Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:it tells you one thing, at least (Score 1) 1719

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What the founders intended is that those that exercise their right to bear arms be members of a regulated militia. The meaning has been twisted over the years, but the original intent is obvious because it is literal...

The Second Amendment does *NOT* say:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It says "people"... Militia are not soldiers employed by the government, but everyday citizens. This country was founded by people who didn't trust the government... A government that distrusts government. The founders know how governments can trample on the rights of the people and two defenses for the people against over bearing governments are: The right to protest, and be heard (first amendment), and the right to protect yourself by force if needed (second amendment). Ice-T put it very well, The Second Amendment isn't to protect hunters.... It is the last line of defense against tyranny.

When a tragedy hits, we always feel a need to do something. Record setting Earthquake + Record tsunami + Nuclear reactor = Ban nuclear energy (despite it's extremely low death per Terawatt/hr). Plane crash? Is air travel safe (despite it being the safest way to travel). A nutjob kills a bunch of people? Must be guns fault (despite the hundreds of millions of guns in the US, vast majority not used illegally).

So lets not pass any knee-jerk laws at this. Lets mourn the fallen, take some time to collect ourselves and discuss reasonable actions that will target only those who do wrong, catching them before something bad happens, and leave those who do right alone.

Comment Re:and salon (Score 1) 423

Why can't stand your ground can't be used for Trayvon: He got away and went back. This is stated by both Zimmerman and Trayvon's girlfriend.

Zimmerman didn't go out to confront Trayvon. Zimmerman got out of his SUV to look for him. Zimmerman knew about many break-ins in the area, and saw a strange person wandering around in front of a house. What Zimmerman didn't know was Trayvon was talking to his girlfriend using a Bluetooth headset. All he saw was a guy pacing in front of a house. Zimmerman did the right thing and called the cops, and gave a description (which the news agencies edited to sound racist). While watching, and waiting for the cops, Zimmerman lost contact with Trayvon and got out to look for him. Zimmerman gave up the search and was on his way back to his SUV. Trayvon almost made it back to his father's girlfriend's house, when he told his (Tryvon's) girlfriend he was going to go back and confront Zimmerman. Trayvon's girlfriend told him not to, and to just go back to the house. Trayvon confronted Zimermman before Zimmerman made it back to his SUV. That's when the fight broke out (Evidence does suggest Trayvon did sucker-punch Zimmerman, and continued to beat him). Zimmerman states during the fight Trayvon saw Zimmerman's gun and said "You're gonna die!" while trying to grab the gun. This instance is where Zimmerman's "Stand your ground" defense comes into place. Zimmerman was able to get the gun first and shoot.

Now there should be an investigation... and there was. A trial comes if there is enough evidence to support it. Trials are expensive, even if you win. Everybody who looked at this case didn't support a trail because the evidence is that strong supporting Zimmerman. The media demanded a trial and now we have one. There isn't enough evidence to justify a murder charge in any level. There was no intent to kill from the beginning. You might be able to stretch a lower-level manslaughter (accidental death), but the jury would have to throw out the fight, or judge that Zimmerman started, or instigated the fight (against evidence otherwise, remember, the events were heard by Trayvon's girlfriend and she stated Zimmerman only asked "Why are you here?" before the fight broke out).

Like I said, there is a mountain of evidence that supports Zimmerman's self-defense case.

Comment Re:and salon (Score 5, Informative) 423

No that was the police, that were the first ones who took in the evidence, talked to witnesses, dealt with injuries.

Evidence overwhelmingly put Zimmerman in the clear. Trayvon had bruises on his knuckles that shows he was punching somebody. Zimmerman had no bruises on his fists, he wasn't, but he did have multiple wounds including a broken nose and bleeding from the back of the head. Eye witnesses saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman, went to call the police - heard the gun shot and returned to see Trayvon on the ground. Interviews with Trayvon's girlfriend indicates Trayvon went back to confront Zimmerman, and what was said before (T: 'Why are you following me?" Z: "What are you doing here?" then a fight breaks out).

Liberal news agencies altered the 911 call to make Zimmerman sound racist (they apologized for this), filtered images to hide wounds on Zimmerman's head (after removing the filters they announced there were wounds...) They published a 6-7 year old picture of Trayvon as a 11 year old kid (helps draw sympathy), and an old mug shot of Zimmerman (Boy, helps the innocents there right? Didn't even mention all charges against him were dropped and he had a clear record).

