Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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:Will they stop OEMs from pre-loading bloatware? (Score 1) 307

Until the trapdoor opens and you fall through it and the rope actually breaks your neck, the building of the scaffold, the hanging of the rope, the tying of the noose, the marching you up on to the platform, putting a hood over your head and putting the noose around your neck is all just smoke.

Got it.

Submission + - New Malware Threats: Ransomworm Is Coming, Are You Ready?

mikehusky writes: In 2016, there were over 4,000 ransomware attacks every day. This was a 300% increase over 2015, when there were 1,000 attacks every day, and it’s likely to get worse in 2017.

In the first quarter of 2016, cyber criminals used ransomware to steal $209 million from US businesses with an expected $1B for the entire year. Crypto ransomware has grown in popularity since it started with Cryptolocker in 2013, and we can expect to see more clever ransomware as cyber criminals try to make money in 2017. .Source

Submission + - Is it time to hold police officers accountable for constitutional violations? (washingtonpost.com)

schwit1 writes: Recently the Supreme Court issued a summary opinion in the White v. Pauly case.A police officer was sued for killing a man during an armed standoff during which the officers allegedly never identified themselves as police. The Supreme Court, however, concluded that the officer had “qualified immunity.” That is, he was immune from a suit for damages, because his conduct — while possibly unconstitutional — was not obviously unconstitutional.

The doctrine of qualified immunity operates as an unwritten defense to civil rights lawsuits brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. It prevents plaintiffs from recovering damages for violations of their constitutional rights unless the government official violated “clearly established law,” usually requiring a specific precedent on point. This article argues that the doctrine is unlawful and inconsistent with conventional principles of statutory interpretation.

Members of the Supreme Court have offered three different justifications for imposing such an unwritten defense on the text of Section 1983. One is that it derives from a common law “good faith” defense; another is that it compensates for an earlier putative mistake in broadening the statute; the third is that it provides “fair warning” to government officials, akin to the rule of lenity.

But on closer examination, each of these justifications falls apart, for a mix of historical, conceptual, and doctrinal reasons. There was no such defense; there was no such mistake; lenity ought not apply. And even if these things were otherwise, the doctrine of qualified immunity would not be the best response.

The unlawfulness of qualified immunity is of particular importance now. Despite the shoddy foundations, the Supreme Court has been reinforcing the doctrine of immunity in both formal and informal ways. In particular, the Court has given qualified immunity a privileged place on its agenda reserved for few other legal doctrines besides habeas deference. Rather than doubling down, the Court ought to be beating a retreat.

Government officials, especially those with the power that Law Enforcement officers have, should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one.

Comment Renewable will never replace nuclear (Score 1) 139

Fusion will obviously replace fission if us monkeys can figure it out.

The cost of a dyson ring would beggar the entire planet for at least a milllion years. It is simply infeasible until energy to matter and matter to energy conversions hit 95% efficiency.

Renewables will easily replace fossil fuels, and can already economically do that in some cases.

As to fission/fusion, You seem to be unaware that the sun is a giant fucking fusion bomb, only the distance we have from it's multi-billion year continuous explosion and our atmosphere keeps us alive.

The technology to gather the solar fusion energy impinging on our planet improves daily, it's a race between the gathering tech people and the local fusion tech people, and so far, the gathering tech people are winning.

The future may well be different, but right now the best fusion generator we have is exactly 1 au away and we need to (and are, continuously) improve the tech we useing to capture that energy.

Comment Re:radiation was detected (Score 2, Interesting) 139

You really need to take a look at the harm all the other energy sources actually do, Nuclear Power is far far safer for people AND the environment than coal, oil or gas.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Being kneejerk against nuclear power just shows you haven't studied the facts.

And YES we DO need to develop renewables to replace fossil AND nuclear, but nuclear is in fact the safest of all our current options.

Submission + - No, you can't text your vote (washingtonpost.com)

Okian Warrior writes: Lifting imagery directly from Hillary Clinton’s campaign materials, ads circulated on twitter encourage supporters of Hillary Clinton to “vote early” and “vote from home” by texting their candidate’s name to a five-digit number.

“Save time. Avoid the line,” one reads.

“Vote early. Text ‘Hillary’ to 59925,” says another.

There is no such thing as voting by text message. Period. If you want to cast a ballot, you can vote at your polling station or vote absentee. That’s it.

But ads circulated on Twitter recently would have you believe otherwise.

Comment Those who cannot remember the past (Score 2) 77

'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'

Apparently the devs are too young to remember proven to be real internal Microsoft policy of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
From that article...
>The variation, "embrace, extend and extinguish", was first introduced in the United States v. Microsoft antitrust trial when a vice president of Intel, Steven
>McGeady, testified[8] that Microsoft vice president Paul Maritz used the phrase in a 1995 meeting with Intel to describe Microsoft's strategy toward
>Netscape, Java, and the Internet.[9][10]

Slashdot Top Deals

The most difficult thing in the world is to know how to do a thing and to watch someone else doing it wrong, without commenting. -- T.H. White

Working...