Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
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:Sterile and shattered. (Score 1) 265

Jupiter's Galilean moons are tidally locked to Jupiter, but they are not blasted by radiation.

Actually, they are. And it is a major source of headaches for probes we have sent to Jupiter. Jupiter has a very strong magnetosphere, which has given rise to radiation belts much like Earth's Van Allen belts only much more so. And at least the inner Galilean moons are right in the middle of these radiation belts.

Comment Re:ads on youtube (Score 1) 158

iOS apps are full of those dumb fake game ads too. Ads suck in general, and are pretty much unavoidable wherever you go. But they will never go away as long as people in general are not willing to pay for content. A couple of bucks for a game is really not unreasonable at all in the grand scheme of things, but people are conditioned to think that everything should be free so charging $5 for an app is considered an extreme expense by most consumers.

Comment Re:Comforting? (Score 1) 79

It seems to have worked out fine for Apple since they discontinued their line of printers.

A monitor is a monitor. There really is no value that Apple can add to a monitor by designing and building it themselves. Since the return of Jobs, Apple's m.o. has been to focus their energy on areas where they can differentiate themselves on functionality as well as build quality. There was nothing that an Apple LaserWriter could do that a Canon printer couldn't, so the LaserWriter was discontinued. There is nothing a Cinema Display could do that an LG display can't, so the Cinema Display was discontinued. Likewise, there isn't anything an Airport can do that a Linksys router can't, so I wouldn't be surprised in the least if the Airport line was dropped in the future as well.

Comment Re:No (Score 1) 537

Such things depend on the context. A course on feminist dance theory might be valuable in the context of a larger sociology degree, where the student might gain the perspective that practitioners of feminist dance are reacting to something in society, and what are the larger implications of that thing which they are reacting to, and might society as a whole benefit from somehow addressing whatever that thing is?

But if the feminist dance theory course is nothing more than self-congratulatory navel gazing, then sure, charge $500,000 for it.

Comment Re:But we have Trump now (Score 1) 210

Unauthorized Removal And Retention Of Classified Documents Or Material

18 U.S.C. 1924

Class: A Misdemeanor

Possible Penalty: Imprisonment for 1 year and/or $100,000 fine

Text: “Knowingly removing materials containing classified information of the United States with the intent to retain said info at an unauthorized location without the authority to do so”

All classified or later classified emails retained on her personal email server and also Huma's Laptop violate this statute. Having a non sanctioned storage device is arguably a violation as well.

There are two issues. Clinton's server, and Abedin's laptop.

Regarding the server, I have bolded a very relevant part of the statute, namely "unauthorized location". It was the FBI's conclusion that as Clinton was the boss, if she directed information to be stored in a particular location, that location was by definition an authorized location. Comey's analysis was that the aforementioned authorized location was damn stupid, but as the law doesn't specifically forbid stupidity, there was nothing prosecutable.

Regarding Abedin's laptop, my understanding is that she was a top Clinton aide, and that therefore she as a person was authorized to receive the emails in question. Nobody seems to be complaining that Abedin was sent those emails, just that they turned up on her laptop. Therefore, I fail to see how their existence on a laptop that Clinton had no control over, or that she even knew existed in any way implicates her in wrongdoing. Also, even if the existence of the laptop emails constitutes a smoking gun that confidential emails went through the Clinton server, see point #1 regarding the fact that setting up the server itself was already not considered to be a prosecutable offense.

Gathering, Transmitting Or Losing Defense Information

18 U.S.C. 793

Class: Felony

Possible Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years and/or $250,000 fine

Text: “Allowing [by means of gross negligence] any document relating to the national defense to be removed from its proper place of custody or destroyed –or- willfully retaining unauthorized documents relating to national defense and failing to deliver them to the United States employee entitled to receive them –or- failure to report that unauthorized documents relating to national defense were removed from their proper place of custody or destroyed”

Classified docs on the server and laptop violate this. Her forwarding them to Huma is also a violation as Weiner's personal laptop is not a secure device.

Again, server and laptop.

