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


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re: Good to hear (Score 2) 259

And you're still not answering my question as to what law she actually broke.

Here is the Comey quote that everyone seems so apoplectic about:

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

If you re-read what he is saying, his point is that the reckless actions would normally lead to punishment within the department, just like any employee can expect to be chewed out by their boss for making bad decisions. Assuming he is talking about legal action here directly contradicts what he said earlier about how in the past legal action has only been taken in extreme circumstances where the person showed clear intent that confidential documents be seen by people without clearance such as Patraeus showing documents to his mistress. The line "But that is not what we are deciding now" means that he is not arguing whether or not the State Department should internally punish Clinton, but whether there is grounds for legal action. Since she did not intend for documents to fall into unclassified hands, and there is no evidence that through negligence documents did fall into the wrong hands, there is not grounds to prosecute.

Comment Re: Good to hear (Score 1) 259

Y'all didn't read the second half of my post, apparently. If you download movies off Pirate Bay, it's possible that you haven't broken the law if your use of said movies falls under fair use. The law is nuanced, which is why we have courts in the first place. Only a court can determine whether someone has actually broken the law, and anything else is just opinion.

I am still waiting to hear exactly what it was that she supposedly did that actually broke the law anyway.

Comment Re: Good to hear (Score 2, Informative) 259

I don't recall her having been tried, much less convicted. As in the United States of America, you are innocent until proven guilty, she did not "factually break the law". Insistence that she did break the law is completely right-wing one-sided propaganda.

FYI, The Espionage Act (18 U.S. Code 793(f)), which is the law most cited as the one she supposedly broke does not specify what the 'proper place' for a confidential document actually entails. Yes, she was dumb for designating, in the course of her duties, that the proper place for documents should be the digital equivalent of a cardboard box. But unless there is actual evidence that documents were improperly taken from that cardboard box, she is not actually in violation of anything.

Comment Re:Suicide by politician (Score 1) 1010

Having the people directly vote on issues is done in states like California with their proposition system. However, the general public is largely uninformed, easily swayed by popular opinion, and doesn't take the time to consider, or isn't even capable of understanding wide reaching implications of policy decisions. This will lead to the state becoming nearly bankrupt, because the people will vote for entitlements, for increased regulation against things deemed 'scary', and against tax increases every time.

Comment Re:Suicide by politician (Score 1) 1010

Because the Democratic party will field a candidate, whether it be Hillary or somebody else. And the way the system is rigged it's really "in a [Democratic party candidate] vs Trump election, [Democratic party candidate] would win". The incompetencies of Trump have no bearing on the fact that a first-past-the-post + electoral college system very strongly favors the effective existence of only two parties, with any 3rd party likely to only have a spoiler effect at best.

Comment Re:frist post (Score 1) 569

How about you do your target shooting still, but with guns owned and maintained by strictly licensed shooting ranges? No? Well then it's not about target shooting is it.

It would be equivalent to racing, but only with cars owned and maintained by the racetrack, or playing golf, but only with clubs owned and maintained by the golf course. A very large part of the allure of participating in a sport that requires equipment is in owning your own personal instance of the equipment in question.

Comment Re:Fuck the recording industry! (Score 1) 148

For many use cases, streaming is preferred to downloads. Whether you agree with it or not, the reality of popular music is that it is largely disposable. There is just so much of it out there, and its staying power is limited, yet it can be enjoyable while it is fresh. Download only availability can be impractical somewhat from a storage standpoint, but even more so from an economical standpoint where someone would be less likely to pay a full dollar for every track they might only listen two once or twice. Same goes for movies. Most movies that I watch, I rarely feel the need to watch a second time, even if I do enjoy watching them the first time. So it is difficult to justify the upfront purchase price for them when they are available to watch on Netflix or Hulu.

Ideally, all purchasable media should be available simultaneously in an affordable streaming format for general consumption and a downloadable format for when offline access and preservation needs arise. The streaming format should be as high quality as the downloadable format, and the downloadable format should be completely unencumbered. I can dream, right?

Comment Re:frist post (Score 1) 569

A slightly less obtuse definition would be that a rifle's purpose is to accurately put a hole in something from a significant distance. The trick is figuring out how to keep them out of the hands of people who want to use them to put holes in other people, while preserving the rights of those who just want to put holes in pieces of paper or game animals.

Comment Re:Fuck the recording industry! (Score 4, Insightful) 148

Most mature intelligent people are perfectly willing to pay for content as long as that content is high quality and convenient. It is only when content is degraded, restricted, or encumbered (or simply not even available) that most people turn to file sharing. Once content is made available in an unencumbered, reasonably priced digital download or streaming format, only political zealots and immature entitled jerks like the anonymous parent will insist on stealing it.

Comment Re:Rent Seeking (Score 1) 167

Trash pickup is not a natural monopoly. There is no physical barrier preventing an arbitrary number of companies from offering to haul your garbage from the curb to a municipal landfill. In my city, there are six licensed garbage haulers to choose from, which is plenty of players for a competitive marketplace.

Comment Re:Obligatory... (Score 1) 637

Have you actually ever tried an XKCD style password? I have used randomly generated ones and have found them far easier to remember than pure random character passwords. The trick, as shown in the last panel of the comic itself, is to come up with a mnemonic story describing the random sequence of words. Rather than just trying to remember the sequence "correct", "horse", "battery", "staple", you imagine a scenario where the horse is correct about staples used on batteries. The scenario itself is easy to remember, and results in the word sequence. A horse being correct about something is a "correct horse", and a staple used on batteries would be a "battery staple". Combine them all, and you get "correct horse battery staple".

Slashdot Top Deals

A man is known by the company he organizes. -- Ambrose Bierce