Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:clearly the truckers are right (Score 1) 331

What the intent was is actually completely irrelevant in any law. The courts do not decide on intent.

That's not always the case. Where the law has a clear and obvious meaning, legislative intent does not enter into the discussion. However, when there is ambiguity, courts may turn to legislative intent to get an idea of what the law should mean. In Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 723 (2000), the majority (six justices) opinion and one of two concurring opinions held that because a plain reading of the law resulted in an absurdity, the intent of Congress in passing the law must be examined. Thomas concurred in the result but disagreed with the need to use legislative intent, and Scalia disagreed with using legislative intent and with the Court's choice of definitions.

This has become less common in the last few decades, as discussed in this William and Mary Law Review article but it's still around at various levels. In general, the more conservative the judge or justice, the less likely they are to rely on legislative intent, while more liberal judges and justices are more likely to rely on it. However, use of it has decreased across the spectrum.

Comment Re:Know how else users can get faster load times? (Score 1) 82

If sites are using a CDN rather than hosting the Javascript libraries and generic CSS themselves, there is a good chance that it is in your cache already.

Depending on the source used, it may also have a more recent version of the JS library than might be otherwise used, as some of the CDNs that maintain the libraries automatically update to the latest compatible version.

Comment Re:Give the consumers a refund on what they paid (Score 1) 48

If looking at the content of messages sent by someone outside of your servers is illegal, then all automated mail filtering at the server level is illegal. The scammers certainly don't consent to you looking at their spam/phishing/malware to see if it should be sent off to another folder or even outright deleted.

There's nothing illegal about what Google is doing with Gmail. You can argue that there are ethical or moral reasons against it, but to argue legalities, especially without citing the criminal law it's allegedly breaking, is to undermine a critical part of modern information security.

Comment Re:Lawyers get rich... (Score 1) 48

Consumers are going to get, at best, a notice at the top of their Gmail login with information about the settlement and a reiteration of what almost all of them already knew: Google looks for keywords and alters its advertising accordingly. They're not going to get a payout, or even a coupon or discount code good for purchase of Google products.

The lawsuit was someone looking for a payout, and the settlement is Google trying to get out of it as cheaply as possible. As torkus said, the lawyers are the winners here. For everyone else, life just goes on.

Comment Re: Too extreme (Score 1) 306

I don't know if this would work for other people, but forcing someone to use metrics for a critical part of their life, even for only a few weeks, can help metrics make sense. I've generally been in favor of a metric conversion, but never had a serious opportunity to make that jump until last year.

When my son was born premature, he was in the hospital for seven weeks. Just about everything we did was metric: his weight, his meds, the amount of milk he took was in various metric measurements. About the only non-metric measurements were his temperature and length. He was only in the NICU for a week before being moved to Pediatrics, and we basically lived there with him for six weeks, participating in most of the activities associated with building up his feeding ability and core strength so he could go home.

This has resulted in us keeping many things metric for him because it makes sense to us. We still weigh him in kilos (and have to convert that to pounds for others). While he was still on milk, we measured that out in milliliters, and when we mix his formula, everything is in grams (570g of water, 145g of formula powder, and 28g of corn cereal combined for four bottles of ~175mL of formula). Talking to his pediatrician, we have to convert to ounces (we just call it "about six"), and we have to convert recommendations from tablespoons and ounces to metric equivalents so the scale seems right to us.

We still haven't quite latched onto distance measurements, but that's probably just be a matter of finding the right scenario and using it almost exclusively.

Comment Re:Fake News (Score 1) 278

Considering the engines provided a max of around 22,000 pounds of thrust and the plane weighed around 30,000 pounds empty, the brick strapped to a rocket analogy is inaccurate. The aerodynamics work, if there is a rapid enough input to deal with the rapid changes in airflow. The same has been the case since at least the F-14; the F-117 was just an extreme case. Modern fighters are even less statically stable than the Nighthawk was. It's what gives them their maneuverability.

Comment Re:But.. (Score 1) 181

The incremental cost is probably minimal, especially compared to the cost of existing bottle redesigns, as are the potential lost sales. I've seen various attempts to market bottles in forms that are supposed to get more of the product out (only the 409 bottles that feed from the bottom via a molded tube seem to fully work), and that can absolutely be a sales pitch. I hate trying to get the last of the mayo out of the jar because I end up having to dirty a spatula to get at the remnants. I'd happily get something that would allow me to pour out the last bits instead, and I suspect many others will, too.

Comment Re:Okay - that was quick. (Score 2) 895

that explains picking a Judge with only ten years of experience to the Supreme Court instead of the most experienced one that could be found.

Chief Justice John Roberts had five years of experience as a judge before being nominated for Associate Justice to replace retiring Justice O'Connor and then being nominated to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist when he died. While I don't agree with everything he says, he's done a good job of steering the court overall.

Going after the most experienced usually means going after the oldest, which has some potentially significant downsides not just in terms of time on the Supreme Court but also often least understanding of current issues. Going after the most qualified does not mean the most experienced.

Comment Re:I did a complete 180 on AV software (Score 1) 231

SEH has been present in some form since at least XP. It's old tech, with numerous bypasses. Windows 10's big improvement is Control Flow Guard.

Getting around ASLR is relatively easy if any library loads that does not use ASLR, and this is unfortunately very common.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Marriage is low down, but you spend the rest of your life paying for it." -- Baskins

Working...