Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:So... (Score 1) 500

by Reibisch (#46348661) Attached to: Supreme Court Ruling Relaxes Warrant Requirements For Home Searches

While I understand your sentiment, he wasn't arrested for refusing to provide consent for a search - that's still quite illegal. He was 'arrested in connection with the street robbery and taken away.'

The real issue as I see it with this ruling is that the hypothetical other occupant could be manipulated into providing consent. Eg, "Occupant A, if you don't let us search, we're going to arrest you on [insert something that an officer can dream up to get an arrest], but if you let us search your house for evidence against occupant B, then maybe we'll just forget about that for now."

Comment: Re:Not only in the US... (Score 1) 168

by Reibisch (#46023753) Attached to: Canadian Health Scientists Resort To Sneaker Net After Funding Slashed

The situation you're referring to is seasonal abuse of the EI system where employers pay salary during the season and then lay them off at the end of the season, after which the workers collect EI until the next season starts. This works largely because those workers work sufficient hours during that period to qualify for EI. "New" workers are seldom if ever hired to replace those laid off workers as there's simply no work to do.

As a side note, this abuse is in no way limited to the Maritimes. You see exactly the same sort of abuse in any seasonal industry in Canada (see: oilpatch).

EI reforms have been slow and have met with extreme resistance from both social and business groups. If you want to draw coarse circles around issues, then a big one is the blanket EI system that operates with so few parameters that allow this sort of abuse.

Comment: Re:Inside job? (Score 2) 250

by Reibisch (#45943373) Attached to: Target Confirms Point-of-Sale Malware Was Used In Attack

This one is my favorite. Why any retailer is running Windows on a POS PC is beyond anyone that knows how computers work. It should be illegal.

So you're saying that you're a security by obscurity advocate then.

Not running on an embedded Windows installation might seem like a safe bet, but as TFA mentions, this vector had to do with processing the payments in the clear -- simply running another OS doesn't necessarily give you that for free.

Comment: Re:Fucking idiots (Score 2) 1532

by Reibisch (#45001691) Attached to: U.S. Government: Sorry, We're Closed

You speak as if this is something new.

'There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.' - John Adams, 1980 http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Adams#Quotes

Comment: Re:Fucking idiots (Score 2) 1532

by Reibisch (#45001585) Attached to: U.S. Government: Sorry, We're Closed

Um, don't the republicans hold a majority in the House of Representatives? Didn't the voters choose to give them the power to run that aspect of the country? And isn't the House of Representatives part of the trifecta of elected federal government? This isn't something where one party holding two of the elements of power 'wins' - particularly when the position of president is so weak.

I'm not an American, so maybe I'm wrong here, but I'm pretty sure you can't simply point at the Republicans and blame them for this when your citizens elected them.

Comment: Re:Missing the point of text messages... (Score 3, Insightful) 628

For someone who agrees with his overall point, it missed your head by a mile or two. Try looking up the definition of 'asynchronous'.

His point is that the sender may know someone is driving but expect that driver to show reasonable judgement before reading or responding. Simply knowing someone is driving shouldn't hold the sender liable. My wife sends me text messages frequently while I'm driving, but that doesn't mean I whip out my phone to check it immediately upon alert.

Comment: How about... (Score 1) 768

by Reibisch (#43939087) Attached to: Seeking Fifth Amendment Defenders

I'm convicted of committing a crime that I did not commit. During the legal process I am questioned and, because I have no right to remain silent, I must tell the investigators/prosecution/whomever that I did not do it (truth). That denial is then used against me during sentencing because I 'lied' and thus I receive a harsh sentence.

In a world in which I have the right to remain silent, I say nothing during the legal process. While I'm still incorrectly found guilty, I have no denial on which to pin a lie and therefore am sentenced more lightly.
