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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:CITE PLEASE (Score 1) 372

Everyone should not be required to own a gun, but everyone should *be able to* own a gun. The right to bear arms is protected by the Constitution, and the Constitution applies to all US citizens on US territory, not just non-felons. We don't strip perjurers of their right to free speech, so why do so many people think it is okay to strip arms rights from violent felons? Both have demonstrated irresponsibility with a particular tool, but why the double standard? They get convicted, serve their time, and should be released as free men, not as sub-citizens who lose part of their constitutional protection.

I don't know* whether the Constitution applies to illegal aliens or not, but if it does I think it should apply 100% - not just partially. The document was not designed to allow rulers to pick and choose which sections apply and which do not.

* I suppose the question of whether it applies is based on which conditions you must meet for it to apply. Obviously the Constitution only applies on US territory. So given that a person is on US territory, does that person have to be a US citizen to be protected by the constitution, or does just occupying a spot on US land afford a person constitutional protection?

Comment The Root Cause (Score 2, Insightful) 702

Net Neutrality is only an issue because the government is already interfering with the ISP market. The government grants all kinds of franchise contracts and emminent domain (redistribution of private property) to telcos and ISPs, which distorts the market by creating the very monopolies that we all hate. Once the ISPs have comfortable monopolies, the services go to shit. I don't understand why anyone thinks that additional government intervention will have any other effect than to make things worse.

Abandon net neutrality legislation. Forbid municipalities from selling franchise monopolies. Do away with emminent domain. Then any number of solutions will appear on the market - ISPs will compete to lease land from property owners to run infrastructure, neighborhoods and housing associations will cooperate to run their own wires and contract with ISPs to hook into their networks. Multiple ISPs in the same region will actually compete with each other, much like we are seeing with Comcast and Verizon where FiOS is being introduced. And the notion of having the government tell the ISPs and telcos how to carry traffic will disappear.

Comment Re:Suicide? (Score 1) 1343

Absolutely not. Nobody should be denied the ability to protect himself. Not felons, not psychos, not this guy. Infringing on a person's right to bear arms is unconstitutional.

Are you also in favor of taking away the First Amendment rights of liars?

Comment Re:No outside help ? (Score 2, Interesting) 684

That is the policy at Carnegie Mellon. The first time a student is caught cheating, they lose their financial aid. The second time, they get expelled. Discussing homework counts as cheating and because of the consequences, everybody is too paranoid to even discuss class material that might be related to homework. Everyone hates it but the administration doesn't care because the incidences of cheating have gone way down since introducing the policy.


Comment Re:My H&K 91 has always been black (Score 1) 457

"Black rifle" is a misquote of "Evil Black Rifle" which is any semi-auto rifle that is painted black and has a large magazine, like an AK-47 or an AR-15 or an AR-10 or an HK91 or an SKS (with fancy furniture) or a FAL or an M82 and so on. Such rifles also have other scary features like muzzle breaks, flash hiders, pistol grips, and barrel shrouds.

Comment Re:Technically . . . (Score 5, Interesting) 342

I was recently considered for jury duty in a cocaine selling/possession case. One of the screening questions the potential jurors were asked was "Do you have any problems with the Indiana drug laws?" I said yes, that they should be repealed. The judge asked if I was capable of making a distinction between what the law said and what I believed. I said yes, of course, and brought up jury nullification. He said that we don't do that anymore, and I was dismissed from jury duty.

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