Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Lift the gag order first... (Score 1) 413

Your real story is false. The FCC has the discretion to release the 8 pages or the 332 pages. It didn't, which begs the question:

You are confusing two issues: the decision to keep quiet BEFORE the vote, and the publication of the rules AFTER the vote.

The reason for the non-disclosure BEFORE the vote was to prevent undue political influence, which is the reason for the existence of the FCC in the first place. Immediately AFTER the vote, the actual text of the regulations was released to lawmakers. The PUBLICATION of the regulations to the public is waiting for the final comments from the last 2 Commissioners to be added.

Those are facts. You can argue about them all you like. Doesn't change anything.

Comment: Re:Just Askin' (Score 2) 188

by Jane Q. Public (#49201257) Attached to: Come and Take It, Texas Gun Enthusiasts (Video)
This is a false interpretation of the Second Amendment, even according to the Supreme Court.

The well-regulated militia meant "standing army".

The People are guaranteed arms (as opposed to the "well-regulated militia), BECAUSE of the necessity of having a standing army. The Founders considered a government army to be the single biggest THREAT to the Republic, and guaranteed that THE PEOPLE should therefore also be armed.

History is very clear on this. The other interpretation -- the claim that only the army is to be armed -- contradicts the actual historical proof so outrageously that it can be nothing but propaganda.

Comment: Re:Just Askin' (Score 1) 188

by Jane Q. Public (#49201211) Attached to: Come and Take It, Texas Gun Enthusiasts (Video)

Point being, nowhere in the United States does the "current understanding" of gun rights say anyone should have firearms.

False. All the conditions you give above, are circumstances under which people are considered to have waived their rights as ordinary citizens. Except:

4.Are an unlawful user of any controlled substance.
5. Are addicted to any controlled substance, even one lawfully proscribed. 8. Are the subject of an order of protection.

These conditions were wholly made-up by the government, and people have been arguing ever since that these conditions are blatantly unconstitutional.

And I could be wrong, but item 8, as I understand it, is a State issue, not Federal.

Comment: Re:Just Askin' (Score 3, Informative) 188

by Jane Q. Public (#49201151) Attached to: Come and Take It, Texas Gun Enthusiasts (Video)

I think it's pretty clear that the intent behind the second amendment was the perceived need to have a well regulated militia. In other words, if you want to carry a guns, sign up to join the national guard.

And you would be wrong. According to historical documents and the debates surrounding ratification, it was exactly the opposite.

The Founders were terrified of the necessity of having a "standing army" for defense. They had just fought a war against the "well regulated militia" of their own country! They considered a standing government army to be the single biggest threat to the Republic. Thus, (emphasis added):

"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."

The People are to be armed, to protect the country (which is The People), AGAINST its own army, if need be.

There were considered to be TWO militias: the common militia, which consisted of all the people, and a "Well Regulated Militia", which was the standing army. The accepted definition at the time of "well regulated" was "ordered, disciplined." That's a trained army.

But The People are not a "well regulated militia". They are NOT trained and disciplined. Yet as recently as a few years ago, the Supreme Court ruled again that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed arms to The People.

Comment: Re:Just Askin' (Score 1) 188

by Jane Q. Public (#49201063) Attached to: Come and Take It, Texas Gun Enthusiasts (Video)

But in the arena of gun laws, applying a law from the late 18th century to modern assault rifles and the like is considered to be completely reasonable.

AND... what has changed to make it UNreasonable? You appear to be trying to make an argument here, but you haven't actually made one.

According to the US Supreme Court, the 2nd Amendment does specifically apply to military-style arms, and with good reason. It ain't about shooting that raccoon in your back yard with a pellet gun.

The guns you refer to as "assault weapons" (which is an inaccurate propaganda term; they aren't assault weapons at all) aren't even "military style" weapons. Here are 2 facts that might surprise you:

(A) Those "assault weapons" you refer to are legal for hunting whitetail deer, as well as smaller game, in some states. And they are very well suited for doing so. They perfectly legal for hunting smaller game in many more states.

