Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Lesson (Score 1) 61

I disagree. It doesn't make him a "jerk," it makes him a "person who deserves to be behind bars."

I agree. He's probably not a jerk, he was just born predisposed to the reprehensible behavior that requires society to keep him caged.

It is too bad that we can't just go full "Clockwork Orange" and try to brainwash these people and at least partially recover the situation.

Comment Re:Signal triangulation = GPS (Score 1) 151

That reminds me of an interview with chess grandmaster Lev Alburt, who defected to the US around 1980. When he was a kid growing up in the Soviet Union, the government propaganda always said that the Americans were preparing to attack. And the people believed it. So the local kids drew maps showing the locations of military barracks and other landmarks, to give to the American paratroopers when they landed. But the liberation forces never came.

Comment Re:Signal triangulation = GPS (Score 1) 151

You're over-thinking it. If the enemy knows that it is unreliable and can't be used for an attack... it won't be used for an attack.

It might not have to thwart other types of attack in order to achieve the purpose it was intended for.

Yes, you show that the purpose is not likely to be to fool people into believing that they are really at the airport when near the Kremlin. But that doesn't mean it won't work, it just means that the more likely purpose is to deny use of GPS for detonating a bomb near there.

It might even be backwards; they might be protecting the airport by sending a false "you're at the airport" signal in various places and it is only downtown where people noticed, and blamed the nearby government building.

That's the thing about intelligence services... you can't measure what they're doing very well unless you know what their intent is, and they're not going to tell you. So. You never really know. Even when stuff "leaks," or is purported to, there is no way to weigh it.

Comment Re:Legal? (Score 1) 240

That's the rub; thieves have to open them efficiently to avoid getting busted, and so they have specialized tools.

Maintenance workers don't have to do it efficiently, they have to do it within some portion of a work shift, and they don't have to avoid detection or anything. And they already have lots of generalized metal cutting tools. So that is what they use. They're not going to get special tools just for cutting certain locks; they're going to have bolt cutters, grinders, cutting wheels, hack saws, etc.

Comment Re:Legal? (Score 1) 240

Indeed, it is no remedy at all, and because of that you'll find yourself being billed for the cost of removal, including if they hired a tow company to do it for them.

Not being a remedy just means it isn't subtracted from your fine, it doesn't mean that it doesn't still happen. The thing that towing the vehicle remedies is that it is in the way of other vehicles that might want to park legally, or otherwise use the public space that the illegally parked conveyance is blocking. You don't necessarily even have to be illegally parked for this to happen, just being in the way is often enough.

When the do construction, they post notice on the side of the street for some number of days in advance, if they can. Vehicles that don't get moved, get towed. They never illegally parked or anything. And yet, they're still responsible for their vehicle and should have moved it. If it is emergency construction without a notice period, you don't get billed, but they still move the vehicles, and any inconvenience you suffer is your own problem.

If you're parked illegally, your loss of a $100 lock was your own fault. If they were mistaken about your parking, they'll have to pay it back later. If it was just in the way but legal, they'll pay sooner, but they won't want to hear you whine and cry about it.

Comment Re:Legal? (Score 1) 240

Why the heck would a police officer be cutting your bike lock unless you are illegally parked?

For example, maybe he's an idiot and thought it was illegally parked, even though you carefully made sure you thought it was OK. Maybe there was a problem with the signs, and it was unclear. Maybe somebody intentionally placed a sign in a place where bikes would be removed if parked, because they wanted to make a funny prank video.

Maybe you were legally parked and there was a water leak and the utility company decided to dig up the concrete under your bike, and so they had the police cut the lock.

Maybe it resembled a bicycle that was recently reported stolen, and the officer thought he was recovering it.

Maybe somebody knew you had a booby-trapped lock and didn't like you, and paid somebody to make up a story that would cause the officer to cut the lock.

The possible circumstances are nearly endless, I could write thousands of pages of examples. It would not be an exciting book. Locks get cut very often, sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not.

Comment Re: Legal? (Score 1) 240

In my State they have to be on private property, at least some distance from any property line, clearly marked, and in a rural unincorporated area. In addition to all the specific rules about the technology used.

They're not useful for keeping out humans. Some commenters clearly have a silly TV image of a chain link fence with electricity running through the whole thing.

Comment Re: Legal? (Score 1) 240

Mmm. And you can just put one of those up alongside a busy city sidewalk or next to a primary school can you?

If there's no law against you installing it, then yes you most definitely can put one in; a school being nearby doesn't affect that.

Mighty big "if" you got there. And "what if" there actually is a law?

Comment Re:Legal? (Score 1) 240

They have distinct advantages over booby traps, though: They're activated intentionally after the bike has been stolen.

Totally illegal, but you're not going to accidentally taze a cop who is cutting the lock for whatever reason, you're not going to cause a terrorist scare when your bike gets run over, etc. You're not going to cause an airplane to be grounded when it explodes in the hold.

