Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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

Comment Re:Make up your mind (Score 2) 73

Or how about the police that has militarized to the point where they are an occupying force?

Hyperbole much? An occupying force? That's where you're going? Have you ever been under occupation? Do you have any idea what conditions are like under occupation? Here's a hint: go ask the Palestinians what occupation is like.

Or how about police in neighborhoods that regularly target minorities?

You do realize those neighborhoods most likely have a high percentage of minorities (which is odd since they then wouldn't be minorities)? Would you like the police to turn a blind eye to the crimes? Look at what happened in Baltimore when police stopped patrolling.

because there is obviously a middle ground between giving the police 'new toys' and giving them pillows.

This is the middle ground. Police won't be shooting at criminals. They'll be using less lethal means to do their jobs.

Of course all of this wouldn't be necessary if criminals wouldn't be criminals. But lets us blame the police for doing their job, not the criminals for committing the crimes, for putting their lives on the line to protect the whiners, who think nothing of going into the line of fire in domestic disputes or go out in miserable weather to rescue asshats who drive around signs warning people of flooded roadways, thereby endangering themselves in the process.

It seems they care about the plight of your brothers and sisters more than you imagine in your fantasy world of oppression.

Comment Funny, but meh (Score 3, Interesting) 174

When one considers Russia has an office in St. Petersburg out of which it pays an army of online trolls to spew Russian propaganda or muddy the waters by making false statements and outright lies about Russia's invasion of Ukraine, one person from the U.S., doing this on his own without government backing, doesn't quite rise to the level of nuisance.

Sure, Putin is probably miffed this has been done and is looking for payback, but when one is spending millions of dollars every year to pay people (not to mention their vodka allotment) to do your bidding, and providing them the equipment to do so, one person isn't going to make a difference.

Had he instead posted pictures of the unmarked graves of Russian soldiers who have died during the invasion of Ukraine, that would have been different and had a greater impact. Not that Putin cares about the over 2,000 soldiers who have so far died during the invasion, including colonels within the Russian military who are working to support the invasion, but it would have been a nice touch to rub Putin's nose into how badly Russia miscalculated and is suffering because of Putin's ego.

Comment That's not what they did though. (Score 1) 365

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) 365

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: Halfway There (Score -1, Troll) 375

Just because you know people who are responsible gun owners does not mean everyone is and the statistics prove it out, particularly when it comes to children either killing themselves or others with guns they found lying around.

Then there are those who think Russian roulette is a game.

This doesn't include those gun owners who don't bother to report their guns have been stolen. Which is odd because if they're responsible they wouldn't leave their guns in their cars.

Comment Re:"hacked"? (Score 1) 313

So you are equating war crimes on one side with the use of what may now be legal fundraising loopholes *pushed by the conservatives* on the other? Wow talk about cognitive dissonance.

She bragged about framing an Iranian citizen to try to trick one of our allies into war with Iran on false pretenses.

Yes, she is as evil as Bush.

Comment Skyrim is a 2011 game though (Score 1) 259

I mean nothing wrong with having it on the platform, but it isn't exactly the pinnacle of modern tech. It was released in 2011, and the console versions were designed to target systems with 512MB of RAM (unified for the 360, 256/256 system/GPU for the PS3) at 1280x720@30fps. That was fairly low spec then, since the consoles were old (remember Oblivion released in 2006 as one of the first flight titles on the Xbox 360) and is really low spec now. It wouldn't at all surprise me if my Shield Tablet could handle it easily. It has more RAM, and its GPU seems to be at least as powerful as the 360/PS3 era stuff.

So while there's nothing wrong with Nintendo getting games like this, it isn't really some major win, or proof of a high spec system. We saw the same kind of thing happen with the Wii U where it got games that previously the Wii hadn't because of a lack of power.

The issue in the long run is that being too low spec can exclude games from being released on your platform. While people like to claim "graphics don't matter" they do and they sell games. That aside, there are a lot of things you could want to put in a game that will require more memory, more CPU, more GPU and so on. Developers aren't always going to be interested in either compromising on what they want to make, or producing a cut-down version to target the lower spec hardware.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Ask not what A Group of Employees can do for you. But ask what can All Employees do for A Group of Employees." -- Mike Dennison