Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:i don't understand the premise of the post (Score 0) 185

by mi (#49608967) Attached to: VA Tech Student Arrested For Posting Perceived Threat Via Yik Yak

The Constitution isn't a suicide pact.

Meaningless maxim. Meaningless, but dangerous to all of our freedoms, for it allows discarding any part of the Bill of Rights at the moment's notice.

We are not obligated to ignore threats.

Irrelevant. We are obligated to not make them illegal. That's all.

Comment: Discrimination based on hair-color (Score 1) 373

by mi (#49608959) Attached to: Bernie Sanders, Presidential Candidate and H-1B Skeptic

Blonde is "race".

No, it is not. Two blonds can have a brunette child, for example.

There are thousands (if not more) of cases on race.

So cite one, where the accusation was based on the supposed victim(s) hair-color.

I will not respond again until you offer a valid link — you've made enough unsubstantiated claims already.

Comment: Re:"Stupid mistake"? (Re:Hahah) (Score 1) 225

Do you also agree that he should have been, at his age, allowed to [...]

I do not agree with that and do not understand, why you accuse me of "hypocrisy" because of it.

That he is not an adult may affect his legal status and/or lessen the extent of the prosecution.

That his moral failings deserve strict censure — and can not be discounted as merely a "stupid mistake" — is quite different.

Comment: Re:i don't understand the premise of the post (Score -1) 185

by mi (#49608799) Attached to: VA Tech Student Arrested For Posting Perceived Threat Via Yik Yak

you can never expect to make a statement which is clearly a threat and people are just going to ignore it

Whether you ignore it or not is irrelevant. It should not be illegal.

The First Amendment makes no exceptions for "threats" — our understanding that shouting "fire" in a crowded place is illegal is flatly wrong, the Amendment protects that speech from government's actions like any other.

Comment: Illegal speech? (Score -1, Troll) 185

by mi (#49608795) Attached to: VA Tech Student Arrested For Posting Perceived Threat Via Yik Yak

Well, if such a thing as "Harassment by Computer" should be illegal, this guy's actions seem to qualify for it.

But I don't think, it should be. In fact, too much speech is already considered illegal — and the list is likely to grow as the Illiberals are trying to add "hate-speech" to the prohibited list.

+ - Student Arrested in US for Posting on Anonymous Site

Submitted by ememisya
ememisya writes: I wonder if I posted, "There will be another 12/7 tomorrow, just a warning." around December, would people associate it to Pearl Harbor and I would find myself arrested, or has enough time passed for people to not look at the numbers 12 and 7 and take a knee jerk reaction? A student was arrested for Harassment by Computer (A class 1 misdemeanor in the state of Virginia) due to his post on an "anonymous" website. Although the post in and of itself doesn't mean anything to most people in the nation, it managed to scare enough people locally for law enforcement agencies to warrant for his arrest.

Moon, a 21-year-old senior majoring in business information technology, is being charged with Harassment by Computer, which is a class one misdemeanor. Tuesday night, April 28, a threat to the Virginia Tech community was posted on the anonymous social media app Yik Yak. Around 11:15 p.m., an unknown user posted “Another 4.16 moment is going to happen tomorrow. Just a warning (sic).” The Virginia Tech Police Department released a crime alert statement Wednesday morning via email informing students that VTPD was conducting an investigation throughout the night in conjunction with the Blacksburg Police Department. “Both departments are pursuing several active leads this morning,” the statement read. “At this time, the VTPD has not obtained any additional information that would suggest this is a credible threat.”

Comment: Re:Omissions are not discrimination (Score 1) 373

by mi (#49608647) Attached to: Bernie Sanders, Presidential Candidate and H-1B Skeptic

There are no laws defending blonds or red-heads against discrimination by brunettes either.

Yes, there are. If you discriminate consistently against blonds, then you will be open to legal action.

Please, cite the relevant law I'll be accused of violating and any existing precedents of prosecutions (successful or not). I'll wait.

Has there ever been a documented case of someone discriminating against a Mi based on name? No? Then why do you think you deserve special laws?

The point was, an absence of a law explicitly protecting any particular class of people does not by itself signify discrimination of the group.

I've seen some that explicitly list LGBT (as a non protected class).

Some day you'll learn to provide citations. Until then, I'll be patiently reminding you every time. Citations?

That's not an omission, but a license to discriminate.

Yes, many kinds of discrimination are perfectly legal. A girl can say "You are too old for me" or "I don't date Jews" — and even she does so "consistently", it is her right to do so. Businesses too can discriminate on a number of traits (including hair-color, yes, really) — only the explicitly-listed few things are off-limits for discrimination. The details vary by states.

