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:Who cares..?? (Score 1) 574

There is about a 50% chance the Republicans will hold both the house and senate meaning no divided government, a vote for Trump is a vote for at least another 4 years of Republican Tax Cut and Spend of the Bush years that sunk our economy and built 19 trillion in debt, in addition to the new abandoning our allies, destroying the world economy and likely starting a war because someone insulted him.

I'd rather elect Hillary and nothing really change.

Comment Re:Why is this not bad for Drumpf? (Score 2) 574

There is video of Donald Trump Jr saying just a year or two ago that the bulk of the Trump corporation profits now come from Russia.

I've been wondering if they affixed Reagan to some magnets by now because the Republican party backing a candidate that supports and admires (by his own words) a former KGB officer who's been running practice bombing runs on the US mainland for the last couple years along with threatening to abandon the NATO alliance and leave Europe in a lurch has got to have Reagan doing about 2000 RPM's and that's one hell of a source of energy right there.

The Irony is apparently lost on those who believe in a person 99% of them will openly admit is a liar, he's just not *wink* *wink* lying about the things they care about. Trump spits on the entire Legacy of Reagan and he's using Reagan's Election slogan! My god you've got people screaming about communists in the democratic party while at the same time supporting the guy that claims he respects the foreign one and will abandon allies we protected from being overrun by the same communists. You couldn't make this stuff up, if you tried no one would believe you because it's so outlandish.

Comment Re:How exactly will they break steam? (Score 1) 373

I've been running Win10 since the initial public release. MS has not uninstalled alternate browsers but they have rewritten the default application to Edge twice.

The original author was mistaken as I know of no reports of uninstalling but the issue of Microsoft re-writing defaults and changing the process of setting those defaults to make it scarier for uninformed users is a real issue that you can't just hand wave away. There should be no question these changes were done in a deliberately anti-competitive measure.

Comment Re:Even if you disagree with the judge . . . (Score 1) 147

Conducting a monetary transaction intended to conceal the proceeds of a crime is the very definition of Accessory after the fact. His question was about a monetary transaction where he's been told that it's the result of a crime.

As a general rule you are not required in some states to report crimes you are aware of (though in some you are, know your states law!). But if you assist the perpetrators in the crime, such as through concealment or laundering of funds you are an accessory after the fact. Your link doesn't explain very well that accessory after the fact doesn't just apply to concealing the crime (it implies this) as laundering the funds or assisting in disposal of assets where you know of the crime makes you an accessory. You can be an accessory by doing anything that assists the criminals in their crime.

Comment Re:Even if you disagree with the judge . . . (Score 1) 147

Knowledge of a crime without reporting it is called accessory. Even if they tell you about the crime after they've done it you are still an accessory after the fact.

So yes, if someone tells you've they've committed a crime or are going to commit a crime you are obligated to report it to law enforcement and refuse the transaction. To think otherwise would either make you extremely naive or stupid.

This is basic common knowledge, you can't help people commit crimes. It's ok to be ignorant of their crime (but you need to understand you may have your profits taken away) but if they tell you about intended law breaking and you proceed then you are an accessory to their crime. And in some states if that was a felony you are now also on the hook for everything they did because in most US states all participants in a felony can be convicted of every criminal action. For example, if they'd committed a robbery and killed someone in the progress and you laundered the money you could be charged with murder.

Comment Re:TFA is not terribly clear... (Score 3, Informative) 222

They aren't stupid, they bit copy (dd) the device when it's seized. Now a local police agency might not do this but anything involving the fed's is going to be copied the second they get their hands on the data, even if it's encrypted. This is directly to prevent challenges on data integrity and to prevent dead man switches.

Comment Re:You have more freedom than you think (Score 2) 455

For $8000 if you tried to live on it completely self-sufficient you'd be dead in less than 3 days.

Much like my own home state Utah there is land just as cheap, and it is so cheap precisely because it's only value is grazing cattle every few years. There is little to no water, the climate is adverse to growing anything but desert grasses. You couldn't subsistence farm this land with all the money in the world to get you started. In other words, it's cheap because it has little value just as the market shows.

I ran into a fool like you many years ago that claimed there is no population limits, after all look at all that open land out there in the desert. Are you completely ignorant of what it takes survive and farm?

