Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Good to see intelligence rewarded for once. (Score 5, Insightful) 241

No, the teacher did not know about the experiment. The girl mixed the chemicals on the advice of "a friend." The administration overreacted, but she probably did deserve some form of punishment. Mixing chemicals in closed containers without knowing exactly what they do (she said she thought it would just produce some smoke), and without supervision, on school property? Extremely bad idea.

The only punishment she deserved was a stern talking to. She was punished plenty by the big bang that ensued and probably scared her out of her wits. Now, she gets a reward to go to space camp. That's not quite an appropriate message either.

Comment Re:But does it work well in practice? (Score 2) 94

There's an EFF project on identifying the tracking codes. It's mainly done with color laser printouts using yellow dots. If you know what your printer is printing, you could theoretically introduce yellow dot patterns to randomize your serial number and mess up the identification.

http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/printers/docucolor/

Comment Re:Somebody in the government... (Score 1) 157

No.

The Peter Principle is "Employees tend to rise to their level of incompetence." They start out competent and reach the top of their rung, based on merit, so they get promoted. Eventually they get promoted to a job that they have no ability to do and they become incompetent through the promotion process.

The Dilbert principle states that in many cases the least competent, least smart people are promoted, simply because they’re the ones you don't want doing actual work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilbert_Principle

They both result in the same thing, but the process is completely different. Peter Principle employees can always choose to move to a job they're capable of doing. They can be demoted and you'll have a productive employee again. There's not much you can do with Dilbert Principle PHBs, because they were incompetent through every level.

Comment Re:bollocks (Score 1) 678

It's the entire US system. We're taught from an early age that those evil Communist Russians and Chinese are eviiiiil. We are not taught that Socialism and Communism are not the same. We are also not taught the difference between a true democracy and a republic. ...

I'm not sure what school you went to, but I did get taught that. Maybe you just weren't paying attention or weren't really thinking it through, like the majority of kids in school. You also can't learn just from the schools' propaganda books. Even at a very young age, I realized I was reading propaganda. You need to go to the library and look up the grown up books and cross reference them with the various encyclopedias and journals.

Comment Re:Playing the race card again (Score 1) 1078

There is at least one thing that's identical to both cases. The same Assistant District Attorney made the decision to prosecute one case but not the other.

One of the basic tenets of gun ownership, including with BB guns, has always been that you are never to point a gun at anyone unless you actually intend to shoot them. The other important basic rule has always been that you must always assume that a gun is loaded. Most BB guns sold for kids come with that information in the instruction manuals. The parents of the boy are either very negligent for not teaching that or very ignorant for letting their children point a loaded weapon at each other.

In the world of guns, the act of pointing a gun at another person is intent. Most BB guns include manuals that basically have the information stated here. BB guns are not toys and require adult supervision. There are now BB and pellet guns that are powerful enough to be used to hunt small game. These aren't sold to children, and most places that sell them state that they are not toys and are dangerous weapons meant for hunting. You'd have to be a very good shot, but even the low powered Daisy Red Ryder BB gun, which are sold for teaching children how to respect and use guns, can kill a small rodent.

With the above information in mind, why wasn't the boy charged for murdering his brother? Why weren't the mom and boyfriend charged for negligence or child endangerment? Someone actually died in one case, but not the other.

Comment Re:Playing the race card again (Score 1) 1078

Pointing any gun, including a BB gun at someone's head is intent. The parents are negligent in that case because BB guns are considered weapons and either didn't provide proper supervision and had no real understanding of gun ownership. You can kill bugs with them and you can kill small rodents. In this case it even killed a 10 year old.

One of the very basic rules of gun ownership and use is that you must always assume that a gun is loaded. You are never supposed to point a gun at anything you weren't planning to shoot. BB guns are not toys. There are manuals that come with BB guns that state those very facts. We now have plenty of high powered BB and pellet guns that can be used to hunt small game, but even the low powered Daisy Red Ryder BB guns can kill.

These parents did not provide the proper supervision necessary for the the children to understand and respect guns. It's no wonder there's such anti-gun sentiment in the country. Many adults don't understand how to handle guns properly. They shouldn't have bought these children BB guns, if they were going to allow such stupid and ignorant behavior. I wouldn't let my children play with a BB gun without proper adult supervision. No gun, including a BB gun should ever be pointed at another person unless you intend to shoot them.

Comment Re:Wait a second... (Score 1) 542

If you actually read my comment, you'll note that I included the term "overwhelmingly" . If the votes are 70/30, you could vote for a 3rd party without affecting the distribution much. People have got to stop voting along party lines, when the 2 party system isn't working. If you're in a swing state, or when the race is close, then you're right, it would mess things up. But if you're not, it's time to vote for that 3rd party and send a message that you're willing to mess with the status quo. Until the voting system changes, this is really only the first thing you can do. The 2nd is to write to your representatives, whether you voted for them or not. People that will take the time to write in are more likely to vote, so they're more likely to listen. If enough people write in, with a single issue directed message, maybe something could be done to overcome the current lobbying that's buying their votes.

Direct Democracy/Mob rule is what brought California the 3 strikes law that's now overwhelming prison populations. It's what brought prop 13 that's caused the state's debt problems, which they've been "mitigating" over the years by raising sales tax and state income tax as well as a host of other "creative" taxes everywhere else. It's what brought Prop 8, which would not pass if it was introduced on the ballot a few years from now. Mob rule makes a mess of things as laws get passed on whims and need to be quickly fixed years later, but with broken fixes, instead of repeals.

Comment Re:Wait a second... (Score 2) 542

Don't vote for the 2 major parties. Vote for a 3rd party, write in a name or just put none of the above. If you live in a state that's already overwhelmingly Democrat or overwhelmingly Republican, you might as well vote for a 3rd party candidate. They're less likely in the pockets of the major donors. It's time to send a message to the career politicians and switch out the incumbents.

Comment Re:"you academic self" (Score 1) 489

Your school must be in the wrong neighborhood. You have to move into a good neighborhood where parents actually care about the school and the children enough to make it a good school. You may actually have to move to find a place like that and get out of the hellhole of a neighborhood where your school is treated as a prison precursor.

Comment Re:"in support of public safety" (Score 1) 158

I suspect that it's more along the line of someone getting work to purchase a hobby toy for them in the name of using it for work. Whoever that is will need a lot of time on the clock to train to fly it while the taxpayer foots the bill for the RC and his salary.

They could have bought a cheaper and easier to fly quad copter with a longer run time of 15 minutes instead of this expensive fancy one with a 5-7 minute run time.

Slashdot Top Deals

What good is a ticket to the good life, if you can't find the entrance?

Working...