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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment That's not what they did though. (Score 1) 366

They went in and searched everyone's phones. Unless there's an important detail we aren't being told here, that's unconstitutional. The 4th amendment says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The important part there is "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." That is in there specifically to ban general search warrants. The idea is the police can't go to a judge and say "We think there is something illegal in a house somewhere in this 500 home neighbourhood, we'd like a warrant to search the houses," and the judge issues them a blanket warrant allowing them to search any home there, and look through anything in said home. That isn't allowed. They have to say specifically where it is they want to search, and what it is they are looking for, and also why they have probable cause to believe that what they are looking for is there.

If you read the article they say right at the bottom "I think it's very questionable whether the 4th Amendment" -- which protects citizens against unreasonable search and seizure -- "allows such an open-ended extension of the search warrant."

Comment 5th amendment and it would seem so yes (Score 3, Informative) 366

It isn't 100% clear, there is no cut and dried supreme court ruling and there have been some conflicting lower court rulings but in general the opinion of the courts seems to be that you can't be forced to hand over a password/code/etc because that is something in your head, which falls under 5th amendment protections against self incrimination.

The 4th amendment is what would be used to challenge a broad search warrant like was issued in this case. Without knowing the specifics I can't say for sure but this sounds like it would be an illegal search since it was a general warrant and that isn't allowed. The police aren't (supposed to be) able to get a warrant to just search anyone or anything in a given place, they have to be specific. This doesn't sound like it was, and so would probably be a 4th amendment violation.

Comment Re:You're being silly (Score 1) 376

The evil libtardos aren't coming for your guns

They've been trying for 50 years and their repeated failures have been precisely because we take a hard line on the issue. Not one inch.

It's been 8 years. Don't you think if he was going to do it he would have?

He has done everything within the power of the executive branch. Operation Chokepoint was instituted to make it hard for gun related businesses to do business. He has blocked importation of perfectly legal guns from Russia and South Korea. He has been hostile to the American gun owner, even if he doesn't have the votes in congress to pass a new anti-gun law.


Comment Re:President Obama said something similar (Score 1) 221

Lots of things can be punishments without impacting rights. It's not the same kind of punishment as imprisoning them, for example, but they probably think of it as a punishment.

Treating innocent people badly because someone else is guilty of something is wrong, regardless of it technically being called "punishment" or whatever.

You can argue that it's justified based on some particular need if you want. But you can't argue that Trump's comments are evil hate speech and Obama's aren't -- they're essentially the same.

Comment President Obama said something similar (Score 1) 221

Banning Muslims is wrong because we shouldn't punish innocent people because just because someone else is guilty.

The occasion was after one of the Muslim mass shootings last year.

Let's not forget that, at the same time Trump wanted to act against innocent Muslims, President Obama wanted to take action against innocent gun owners. If it's wrong to target innocents for enforcement, when can we expect President Obama to be criticized for exactly the same thing?

Comment Re:Why? (Score 1) 492

We can get pretty much whatever we want where we work... provided whatever we want runs the software we're required to run. In other words, really not much choice in a lot of cases, and most people with Mac laptops run Windows on them anyway (and thus require just as much support as everyone else).

Comment Re:Minefield (Score 2) 547

It's weird. I remember when a sitting president was sued for sexual assault, and at the time Democrats didn't seem to find the allegations credible. Nor the rape allegations. Well, I'm sure they had their reasons beyond just, you know, rank hypocrisy.

If Democrats didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all. :-P

Comment Re:Minefield (Score 1) 547

Has it now gotten to the point where I am more likely to be lynched for being like Hugh Hefner than Bruce Jenner?

The way they're going, you're more likely to be lynched for continuing to refer to Bruce Jenner by the name his parents gave him at birth.

Of course, the bastards will then come after me for this post because IDGAF about Bruce's delusions...or theirs.

Comment Re:Minefield (Score 1) 547

But with all that Trump has said or promoted, I've not seen yet where he came out to promote the agenda that is against equality in matters of gender and race.

You haven't seen him say it because he hasn't said it. The extreme-left noise machine has thrown out all of charges, and their stenographers in the "mainstream" media have reliably parroted it far and wide.

Comment Skyrim is a 2011 game though (Score 1) 259

I mean nothing wrong with having it on the platform, but it isn't exactly the pinnacle of modern tech. It was released in 2011, and the console versions were designed to target systems with 512MB of RAM (unified for the 360, 256/256 system/GPU for the PS3) at 1280x720@30fps. That was fairly low spec then, since the consoles were old (remember Oblivion released in 2006 as one of the first flight titles on the Xbox 360) and is really low spec now. It wouldn't at all surprise me if my Shield Tablet could handle it easily. It has more RAM, and its GPU seems to be at least as powerful as the 360/PS3 era stuff.

So while there's nothing wrong with Nintendo getting games like this, it isn't really some major win, or proof of a high spec system. We saw the same kind of thing happen with the Wii U where it got games that previously the Wii hadn't because of a lack of power.

The issue in the long run is that being too low spec can exclude games from being released on your platform. While people like to claim "graphics don't matter" they do and they sell games. That aside, there are a lot of things you could want to put in a game that will require more memory, more CPU, more GPU and so on. Developers aren't always going to be interested in either compromising on what they want to make, or producing a cut-down version to target the lower spec hardware.

Slashdot Top Deals

Your program is sick! Shoot it and put it out of its memory.