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


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:The only way the public will learn... (Score 2) 95

show everyone how undermining the security measures of the global tech. economy and culture is tantamount to shooting yourself in the foot.

Are you kidding? The powers that be will spin this as proving their point:

If it weren't for all this evil encryption they would have no problem catching the villainous hackers that perpetrated these crimes against humanity by these supporters of terrorism and child pornography for the children. It's only because of un-backdoored evil encryption that the angelic powers of all good failed to stop these terroristic endeavours which exposed this good company that has help the FBI foil 1 million terrorist plots by providing means of accessing evilly encrypted systems.

Comment Re:Drone It (Score 2) 843

I honestly don't think a real "organized" war of that kind is likely to ever happen again. We have long since passed the point where the major actors are just too big and powerful to risk war with eachother, so they engage in little more than proxy wars against eachother's minor interests.

Even that doesn't really seem to describe the present day since the major powers major interests are so aligned they don't even proxy war with eachother so much as with the fallout from the decades worth of mess they made with their proxy wars.

Man are you out of touch with what's happening in the world. It's exactly that type of thinking which predominated prior to WW I and is considered a major contributing factor to it starting. Putin's rhetoric and brinkmanship likely has the risk of a major war closer now than it was during the cold war.

Comment Re:Liberty? (Score 1) 241

I feel for the guy--his job is to prevent another 9/11. He gets the call if a city blows up. And he probably really cares about defending liberty.

Bullshit. They've got you brainwashed by the "terrorism" threat also. You're misunderstanding the whole function of his job. He is not trying to protect the American people. The FBI/NSA/CIA strayed from that goal long ago. Their job is to protect the government from anyone who opposes it including the American people. The kind of access they're asking for could serve no other purpose than to find and neutralize anyone who might oppose the powers that control the government. If the desired goal was to thwart "terrorism" their resources should be much more focused. Unless you consider things like OWS or protests against the police "terrorism".

But unfortunately, pervasive surveillance without amazingly well-engineered procedural oversight and security will inevitably lead to tyranny.

With the level of information gathering and access they're asking for absolutely no amount of well-engineered procedural oversight and security will prevent tyranny. It supplies WAY to much power.

Comment Re: Well, then I guess (Score 1) 284

What is the rationale for treating real property differently than other property?

The rational for the value of real property is scarcity. There is only so much and only one person can use it at a time. It cost time and money to produce more in the case of goods and services.

Then again, copyright and patents are like real property.

No they're are not. Scarcity is what gives property value. Copyright and patents are a way to artificially create scarcity. In a market economy the the price of a good or service should approach it's marginal cost over time. Copyright and patents prevent that. Copyrights are an artifact from a bygone age where publishing creative works was expensive and difficult. The current copyright laws address a 20th century problem. The rapid evolution of most technological areas means patents primary function is to retard advancement and provide rents for unproductive entities. I neither case are these the intended functions of there respective laws. There intended (and in the US only Constitutional purpose) should be to encourage advancement.

Comment Re:Fascinating ship (Score 1) 114

Even if Musashi and Yamato had been deployed for key battles such as Midway and Guadalcanal, it's unlilkely they would have made much difference.

Ummm...Yamato was deployed at the Battle of Midway. She was Yamamoto's flagship. Guadalcanal wasn't really a single naval battle per say. There were a series of naval engagements that occurred as a result of one side or the other trying to reinforce thier ground forces. The naval forces involved in any given engagement ranged wildly from full blown carrier battles to night destroyer skirmishes.

Comment Re:Flawed Statistics (Score 1) 201

Seriously, if you think this makes the statistics "flawed"... then you don't know anything about statistics.

It doesn't make the statistics flawed. It makes the conclusion flawed.

The more churches there are per square mile the more crime there is per square mile, ergo churches cause crime.

Statistics are numbers. They don't lie. It's the people twisting conclusions from them that are the liers.

Comment Re:Gibson Guitar SWAT raid ... (Score 1) 327

Some departments deploy SWAT for non-high risk situations because they see it as a convenient training exercise. The close quarter skills employed by SWAT are perishable, they need constant rehearsing. The low-risk deployments provide a certain amount of randomization to further enhance their skills, unknown buildings, unknown layouts, etc..

Except police don't provide information on where, how often and on who they deploy SWAT. Nor do they keep records on violence used by police. That kind of information would be inconvenient in the hands of the public.

I made a joking comment about police calling out SWAT for someone with parking tickets. A cop I know was there. He commented in a very exasperated tone that it was "command" that called in SWAT not the line cops. He seemed very frustrated by it and as confounded as I am.

Comment Re:SWAT needs training ... (Score 1) 327

Some departments deploy SWAT for non-high risk situations because they see it as a convenient training exercise. The close quarter skills employed by SWAT are perishable, they need constant rehearsing. The low-risk deployments provide a certain amount of randomization to further enhance their skills, unknown buildings, unknown layouts, death to minor non-violent criminals and innocent poeple, etc.. really should have added the above to your "etc...". The idea that this is a valid way to perform training is criminal. Anyone claiming so should be in jail for criminal negligence and the least. I'd say attempted murder would be more appropriate. Or in those tragic examples murder.

