Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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:Subtraction... (Score -1, Troll) 73

26.29 rounds to 26, not 27. And, although the wording clearly implies an absolute relationship, the correct relative formula would be 26.3/25.6=1.03 when significant digits are accommodated (which would be a 3% relative increase).

"Lots of people flunk elementary maths... apparently."

Well, at least you're in good company.

Comment Re:Why federal law? (Score 1) 117

"Why is the federal government involved?"

Because the federal congresscritters think that every issue is one they need to fix. Despite the current divisions between the US political parties, the one thing they agree on is that building and maintaining national power and control is a common goal. They actively seek out "problems" which they can give themselves more authority over.

Comment Re:Yeah, maybe (Score 2) 117

They're talking about conduit, not actual fiber. You apparently didn't read more than the first two sentences, because those conduits would be empty, but make it easier to run fiber in the future.

And, IMHO, it's an issue for the states, not the feds. Communications which enables Interstate Commerce is not itself Interstate Commerce.

Comment Re:Pay your taxes (Score 0) 268

"not pay taxes on the source of the income"

What income? He had x bitcoin 5 years ago, he has x bitcoin today. No bitcoins incoming, there was no income.

That's the fact, but I know it's not the way it works. The way it's intended to work is while a taxpayer owns something of value, the Federal Reserve diligently works to inflate dollars, making that something "worth" more in the future. The government then demands a tax payment because inflation caused that something to cost more in dollars. Oh! Capital gains! Pay up!

Comment Re:Won't be disclosing anything that's new or unkn (Score 1) 510

The government's argument is that the passcode itself is not incriminatory. It's the protected contents which may be, and the person is not being asked to directly disclose those. But that ignores that showing the ability to access the files may itself be incriminatory.

Anyway, his passcode is "1Admit1'mGuiltyAsH3ll.", so disclosing it would be self-incrimination.

Comment Contemptible. (Score 5, Insightful) 510

I agree, it's contempt of court. As well it should be, since the court is contemptible. The right against self-incrimination is absolute - you don't have to testify against yourself, you don't have to unlock that (combination) safe, you don't have to decrypt files. You have the right to remain silent.

That is, unless it's the physical key to a safe, or some hardware encryption key. That's physical, and subject to seizure. But a combination or encryption password is a product of the mind, and forcing it out is forcing self-incrimination.

Sure, law enforcement has a right, with the proper warrant, to break into the safe or attempt to decrypt the contents themselves, but failing that, they're simply SOL.

Comment Re:FAKE NEWS! (Score 2) 516

Uh, the 4th applies the the US government, not individuals or foreign governments. Taking the emails was certainly illegal, as was Daniel Ellsberg taking the Pentagon Papers or Snowden the NSA files. But that doesn't make them "poison fruit," and is certainly not comparable to the classified material in the examples I gave.

Comment Re:FAKE NEWS! (Score 3, Insightful) 516

"the accusation is that Russia influenced the election through the slow release of hacked emails"

The press is just miffed that they didn't find it and disclose it first. Really, if the DNC hadn't worked to sway the primaries against Sanders, and CNN employee Brazile hadn't violated journalistic ethics by leaking debate questions to HRC and then lying about it, there wouldn't have been much fire beneath the smoke. Pointing to the Russians or Wikileaks is just an attempt at misdirection by blaming the messenger for revealing things the media would have been praised for revealing.

Oh, and HRC flat-out lied about Bengazi, first by telling the public and families of those killed that it was an unpredictable violent protest over a video while privately admitting to a planned and foreseeable terrorist attack.

Slashdot Top Deals

"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll