Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:How dare they hack NY Times reporters! (Score -1, Troll) 61

So...it's NSA's fault when foreign intelligence services conduct espionage against US political parties, media organizations, etc., and actively try to influence the outcomes of US elections, and manipulate the opinions of US citizens? You realize that no matter who wins in November, possibly millions of Americans will believe the election was stolen or rigged, and possibly by foreign influence?

I know, I know -- in this crowd, the US is the enemy, here, and we don't actually need to have any kind of foreign intelligence capability; NSA's sole purpose for being is to figure out ways to illegally spy on Americans so it can solidify the power base of shadowy elites. Or something. Whenever I need to be reminded of just how out of touch many people are with history, reality, or both, I read Slashdot comments.

Comment Re:Intelligent (Score 1) 406

While it is unfortunate for the opposition candidate to flaunt the Constitution in such a manner, note that we can also see the establishment candidate, Evita Peron^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Hillary Clinton, is actually proposing to amend the Constitution in order to reverse a Supreme Court decision which allowed a group of people to advocate against her as a political candidate. She also has designs on her political opponents' second amendment rights.

Comment No. This is an unprecedented shit in nothing. (Score 0, Flamebait) 983

It is a remotely-controlled device, jury rigged for a purpose that is not at all its use.

I know people will become uncontrollably outraged about this, but it's a standoff weapon. Just like a spear, a bow and arrow, an explosive tossed through a door or window, a gun, or even a vehicle employed as a weapon.

The legal standard for lethal force is the same. Beware of academics or other commentators who will claim this is some kind of new territory for which there is no legal standard and that we have no idea how to approach.

But by all means: pretend this is an "Unprecedented Shift in Policing" instead of an improvisation under nightmarish circumstances.

Comment Re:Stranger Danger! (Score 2) 211

Luxury housing is always the first to be built in a highly constrained, under-built market like New York City. If you need to strongarm the city to get any development done whatsoever then you're going to focus only on the highest-value projects.

It upsets peoples' sense of egalitarianism, but it's still better for the overall housing situation than nothing. Of course, building enough housing on all levels of the market makes too much sense and will continue to be disallowed.

Comment Re:Benjamin Franklin.... Cruel irony? (Score 3, Funny) 265

Benjamin Frankly surely would have been pissed if he knew that his name was stamped on the ass of a megaship designed to carry everything from wind-up frogs to American flags all made in China while the American's shipped back raw materials and money.

*ahem*

"No nation was ever hurt by trade, even seemingly the most disadvantageous." -- Benjamin Franklin

Comment Re: Jingoism and Nativism (Score 3, Insightful) 242

Yes. Yes it can. Because that means you can't have a shop that really specializes in imported goods: you're burdening the shop operator with a responsibility to find local goods, stock them, sell them, keep track of exactly the amount sold of both, and stop selling the imported goods if the local goods aren't doing well enough (so unless you want to turn people away from time to time you'll need to maintain a decent safety margin). It rules out entire classes of very effective, proven business models (like the Apple store, or really anything you'd find in a mall that is focused on a certain brand. Swatch. Tumi. Banana Republic. Hugo Boss.)

Retail operations cost money. Tacking on a 30%-local-goods operation isn't going to be straightforward for many businesses, and ensures that only the largest players operating at scale are going to be entering the market. A straight-up punitive tariff might be less harmful for many businesses.

Submission + - Prominent civil liberties expert says he and Snowden were wrong on NSA 1

An anonymous reader writes: Last week, Geoffrey Stone, a longtime civil liberties stalwart, Constitutional scholar at the University of Chicago, and member of the National Advisory Council of the American Civil Liberties Union, moderated a live discussion with Edward Snowden from Russia. As a member of the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies, Stone was given unfettered access to unfettered access to our national security apparatus, and told the NSA what he thought. This week, Stone offered more detail on his own findings that only someone with direct knowledge can provide: "So before I began the work on the review group, my general view was that, from what I learned in the media, the NSA had run amok and created these programs without appropriate approval or authorization or review. And whatever I thought of the merits of the programs, my assumption was that it was illegitimate because it didn't have appropriate review and approval. What surprised me the most was that this was completely wrong. [...] The more I worked with the NSA, the more respect I had for them as far as staying within the bounds of what they were authorized to do. And they were careful and had a high degree of integrity. My superficial assumption of the NSA being a bad guy was completely wrong. [...] I came to the view that they were well intentioned, that they were designed in fact to collect information for the purpose of ferreting out potential terrorist plots both in the U.S. and around the world and that was their design and purpose." Stone provided detail and examples, including rationale and justifications for the review group's findings, and concluded that Snowden "was unduly arrogant, didn't understand the limitations of his own knowledge and basically decided to usurp the authority of a democracy."

Comment Re:Remember where the responsibility is (Score 2) 392

Well, the voters approved a Constitution under which they have subsequently elected Congresspeople who have made laws (the tax code) that Apple follows. That's why Apple is being reported on for tax avoidaince and not being investigated for tax evasion. The voters also elected Presidents who appointed a Supreme Court who in turn have assured us that tax avoidance is perfectly legal and that no one has any patriotic duty to pay more tax than they are required to by law (see Gregory v. Helvering).

But if we'd like to talk about how the tax code itself is letting down the voters, we need to be sure to talk about how US corporate taxes have gone from "some of the world's friendliest" to "some of the world's worst" and encourage investment overseas instead of at home... in light of the fact that businesses should be investing money where they can get a better return (often in a region which has very little investment to begin with, like some places overseas - diminishing marginal returns and all that) and that, on top of that, chastising them for wanting to hold on to more money instead of surrender it for the good of the US state is a position worthy of ridicule. They're big businesses: figure out how to align some incentives at them, instead of making it about the one single part of Patriotism that the American left still seems to respect and celebrates. We don't need to celebrate their work creating jobs and paying taxes or whatever - the profit, the money is its own reward - but we do need to make sure that they're making money for doing the right thing because the money is its own reward.

Then we can talk about how the government does a crappy job of spending the money it already has, perhaps by celebrating the Stimulus or the Iraq War.

Comment Re:Last we will hear of that.... (Score 1) 255

I was referring to the iOS 7 device, which they can easily unlock/break (see Section I), but declined to do so this time (the EDNY case).

The combination of iOS 8/9 with iPhone 6 and newer (HW security enclave) is designed to not be able to be broken by Apple, even if it wanted to.

That's not to say that nothing is breakable, ever; it's all about the level of effort required and whether or not one can bypass the crypto altogether.

Comment Re:Last we will hear of that.... (Score 1) 255

No, the phone is running iOS 9 -- this is the San Bernardino phone. The phone running iOS 7 was the case in the Eastern District of New York -- which of course Apple's own law enforcement compliance statement says it will unlock when presented with a warrant, but I guess it didn't feel like it this time.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The lesser of two evils -- is evil." -- Seymour (Sy) Leon

Working...