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


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

Comment Re:Leave. (Score 1) 427

I don't know about law in any of the US, but in the UK: a private letter is considered to be "published", for libel purposes, the moment it is opened (by someone other than the party being libelled, or someone acting as their agent and with their express permission to open it)

Yes. It is roughly the same in the U.S. See HERE, in the section headed "Publication".

Comment Re:Leave. (Score 1) 427

With the intent to cause damage. Look it up. They damaged party has to prove intent. Which is why there are almost never successful; libel or slander cases in the US.

This is not true. At least in most states, intent to harm is not required.

What IS usually required is to show that the accused knew, or reasonably should have known, that the statement was false.

That is not quite the same thing.

Comment Re:This. Libel need not be public, but must be unt (Score 1) 427

It's amazing to me how many people don't get the difference between stating an opinion and stating something as fact. I am thinking of a certain Slashdot frequenter who fits that profile.

There is a great deal of legal precedent in that regard. For example, calling someone "an ass" or similar is pretty definitely an opinion, even if it's stated as though it were fact: "You're an ass."

In college law classes there is a rather famous case study from, I think, the 17th century.

A guest at an inn told the innkeeper: "My horse can pisse better ale than you serve here."

The innkeeper sued the customer for slander. The judge ruled: "The accused did not slander the innkeeper. He complimented his horse."

So, while there are lines as to what is acceptable speech and what is not, it pays to be cognizant of where those lines are. And many people have no clue.

Comment Re:Leave. (Score 4, Informative) 427

This is quite incorrect. I would say dangerously incorrect. At least in most of the U.S.

In general, actionable defamation (of which libel and slander are particular examples) only requires that you express untrue, damaging things to someone other than the party you are referring to. There is NO specific requirement that it be public.

And "damage" is used loosely here. Damage could mean damage to their career, or damage to their public reputation, or even just damage to a single friend's opinion of them.

If you wrote untrue, damaging things in a document to your HR department, that could definitely be considered libel, and would likely be actionable. Specific cases vary, but again in general.

Of course, truth is (again in general... most U.S. states) an absolute defense. So if what you wrote is true and you can demonstrate that it is, by a preponderance of evidence, then you're probably safe. But you'd better have that evidence.

In addition, most corporations have as part of their employment conditions that you can't sue the company or other employees as a result of negative opinions expressed as part of "official" company communications, such as an employee review or exit interview.

Again in the U.S., that is simply not true. "Most" corporations do NOT have such a clause in their contract, and there is a very strong push to stop that practice in those states where it is still allowed. Because in some states such clauses are specifically prohibited by law, and the list of those states is growing.

Comment Re:headline resummarized: Tor!=Panacea (Score 1) 55

> I like the idea of running tor an a separate VM from the one you do your browsing on.

It is a proxy and most of the attack vectors attack the end client, not the network itself.... the tor client needs internet access, the client behind it can only harm itself with direct acces.... so don't give it...not even dns, nothing. Just port 9050 alone and only one responding IP.

Maybe drop another interface on there and log all the non-port 9050 traffic as well :)

Comment Re:headline resummarized: Tor!=Panacea (Score 1) 55

That is not the very least. That is a whole bunch of extra work when entire distributions exist just to obviate the need for this. Take a look at tails.

It is, of course, recommended to put it on a usb stick and clean boot hardware off the stick to use it; however, there is nothing stopping you from bringing it up in a VM if you are ok with the trade offs.

Accomplishes the same thing, for less work, and with a much larger already setup base which will be identical to other users, in ways that increase the work of differentiating you from other users.

also, it is possible to jail an environment better.... What you really want on you VM is to jail it onto a network segment with no gateway where its only connection to the outside world is a tor client on a second VM.

Which i care enough to state, not enough to even setup for myself. I have a few tails sticks for the few things I really need a secure environment far that means mostly for times I want to drop off the network entirely in order to work with key generation.

Comment Re:Here come the science deniers (Score 1) 560

> different psychotropic drugs, many of which I found out later have studies showing that they are less effective than a placebo (but slightly more effective than the previous class of useless drugs).

And yet, nobody had any qualms about prescribing them and charging insurance or taking your money for them. Less effective than placebo....that is really fucking something.

Comment Re:Here come the science deniers (Score 4, Insightful) 560

More than that, even if you are not trying to do bad science, there is always incentive to report bad science. I saw a great example myself a while back, big headline about marijuana use increasing the risk of heart a pot smoker I was concerned, so I dig in....

First, it wasn't the main point of the study. Pot smokers made up a small portion of their study population. The overall study was good.

So out of a study of many hundreds, the big headline was on a small sub-population of somewhere around 20 people. The main metric they used was how many hours it had been since a person last smoked.... 24 hours being the lowest.

So basically.... a small number of pot smokers who had heart attacks before and had new ones, had them within 24 hours of smoking pot. Totally disregarding that if they had another heart attack at all, the likelyhood of it being within 24 hours of smoking was high, even if there is no connection.

It wasn't even a large difference, it was a small anomaly from a small population.

In the end, the result wasn't worth reporting, much less a headline, but reporting it like they did got their names int he paper and a big national headline.

Comment Re:Why? (Score 3, Interesting) 403

If you mean "try it" or "use it sometimes" then there are lots of reasons, esp if you need to maintain a windows box for any reason (there are some games I really like and have had too many headaches trying to switch)

I would much prefer to do any and all development/real work on a Unix platform and preferably linux. However... having the tools I know and love available to me is always a bonus....even if its in the ridiculously stupid, disrespectful surveillance malware of an OS Windows 10 really aspires to be.

I would never trust Windows as a platform. Its a game box, the windows 10 PC is a glorified game console that also doubles as an acceptable platform for shit-talking on the web.

That will always be the extend of its usefulness, because that is as far as I can trust it.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you push the "extra ice" button on the soft drink vending machine, you won't get any ice. If you push the "no ice" button, you'll get ice, but no cup.