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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

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:Shocked he survived (Score 1) 322

by Duhavid (#49491335) Attached to: Gyro-Copter Lands On West Lawn of US Capitol, Pilot Arrested

Quite. But I can see the point that they should be allowed their say.
I think they should have to be clear about who they are and all that.
And I think you are correct, it is abused.
How to correct that, without limiting someone's ( real person, citizen ) right to speech and petition?

But campaign contributions, ax them. Or make them anonymous.

Comment: Re:Shocked he survived (Score 1) 322

by Duhavid (#49491327) Attached to: Gyro-Copter Lands On West Lawn of US Capitol, Pilot Arrested

Express your opinion
Say what you think
Assemble and speak ( but neither a corporation nor a union is a political assembly, they have other purposes, and the others in those assemblages are likely not like minded )
Freedom of speech, the right to address/petition your government,very important.
But when money makes it so that others cannot address their government, that is wrong.

Campaign contributions by corporations are bribery
If they are not, then anonymous donations would suit the purpose. But you know that would fly like a led zeppelin.

Comment: Re:Shocked he survived (Score 3, Insightful) 322

by Duhavid (#49483513) Attached to: Gyro-Copter Lands On West Lawn of US Capitol, Pilot Arrested

>>If it is correct to limit labor union's ability to spend due to unequal protection, then how can corporations not similarly be limited?>Personally, I think all labor union and corporate campaign contributions should be eliminated. "We the people..."

"So when you join a labor union or incorporate your business, you think you're surrendering your rights to free speech? "

Absolutely not. Where did I give you that impression?
Talk all you want.
Campaign contributions, on the other hand, are not speech.
They are the mechanism for election, and should be controlled to ensure that We the People are in charge.

"What if you incorporate a landscaping business in your town, and some local politician says he's going to make it the focus of his term as mayor to prohibit all gasoline powered landscaping equipment in town. Do you really think that the would-be mayor should be allowed to say what he thinks about your business practices and equipment, but you and your fellow landscapers in town shouldn't be allowed to run an ad saying, "Don't elect Mr. Smith, because all of your local landscaping companies will end up out of business." Why do you think such political speech should be banned, but only when it's the business owners who speak it?"

The business owners are still individuals and can participate in this debate to their hearts content, as can ( should ) all citizens ( citizens == non corporate, real people with the right to vote ).
Why should business owners be able to effectively ban non-business owner from political speech by drowning them out with money?

Comment: Re:Shocked he survived (Score 1) 322

by Duhavid (#49483191) Attached to: Gyro-Copter Lands On West Lawn of US Capitol, Pilot Arrested

"The first amendment is the #1 problem? This guy is complaining because he doesn't like a court ruling that diminished the ability of labor unions (like his) to be allowed to spend money on political ads when other people weren't allowed to. He's upset about a court correctly finding that unequal protection under the law, and the government directly limiting political speech, was unconstitutional."

Then I have to assume you are against the recent loosening of campaign finance regulation for corporations.
If it is correct to limit labor union's ability to spend due to unequal protection, then how can corporations not similarly be limited?
And how does the "ability to associate" argument fit here? Every time I speak about removing corporate campaign contributions, I hear "ability to associate".
A labor union spending is no less "ability to associate". And if you argue that it is the union bosses who decide how the money is spent, you are correct, but that is the same situation as in a corporation.

"I'm not apathetic about the first amendment, are you?"

Not at all. I think it is great.

Personally, I think all labor union and corporate campaign contributions should be eliminated.
"We the people..."

Comment: Re:in further news show tanks (Score 1) 662

by Duhavid (#49354193) Attached to: Jeremy Clarkson Dismissed From Top Gear

You would have to do more than fire the American hosts....

My recollection from the American version is that they never allowed anyone to say anything against any of the cars.
They were pretty lame.

Now, if they were to find a comedian who knew cars ( Tim Allen, Jay Leno come to mind ) and they were willing to get in trouble with the advertisers occasionally, they might make it go. That or have naked girls in/drive the cars Or both ( comedian with naked girl ).
And review some interesting cars, I cant remember an episode of TGUS where it was more than advertising.

Comment: Re:Space for solar hasn't been much of a concern (Score 1) 437

It is things like this that push my face into the "humans are rational" notion.

Environmental arguments aside*, burning things of limited stock** and with other more practical uses to make electricity when we could make electricity from sunlight seems irrational.

That economics ( expensive ) enters into it strikes me as saying that economics as practiced isn't tracking real value very well.

What makes sense is to minimize burning things. So, doing that at night only/mostly strikes me as an improvement.

* limited in supply, burning produces poisons that are released into the atmosphere, killing many each year, argued as contributing to climatic warming***
** not making a "peak oil" argument, but even if the entire earth was made of refined oil, it is limited in supply
*** I personally believe it is adding to the temperature. if you honestly don't, well and good, there are many other strong arguments for not burning carbons.

Comment: Re: HOWTO (Score 1) 1081

by Duhavid (#49261243) Attached to: How To Execute People In the 21st Century

"Being wrongly convicted and dying in a gas chamber due to organ failure is different from being wrongly convicted and dying in a cell due to organ failure how, exactly?"

Time.

Time for research to be done, for evidence to be gathered that exonerates the wrongly convicted.
There have been a couple recent articles in the news about people released after long periods of incarceration.

If it's not in the computer, it doesn't exist.

Working...