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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:2nd (Score 1) 109

I don't think you get what I'm saying. Which is OK because it really was off topic.

I believe our courts have, in some cases, invented rights where none really exist and have ignored rights that ARE enumerated in our constitution. The 10th amendment is the most trampled with the 2nd, 4th and 5th often abridged as well. This should NOT be. Courts should be limited to interpreting the law, not MAKING law though their decisions. They will sometimes be called on to resolve conflicts in existing law and produce precedent, but that should not establish a de facto law or invent rights that here to fore didn't exist.

Unfortunately, that's not how most people see the courts. The courts are now a political tool. See any discussion of the Heller decision by Mrs. Clinton during the last debate or much of the "Citizen United" decision for examples of what I mean. This stuff should NOT be part of a political campaign and only is because the courts have allowed themselves to make decisions based on politics in the past. Which is my point. This should not be so.

Comment Re:Incriminating evidence (Score 1) 109

Ah come on, you've seen this in all the crime investigation process dramas in the past decade. When the police ask you a question, YOU ask to consult your lawyer and according to your Miranda rights, you must be given access to your lawyer, end of questioning for the time being...

Now, I normally don't recommend you obtain legal knowledge watching TV shows, but in this case, there is enough truth here to be relevant.

I DO however recommend you shut up and consult your lawyer at any point you are not totally clear what your rights are, why the police are asking the questions or if you feel like they are looking to charge you for something you did or didn't do.

Comment Re:2nd (Score 1) 109

Yea, but they "must not abridge" that right you know...

Interesting how we have justified away our constitutional rights in the last few decades isn't it? For the "good of all" we now give up more and more freedom and the courts seem willing to help it happen in the name of social justice, political correctness or even the judge's personal feelings...

(Yes, I'm pointing at the 9th Circuit.... You folks need to swallow a huge does of "what does the law say" and stop with this "but it's mean if you do that" stuff.)

Comment Re:Incriminating evidence (Score 1) 109

Ah that pesky 5th amendment (along with the 4th) and the limits it puts on law enforcement. Finally a judge that seems to understand the constitution.

I'm guessing though that if law enforcement wants to log into your device, there are other ways in. Didn't we just have a story about that today?

However, be it known that the 5th and 4th amendments don't keep you from being compelled to provide evidence in some circumstances. Best you consult a criminal lawyer before providing or refusing to provide information you are asked. There are times you cannot refuse.

Comment Re:misread as cellulite (Score 1) 98

I believe it. Fingerprint scanning was once a really loosey goosey way of providing the illusion of security, but where easily fooled using some pretty low tech. Although a hotdog sure seems to be pretty low tech.. Even on a good day, finger print scanning is pretty bad, either giving you a really high false positive or really high reject rates, even today, when the horse power needed to sort though a pile of prospective fingerprints looking for a match is more readily available.

Think of it as a really bad padlock with one tumbler made of plastic... Easy to pick if you don't want anybody to know you broke in, or you can just yank it off with your bare hands if you don't care if they find out...

Comment Re:Not so fast... (Score 2) 185

I've been sued by a former employer who I had felt it necessary to quit without notice with a wife that was 9 months pregnant and no job prospects in sight. I think I understand the implications of what I'm saying here. Try to get a job when your last employer is lying about you, basically accusing you of all sorts of unethical behavior and threatening to sue prospective employers if they hire you. It was a bad time, a new baby, medical bills and paying a lawyer, but staying would have been worse so I'm glad I quit. I had good reasons to quit and having stuff thrown at me one morning and being verbally threatened was the last straw so I was no longer their employee that afternoon.

NEVER abide a bad situation if you have *any* other options. If you are in a hostile environment like this one (or the one I was in) run, don't walk, away as fast as you can. I know I kept telling myself it would get better, just a little longer, they will eventually come around. Chances are they won't and what was once a daily ball of stress and abuse never got better. In the end for me, it was a mess of lawsuits, lawyers and legal fees, which resulted in me getting paid some lost wages and their dropping all their claims.

So, I do kind of understand what I'm advising folks to do... It's not easy and yes it affects your professional career in the short term, but long term, you have to deal with this garbage sooner rather than later. The longer you wait, the worse it gets when you try to unwind all the garbage. So deal with it now.

Seriously, if garbage like described in the article is going on, they NEED to be sued, or at least threated with legal action. Sure, get yourself another job if you can stand it before hiring a lawyer, but don't delay. Do something, ASAP.

Comment Re:Sterile and shattered. (Score 1) 271

Really? So the laws of Physics just might be discovered wrong in the future?

Perhaps our understanding of Physics will change and interstellar space travel will be proven possible, but I'm not holding my breath on that. Einstein and Newton where bright guys and their explanation of Physics seems to be fairly well established. Until we have some major revision to these theories, it isn't happening.

Comment Re:Sterile and shattered. (Score 1) 271

Because our ancestors didn't have a choice did they? Or perhaps you think they did? Did somebody in the distant past decide for all future generations that they where stuck here?

Seriously... So unless you can claim somebody in the past made the moral decision to just dump us off here, we are not talking about the same thing.

Unless of course you do believe that was a choice made by some ancestor.... In which case we need to have a talk...

Comment Not so fast... (Score 0) 185

If this story is really true, there is a huge lawsuit in Uber's future... Given that there really hasn't been such a lawsuit yet, I'm a bit hesitant to just accept all this at face value.

ANY attorney who can pass the bar could win a civil judgment of epic proportions if there is *any* evidence to substantiate that this kind of harassment is a regular happening and the company isn't doing anything to curb it. Now I'm not saying that it's not happening, only that I'm a bit skeptical about such stories coming from people who are not availing themselves of the legal protections they have. Especially when it would literally cost them nothing to get a lawyer to take this on contingency. It's not like lawyers are hard to find... (Yes, honest ones are rare, but you don't need an honest one here..)

Comment Re:Sterile and shattered. (Score 1) 271

Succeeding generations of Pilgrims had (and still have) the option of returning to where they came from.

A "generation ship" has no such luxury. It's NOT going to be possible for somebody to return once the mission is underway. You and your progeny are stuck while Sir Isaac Newton and possibly Einstein are driving. There are no ships home coming within your lifetime. For you it's a one way trip and other than killing yourself, you have zero say about how your life will be spent.

Is it moral and ethical to do this kind of thing to generations? Effectively force them to be slaves of the "mission" like it or no? I'm not so sure we can absolutely say it is.

So for any mission that lasts longer than the expected lifetime of the people that choose to go, there are some thorny ethical questions to ask and resolve.

Comment Re:Sterile and shattered. (Score 1) 271

So you are proposing that we push the space craft along by detonating nuclear devices behind it?

Well that might actually work in theory, but there ARE some serious potential problems to discuss.... What is pushing the craft along? In this case it seems it would be both radiation and high speed matter impacting the craft. This doesn't seem like a long term solution, because neutron radiation is pretty destructive in the long term because it can change the chemistry of the stuff it hits, is really hard to effectively shield (or at least such shields are really heavy), and the physical heating/cooling of the outside of the craft will be a serious long term risk due to work hardening of the metals.

The real problem ends up really being duration. It's not that radiation shielding doesn't exist, but that given the time frames we are discussing are in the order of multiple decades to centuries, the current technology wears out long before the mission would be over.

Remember, there is no resupply, no sending spare parts or refueling, you have to take everything needed with you when you depart the solar system. And what you take will need to last half a century or more....

Slashdot Top Deals

No one gets sick on Wednesdays.

Working...