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


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

Comment Re:fallacy (Score 4, Insightful) 113

No, not at all, because doing what you described is incorporating brand new data every year.

They kept adjusting the algorithm over and over until they got the right answer from 1980 onwards. The huge risk with that method is overfitting, and if you develop an algorithm this way, it's important to also show that you've managed to avoid overfitting.

You can do the same thing with stock market data: adjust it until you get nearly 90% correct returns on a test interval, then you will find that the next year, the model is completely wrong because of overfit. Even if you incorporate the next years data, you will still get incorrect results because the nature of the stock market is chaotic and also random.

Comment That's not what they did though. (Score 1) 347

They went in and searched everyone's phones. Unless there's an important detail we aren't being told here, that's unconstitutional. The 4th amendment says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The important part there is "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." That is in there specifically to ban general search warrants. The idea is the police can't go to a judge and say "We think there is something illegal in a house somewhere in this 500 home neighbourhood, we'd like a warrant to search the houses," and the judge issues them a blanket warrant allowing them to search any home there, and look through anything in said home. That isn't allowed. They have to say specifically where it is they want to search, and what it is they are looking for, and also why they have probable cause to believe that what they are looking for is there.

If you read the article they say right at the bottom "I think it's very questionable whether the 4th Amendment" -- which protects citizens against unreasonable search and seizure -- "allows such an open-ended extension of the search warrant."

Comment 5th amendment and it would seem so yes (Score 3, Informative) 347

It isn't 100% clear, there is no cut and dried supreme court ruling and there have been some conflicting lower court rulings but in general the opinion of the courts seems to be that you can't be forced to hand over a password/code/etc because that is something in your head, which falls under 5th amendment protections against self incrimination.

The 4th amendment is what would be used to challenge a broad search warrant like was issued in this case. Without knowing the specifics I can't say for sure but this sounds like it would be an illegal search since it was a general warrant and that isn't allowed. The police aren't (supposed to be) able to get a warrant to just search anyone or anything in a given place, they have to be specific. This doesn't sound like it was, and so would probably be a 4th amendment violation.

Comment Re:Something you have, something you know (Score 1) 347

As for the greater ramifications of the unprecedentedly broad warrant that was issued, well, I'm glad I'm not a US citizen and don't live there. And I'm increasingly reluctant to travel there as well, precisely because of things like this.

Where do you live that you think is better?

Comment Re:After watching (Score 1) 313

This seems to be a particular problem with America today. Not a generation ago,

If people didn't vote reliably based on party, then gerrymandering wouldn't work. But gerrymandering has been around for a long time, so people have been voting based on party for a long time.

The only thing that changed is acerbic found a platform from which to speak.

Comment After watching (Score 3, Insightful) 313

After watching people (mostly liberal) defend leaks for nearly a generation, and now see a lot of them switching sides when the leak exposes a person on 'their side'.......they're all a bunch of dirty hypocrites.

Yes, I'm talking about you, dear reader who picks a 'team,' whether R or D. YOU are what is wrong with America. The leaks will keep coming, and you'll see how dirty your side really is.

Comment Re:Supply and Demand - where is the demand? (Score -1, Flamebait) 370

Zimmerman was a murderer who killed someone just to look tough. Best to say about him is that maybe he panicked and now he's just trying to cover up his mistake. Meanwhile someone utterly innocent is dead because some dude thought that neighborhood watch was all about shooting people.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The algorithm to do that is extremely nasty. You might want to mug someone with it." -- M. Devine, Computer Science 340