+ - SPAM: Islamic Terrorism in Texas, USA

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes: A shooting has just taken place in Garland, Texas, near Dallas

The shooting happened at a partking lot at the Curtis Culwell Center where a "Muhammad Art Exhibit" event was held

Two men pulled up in a car and started to shoot, injuring a security guard

The Garland police force moved in and an exchange of gunshot between the Garland police and the shooters ensured

Two suspects have been shot dead

Although the "Muhammad Art Exhibit" event seemed controversial, the event itself is nevertheless protected by the 1st Amendment (Free Speech for the unintiated) of the United States of America

Apparently the moslems do not care about the Free Speech provision of USA, and this latest episode illustrates that all the moslems ever want is to scare and silence, and if they are given any chance, to hurt and kill all those they deem to be "Infidels

IThis shooting also tells us that America has been infiltrated by millions of moslems who will do everything, including terrorism, to establish a Reign of Terror over the freedom loving Americans, just like what they have done in places under their control

More links are at
[spam URL stripped]...
[spam URL stripped]...
[spam URL stripped]...

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Sanders amazes me (Score 1) 373

by mi (#49606257) Attached to: Bernie Sanders, Presidential Candidate and H-1B Skeptic

It's okay for global corporations to finance the election?

Your rhetorical question is the same as "is it Ok for child-molesters to roam the streets" — you need to seriously violate privacy rights of everybody to even learn, which money comes from "global corporation" or who is a known "sex offender".

And the answer to both questions is "Yes". You can ask a politician, who gave him money — and draw conclusions from answers or evasions — but you can not ban it outright. Certainly not according to Slashdot's prevailing opinion.

So universal health care is a bad thing?

It is certainly something USSR had — and it was as bad as the rest of what they had USSR.

Ultimately, it is unfair — a citizen pays taxes into the common pool, but, when he needs treatment, it is up to the pool's administrators to decide, what is and what is not "appropriate" treatment (or, maybe, he deserves only the end-of-life counselling). Sure, insurance companies have a very similar arrangement (except any of them would be torched to the ground for even mentioning EOL), but insurance companies compete with each other and people can switch between them as they see fit.

Didn't Romney try this somewhat in MA?

"Somewhat" is a qualifier, you can drive a truck through, is not it? Your question is irrelevant, though, and the answer is "No" — Romney did not introduce "Universal" healthcare in Massachusetts.

How about when a gay couple adopt children

Is a paraplegic being discriminated against, when he is told, he can not play volleyball or practice karate? If the law requires adoptions to favor married couples, then any unmarried couple is disqualified. It is not anybody's fault that (most) gays would not marry — any more than that the paraplegic can neither jump nor kick.

But "discrimination" it is not — and neither the gays' nor the paraplegics' predicament can be rectified by a politician or any legislation, only by, one hopes, some future medical breakthroughs.

Comment: "Stupid mistake"? (Re:Hahah) (Score 1) 225

The mistake reveals a stunning lack of morals

A 15 year-old man not only committed a serious crime (arson), he also tried to cheat — and not in a game, but in the most important (at his age) part of life. And that's age, when one is still supposed to venerate honor, integrity and honesty — even if many of us become more pessimistic about these values later in life. Didn't he just read Mark Twain? Heinlein may be despised by the modern teaching class — not the boy's fault — but Jack London ought to figure prominently on reading assignments...

Though he is hardly the only one such in the nation, I would not want him to some day win a public office, run a bank, or marry my daughter.

Comment: Re:"Tax the rich" canard (Score 1) 373

by mi (#49606035) Attached to: Bernie Sanders, Presidential Candidate and H-1B Skeptic

This year's deficit is about $750 billion.

Your response might've been meaningful, if the 100% tax on "the rich" would have covered your figure. And not even then — the very fact that the numbers are comparable means, even flat-out confiscating all income from those earning $1mln is not enough. Oh, and you can only do that sort of things once (per generation) — may be enough for a one-time undertaking, but not for ongoing payments for all the wonder-programs Socialists dream about.

I think your emboldened quote is a little out of date.

Yes, had you clicked on the link provided, you would've seen the date on the article: 4/03/2012 @ 2:39PM: same President, same totalitarian "progressives", same debate as we have now.

Just what is it that drives people like you to these attempts to state the meaningless bits, that make not a iota of difference to the point being made, is beyond me...

Comment: Omissions are not discrimination (Score 1) 373

by mi (#49605959) Attached to: Bernie Sanders, Presidential Candidate and H-1B Skeptic

Nope, there are hundreds, if not thousands of laws that single them out

Any claim of there being "thousands" of anything not accompanied by even one example is invalid. Fail.

There are piles of laws on housing and other things that state you can't discriminate [...] but very few of them extend anti-discrimination laws to LBGT

Oh, well, if we start counting omissions, we can get really far. There are no laws defending blonds or red-heads against discrimination by brunettes either. Can a politician proposing to ban discrimination based on hair-color to our thick books be confident of your vote?

How about folks, whose name begins with "Mi*"? There is not a law anywhere in the world (!) explicitly protecting us — how do you sleep at night knowing of this ongoing travesty?

The more I want to get something done, the less I call it work. -- Richard Bach, "Illusions"