Comment Re:What a mess (Score 4, Informative) 455

You forget:

1. Loves dictators, frequently praises them (including Saddam).
2. Want's to change the 1st amendment to remove public criticism of public figures; under Trump it would be illegal to criticize him.
3. Plan's to end all criticism of rights abuses by other nations. No longer will the US be there pointing out regimes that are torturing and murdering their people.
4. Will refuse to come to the aid of our NATO members if they aren't spending enough on defense basically making the US a liar and untrustworthy.
5. Believes all foreign diplomacy is based on money.

To be honest, i wouldn't be surprised if Trump wants to rewrite the constitution to remove all freedoms and I fully believe he would send American soldiers to die because some foreign leader insulted him.

Comment Re: YOU HAVE TO GO BACK (Score 4, Insightful) 278

Historically, the "good" ones are silent when Islamist terrorists act.

The funniest part about this is how you would even know this, do you attend your local Mosque?

The fact is almost all Western Mosques and Imam's routinely condemn terrorist attacks and terrorist sponsoring groups. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. And the most ironic thing about it is you wouldn't expect your own church congregation and priest to attack and condem acts of Christian violence around the world. For example where was your condemnation when the Christians of the Central African Republic went on a rampage murdering all Muslims including women and children? Where was your public statement? Oh they don't represent you, do they? So why would you expect radical Islamic militants represent all muslims?

You are a fucking bigot.

Comment Re:Nice previously researched spin in the "article (Score 3, Informative) 412

There's never been any proof that second hand smoke is even remotely dangerous.

This is an absolute fabrication. You are a liar and a bad one at that.


There are 10 scientific paper linked at the bottom of that CDC page that affirmatively show a statistically significant connection between secondhand smoke and the conditions and problems listed. The smokers lungs only filter about 10% of the pollutants contained in the tobacco smoke, the rest remain in the second hand smoke and will be absorbed partially by the next person that inhales the smoke.

Comment Re:Meh (Score 1) 412

Anyone that reacts to a VP pick is a dumb fuck. VP is literally the most meaningless position in our government. The person shines a chair for 4 years and has only two constitutional responsibilities. To vote if the senate ties and to fill in if the president dies (last time this happened was more than 50 years ago) which effectively means they only have one job, a job that happens about as often as a president dying. Almost every vice president goes all 4 years without doing either constitutional role, in effect doing nothing for 4 years.

Who someone's VP is should play absolutely no role in anyones selection that isn't planning to kill that president or isn't GW Bush and dumb enough to give Cheney actual say. The color of the socks you wear when you vote should have more role in the choice than who the VP is.

Comment Re:South Park episode (Score 1) 195

You can absolutely sign away rights, anyone that told you that you can't is full of it.

Courts aren't going to throw out clauses you agreed to no matter how "unfair" they are. They will throw out clauses that are illegal as a matter of law. For example, that first born clause is illegal because it's not legal to sell people. As the clause is illegal as a matter of law it's term can't be enforced and if the contract isn't severable (most are) the whole contract would be void.

If you think you can't be held to some contract that signs your rights away you are sadly mistaken and you will be very sad when the courts enforce it.

Comment Re:Law and Equity (Score 2, Informative) 195

You are significantly mistaken. The courts don't throw out "unreasonable" contracts people willingly agree to. You are perfectly able to sign rights away and most of the US courts will uphold that quite willingly and enforce it. In all but California you can sign away your right to be employed in the only field you are qualified to work in (non-compete clauses), only in Cali are these clauses illegal specifically because they were made illegal by the California legislature.

Now this first born clause would be thrown out for a very simple reason. It's not legal to sell babies, any clause that purports to do so is void as a matter of law. In general any clause that purports to sell people is not legal because you can't own a person in the US. This is the reason slavery contracts aren't legal even if both parties are willing.

As a general rule, the only contract clauses that will be tossed after willingly agreeing to them are clauses that are illegal as a matter of law or if you were under duress or mentally incompetent when the contract was signed. I'd happily sign a contract with a first born clause because there is no way such a clause would be upheld, the other stuff not so much.

The courts don't care if you read the contract or not, you signed it, you will be held to it. And clicking X is signing it in the US.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Indecision is the basis of flexibility" -- button at a Science Fiction convention.