Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



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

Comment And that is why you follow the law. (Score 4, Insightful) 287

Chahal's lawyers, however, claimed that police had illegally seized the video, and a judge ruled that the footage was inadmissible despite prosecutors' argument that officers didn't have time to secure a warrant out of fear that the tech executive would erase the footage.

A warrant is a phone call away; arresting the guy and then calling in a warrant to search for video evidence when seeing cctv isn't that hard nor time consuming.

All it takes is one Judge who follows the law to shut down crooked cops and now a violent offender is getting away with minimal sentencing.

Good job, cops.

Comment Re:Did they know who the culprits were? (Score 2) 383

And wouldn't they have the same duty of care to protect their clients from false claims.

I would argue yes. However, to determine the credulity of the allegations would require some form of due diligence in looking into said claims.

Did Model Mayhem do such? I don't know, but that to me is the question that potentially opens up Model Mayhem to liability.

If they did no such due diligence, then regardless of which position you take, they failed in their duty.

Comment Re:Hypothesis, Analog versus Digital not considere (Score 1) 234

This is how computers measure digital signals but it is not how digital RF systems work.

Except that is exactly how digital RF systems work.

Regardless of how the information is encoded the broadcast RF signal is analog. The "digital" data signal is encoded within the amplitude and frequency of said analog signal.

Comment Which came first, the Chicken or the Egg? (Score 0) 796

... or in this case the Evidence or the Probable Cause?

How exactly did the authorities get a warrant but upon probable cause of the alleged child pornography, without first having evidence of child pornography on the suspects computer?

If the authorities had evidence, then they wouldn't actually need what is on the encrypted drive. If they didn't have the evidence, and the evidence they need is on the encrypted drive, then they never had the evidence to begin with to even get a warrant to seize the drive.

The word of a single person is not sufficient grounds to qualify as probable cause absent some other form of corroborating or circumstantial evidence.

So the question becomes: for what reason are they pursuing unsubstantiated criminal charges against an individual without any corroborating evidence?

Comment Re:Why conceal it? (Score 1) 740

Because the issue is more complex than you realize.

Lets imagine that there are two farmers next to each other both growing wheat. Farmer A is "organic" certified and doesn't use GMO modified wheat. Farmer B does use GMO to maximize yield and thus profits. Both Farmers sell their wheat to two different food processing companies, who then process the wheat and sell it to a different food distribution companies, who then sells the processed wheat to end consumers.

One such consumer is a small independently owned bakery in Vermont who sells packaged bread to other local vendors. This bakery decides to sell only healthy organic, non GMO foods and purchases their food ingredients to conform to this.


Now here is the "crunch" question.

Farmer A finds out that his crop of wheat were cross pollinated from Farmer B's fields when Monsanto comes by, tests their wheat, and claims a patent violation by using unlicensed GMO wheat strains.

The Food Processing company that Farmer A sold his, what he believed was non-GMO "organic", wheat to has all of their food products now cross-contaminated with GMO food products.

The Food Distribution company that Farmer A's wheat is sold to is now selling food that "may" contain GMO without proper labeling.

The small Independently Owned Bakery that bought Farmer A's wheat is now selling baked goods that were supposed to be "organic" but now "may" contain GMO food products.

Who is legally culpable for violating the law? Who is legally responsible for any damages (re: lawsuit)?

Bonus question: What if one of the suppliers in the product distribution chain knowingly omitted labeling foods as containing GMO's to attempt to cash in on the "organic food craze" and make a quick buck by defrauding consumers. Are their consumers now legally culpable and responsible?

Comment Re:Model Airplanes/Rockets (Score 1) 533

It was almost exclusively media hysteria.

The majority of incidents in my area that involved a Drone interfering with something turned out to be either a news drone, or drones being tested by the military.

But holy shitballs the media sure drove everyone into a frenzy about them! (When they were responsible for a bit of it.)

Comment A lot of comments about bashing the lock... (Score 4, Informative) 222

... it's quite evident that not many posters actually watched the video.

The lock isn't being smashed, bashed, smacked or slammed. It's being gently tapped with a brass hammer.

So mentioning bolt cutters, sledge hammers and acetylene torches is about as pertinent as launching into a diatribe about how Mandarin is a hard language to learn, with all of it's tonal inflections, when the discussion topic is about programming languages...

Comment Police and the low hanging fruit... (Score 1) 244

Is it better to assign much more police effort to white collar crime or to arrest 1,000 people trying to buy crack or carrying an illegal weapon?

The police and the DA will always go after low hanging fruit as this makes them look good when they tout statistics on how "tough on crime" they are.

Comment Re:Hovered over property for only 22 seconds .. (Score 1) 664

So what, nobody should have the right to fly a spying machine over your house.

I suggest reading up on Privacy Laws and Property Laws (specifically on who owns the airspace over your property). Your assumption, that nobody should have the right to fly a "spying machine" over your house, is incorrect and not supported in our current laws.

Comment Re:F.U.D. until credible evidence is presented... (Score 1) 268

What's the more likely conclusion?

That a hobbyist intentionally decided to fly his long range drone into a mountainous area that is ON FIRE where he could lose his signal (due to the intervening terrain) and have the drone crash losing several thousand dollars...

or...

an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle that was operating out of a testing facility located nearby accidentally wandered into the area of operations for an active fire fighting aircraft and got a little too close.

I'll take incompetence over malice as the most likely scenario. As to the "government conspiracy to discredit hobbyist?" You mean the "Media Conspiracy" to create alarm, concern and fear where this is none to drive up ratings? Yeah, doesn't sound far fetched at all. It happens all the time.

Slashdot Top Deals

Programming is an unnatural act.

Working...