Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:9 out of 10 "Americans" think Columbus (Score 1) 74

Sorry kiddo, thanks for playing! But no, your pedanticism falls on its face. The differentiation you're saying "no" to is that everything that isn't hydrogen is star dust. Pointing out that that means that star dust is processed hydrogen is a "yes," not a "no." That was actually the point. It is that act of "processing" that creates "star dust." *whoosh*

What he said was we're "all" star dust. I was pointing out that the portions of me that are still hydrogen are not star dust. It was a play on the word "all," primarily. Attempting to label the star dust as still being hydrogen, which seems to actually dispute that the periodic elements are different substances, combined with the word "no" attempts to offer a correction, but is actually not even hitting the point. Even if it were so, it would in no way change the prior exchange. The helium is no longer hydrogen, but the H2O still has some. Even though the helium was made "from" hydrogen.

Comment Re:9 out of 10 "Americans" think Columbus (Score 2) 74

"Do you own this land?"

"No. How can you own land?"

I have no idea if the other guy is a racist asshole or not, but I know you're ignorant of history.

In my own State, only a small percent of the land was claimed by locals inhabitants. For the most part, settlers settled anywhere that didn't already somebody living there, and the people living next door usually agreed they had every right to settle on unused land.

This obviously doesn't apply everywhere, but in the majority of cases it does. And there were brand new cultures that were recently founded after the Spanish brought a bunch horses over. Those are the groups that actually had the most military conflict with Americans.

I'm part Cherokee and we lost our lands, but that isn't what happened in most places. In most places they were simply outnumbered by the newcomers, and so lost administrative power over areas. And then were given "reservations" in order to have an area of administrative control. In many cases, control that they didn't have over their neighbors culturally prior to the creation of the reservations!

Comment Re: Simple (Score 1) 166

Sorry kiddo, but I was there. Maybe your neighborhood was just behind the times? MC Hammer had his parachute pants, and people wanted to copy him but they didn't want the weird pants that nobody sold so they compromised with baggy cargo pants. I still have mine. I could fit a pack of 10 5.25" floppies in the big pocket.

Comment Re:"faces up to 25 years in prison" - Nah. (Score 1) 36

In almost all cases, definitely including this one, the maximum possible sentence is entirely irrelevant to the sentence that will be actually imposed.

Thanks for giving some deeper insight into this story. The real headline is not what the Reuters guy did, but how out-of-control the federal prosecutors have become.

At worst, what this guy did was vandalism.

If you break into some place in order to vandalize it, expect to be sentenced the same as any burglar. If you want to be sentenced as a vandal, vandalize something you can reach from the sidewalk.

That said, I'm not convinced the true damages were over the $5000 needed to be federal. In my State I would expect a class C felony though. Except that local prosecutors would be scared to charge a media guy.

Comment Re:This guy should be a lawyer (Score 1) 203

Odd that you go so crazy in trying to create a situation where it is morally justified to swerve you had to presume that the person swerving is such an immoral asshole that if he hits a pedestrian who dove in front of his vehicle, he'll just drive off.

If you had time to swerve, you had time to stop. There are not rows of parked cars on the freeway. Streets that have lane-side parking have speed limits such that if you have time to turn the wheel to swerve, you'd have time to stop too. And if children are just popping randomly out from behind parked cars, and you can't see that kids are playing by the road as you approach, how the hell are you going to know if a bicycle just pulled out into the other lane and you didn't notice yet?

There is a lot more going on in this scenario than just an unseen kid. There is a speeding asshole who thinks he's smarter than an engineer, and a child whose parents' fault the accident would be, and the bicyclist who you killed who was the only innocent party in the scenario.

Comment Re:This guy should be a lawyer (Score 1) 203

No, your duty is to drive a safe speed and pay attention. And yes, to continue following the safety rules. What you don't seem to get is that in reality swerving kills somebody that should have lived, and doesn't save anybody because stopping is more effective. It isn't "save a child" vs "dent a fender," it is "do what you're supposed to do that is known to reduce fatalities" vs "do something you don't have time to measure the effects of, in a situation where you don't know what is going to happen." And no, if you could "see and keep track of vehicles coming my way in the other lane" you would have "seen and kept track of" the child and slowed down before creating this totally absurd false choice. Any time that you have time to "swerve" safely, you would have time instead to make a legal lane change if that will solve the problem, or simply stop if not. You're not allowed to drive faster than you can react to things in your lane, and in your scenario you're potentially killing a child by driving too fast when there is not enough lane clearance.

What will happen is, you'll swerve and hit a vehicle, cause a multiple car crash, kill a whole family, and the child will have jumped back out of the way anyways. So you'll have killed a whole family for nothing, just because you can't comprehend that traffic engineers are correct when they say NEVER SWERVE, STAY IN YOUR LANE AND STOP

All I ask is a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.