So it is way less likely that anybody is going to care. And if somebody dies, probably don't post the video? I mean, people who die after being tazed die of heart attacks. It isn't like their head is going to be cooked or anything. Tweaker stole a bike, had a heart attack and crashed. Heart attack is a leading cause of death for drug addicts. Most bike thieves are drug addicts. I totally agree it is a horrible crime and people who commit it could go to prison. But... way less likely than a person setting an unattended booby trap, who won't even be there to cover their own ass when shit goes sideways.

Comment Re: Legal? (Score 1) 240

[blah blah] dorito-encrusted dribbling chin [blah blah]

That's the great thing about pepper spray; you don't have to look tough, or take classes, or exercise, or be coordinated or athletic, you just have to get it out of your pocket, fumble the plastic guard to the side, and press the button down and either you or the other guy has a face full of spray.

Comment Re:Legal? (Score 1) 240

If a police official cut off a lock and got sprayed by that, I wouldn't be surprised to see a DA pressing booby-trap charges, as well as civil charges being files.

The thing is, they wouldn't even know what it was, just that there was a chemical released. If it was in a major metro it would be an international incident and it would be hours from the first news reports until word got out what actually happened. It isn't just, you assaulted a cop and the DA is gonna charge it as something; it would be, you freaked out half the country and they can choose from a wide variety of serious felonies at multiple levels of jurisdiction.

Comment Re:Legal? (Score 1) 240

Period. as in ---> .

It is just a character on your keyboard, it is not a magical spell to win arguments.

You don't actually have the physical power to suspend the laws of physics and prevent a chemical from exiting a container because you used a dot on the internet. If there is a flaw in the metal, it will still fail. If the container is deformed due to a traffic accident, it will fail. If the pressure release value that prevents it from exploding when taken on an airplane has a flaw in some little piece of extruded plastic, it will fail.

Nobody gives a shit about the character ., it is just ascii 0xe2. No, saying "my product is magical and can never leak" will not lead to readers of slashdot thinking, "Gosh, that Harry Potter kid is sure something!" No, they're going to say, "Expect the unexpected, you're obviously not a fucking engineer."

Comment Re: Legal? (Score 1) 240

Right, shooting things is OK or not depending on your intent.

If you set a booby-trap, you'll find that the part of your intent that the law measures is if you intended to set the booby-trap, not why you set a booby-trap. You'll be surprised when they listen to your excuse and your claimed reason and not their heads and point out that you've simply admitted your motive and confessed!

The intent of installing an air bag inflator is to activate a life-saving device. The intent of a bobby-trap is to cause some sort of negative effect when triggered, without the need of a human to check first to verify that they have some sort of narrowly defined special right to do harm to that person. By definition a booby-trap is not self-defense; it is activated automatically. And the intent is to harm. So even if you harmed a thief, in a jurisdiction where it is allowed to do that harm to thieves, you'd still not be allowed to do this because when you set the booby-trap, you had not already identified the thief.

If somebody threatens you with bodily harm and you pepper spray them, you're committing innocent self-defense in jurisdictions that allow possession of pepper spray. If you take that same pepper spray and set it up to spray whoever cuts or otherwise damages your bike lock, you're a terrorist. It is really that simple.

What if, for example, an authorized person cuts the lock because they determine (wrongly, perhaps) that your bike was illegally parked? They owe you for the damage, but you're not allowed to attack them with a chemical. What if they're allergic? What if they have a weakened immune system and die? You're going to prison, buddy.

Like some random idiot said, "What the fuck is wrong with you?"

Comment Re:Legal? (Score 1) 240

Hey there brainiac, sorry to question somebody so superior to us `tards, but I don't think a gas can secure a bicycle from theft. You might want to consult some sort of gas dispersal law to check, if you're not sure.

Just saying, "no I was doing [same thing using innocent sounding words]" doesn't actually protect you from going to prison when you do something, I dunno, cause a terrorist response from emergency services because your man-trap accidentally discharged at an inconvenient place and time.

For example, a taxi with a foreign driver crashes into your parked bicycle, and the whole metro shuts down because they thought it was a chemical attack. And it won't be a "false alarm" at all, they will discover that the chemical was indeed installed in the bike lock in order to cause discomfort.

If you built this in your garage and caused an incident, you'd go to prison. If you sell this as a product, the first time it causes an incident you'll get shut down, and threatened with prison if you do it again.

Comment Re:Legal? (Score 1) 240

Is it even legal to use this in any developed country? Any sort of problem (a delay in the mechanism, failure or bystanders) and you got a terrorism charge.

Straight out of "A Diamond Age" by Neal Stephenson.

No, there is no way that this is legal in most countries. Even places that let you straight up shoot a thief doesn't allow booby-traps. The reason that electric fences are allowed is that lots of research has gone into electrocuting people, and electric fences uses designs widely believed to be safe. This particular man-trap won't have that sort of research. Furthermore, it will cause significant alarm, predictably, because there will be some sort of unknown chemical leak.

I laughed when I saw this, but I don't really want to live in a place that allows it. I'm sure half of Asia will permit it though. And perhaps in those places the balance of risk is different. I don't know.

Slashdot Top Deals

Try `stty 0' -- it works much better.