This one has a new twist for the server. Once again I have bolded the relevant part, with italics on the key phrase. As stated earlier, by definition, the place Clinton directed the emails to be stored was its proper place. Stupid, but not illegal. The twist is that stupidity is a hair's breadth away from negligence. So if by directing that the proper place for documents was a hackable server, and that server was hacked, then she would be guilty of gross negligence in allowing confidential information to be removed from its proper place. However, while there is evidence that there were attempts to hack the server, there is no evidence that anyone was successful. So Clinton was stupid but lucky, and therefore still not prosecutable.

Regarding the laptop, as Abedin was an authorized recipient of the emails, by accessing them on a laptop Weiner had access to, Abedin would be guilty of 18 U.S.C. 793 (had Weiner actually seen the emails), not Clinton.

Concealment, Removal, Or Mutilation Generally

18 U.S.C. 2071

Class: Felony

Possible Penalty: Imprisonment of no more than 3 years, a fine, or both

Text: “Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same”

Destruction, Alteration, Or Falsification Of Records In Federal Investigations And Bankruptcy

18 U.S.C. 1519

Class: Felony

Possible Penalty: Imprisonment of no more than 20 years, a fine, or both

Text: “Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States”

Wiping the server after the subpoena violates both statutes.

This is a tricky one. Unfortunately, there is a lot of subtle misinformation regarding what actually happened. According to Politifact, the wiping of the server is only a half truth, and the full order of events is important. What had happened was that after turning over emails relevant to the Benghazi investigation, Clinton directed a security company to delete any emails older than 60 days. Then the subpoena happened. Then an employee, unaware of the subpoena, realized that the emails hadn't been deleted as directed, and went ahead and deleted them. Had the emails been deleted when they were supposed to be, they would have been deleted before the subpoena, and therefore not in violation of the cited statutes. At any rate, the FBI determined that due to that timeline, there was no intent to impede an investigation, but rather that the deletions were just a normal part of cleanup after Clinton's tenure as SoS was over. Again, nothing prosecutable.

To say you've never seen anything says you just never read past the tl,dr of any article you saw on it.

To be honest, I had heard people try to claim the espionage act statute (18 U.S.C. 793). I still have not heard any arguments that stand up to scrutiny.

Comment Re:Until the money runs out... (Score 4, Insightful) 210

I just read through the DDG privacy policy statement you linked. I have no reason to doubt their intentions at preserving your privacy. However, it would not be in violation of their privacy policy for them to do a call-out to a third party REST service (e.g. one run by the aforementioned ad network) on the server side as part of their search engine code, sending your IP, user agent, and search string. All they say is that they do not include your search terms in the referrer header sent to websites via links in the result list, and they do not persist any of your information themselves.

Comment Re:But we have Trump now (Score 2) 210

... given that the emails she did hand over were enough to put a normal person in prison ...

I keep hearing people repeat this (probably because they keep hearing it repeated on talk radio and such), but I have never actually heard any specifics. Can you please tell me what it was that she did exactly, and which law that action broke (please cite specific statute), the breaking of which would normally have lead to a conviction and incarceration?

Comment Re:Colored numbers (Score 1) 134

One small point of contention - you will find very few synesthetes who consider themselves to "suffer" due to the condition, or who would consider it to be a disorder. When non-synesthetes hear about synesthesia, they often say that they would find it odd or distracting. But in reality, it is not a matter of desensitization to a negative situation at all. Rather, due to the 'naturalness' of the sensation it generally ranges from neutral to actually pleasant where they would legitimately miss it if it was gone.

Comment Re:Colored numbers (Score 2) 134

The thing about synesthesia (grapheme-color and chromesthesia synesthete here, so I speak from experience) is that the phenomenon feels so natural that you don't even think about other people not mentioning it in the same way you don't think about other people not going around talking about what the color red looks like all the time. When people don't mention something which feels natural to you, the first assumption most people have is that it must feel natural to others as well, not that they don't experience the thing in the first place.

Comment Re:It's about landmass (Score 5, Insightful) 468

The existence of people who have that driving pattern was never a question. The issue is whether the percentage of people who rarely if ever commute beyond their own metropolitan areas is great enough that a shift to the majority of the population driving electric cars is economically and practically feasible. Pointing out that counterexamples exist to a trend in an attempt to question the existence or magnitude of the trend is fallacious and dishonest.

Slashdot Top Deals

In the realm of scientific observation, luck is granted only to those who are prepared. - Louis Pasteur