Comment Re:People Are Such Babies (Score 5, Insightful) 218

No, actually the mass protests are happening because various rabble-rousers like Al Sharpton colluded with irresponsible media outlets to manipulate people into feeling outrage despite the harsh truth that the facts relevant to the events in which the people were killed clearly indicate that those who were killed acted in a manner which brought them serious trouble. Attack a cop and you can and SHOULD expect a counter attack.

Yeah, a cop should be able violate his his own department rules and use a choke hold on someone that kills them ignoring pleas from that person that he can't breath and then stand around doing nothing when he stops breating. Note his level of resistence consisted of raising his arms up. There should be no problems with a cop summarily executing a kid running around with a pellet gun without any form of interaction with the kid before killing him even after they were told it was probably a toy gun. Any less than outright execution might have put an officer at risk. And there should be absolutely no issues with a cop shooting someone walking up stairway with his girlfriend and then taking no action to render aid to the person he just shot but rather call his union representive so they can start the spin machine going. There shoud be no problem with a mob of cops shooting hundreds of rounds at 2 unarmed people in a car including one cop jumping on the hood of the car and putting several rounds into them through the windsheild. There shouls be no issues with cops making no knock raids on wrong houses that results in innocent people being killed. Not cop people. If you shoot at the unknown black masked thugs invading your house you'd go to jail. Mind you I can go on all night listing crap police have done and gotten away with that would have resulted in serious incarceration for anyone not a cop.

And lets talk about the one your defending. At the grand jury hearing to decide if charges were justified apperently the prime witness supporting the cops account of what happened that the DA brought in to testify was outright lying and couldn't have possibly been near where the shooting happened. And no one should have an issue that the DA admitted he knew that she was lying before he brought her to testify at the hearing. The DA did everything he could to make certain no charges were brought. To paraphrase one expert normally a DA can get charges brought on a sandwich. Whatever the truth was there was more than enough question that there should have been a trial.

This is not rocket science and I am god damned tired of fuckwits like you parroting bullshit which make people who asked for trouble appear to be innocent victims.

And I'm tired of dipshits who too stupid to realize that there are serious systematic issues with the policing in this country. I was in the Infantry stationed in Germany at the peak of the cold war. Our sector was dead center in the Fulda Gap which was the prime Soviet invasion route into central Germany. Those cops on the streets in Ferguson were better equiped then we were. And they weren't at all hesitant to point their assault rifles at anyone and everone violating the first rule of gun safety. You have to be turnip level of stupid not to see any of this as being an issue.

What you need to do us shut the fuck up and educate yourself on the events as they really happened and quit spewing childish fantasy bullshit. However I have to point out that your user ID is spot on.

What you need to do us shut the fuck up and educate yourself on the events as they are really happening and quit spewing childish fantasy bullshit. However I have to point out that your user ID is spot on.

Comment Re:A solution in search of a problem... (Score 1) 326

You're going to need a much more expensive black box to log enough to make the results unambiguous.

No you don't. Location, control inputs and velocity are all you need. Most cars already have that in them. Almost all cell phones do too.

They'll have to log enough information to make them prime targets for warrant-less searches for non-safety purposes.

As I stated just record the last half hour or so. That would limit there viability for intrusive monitoring.

Comment Re:A solution in search of a problem... (Score 1) 326

First, your 'freebie' is ruinous to some people (we're talking living in a shelter losing the kids sort of ruinous).

Scale the fine based on income. The fine is more of a wake up slap than than anything else.

The second is ruinous to nearly anyone.

Yeah, because 40,000 dead and 2.5 million serious injuries isn't ruinous for anyone. And a good many of them are innocent of any wrong doing. Your argument is specious. I follow the traffic laws. Yet I engender road rage for such things as actually stopping at a stop sign. Yeah, people beep and flip me off for obeying the traffic laws. And this results in 40,000 dead and 2.5 million seriously injured every year. But you think actually making people responsible for thier actions that cause this carnage is ruinous. Causing the carnage though thats perfectly ok in your book.

So don't do it, you say. Fine as soon as cops start only writing fair and just tickets without quotas AND as soon as traffic court runs the kangaroos out and takes the right to a fair trial seriously.

Again a specious argument. Did you miss the part about the black boxes in the cars? There is no he said she said. There is no subjective judgment. There is an exact pretty much inflatable record of the actions.

Until; those very unlikely things happen, perhaps a court ordered technological solution with NO fine is more appropriate.

The problem has nothing to do with technology. People eating, guys shaving, women putting on makeup, the list is endless and no technology is going to help (short of fully autonomous cars which are a long ways off). People will drive like idiots until they are held accountable for the consequences.

Comment Re:A solution in search of a problem... (Score 1) 326

There is a problem with that. Law enforcement in the USA is dependent on most people pleading guilty they system isn't designed for people going to trial. If you lose your license for a month or a year, you have middle class defendants with means going to trial. Moreover let's not forget about the effects of push back. People who have negative experiences with police tend to be more suspicious of them and tend not to convict. So as you increase the level you decrease the conviction rate, further increasing the benefits of going to trial.

