Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment This is how it is suppose to work. (Score 3, Interesting) 392

The more difficult something is and the smaller scope something covers, the smaller the cost- benefit. Spying on everyone through technological back door - very low cost, questionable benefit. Physically spying on someone you actually suspect of doing something - very high cost, hopefully high reward. This cost is what keeps the government in its place.

Comment What this proves is: (Score 1, Troll) 635

Global Warming is religion, not science. It is religion because:
  1. Neither side can use a common set of facts to support their opinion.
  2. Neither side can debate without resorting to name calling.
  3. Neither side proffers a theory that can predict or explain the scientific observations.

My OPINION is that long term global warming is happening. I have no idea if that is a bad or a good thing. I have no data to suggest a a simple causation. I have no data but anecdotal evidence to suggest that changes to our actions will slow, stop or reverse global warming.

My OPINION is that we should move away from fossil fuels as fast a economically possible. We should do this for political security and future economic considerations.

My 2 cents.

Comment Re:Citizen's United (Score 1) 330

Well, My statement above was obviously sarcasm, but when you start adding words to The Constitution to defend your statement, I have to discount your position. Speech is not limited to opinion. Its not limited to verbal expression. Art is speech. Porn is speech. Comic books are speech. Humor, in whatever form it takes, is speech. In the case of CU, money is speech. You can try to turn all of those things in to political statement in order to protect them, but the reality is, whether you understand it, or agree with it, expression in all of its forms is speech. All forms of speech are inherently legal. We can play lots of games with how we can make speech illegal, but they are either misunderstanding of how the law works, bad laws or misapplications of the law. However; All of you rights end precisely where mine begin and vice versa.

Murder is not free speech because you you have trampled on the rights of another person to live.
Racial Discrimination, with out legal impact, is actually free speech. Again, its when that discrimination effects other people's inherent rights that you have a problem.
Slander, should be free speech, if only to allow us to judge people individually and not by the lies that others tell.

Now back to your free speech "test." first there are several, but the very important word you left out yours was "imminent." And because this test only applies to apolitical speech, you are wrong on two counts. Money is speech. It is inherently political speech and laundering money to ensure anonymity, creates anonymous, political speech. Even if it was not political is not inherently or imminently unlawful. It is therefore protected.

Thank you for supporting my once sarcastic remark that, due your proof by absurdity, I now believe.

Submission + - Alan Turing Pardoned. (

guibaby writes: Alan Turing, a British code-breaker during World War II who was later subjected to chemical castration for homosexual activity, has received a royal pardon nearly 60 years after he committed suicide.

Comment A theft is a theft (Score 4, Insightful) 1010

But there should be a certain amount of common sense when enforcing the law. First did the school complain? If the school did not complain, did the officer ask the school if there was an issue? If there was an issue, I am sure the officer or the school could have approached the man and asked him to stop using their plug. They could even post a sign saying "please do not use our plugs to charge your devices." All of this would have been cheaper, more effective and infinitely less hostile than arresting the guy.

Comment Re:More shocked that they hired contractors as FTE (Score 4, Informative) 955

No...I am not shocked. I worked for a defense contractor as contractor from another company. I had clearance. Its pretty common. There are several levels of clearance. Everyone knows about secret and top secret, but there are other levels that don't even have names. In addition to that, you have compartmentalization through program clearance. Which basically means, even if you have super duper top secret clearance, you still don't get to see anything until you are briefed on the specific rules of the specific program. The government hire contractors like BH for their ability to specialize.

Comment Re:Doing what is right... (Score 4, Insightful) 955

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Unless we are the enemy, I don't see how this definition fits what this guy did. I don't have all of the details, so I hesitate to comment on whether this guys is a hero or a scoundrel, but on its face, without the facts. I do not see how this man has even broken the law. If he had to take the oath all federal employees take:

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) thatI will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Then he has lived up to his oath. If he did not take that oath, then everyone else in the room presumably did. I am sure he signed a contract that lays out the details of his clearance. But no contract is superior to The Constitution. The Constitution is our contract with our government. If they fail to live up to their end of the contract we vote them out.

I saw a comment earlier in this post or another that basically said, "I don't understand why Americans aren't marching in the street over this." The answer is simple. While we do not always have faith in our government, we do have faith in our Constitution. We understand that no matter what the issue is, we have the power to fix it. We have the government we have chosen and therefore the one we deserve. We understand that every congress critter, president, judge and federal employee has the obligation to determine, independently, what is proper under the constitution. We understand in the end, if we really want the government to change what they are doing, all we have to do is vote.

