extreme response under any cricumstances. It also contradicts the intent of the section, which was to allow collection of property to be used as evidence.

This is a different case. The destruction of hard drives was done by GCHQ at the Guardian UK offices well before David Miranda was detained by the police. There is no evidence that any possession of Mr. Miranda has been destroyed. But when he gets them back, I'd assume that they were loaded with spyware.

Pretty ironic since the preamble states that the Act was "An Act to make provision about terrorism; and to make temporary provision for Northern Ireland about the prosecution and punishment of certain offences, the preservation of peace and the maintenance of order.". The only terrorism here I see is committed by the government.

This is an insanely broad law. Look at Section 2:

Power to stop, question and detain
2 (1) An examining officer may question a person to whom this paragraph applies for the purpose of determining whether he appears to be a person falling within section 40(1)(b). (i.e. a terrorist)
(2) This paragraph applies to a person if--(a) he is at a port or in the border area, and (b) the examining officer believes that the person's presence at the port or in the area is connected with his entering or leaving Great Britain or Northern Ireland [or his travelling by air within Great Britain or within Northern Ireland].
(3) This paragraph also applies to a person on a ship or aircraft which has arrived [at any place in Great Britain or Northern Ireland (whether from within or outside Great Britain or Northern Ireland).]
(4) An examining officer may exercise his powers under this paragraph whether or not he has grounds for suspecting that a person falls within section 40(1)(b).

What does this mean? At a port of entry the cops can detain you without suspicion to determine if you might possibly be a terrorist. Basically, they can detain you for any reason whatsoever.

Comment *snort* (Score 2) 573

I had a friend install Ubuntu 12.04 on my computer, with the E17 window manager and somehow I managed to crash it during the copying of some non-important files and now my computer won't boot (the hardware's fine though).

Ha ha! This reminds me of my first Linux experience, c. '95 or '96 with a kernel version 1.1 (Slackware version ????) that I got from a CD in a book. I experimented with mkfs(8). I learned a good lesson!

Comment Re:daily mail? seriously? (Score 5, Interesting) 131

wtf is the Daily Mail doing here? It is a tabloid.

The "article" had more information about his stupid home than anything about his shady business practices or how no one noticed anything wrong with these devices.

How dare you slander tabloids by comparing the Daily Mail to them!

Why the Daily Mail is Evil
Transgender teacher kills self after Daily Mail columnist Richard Littlejohn denounces her

Fuck the Daily Mail.

Comment Re:Good Job (Score 5, Insightful) 266

My theory:

These missile interceptors aren't for North Korea. That is the excuse. They are actually a bargaining chip for China. If China reels in North Korea, then these missile interceptors near their borders will be removed. Until then, Obama can simply claim that he is trying to defend against an aggressive North Korean threat to nuke the US (even if North Korea doesn't actually have the capability to do so).

Kim Jong Un overstretched his threats and gave the US the perfect opening to do this. He is obviously much stupider than his father. At this point, he has given the US an excuse to build up its military power right on China's borders (including the deployment of more ships). And he has scared Japan and South Korea enough that they won't resist the continued US presence on their shores. China is NOT going to be happy about this. Not one bit. If I were Kim, I would be worried about the possibility that China might have him kidnapped or assassinated for this stupidity.

Comment Re:The question (Score 2) 131

Yes, because after all.. alcohol, which is well regulated, hasn't caused any collateral damage.

Compared to prohibition? Be real.

The topic here isn't "ways to blow retirement savings", the topic is "the effects of so called victimless crimes". That you feel the need to change the topic tells me all I need to know.

You're the one who brought it up! Jesus H. Christ!

As far as the effect of victimless crimes, sure there may be an effect. But it is a second order or third order effect. Do people steal cigarettes or alcohol when they run out of money? Sure. Would people do the same if they ran out of heroin? Sure. But if heroin was as cheap as cigarettes or alcohol, would they be willing to kill for it? And would distributors be willing to kill to protect it?

What about prostitution? If it were regulated, like in Canada, would the women be so exploited? Would there not be substantial public health benefits?

I'm proposing a system where arbitrary morality doesn't determine whether the government can kick your door in and shoot your dog. I'm proposing a system where you don't use the heavy hand of government unless you can prove harm. You are nitpicking over second and third order effects. But why is this idea so crazy? What better solution do you have that addresses the rights of people and the rights of the harmed?

Comment Re:And? (Score 1) 262

In Israel right now there is a law banning thin models. To protect the feelings of the whales.

You don't understand this. This is to protect young girls from thinking they must starve themselves to meet our society's view of beauty:

* Eating disorders have the highest mortality rate of any mental illness
* A study by the National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders reported that 5 - 10% of anorexics die within 10 years after contracting the disease; 18-20% of anorexics will be dead after 20 years and only 30 - 40% ever fully recover
* The mortality rate associated with anorexia nervosa is 12 times higher than the death rate of ALL causes of death for females 15 - 24 years old.
* 20% of people suffering from anorexia will prematurely die from complications related to their eating disorder, including suicide and heart problems


Comment Re:The question (Score 5, Insightful) 131

An acquaintance of mine whose husband snorted both of their entire retirement funds up his nose might question that. So might a friend whose father consistently gambled away most of his take home pay. There's more to consider than just the direct participants.

