Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Catfish (Score 2) 233

Dictionary people used to just categorize definitions for eternity. They recognized the slow change, but now it seems they've gone overboard in the other direction, being too quick to recognize new words that may be faddish and need the lens of time to know if they're gonna stick around.

Comment Re:Interesting argument (Score 0, Redundant) 124

Nobody in a free society should be a fan of unelected people taking vast new control over a huge new domain that did not exist when Congress created this law some time around the Flintstones era.

Congress should do its job and decide what, if anything, such should be like, rather than unelected bureaucrats stretching the law to fit...and give themselves power.

It is precisely because politicians can hide and play a game of "I had nothing to do with this", if things go wrong, that that state should be denied to them.

Comment Touch it with a 12 mile pole. (Score 4, Interesting) 140

You get the 12 mile military and 200 mile fishing limits for your land per international law. However, this must be land above the water. You cannot find land under the surface, dump tons of dirt on it, and claim those rights, per same law.

This doesn't mean you can't create the islands, but you can't do the 12 mile/200 mile thing. China thinks it can.

Comment Re:Didn't realize Ms Streisand was French (Score 1) 330

Money, being literally coins of precious metal, had intrinsic worth. Said government or bank could go to hell or lose a war, and you still have the value.

In that way, it started as merely another form of trade, a convenience to hold value from one sale until you found what you wanted to buy.

If the US went belly up, you have numbers on paper. When Kuwait was invaded, they were on a gold standard, but good luck going down to the Kuwaiti government requesting gold for paper, with a Saddam guy there.

Comment Re:Missing the big picture (Score 2) 330

From a US perspective, perhaps. But truth is not a defense in Europe, even for public figures (who thus use censorship to protect their power by preventing criticism.)

The legal power to silence criticism is at the core of the absolutist nature of the First Amendment. Government doesn't get to decide what kinds of criticism are permitted, by them, the people in power with police behind them.

To iterate is human, to recurse, divine. -- Robert Heller