Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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

Comment Re:Does anybody ... (Score 1) 474

Rational thought went out the window long ago. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats want a rational voting population. And of course, everyone went for the bait - shoot the (purported) messenger instead of looking at the message. Who cares where they came from? Clinton and Podesta can release their copies (Clinton certainly has her speeches - she allowed only 1 copy to be made, and it was exclusively for herself).

Her defense is the same as what Trump would say if his tax returns were leaked - to divert attention to the source, even though he could just release them and clear up any questions.

Does anyone expect either of these two to respect the rule of law?

Comment Re:Extradition? (Score 4, Informative) 77

And if it's not a crime in the country where the person being sought is staying, it's generally not extraditable. Canada is one such country where the treat with the US allows Canada to refuse to extradite such a person. Another reason in the same treaty is if the extradition is of a political nature:

Article 4, section 1, subsection iii

(iii) When the offense in respect of which extradition is requested is of a political character, or the person whose extradition is requested proves that the extradition request has been made for the purpose of trying or punishing him for an offense of the above-mentioned character. If any question arises as to whether a case comes within the provisions of this subparagraph, the authorities of the Government on which the requisition is made shall decide.

Additionally, Canada can refuse to extradite in cases where the death penalty is in play unless the US agrees beforehand not to seek it, of if such judgment is made, not to follow through with it. And in the case of minor children, extradition can be refused if it is determined that such extradition


If a request for extradition is made under this Treaty for a person who at the time of such request, or at the time of the commission of the offense for which extradition is sought, is under the age of eighteen years and is considered by the requested State to be one of its residents, the requested State, upon a determination that extradition would disrupt the social readjustment and rehabilitation of that person, may recommend to the requesting State that the request for extradition be withdrawn, specifying the reasons therefor.


When the offense for which extradition is requested is punishable by death under the laws of the requesting State and the laws of the requested State do not permit such punishment for that offense, extradition may be refused unless the requesting State provides such assurances as the requested State considers sufficient that the death penalty shall not be imposed, or, if imposed, shall not be executed.

It can be argued pretty easily that Snowden, Manning, and Assange all have a defense under Article 2.1(iii) to have safe haven in Canada, since the whole mess has taken on a HUGE political angle, overshadowing everything else. Unfortunately, Obama's kill list has no geographical limit - it's fine to kill Americans anywhere in the world, even in the USA, in violation of their constitutionally protected right to due process. Looks like Obama is taking a page from Bush's "the constitution is just a damn piece of paper" playbook and ran with it.

Comment Re:They both look the same from here (Score 1) 10

Europe between the period of 1920-1930 is a very limited sample size. Look at any monarchy. That's the ownership of power in the hands of a few. The claim that monarchies are legitimate so that makes them non-fascist is total bullshit - those monarchies didn't just naturally evolve - there was a lot of blood spilled in the process.

And then there were conquerors and the conquered where both are the same ethnic group, and the conquerors exert absolute power. And let's not forget slavery - pretty much every major ethnic group has slavery in their history, where power is concentrated in the hands of a small minority.

But the best example is religion. Don't even try to pretend that the catholic church, which in the past could even say when you could have sex, doesn't have a long history of fascist totalitarian behavior and vast economic power.

Comment Re:It's counter-intuitive (Score 1) 227

Females can have colour blindness as well. It's just a lot rarer.

Of course, which is why I said that males have a higher risk, not that it was limited to males. The higher risk means that if someone is color-blind, they're more likely to be male, so eliminate all color-blind people and you're disproportionately eliminating males. Or limit yourself to color-blind people, and you'll have a preponderance of males. Either way, it is an indirect method of discriminating by sex.

Comment False dichotomy (Score 2) 215

The absurdly long duration of copyrights, from the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension act, is indeed absurd.

A good discussion, how can we fix copyright without telling artists that they don't own their own work, would be useful.

The fact that copyright law has problems, however, does not mean that it has no value and should be discarded entirely. Except on slashdot, where any problem whatsoever can only be seen in black or white, a complete dichotomy: if copyright law isn't perfect then it's useless, no other possibilities.

Comment Who is the defendant (Score 1) 215

Samsung is, for the moment ay least, a multi-billion dollar company with huge pockets. Win or lose the cost of this type of court case is a blip in their budget. However for the defendant the financial risk is huge: he could lose his life savings on a case like this.

Isn't Youtube the defendant here?

No, it's not.

Comment Before copyright, no credit and no money (Score 3, Insightful) 215

Creative writing/art/etc was doing well before anyone thought of copyright.

No, actually it wasn't. Before copyright, writers got no credit and no money for their work. Most of the works surviving from the middle ages we don't even know who wrote them-- the authors are called things like "the Pearl poet" by scholars, because all we know of him (?) is that he (or she) wrote the Pearl sequence (and Gawain).

Copyright law might be broken, but no copyright is not the solution.

Comment It's counter-intuitive (Score 3, Interesting) 227

Anyone who accepts getting DNA test to get a job is by definition a follower, a brown-nose, a suck-up, not a leader.

Employers don't really want too many leader types - they tend to call out bullshit instead of bending over and taking it.

And if you want grovelers, there are easier ways to screen for them. Just tell them the interview is at 1 PM sharp, and then keep them waiting a few hours. Those that wait it out have demonstrated that they'll put up with being treated like crap, and will probably also say okay to unpaid overtime and weekends, etc. "These are the proles you're looking for."

Also, the test is clearly arbitrary, invasive, and unproven. Any company that asks for this is a place you don't want to work for (unless you're a submissive prole, of course). It's also illegal - a blood sample will also reveal genetic diseases such as Type 1 diabetes, making it easy to discriminate against "those people" based on a hidden physical handicap. The presence or lack of a Y chromosome can also out transsexuals. The presence of a Y chromosome also carries with it a higher risk of color-blindness, A Y chromosome also generally means a shorter life span, so lower pension costs. XX means the chance of medical costs for pregnancies, miscarriages, abortions, and more unplanned time off to deal with the kids.

IEven if they use anonymous evaluation in the hiring process, and don't test specifically for XX or XY, the genetic presence of color-blindness unmasks males, making it somewhat easier to choose whichever sex you want to discriminate against.

Comment Re:I didn't realize "Note" was a brand (Score 1) 137

Uh, Windows????

After suing Lindows, Microsoft settled out of court with Lindows by paying them $20 million to change their name to Linspire rather than risk having a judge rule that Windows is a generic term. and thus Lindows couldn't infringe on Microsoft's trademarks because "Windows" would be a generic term ineligible for trademark protection.

Slashdot Top Deals

I'm a Lisp variable -- bind me!