Yes, but you are using today's drug math. If cocaine wasn't illegal, it wouldn't be so expensive. And if it was well regulated, the dosage could be monitored.

But what if he blew his money on the stock market or a crazy investment? There are a million stupid ways people lose their retirement savings. You can't put people in plastic balls to protect themselves from everything in the world and you don't need to burn down crops and indirectly fund insurgencies in Colombia because some asshole snorted cocaine. It is amazing that you talk about considering people other than the direct participants while supporting the War on Drugs.

Comment Re:The question (Score 3) 131

The Harm Principle doesn't negate a person's duties. If you don't pay income tax but still take advantage of the services the government provides, like police, roads, and schools, then you have failed in your duty. If you are the rare individual who was homeschooled (or raised by wolves) and lives out in the middle of Alaska and in no way takes advantage of government services, then sure, pay no income tax (which will be easy since you won't have any income). Failing in your duty does harm actually people, be it failing to provide food for your kids or failing to support a school system than once educated you.

Comment Re:And? (Score 1) 262

That IS my idea! I assume women are complete human beings, capable of handling the responsibility of solving their own problems.

Wrong. Sexism isn't just a problem for women as racism isn't just a problem for African Americans. It is all of our problem and we all have a duty to act. You cite MLK, but you forget that he wasn't successful just because he mobilized African Americans. He mobilized just as many Caucasians as well. You cite the suffrage movement, and miss the same point. They mobilized just as many men as women. And the LGBT rights movement today--it is primarily driven by straights who despise bigotry.

Stop putting all of the duty to fix the problem on women. Men have just as much of a duty to fight for equal rights. It is insane to think that we should have separate game publishers for men and women. Sanity comes by the realization that by eliminating sexism, games can be inclusive to everybody.

Comment Re:The question (Score 5, Insightful) 131

It is actually a more general question. The question is whether the government has the right to use force (i.e. the police busting into your house with a SWAT team and shooting your dog) to prevent a person from doing an act that harms nobody but themselves or another fully consenting and knowledgeable adult. Drugs, polygamy, gambling, legal age prostitution, etc., could all be arguably classified under victim-less crimes. And not surprisingly, all of these are crimes against morality (except when there in a financial interest such as the lottery or alcohol sales).

Comment Re:And? (Score 2) 262

Do you have no problem about golf courses, housing, employment, etc., discriminating against African Americans because they are adults? And do you have no problem about people discriminating against LGBT persons because they are adults?

At what point do you think adults should ignore discrimination and at what point do you think they should act?

It may be a harsh world, but it is a hell of a lot less harsh when you don't have to deal with bigotry.

Comment Re:And? (Score 2) 262

Yeah, I know, complain about sexism on Slashdot and your will get modded into the floor. I've been here long enough that I should have known to post as AC. Oh well, bye, bye, karma.

As a Slashdot greybeard, I've had enough discussions to know why this occurs. There is a group of gamers who are highly introverted and who have been repeatedly rejected by women for much of their lives. They are similar to the hikikomari subculture in Japan. For them, games are an outlet to live out their fantasies. If you talk to people on 4chan, they refer to hyper-sexualized fantasy characters as being "2D" or "mai waifu". There are even discussions on 2D dating (in case you are confused, this means having an imaginary date with a fantasy character).

Recently, Anita Sarkeesian provoked their ire by doing nothing, but scaring them that she would attack their 2D fantasies. The coordinated response was massive, and the level of paranoia skyrocketed. Even today, on sites like Slashdot, anybody who is seen as a threat to their subculture and fantasies is ruthlessly attacked. While the attacks by the hikikimori-like subculture has just been rage, ordinary misogynists have grabbed onto their coattails to spread their hate as well (like benspurr with his beat up Anita Sarkeesian game).

Comment Re:And? (Score 4, Insightful) 262

As I said above, if women want more positive portrayals of women in video games, they can start their own game companies and make their own games (and some have done just that, I applaud them for their effort)

This post is a good example of blame shifting. By shifting the blame of sexism onto women who haven't made the non-sexist games, you think you can claim your hands are clean, right? So what do you say: "let the market decide! If sexism is bad then it will be uneconomical. We don't have to worry about that annoying subject called ethics." Heck, let's apply it in general. If LGBT people don't like negative portrayals in the media, they can just form their own media companies. If African Americans don't like racism, they can make their own media.

What a great idea...NOT!

Here's an alternate idea: assume that women are complete human beings and that sexism is wrong. And even if you are a man, realize that you probably have a sister, daughter, or niece who will see this sexist crap and see it as a red flag to stay in her assigned gender role...or else!

Sexism is a type of bigotry. I know our culture has made it seem less damaging than racism, but really it is just as damaging. Just because sexism is largely accepted does not make it right.

Here is a list of bigoted statements:
* If those n*****s want to play golf, they should just build their own golf club
* If those f**s want equal rights, they should move to San Francisco
* If those b*****s want to play our sexist games, they can start their own game companies

Yeah, I know, sexist video games aren't the greatest form of bigotry that exists. But it is a type of bigotry. And it should be resisted.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you had better tools, you could more effectively demonstrate your total incompetence.