(B) It has never, at any time, been illegal in the United States to manufacture a gun for your own use.

(C) There is no demonstrable connection in the United States between prevalence of guns, and crime. In fact, over the last 30 years per-capita gun ownership and concealed carry has gone way UP, while crime, including violent crime, has plummeted. It is now less than half what it was then.

Comment: Re:Lift the gag order first... (Score 1) 413

A 5 page summary is not what was voted on. What was voted on was a draft 332 page set of regulations. But nice try.

No, it wasn't. As mentioned elsewhere, the actual regulation is only 8 pages. The rest consists of comments by the Commissioners. So this argument doesn't hold water.

While it might not be the entire thing, it's a pretty good summary. Here's the real story: the FCC is not allowed by the rules to issue the regulation until all the comments are in. Two Republican holdouts are dragging their feet and haven't delivered their comments. THEY are the ones to blame, not "the FCC".

Comment: Re:If "yes," then it's not self-driving (Score 1) 350

by Jane Q. Public (#49200597) Attached to: Would You Need a License To Drive a Self-Driving Car?

If you get into an accident that wrecks a car but harms no humans, then how is the owner of the car going to get to work to feed his family?

His family gets to keep the Darwin Award. So sad.

I do NOT believe in or endorse laws designed to protect people from themselves. That is NOT the proper role of government. That's what Mommy and Daddy are supposed to teach you about. If that doesn't work, it doesn't work.

Comment: Re:Lest Anyone Forget... (Score 1) 413

So as the parent AC stated, we were renting phones from AT&T for over 80 years.

Actually, GP AC was wrong, and here is why. Pardon the long explanation, but it's not a simple subject. It all has to do with why "Ma Bell" was broken up in the first place.

When AT&T (Ma Bell) was essentially granted "regulated monopoly" status, that monopoly applied to its status as a "common carrier". As such, its job was to deliver signals from one phone to another. (That's what Title II Common Carriers do.) It was NOT supposed to be in the business of making and selling telephones.

Eventually (I'm skipping a lot of history here), Ma Bell leased (not rented) telephones for use on its telephone system. The rationale for leasing was actually pretty reasonable: the telephones were built to last (and they did! solid durable Cycolac plastic around a solid metal frame), and when the customer was done with the phone, it would be returned for refurbishing and re-issued to some other customer. The benefits were cost, and 100% compatibility with the phone system throughout the United States. Which was no small accomplishment when you compare to, say, some countries in Europe at the time.

However, people complained of problems with this scheme: if you tried to use any other manucfature telephone on "their" system, you could not install it yourself. They charged you an exorbitant fee to have a technician come out to your house to install a "compatibility" device between your phone and "their" wires, and charged you a (rather high) fee every month to have it there.

After complaints that this was an anti-competitive practice (which, indeed, it was), a Federal court enjoined Ma Bell from being in the hardware business. However (it is not clear to me actually how), Bell got away with ignoring that Federal injunction for a full 20 years. Which is to say: they were basically breaking Federal law. Western Electric, which made virtually all telephones in the United States, was a wholly-own subsidiary of AT&T. So how they could claim "they" weren't in the phone business for those 20 years, and maintain all their old anti-competitive practices in that regard, is something I do not understand.

In any case: the complaints again became too big to ignore, and the Federal government broke AT&T up into its separate (but pretty much already-existing) subsidiary companies, which were in turn enjoined from participating in the business of manufacturing and selling telephones. Again, the whole idea was: they are in the telephone signal business, not the telephone manufacturing business.

In any case, contrary to popular belief, that's why it was broken up. And that's when manufacturers started selling more and different kinds of telephones in the U.S.

And further, that's the principle behind Title II Common Carrier status for Internet companies: they are in the business of delivering the signal. Nothing more. They are not in the business of controlling the content of that signal, any more than telephone companies were.

Comment: Re:Damn for that absence on mobile devices (Score 1) 283

by Jane Q. Public (#49200153) Attached to: Mozilla: Following In Sun's Faltering Footsteps?

except that I have it installed on my Android right now. By "mobile devices" did you mean crApple by any chance, fanboi?

