Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Wut? (Score 1) 39

If the government is doing something illegal, they just stop.

No they don't, who's gonna stop 'em?

So your thesis is that injunctions against the government are simply ignored?

Ignored... not so far, not quite. Stretched right to the limit, and maybe a bit beyond ("The plane was already in the air, we didn't know that verbal court orders had to be obeyed"), then emergency-appealed direct to SCOTUS, which quickly stays the injunction and then sits on the case for 6-9 months and then often rules that the issue is now moot... that has happened. A lot.

And "simply ignored" could very well still happen if Trump thinks it's important enough. He'll just issue an order (an official act, for which he has full immunity) and pre-emptively pardon the people who carry it out. So far the administration has decided not to cross that line, but if/when it happens, the only people who will be surprised are the ones who aren't paying attention.

Then there are the other cases where there is no injunction because the courts have ruled that only Congress has standing to sue (impoundment, emoluments, etc.), and the bootlicking GOP has declined. In those cases, the government can just violate the law with impunity until/unless Congress grows a spine.

Plus there are the cases where the government has committed outright crimes which only the DoJ is in a position to prosecute, and they're just declining. In the case of the Venezuelan boats the DoJ's inaction gives the International Criminal Court jurisdiction, and they could prosecute (including prosecuting Trump), but the Trump administration is already enacting sanctions against ICC judges and prosecutors and if push comes to shove there's the Hague Invasion Act which would authorize Trump to invade the Netherlands to retrieve US personnel held by the ICC. So, the ICC isn't going to do anything.

"Who's gonna stop 'em?" is a legitimate question.

Comment Re:I actually use em-dashes now. (Score 1) 116

Linux uses [ctr]+[alt]+[shift]+[u] followed by 2014 then [enter] — what a mess, and I can never remember it and just try the [alt] + #### which winds up triggering tabs and other crap.

My previous reply was unnecessarily snarky, but I have to point out the "Linux" uses no such thing. GNOME, perhaps? I'm currently running KDE and Ctrl+Alt+Shift+u doesn't do this. Maybe it would if I changed the right setting.

Basically any "here's how you do that" advice is going to be very platform-dependent -- I just use a pair of hyphens. An actual em dash looks nicer, but not that much nicer. Though "—" is pretty easy on /., at least.

Comment Re:Not really (Score 1) 116

1) Chatbots do NOT write well. They copy mediocre professional prose. That is not good writing.

Without getting into the question of good or bad, chatbot prose is quite distinct from most professional prose. There are lots of common patterns in AI prose that are fairly rare to nonexistent in human-written prose.

2) For this reason, it is hard to tell them from mediocre professional prose.

Definitely not. Once you've read enough of it, AI prose isn't just easy to distinguish, it's impossible to miss. It's a very definite and unique style.

Comment Re:The long-term impact of this on the US (Score 2) 186

Is this just something fascist autocrats do?

Fascism doesn't necessarily try to burn down science; Hitler did eject (and murder) a lot of Jewish scientists for being Jewish, but his regime was generally quite pro-science otherwise. Other autocratic regimes were also quite pro-science, once established. The USSR poured a lot of money into science. Not as much as the US but that was mostly because the USSR didn't have as much money to pour.

The regimes that reject science are populists and autocrats who are just establishing their power. Populism is fundamentally about rejection of influential and powerful elites, and the intelligentsia is both elite, because by definition it's a tiny and hard-to-enter group, and influential, because it's full of smart people who can give good policy advice within their areas of expertise. Populists don't necessarily need to eject the scientists and other academics, but they need to be seen bringing them under control. Trump doesn't want to shut Harvard down, he wants Harvard to bend to his will and, more importantly, be seen bending to his will.

Of course, to the extent that a government succeeds in disempowering and controlling the intelligentsia, it also drives them away and deprives itself of the benefits of their work.

Autocratic regimes in the making, whether populist or not, also seek to disempower the intelligentsia because they need to destroy the previous centers of power to solidify their own power. This is why most of the Communist revolutions imprisoned or killed all of the university professors right off. Some went a lot further; the Khmer Rouge basically murdered anyone with any post-secondary education, including all of their schoolteachers which, uh, didn't bode well for the future.

In the modern day, populism and autocracy tend to coincide because democracy has basically won as the default way any regime holds legitimacy. Most of the autocratic regimes today are at least notionally democratic, even if the elections are somewhat rigged and even if the autocrat uses their control of the media to control public opinion in their favor. Anti-elitism is basically necessary to retain autocratic power in a democracy because it's impossible to do without lying a lot, and that means you have to suppress people who seek truth. That means academics and journalists must be discredited and disempowered.

So, it's definitely something that autocratic populists do, because it's essential to their ability to gain and retain power. The long-term effects countries who go this way are predictable.

Comment Re:Seems reasonable (Score 1) 60

and contrary to popular belief, the government does not pay for that data

It really depends. ATT makes substantial amounts on their LEO customers. I understand Verizon has a similar program, and after Worldcom, all smaller the telecom companies fell in line.

That program was shut down in 2024, so it's no longer running. It's an interesting point, though. The reason LE was buying that data was because they couldn't easily get subpoenas or warrants for it, which makes it far worse.

Give Google and Zuckerbook and the others a decade of mature market profits and it'll get around to optimizing lines of business like that, too. They just make more money on other stuff now so they don't bother.

The amount of money AT&T was making was trivial, a few tens of millions per year at the high end. For a company that has annual revenues exceeding $100B it's hard to see why they even bothered. My theory is that they were more interested in the goodwill it earned them with the DoJ. Anyway, I bring this up because at least for Google (who I worked for for 15 years, so I have a pretty good understanding of the internal views), such trivial potential revenue would be seen as absolutely not worth the PR risk. It's much better for Google (and other tech companies) to be seen fighting warrants and subpoenas.

Also, I'll mention that the strategy I described -- treat user data as a liability, encrypt it all, burn the keys as soon as the data isn't needed any more -- is exactly what Google does. I'm not saying that could never change, but it would require the business environment to change, and if anything the environment is getting more sensitive to user privacy, not less.

Comment Re:Seems reasonable (Score 2) 60

I'm under the impression that most Ring users actually want their data to be used by the police to help stop crime (or whatever). Certainly some do. I can't find a poll on the topic though.

Then if Ring is smart they should make it easy for users to provide the data to the police, and ensure that Ring can't, making themselves useless as a subpoena target and encouraging police to go ask the homeowners directly.

Submission + - US sanctions Italian leftwing net infrastructure provider (wewillfreeus.org)

Elektroschock writes: The United States put an Italian hacktivism group providing net infrastructure on a terror list and revoked their domain name. On August 26, 2026, the United States State Department designated Autistici/Inventati a Specially Designated Global Terrorist and placed it on the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons list.

Comment Re:Reminds me (Score 1) 108

Because there is a lot of negativity about China and Chinese brands.

In the UK you can buy an MG, and they are good, solid, well made cars, at very reasonable prices. MG is a very old British car brand, and stands for Morris Garages. Their cars were crap and they went bust decades ago because they couldn't compete with European and Japanese manufacturers.

Now they are a SAIC (Shanghai Automotive) brand. SAIC sells commercial vehicles under its own name here too, because commercial buyers are only interested in the numbers and no all the nonsense about Chinese products that consumers pick up on.

It works both ways. Berghaus is British, not German. Haggen Dazs is American, not Danish. Matsui is British, not Japanese, as is Superdry (all the Japanese writing on their clothes is nonsense).

Slashdot Top Deals

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. -- Albert Einstein

Working...