Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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) 421

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) 421

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 it is as moral as police using informers (Score 3, Insightful) 350

If a cop uses shady characters as informers or a prosecutor reduces someone's charges in exchange for a testimony, then that too serves an agenda of a criminal. But its ultimate goal is to unearth the truth about a bigger fish which is engage in shady practices. And in the current legal regime it is considered moral and justified. The same standard has to apply to the journalists. If they are exposing the criminality in the camp of the ruling party's candidate's campaign, then they are doing a public service even if the source is shady and is doing the releasing of the information in the hopes of improving the chances of an opposition candidate.

Comment Re:President Obama said something similar (Score 1) 235

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 Re:Resonating with Americans (Score 1) 181

This :

Clinton may be corrupt

In combination with this:

The problem is that Trump is far less predictable than Clinton.

implies that you part of the camp of those who think she'll stay bought once she is paid. But she is not. She will pursue her own agenda even after taking the bribes. Kadafi settled his debts with the victims of terrorist acts. He gave up his WMD research. He negotiated with the US to become a legitimate state actor in good faith. But, as we know now, it was Clinton who insisted on the strategy of removing him. Which betrays her personality as that of an opportunist rather than an honorable thief. She will not keep any promise she makes or keep to any deal she enters into. He deeds betray her more than her words. Trump does not have the same history of consistent breaking of deals. He renegotiates rather than simply breaking deals when circumstances change. Both of these factors combined indicate that Trump is actually more trustworthy than Hillary.

Comment Re:Resonating with Americans (Score 1) 181

Peer-review research does fairly poorly when evaluating one-time (ie, non-repeatable) events, especially if the said events involve confrontations. It's why we don't have just peers on juries, but also adversarial councils in courts. In the absence of adversarial advocacy, peer review of non-repeatable events quickly becomes a circle jerk. Most judges, for example, will accept plea deals reached by opposing councils. Peer review of politics is essentially impossible. It's why we have elections rather than SCOTUS-style committees deciding who is to be in charge.

Comment President Obama said something similar (Score 1) 235

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 Skyrim is a 2011 game though (Score 1) 269

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

FORTUNE'S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: #44 Zebras are colored with dark stripes on a light background.