Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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

Comment Re:guess again (Score 1) 156

Unfortunately, they don't just hurt themselves. They hurt their children, who don't have a say in it, and shouldn't be stuck with paying the price for their parents' ignorance. But what's worse is that not every can get vaccinated to begin with, for legitimate medical reasons, and are forced to rely on herd immunity - herd immunity that goes away if lots of anti-vaxxer idiots refuse to get their children vaccinated.

Comment Re:Two types of laws (Score 1) 404

Well, she can't be fired now because she's no longer employed as Secretary of State, so that part is about the same as anyone else. Revocation of clearance might matter, except that you don't need to have a clearance (or gain one) to become President or Vice President. The law essentially presumes that the voters will not elect someone who is unfit to hold those responsibilities, along with all the other responsibilities of the Presidency.

Comment Re:Two types of laws (Score 1) 404

1) It's not uncommon at all. I personally knew many people that committed security violations during the time I served in the military. None of them were thrown in jail, and none of them lost their jobs. Most of these involved emailing classified information on a computer/network that was not accredited for it. The first time punishment was mandatory retraining and a reprimand. You'd only lose your clearance with multiple repeated ones, or if you tried to do a coverup, or you were trying to sell/leak that information.

People are human, and fallible, and they screw up all the time.

2) Please cite some of those specific cases, and please explain why they don't meet the additional criteria that Comey cited.

3) The problem with the other explanation, that Comey let Clinton off the hook just because she's Clinton/powerful/connected etc just doesn't hold water. There are too many reasons why it would be in keeping with his past character to call for an indictment if he truly believed it was warranted, never-mind advantageous for him to do so. Heck, his entire statement on the whole thing read like "Look, she was driving too fast and there were children in the van, she should have known better, and it was extremely poor judgment, but as much as I don't like the behavior I can't criminally cite her, because the case law just doesn't support it."

Comment Re:Two types of laws (Score 2) 404

One, if someone claimed they didn't have any documents and then showed up with a full laptop, that sort of runs afoul of the "deliberately lied to investigators standard" - though I can't claim familiarity with the case since I'm not seeing any links here.

Second - Comey is a Republican. What does he really have to lose by recommending an indictment, even if he thinks the AG will refuse to follow up on it? Why would he decide to be the one to take the hit for "covering for Clinton" rather than doing what he feels is the right thing? This is the guy who as acting Attorney General stared down Bush and Cheney over the wiretap authorizations after all, so he's no stranger to putting his career on the line for doing what he thinks is just. If anything, he'd probably be doing himself a huge favor if he got himself fired by doing so (or even resigned claiming backlash), because he'd be a huge martyr for the entire Republican party and an instant cause celebre.

Again, this isn't to suggest that Clinton didn't do anything wrong by any means, but we shouldn't lose perspective and go off on a witch-hunt.

Comment Re:Two types of laws (Score 1, Informative) 404

To use a car analogy, it's like speeding. Speeding is illegal, but people almost never get thrown in jail for it unless it was extremely excessive. Instead, they get a fine, or sometimes just a warning. For instance, yesterday, a teenager was thrown in jail in Maine for speeding. Why? Because he was clocked doing 146mph. (citation: ) If a cop tried to throw someone in jail for doing, let's say, 4mph over the limit, it would be ludicrously unprecedented. In fact, most of the time you won't even be pulled over for driving 4 mph over the limit, and people regularly do so.

Similarly, what Clinton did (according to Comey) is not at all uncommon in the Federal Government/Intelligence Community, but it's usually punished by things like mandatory security training, letters of reprimand, revoking security clearance/firing (usually after repeat instances), but NOT jail time, UNLESS there were other factors involved, which according to Comey, there weren't.

So it's certainly fair to believe Clinton is an unsafe driver, and to decide that you don't want to vote to let her drive the bus - but to claim that Officer Comey should have thrown her in jail for speeding ignores the fact that he's being entirely consistent with how he's handled other cases of speeding involving people that weren't powerful politicians.