I agree with GP way up above: almost nothing in OP is correct.

One of the first things I did when I got my Android phone was take Chrome out of the shortcuts and install Firefox.

I've been using Firefox browser since it was still Netscape. With very few exceptions, the only time I use other browsers is when I have to check the CSS in web pages for cross compatibility. It's not a matter of not being exposed to other browsers. I am. I have all the major browsers except Opera, which doesn't have enough market share to bother checking against.

And still I use Firefox. Among other things, I like the customizability, the plethora of available add-ons, and their focus on security and privacy. Particularly the latter.

There's nothing "conservative" about it. And I don't think the personal views of a CEO are at all relevant to the quality of the product.

Comment: Re:What is the point? (Score 1) 335

However, pardon me, you are correct: It WAS the Riley case that actually put the nail in it solidly. I stand corrected on that point.

Camou was one of the Ninth Circuit case which caused a lot of the uproar that SCOTUS settled. But while it wasn't definitive, the idea that it wasn't about border searches makes absolutely no sense.

Comment: Re:What is the point? (Score 1) 335

Damn autocorrect. It insists on putting in "probably" when I write probable.

But to clarify my point: if border searches of cell phones were exempt from probable cause, the agents could have searched it without it being "exigent to arrest". The entire thing was about whether the standard exceptions to probable cause applied. If probable cause didn't apply, logically he would have lost his case. You don't get to have that both ways.

Comment: Re:What is the point? (Score 1) 335

The current legality of border searches of electronic property isn't fully settled (see e.g. wikipedia),

The Wikiepedia article was last edited before this appeal was decided.

but the case you're linking is completely unrelated to that issue. The decision doesn't discuss border exceptions...

Are off your nut? The entire case is about border searching and exceptions. It was the Border Patrol who had picked him up at a border checkpoint, and searched his gear. Did you even read it?

Have you read any of the independent analyses of this decision? It established solidly that a border search of electronic devices such as cell phones carry the same standards as a search under other non-border circumstances. The same standards apply, the same exceptions apply.

If different standards applied at the border, the appeal would not have succeeded. The decision was made based on the fact that none of the standard exceptions to probably cause were met.

Comment: Re:If "yes," then it's not self-driving (Score 1) 350

by Jane Q. Public (#49191515) Attached to: Would You Need a License To Drive a Self-Driving Car?

Collision avoidance is easier in the air. There is much more room. (Compare to driving on a huge flat desert, as opposed to narrow roads.) And you can go above and below others, not merely to the left and right.

Only if you assume non-crowded airways. Get a crowd in there (which would be inevitable), and it gets very difficult indeed.

Having a flying car would be pointless if everybody had to go 10mph.

What you say is true of the current situation. But it all goes out the window if you extrapolate to a world in which most people who drive are flying instead.

Comment: Re:If "yes," then it's not self-driving (Score 1) 350

by Jane Q. Public (#49191415) Attached to: Would You Need a License To Drive a Self-Driving Car?

Just the opposite. Consider that we developed drones long before we developed a self driving car.

Irrelevant. I agree with you: the navigation issue was solved long ago. But navigation isn't the problem. Collision avoidance is.

At the present time the probability of ANY drone collision is ridiculously low, and if it did happen, relatively little would be lost.

You can program specific lanes for flying, they're used all the time by commercial aircraft, but by the same token there's a lot less static clutter, margins are greater(no worrying about whether the kid on the side of the road will dart out), etc...

But if everybody -- or even 30% of everybody -- were flying at the same time, this would all change.

You would have to have low-altitude "commuter lanes" which would of necessity be crowded. Collision avoidance would have to be active and dynamic... not merely relying on "lanes" for safety. Not to mention that most vertical-lift small vehicles today have rather blatant single points of failure: until you get at least four independent rotors, if one fails, down you go, and you'd likely take several others with you.

It is much easier to suggest solutions when you know nothing about the problem.