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


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:Seems like a good idea to me... (Score 1) 307

Knowing a little something about this, I have to say that the government doesn't "remove" properties from Section 8 coverage. The tenants seek out a unit to rent with a voucher which entitles them to some number of bedrooms in a unit at a price not to exceed some set amount determined to be reasonable by the local agency. The landlord and the tenant both agree to be bound by contract to certain rules and stipulations protecting their interests (like the landlord can't just kick out a Section 8 tenant for no reason, and the tenant can't move somewhere else for some period of time, usually a year).

But unless the tenant decides to move out after that period expires or if you try to raise the rates too high, or if there's a failed inspection and you refuse to fix the issues found to make it livable, then that Section 8 money isn't going anywhere. It's a good deal overall and it has the benefit of the government keeping an eye on things to prevent either side from completely screwing over the other.

Comment Re:Highly irregular (Score 1) 519

Not exactly. It would remain classified, but USC Title 18 Part I Chapter 37 Section 798 specfically says:

The term “unauthorized person” means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.

So if the president gives the information to someone they cease to be "unauthorized" under the law. Now they can't share the classified information with anyone else, but the president has full authority to give that information to whomever he sees fit. Thus my statement that it is "literally impossible" for the president to be guilty of leaking classified information.

Comment Re:AFK != IRL (Score 4, Informative) 151

Intent being the key difference.

Posting a strobe flashy gif animation on a website? Not a big deal. Kinda douchey, but not a crime (even if someone does get a seizure from it but only because causing a seizure was not the intended result).

Sending a strobe flashy to gif to someone you know who has a seizure disorder and accompanying it with a message that says something to the effect of "I hope you get a seizure from this"? Definitely illegal because the stated intent is to induce a seizure (even if one is *not* induced).

It's kind of the online equivalent of mailing peanut dust to someone with a peanut allergy. Even if they don't get a bad reaction from it (say, because his mom opened it first and cleaned up before it hit him) then you will still be prosecuted for attempted assault because of the intent behind it.

Comment Re:So, in other words (Score 1) 519

And if his offices WERE tapped Trump has now broken federal law by revealing that his offices were tapped and we have not one but two Presidents with serious crimes marring their histories.

Incorrect. The president, as part of his official duties, can declassify information and disseminate it as he pleases. Of all the things Trump may be doing wrong, this one at least is not illegal. The president cannot be convicted of releasing classified information because he is the ultimate authority on what can be declassified.

Comment Re:Highly irregular (Score 3, Informative) 519

The president has declassification authority. It is literally impossible for the president to be prosecuted for leaking classified information since he can decide to declassify anything he damn well pleases. Now Congress can be a check on this by impeaching and convicting him because what he declassified had horrible consequences, but he can declassify it and there's no law to prevent it. In fact the law very specifically allows him to declassify it as part of his duties as president.

Comment Re:So he asked? (Score 1) 917

There's an exception for advances that are out of line from the perspective of a reasonable person. Example:

Asking a new co-worker on a date the first day. May be unwanted (and bad form). You get turned down and never bother her again. Result: no lawsuit, no calls to HR, not a big deal.

You give your new subordinate intimate personal details about your love life and ask if she wants to screw you on her first day. Almost certainly unwanted, even if you stop bothering her after that. Result: extreme awkwardness, lawsuit, HR at best puts you on some kind of probationary watch with the understanding that you will be fired if you do it again, and the subordinate gets her choice of transfer to another group (at least, that's how it should have gone).

Can you really not see the difference?

Comment Re:I'm not surprised. (Score 1) 917

The problem is that he was in a position of authority over her (organizationally). This creates a significant power imbalance and can interfere with ability to freely give consent. Even if there is no direct or implied threat in the advance (no quid pro quo that is) there can still be an inferred threat on the part of the recipient (whether the superior intended it or not) simply because of the positional authority the superior has over a subordinate. For this reason many companies have a policy against fraternization involving people subordinate to you or in your chain of command (some go so far as to prohibit fraternization among peers as well, though this is less common).

Bottom line there is no good way for a superior/subordinate to date or "hook up" in the workplace and it should be avoid for strictly ethical reasons if nothing else. Co-worker relationships at the peer level or say, with a supervisor in another department, require a high degree of maturity to manage but should not be considered off limits necessarily (from a legal and ethical perspective) but boundaries and rebuffs must be respected.

Slashdot Top Deals

We don't know who it was that discovered water, but we're pretty sure that it wasn't a fish. -- Marshall McLuhan