Comment Re:nice video, but the launch seems backwards (Score 1) 201

Well, you could launch the tanker and main ship from geographically separate sites, too, though then you wouldn't be able to immediately reuse the same booster (and would probably use two separate but reusable boosters instead). Overall though, given the time frame involved, the main ship would probably only make a single orbit around the earth prior to meeting up with the tanker. I've spent longer than that on airplanes after pulling away from the gate waiting for clearance to takeoff.

Comment Re:WOW, this is fucked (Score 1) 461

If a job requires a U.S. government security clearance, then it's trivially easy (and 100% legal) to make hiring decisions based on that requirement. You're legally allowed to put that in the job description and mandate it as a core requirement for employment. DoL and others won't even bat an eye if your response to the question of "why did these 100 Asian applicants get rejected" is "Job requires security clearance, these applicants couldn't obtain one" (assuming you can actually back that up, of course).

Comment Re:Something deeper.. (Score 1, Insightful) 461

While you certainly shouldn't expect companies to hire unqualified people (and if they can demonstrate that's the reason, they're in the clear), you can't simply say "Companies should have the right to pick whoever they want whatever method they please" because that's going to equate to "(Ethnic/Protected Group) Need Not Apply" in many cases. Will they outright say that? No, probably not - but you can be sure that some people will, and it's going to disproportionately hurt vulnerable groups.

Don't forget, too, that Equal Employment Opportunity impacts more than just racial/ethnic minorities. If nothing else, age discrimination is something that everyone in tech is going to face at some point, and it can get pretty pervasive, not the least of which because older workers tend to have higher salary expectations.

And how do you determine that someone is discriminating? It can be very hard to prove that in the case of deciding between two equally qualified applicants that discrimination was the deciding factor. That said, when you have a repeated and consistent pattern, there's probably something going on there. At the very least, it's the job of the Department of Labor to go after those cases, let the company defend itself, and let the Courts determine the facts.

Comment Re:Because it looks like a cover-up (Score 1) 382

It's so the person will be willing to tell you everything. Even if you don't have anything illegal to hide, it is almost often is in your best interest NOT to talk to the police/FBI/etc. It's why you should at minimum consult your lawyer before you do so, and only do so in conjunction with them/their legal advice. If you can negotiate a grant of immunity prior to doing so, that's your absolute best guarantee that the police/FBI/etc won't take something you said and misconstrue it, and wind up charging you over it.

And knowing this, the FBI/police/etc will often use such grants of immunity to induce people to tell them everything and not hold anything back. After all, if they're not interested in prosecuting some low-ranking peon, why not?

Comment Re:Popcorn. (Score 3, Insightful) 382

"Clinton screwed up on email and arguably Benghazi"

I'm sorry -- but there is a very long history of her "screw ups and lies". Whitewater ring a bell? I don't want to list them all out as I dont want to type a "mile long" worth of dirt.

Oh, but please do - because it's not so much a "mile long list" of dirt, so much as it is a mile long list of overhyped nothingburgers that Republicans repeatedly tried to turn into major scandals in an ongoing effort to destroy the Clintons politically. About the only respite from it was when Hillary was seen as a rival to Obama after she lost the primary to him in 2008. Once she became part of his cabinet though, it was "game on" again.

It's actually somewhat more telling that despite all the relentless scrutiny, investigating, and endless parade of hearings, over 24 years now, there still has yet to be a single indictment or criminal charge against her. Either she's the canniest most effective schemer ever (yet simultaneously incompetent enough for all the rest of these minor screwups), or there's really not a lot to any of it.

Comment "Security" (Score 4, Insightful) 181

Of course they didn't conspire to block Linux installs - it was all about providing security to the user, by preventing anyone from attacking the BIOS and the operating system. The fact that this includes the user, and prevents them from "attacking" the operating system by replacing it, is entirely unintentional - or so they'd have you believe.

Sarcasm aside, there is a lot of security-related motivation in attempts to lock down the BIOS, UEFI, etc. The problem is that much of this also has consequences, and we clearly can't rely on companies to simply keep our best interests at heart on their own - but that should come as a surprise to no one here.

Slashdot Top Deals

Little known fact about Middle Earth: The Hobbits had a very sophisticated computer network! It was a Tolkien Ring...