All evidence collaborates with Zimmerman's story of self-defense. Trayvon did attack Zimmerman. Zimmerman's wounds were all self-defense style wounds.

Comment Re:Warning Label (Score 1) 383

That waring is in 5 places.

One on the plastic retail package, two places on the inner cardboard package that contains the instructions and storage case, one in the instructions, and finally on the storage case.

Each one is not fine-print... they are very noticeable.

Government

Submission + - Buckyballs (and Cubes) to be discontinued. (getbuckyballs.com)

Petron writes: Maxfield & Oberton give up the fight on buckyballs.

Due to baseless and relentless legal badgering by a certain four letter government agency, it's time to bid a fond farewell to the world's most popular adult desktoys, Buckyballs and Buckycubes. That's right: we're sad to say that Balls & Cubes have a one-way ticket to the Land-of-Awesome-Stuff-You-Should-Have-Bought-When-You-Had-the-Chance.


Comment Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (Score 2) 126

For years and years, yes. So where was the imminent threat? There was none, there was only an imminent opportunity for Cheney's cronies to make money.

If we had not invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, still thumbing his nose, but doing nothing to actually harm Americans. Instead, we have 2 trillion dollars to pay off (more than 9/11 cost our economy), 4800 dead Americans (more than died in 9/11), and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. Dick Cheney is a war criminal.

Keep in mind the top 3 intel agencies in the world all said he had WMDs and was ready to use them. Ends up he was wrong. The US Intel agencies started to share info better to detect errors like this. The Intel agent from British Intelligence committed suicide over the debacle. Unsure what the Russian Intel agency did to change.

Now I saw a story (years ago), that theorized that Saddam faked the intel himself. He was worried about Iran taking advantage of his limited military (due to UN policies) and was bluffing on having WMD's to keep Iran from invading. This is why he didn't want to cooperate with UN inspection teams, wanting them to wait before inspections... not because he had WMD's, but he could keep his bluff.

Also as for hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis... Saddam killed a million+ before we got involved. How many more would he kill if we didn't take him out?

Comment Re:Android is a patent minefield (Score 3, Interesting) 300

I'm a big Android fan, I've used various Android ROMs on my rooted phone, and on my tablet. Over Labor Day I got my hands on a Samsung Galaxy 5 Player. This was unlike any Android I've used before. The UI was re-worked quite a bit and my first reaction was "This feels more like an Apple device". The desktop (for lack of a better word) was set up so the home page was the first window, and all extra were on the right (like Apple, where android has the home be the center window). The icons in the app tray had a background image put behind them that made it feel very apple like. The Samsung apps on it looked like Apple apps (Like a notepad that had the same icon as Apple's app). It wasn't a stretch to see many of the UI elements were taken from the iPhone. It was to the point where I had to search for settings, because the UI was more Apple-like than Android-like.

As much as I hate to say it, as I really loathe Apple products... I think Apple has a case here for the specific devices that the look/feel were copied. The Samsung S3 has a much more "Android" feel to it. It isn't Android, but a custom ROM Samsung made using Android to make their own version of an iPhone.

Comment Re:The only choice is to vote out DEM / Obama (Score 1) 468

"Require you to buy some" is hardly an insurance plan.

I think every state requires you to buy auto insurance and all mortgage companies require homeowners insurance.

Wrong. *NO* state requires you to buy auto insurance by itself. They require that *IF* you by a car AND drive it, you have insurance.

If you don't own a car, you don't need auto insurance. There is a condition and people can (and do) weigh the cost of insurance when purchasing a vehicle.

With the "Require you to buy it" health care bill, there is no way to opt out. You can't say "I can't afford the insurance so I'll ride a bike, or take the bus instead". This is a dangerous and slippery slope we are on with this. It's the first time the government required you to buy something, with no way to opt out, no per-requisite purchase (if you buy X, you must also get Y). If you are breathing, you must buy it or face a tax (and per SCOTUS, it is a tax). Ask yourself who will pay that tax? The rich? Are they uninsured? No. The poor/middle class that can't afford the insurance, so they will get slapped with a tax.

I was really hopeful about Obama's original plan for health insurance... getting Democrats, Republicans, Doctors, and Insurance companies together and debating the problem, and having the debates online/on TV. What we got was HillaryCare with "Hillary" scratched off and "Obama" written over it... and funny thing is Obama flat out said that requiring somebody to by insurance then fining them if they can't afford it was going to make the poor worse off... and that is what we got.

You can get the quote here.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne

Working...