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


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Huh? What? (Score 0) 223

What is remarkable about this study is that apparently every single artificial sweetener has exactly the same association with stroke and dementia.

This is truly groundbreaking, because different artificial sweeteners have wildly different compositions.

That that suggests is that only demented people drink sodas with artificial sweetener.

This is not all that outrageous a thought.

Comment Re:They asked nicely, he refused (Score 1) 233

I'm not sure about this. You seem to be suggesting that he should have yielded to authoritarianism without being able to state his case.

That is precisely correct. In a country governed by a rule of law, the correct place to state your case is in court, when you sue the shit out of everybody, not getting physical with the cops.

If you don't like it, move to a place with no rule of law, like, say, Somalia or the Caliphate.

Comment Re:Only on slashdot... (Score 1) 307

Fine, have a separate contract for the difference.

Lessee pays the artificially inflated rent as per lease agreement.
Landlord pays difference back to lessee for some other contracted service.

All paperwork checks out.

Until the landlord, who has already committed criminal fraud decides to screw the tenant over. What can the tenant do? File a lawsuit? And swear under penalty of perjury that they also committed criminal fraud?

Not only would I not do business with a landlord who would propose such a thing, I'd immediately report it to Rentberry and the police. It's a crime.

Comment Re:Only on slashdot... (Score 1) 307

Yeah I missed that. The obvious solution is for the landlord and his preferred tenant to collude: Landlord asks an artificially high price. Tenant agrees to that price. Landlord then kicks back to the tenant the difference between the agreed-upon price and fair market value. Tenant and landlord are happy; Rentberry gets nothing.

Until Rentberry demands copies of the lease, which say the renter pays the artificially high price, and the landlord realizes he (having already proven, conclusively, that he's willing to commit criminal fraud - by doing so) can enforce that rent.

I'd be really surprised if they're not already requiring a copy of the lease. For that reason.

Comment Huh? (Score 3, Insightful) 140

When I search at the metasearch travel sites, they show me round trip prices. Do people book flights without looking at the actual price? If it seems high, try searching for two one way trips, and compare. Is that rocket science? Can people actually compare two numbers and determine which one is higher? Or is that too much to ask these days?

Comment Re:There are no first amendment issues here (Score 1) 470

There's a huge difference between a third-party (who wasn't part of a conversation/event) recording something, and a visible participant/witness recording something, even if the recording is secret.

In fact, no, there isn't, in California (or any other all-party consent state, but in California, it's a felony . What part of it's a felony is so hard to understand? The completely ignorance of the law and refusal to listen is why these guys are going prison because it's a felony in California to record audio without the permission of everyone if there is an expectation of privacy.

If you don't like it, avoid California. Seriously, because it's a felony

Comment Re:There are no first amendment issues here (Score 1) 470

Since journalists aren't allowed to secretly record people without permission either, your entire response is pointless and irrelevant. If they worked for the New York Times, they'd be facing the same charges for the same crimes. And rightly so. Otherwise, anyone claiming to be a journalist could record you masturbating to goat porn in your bedroom and claim first amendment protection when they put it up on Facebook. (See how easy that slippery slope straw man is?)

There are no first amendment issues here. Only privacy issues in a state where audio recordings without the consent of all parties is a felony.

Comment There are no first amendment issues here (Score 5, Insightful) 470

You do not have the right to film the police all the time, anywhere. Only when they are in a public place, performing their duties.

This is all about the expectation of privacy. Planned Parenthood might be, to a small degree, publicly funded, but they are still a private organization. In their own offices, they have an expectation of privacy, unless they knowingly give it up> You cannot knowingly give it up if you being secretly recorded.

Some states (and, IIRC, federal law) require the consent of only one party to record. California is not one of them. Some states that require all-party consent treat it as a civil offense - you can sue someone who records you without permission. California is not one of them. Some states treat it as a misdemeanor - you can go to jail for it. California is not one of them.

California has made audio recordings, when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, without permission from all parties, a felony. 14 people secretly recorded, 14 charges (plus on for conspiracy).

These yahoos chose California from the perception (not especially accurate) that it is the most eeeeeevillllll librul state, and thus, most likely to get them footage they could edit into something that will get them a lot of money.

They choose poorly. Now they get to pay the price.

Comment Re:How? (Score 1) 325

Only if "enough" is "more than they can make by not doing so." Since this is projected to be worth billions, ISPs will figure out what selling personalized data on people who can change the law is bad for business.

And strictly speaking, I doubt there would even need to be a legal change. Claim it's a national security threat with a straight face, and a National Security Letter will put a quick end to anything the powers that be don't like.

Comment Re:Foundamental flaw of the CA infrastructure (Score 1) 250

You are entirely correct. It was the same when I was running a web store in the 90s. It took me all of 30 seconds to figure out that the only thing a Certificate Authority is certifying is that your credit card didn't bounce, and the only thing they're an authority on is processing credit cards.

Comment He is, of course, correct (Score 1) 395

The ability to find out what people, in general, think of a movie before shelling out $20+ to see it will, in fact, destroy the current Hollywood business model. They need to completely alter how they approach the business.

They need to start making movies that don't suck throbbing purple donkey dick. Then, Rotten Tomatoes is, literally, the best thing that could possibly happen to them.

If your business depends on people not knowing what they're buying from you, you're a con artist.

Slashdot Top Deals

Memory fault -- Oh dammit, I forget!