Here is a hint: Stop voting for republicans and democrats, at least for congress. The collusion that happens between politicians to forward the goals of the party (which is only to get an elected majority) is causing a large percentage of the problems we are seeing today.

Comment OK. I'll bite. (Score 2) 768

I will try to keep it simple and use small words.

World 1:
    Everything exists, except the right to be compelled to be a witness against themselves.
                        Police: Knock...Knock.....Knock
                        Citizen: Hello Officer.....How can I help you this evening?
                        Police: I am here to go over your weekly list of criminal activity.
                        Citizen: I am sorry?!
                        Police: What laws did you break this weekend, it is in everyone's best interest if we know.
                        Citizen: Oh...OK....Well, I have not broken any laws.
                        Police: Sir, our laws are very complex, we have city, state and federal, laws, rules and statutes.....You haven't broken any of them?
                        Citizen: Well, I am no lawyer, but I don't think so.
                        Police: Did you drive this week?
                        Citizen: Of course.
                        Police: Did you go faster than the posted speed limit?
                        C: Um...Um....Um
                        P: Now you know you have to tell me.
                        C: Well, I guess so.
                        P: OK....Here is your ticket.

World 2:
    The 5th Amendment exists.
                        Police: Knock...Knock.....Knock
                        Citizen: Hello Officer.....How can I help you this evening?
                        Police: I am here to go over your weekly list of criminal activity.
                        Citizen: I am sorry?!
                        Police: What laws did you break this weekend, it is in everyone's best interest if we know.
                        Citizen: Clearly you are an idiot.

Any law can be used as a cudgel to oppress the population. In this case, absurd as it is, we have a situation that protects a person who is guilty of nothing but living his life free from oppressive police and government action. It has benefited and innocent person as well as a guilty person. He is innocent in that the "crime" he committed is completely unknown to anyone and affects no one. He is guilty in the sense that he has technically committed a crime.

Nearly everyone breaks the law nearly everyday in one way or another. The right to remain silent keeps the government from using those inconsequential transgressions against us. For crimes of greater consequence, if we are innocent, it keeps us from having justify our lives to the government.

I think I have met all five of your ridiculous criteria, but even if I haven't there are two things you must consider:

1. We are free individuals, by whatever right. We give up a designated (in the constitution) number of those freedoms, in order to live in a "civilized" society. The right to remain silent is not one of those freedoms we have given up.

2. The Carp and William Blackstone are absolutely correct above. It is better that the guilty go free than that the innocent should suffer.

Comment Re:Question for you liberals... (Score 2) 277

Here is whats up with that:

The difference between republicans and democrats is the spelling. That's pretty much it. They both want bigger government, more interference with our private lives, more power for their party. Neither is interested in you or your problems, unless it serves one of the purposes above. The whole conservative vs liberal thing is all smoke and mirrors. There are ways to fix this problem:

    Stop voting for people in those parties. Let states governments choose senators again. Put term limits on every elected official. Two terms is a good start. Pass a balanced budget amendment. Stop taxing people on what they make. It is entirely too expensive. It cost the economy around a trillion dollars every year. There are better ways for the government to earn their money. Fix health care. Cut the military expenditures by 90%. Make drugs legal. Prohibition costs too much in prosecution, prison and lives. Fix the currency to a commodity standard. These things need to be done to remove the monetary and power incentives from the government.

  The federal government should be in the business of DEFENDING the country. They should be in the business of handling interstate commerce. The should be in the business of managing our relationship with other countries. They should be in the business of protecting people's constitutional rights.

They should not be in the business of managing people's private lives. They should not be in the business of interfering with the proper function of state and local governments. They should not be in the business of handling airline security. They should not be in the business of providing welfare for oil, banking or defense contractors or people.

The words conservative and liberal do not mean anything in the general since. They only have meaning given a specific topic. Vote, but vote the issues and stop voting for idiots just because the have an r or a d after their name.

Comment Re:Propaganda (Score 1) 486

The "Bill of Rights" is poorly named. It is a bill of restrictions. Restrictions placed on the government by its people. The rights exist separate of the Constitution.. They are natural right. "God given," some might say. Those restriction apply to the government in all cases, and the wording is very specific.

As for Israel and Palestine, I sometimes think we should lock them in their room until they sort it out. They are both behaving like children.

Slashdot Top Deals

Everybody needs a little love sometime; stop hacking and fall in love!