That's why the black box. Outside of jury nullification the evidence is irrefutable. Also make the law with no exceptions for anyone. Going to trial would have no benefits and would thus be pointless.

Your cost of enforcement far exceeds the benefit.

The primary benefit of enforcement would be the 40,000 lives lost every year. Think about that number. The Vietnam war only averaged 5000 dead per year and that was a friggin war. Auto collisions are the number one cause of death for children. Do it for the children and all that crap. I would also argue, even looking at it from a pure fiscal aspect it would make financial sense even if the enforcement cost was high. The direct and indirect costs of traffic issues cause by collisions alone would probably justify it without even going into the 2.5 million emergency room visits and other health care cost.

I think the far better system is frequent small penalties. Something like every driver gets two send in up to 2 license plate "assholes" per day. You erase one per month. If you get to 3, $50 fine no. Limit that everyone can only report the same driver once per year.

This would never work. The idiot who didn't think I was passing fast enough because I wasn't going 20 over the speed limit would report me. A good percentage of the idiots on the road think the people driving by the rules are the assholes causing the problems.

Comment Re:Fines work better ... (Score 1) 326

Fines and public education work better than a technical solution to stupidity. People understand when it hits their wallet directly and when their phones are confiscated.

Not really. How much a fine affects someone is directly related to how much money they have. You can't have a fine that's fair across economic brackets. Better and more democratic than fines is taking away their driving privileges. That solves the problem in 2 ways. Add to that, if you drive without a license you go to jail for a year. No exceptions.

Comment Re:A solution in search of a problem... (Score 2, Interesting) 326

It is against the law pretty much everywhere. However that law is enforced pretty much nowhere. It is just simply too difficult to enforce it, as a police officer has to catch the person in the act to even write a ticket. And then the ticket is so laughably small in terms of the monetary penalty as to be pointless to even write.

Make the punishment fit the crime. If you're swinging a loaded gun around pointing it at people and unintentionally shoot someone you're going to jail. You drive around like a jackass, speeding, weaving in traffic, running lights or stop signs, at worse you get a ticket that cost a little bit of money. And yet far more people are killed by idiot drivers than are by gun accidents. It's completely irrational.

It's simple. The first ticket is a freebie, a $1000 and lose your license for a day. The second ticket within a year and you lose your license for a month. The third ticket in a year and you lose your license for a year. You get caught driving without a license you go to jail for a year. You put black boxes in cars that record the last half hour of activity to provide irrefutable evidence. Also use that information in the case of a collision and if it shows any person caused the collision it's their third strike and they lose their license for a year. No need for distracted driving or no telephoning or no texting or even drink driving laws. One way or another the people left on the roads will be much safer and nicer. Oh, and the 40,000 killed and hundreds of thousands more injured and maimed would go away almost over night along with much of the massive financial burden caused by the idiotic carnage on the roads.

Comment Re:What are the bounds of property? (Score 2) 166

Now, would you please refer to sections B. and C below? To answer your question, you must angle the camera's down so that they record only up to the top of the fence or to the property line.Private property has an expectation of privacy in Georgia.

Not taking a section quoted out of context to make it appear you are right when you were really wrong:

(2) Any person, through the use of any device, without the consent of all persons observed, to observe, photograph, or record the activities of another which occur in any private place and out of public view; provided, however, that it shall not be unlawful:

(A) To use any device to observe, photograph, or record the activities of persons incarcerated in any jail, correctional institution, or any other facility in which persons who are charged with or who have been convicted of the commission of a crime are incarcerated, provided that such equipment shall not be used while the prisoner is discussing his or her case with his or her attorney;

(B) For an owner or occupier of real property to use for security purposes, crime prevention, or crime detection any device to observe, photograph, or record the activities of persons who are on the property or an approach thereto in areas where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy; or

(C) To use for security purposes, crime prevention, or crime detection any device to observe, photograph, or record the activities of persons who are within the curtilage (fenced yard) of the residence of the person using such device. A photograph, videotape, or record made in accordance with this subparagraph, or a copy thereof, may be disclosed by such resident to the district attorney or a law enforcement officer and shall be admissible in a judicial proceeding, without the consent of any person observed, photographed, or recorded; do realize the parts you quoted out of context are really the exceptions to the law that state where recording is legal? Reading the entire section it only states it's illegal to record activities "which occur in any private place and out of public view". It doesn't say a single word about recording on another persons property. In other words what you linked to actually shows you're wrong. At least with regards to GA law. Please try again.

I'd advise you in the future to ask someone for evidence first, especially if you are going to make demands after you've just insulted them via their speech. For example, a better way, "It smells like BS to me, would you please supply some evidence and additional information?

My original post said exactly what you suggest except I spelled out "bullshit" instead of a weaselly acronym. I even said please. I certianly didn't say you smelled like it or were stepping in it or anything.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Ada is PL/I trying to be Smalltalk. -- Codoso diBlini