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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Sick (Score 1) 30

I have friends who get nauseous simply from the head bobbing in minecraft.

There are a lot of people who get nauseous from VR.
There are a lot of people who get headaches from VR.

It's still a very real thing

Unless you are a person that gets sick from VR or have formally studied it, I don't think you can speak to that with even as a good a basis in reality as the parent poster.

Comment Re: Fools think this is horrible. (Score 1) 442

I'm strongly in favor of legalizing (not simply decriminalizing) drugs.

If I were president tomorrow, I'd legalize pot to the level of alcohol and booze.
I'd legalize cocaine to the level of allowing legal consumption in special access controlled areas at clubs and bars.
I'd legalize heroin to the level of allowing legal consumption at government sponsored medical areas.

I wouldn't legalize crystal meth and I'd use some of the money freed up by legalizing the other drugs to go towards stopping crystal meth. From everything I can see, it's dangerous, nasty stuff.

In support of the above points...
I knew and I've known many, many, many successful happy people who did cocaine without issues. The addiction rate is only a couple points higher than booze. I've never tried it myself since I have chemotherapy heart damage and the 1:10,000 odds of instant death are probably even higher for me.

Heroin is not as addictive as portrayed. The actual addiction rate is much lower and addiction depends heavily on the rest of the user's life being miserable. Studies of returning viet nam vets who used heroin showed only a 5% addiction rate once they returned to normal surroundings with a good social network (family and friends).

Prohibition results in the corruption of our judicial and police systems and contempt for the rule of law (you know wealthy people and performers do drugs all the time and get off with light fines while poor people go to jail for years). Billy Idol's autobiography is full of stories of heavy drug use and the winking acceptance by police (who would escort him out of the country rather than arrest him and put him in jail for a couple decades).

Prohibition also is destroying much of central and south america as well has resulting in tens of thousands of murders per year (many of them innocent of any crime) as well as funding some really bad people with billions of dollars.

Hopefully, pot will be legal within my lifetime.

Comment Your intestinal flora make huge difference. (Score 1) 425

Lacking certain probiotics will make some food indigestable to you.
Lacking a lot of probiotics will make a lot of food indigestible to you.
Lacking certain probiotics will lead to bad food reactions.
Having certain probiotics will lead to gaining weight as you will be more efficient at extracting calories from food.

While you usually lose a lot of your intestinal bacteria when you take antibiotics, you can also lose them from diseases which don't make you sick but which do kill off your intestinal bacteria.

While some people push taking pro-biotics every day (even selling them in bottles of 30 pills), in my life, I've found taking a single pill is enough to jumpstart my system when I lose it.

Whole foods used to sell 3 varieties of pills- each with a different selection of healthy gut bacteria. One was yellow and one was purple. I can't recall the color of the third type. My feeling was that a complex gut was better than a monoculture gut (no science to back that up tho).

Three times in my life- I've had my gut bacteria killed off by an illness. Two of those times, it only effected my intestinal flora. The other, I was also sick physically. In each case, taking a single pill of each type and some yogart fixed things up quickly.

I have a friend who has celiac disease and her reaction was bad tho. She had strong distress after taking pro-biotics.

Comment Re: Fools think this is horrible. (Score 1) 442

It has become a profit center in many states and a form of horrible punishment in most states (essentially ruin your life for several years or more even if you are found innocent). Just the threat of years of debt paying off thousands of dollars in fees (and interest and fees on top of those fees) is enough to make innocent people agree they are guilty.

The public defender's office should be free or limited to a small slice of the defendent's income after a basic deduction. For example: A limit of 5% of their net income over $24,000.

Charging a person more than their annual income for their defense (as is happening in many states) makes a mockery of justice.

Similar 'rent seeking' behavior around traffic fines was also highlighted by the john oliver show. Including such offensive behavior as requiring every penny of payments to go to interest first- preventing any possibility of paying the fine off unless the victim of the"justice" system comes into a large sum of money.

Comment Re: Fools think this is horrible. (Score 1) 442

The quality of John Oliver's shows are high and he provides a valuable service which used to be handled by the major news networks in highlighting ridiculously over the top bad government and corporate abuse.

Your point is quibbling and irrelevant to John Oliver's credibility which was what was being discussed.
In preparing for upcoming episodes, Oliver & Co. will often reach out to journalists or experts in a certain field for more information and perspective. For instance, prior to the Keith Alexander interview, they got in touch with Shane Harris, who profiled Alexander for Foreign Policy late last year. Furthermore, their staff includes Charles Wilson, an alumnus of the New York Times and The New Yorker, who now serves as the show's "journalistic fact-checker," in Oliver's words.

"You can't build a joke on sand, because otherwise then the joke doesn't work andâ¦everything falls apart," Oliver says. "So you gotta make sure, even if it's sometimes incredibly frustrating, if you get excited about a joke angle, and then your fact-checker says, 'Yeah, you can't say that. That's not right.' And it's a tough job. I remember when I was talking to Charles before he joined the show, I was just saying, 'It is the thankless position to have to walk into a room that has kind of a joyful momentum behind itâ¦and be the one saying, 'Yeah, you can't do any of that. It's not true.'"
Everyone makes mistakes but Oliver's show takes efforts to check the facts and get them straight.

Comment Re: Fools think this is horrible. (Score 1) 442

Hmm. Given the context of your post, it sounded like you were saying he was incorrect in saying that people had to pay for public defenders. Rereading your actual post... I agree that you would only have to show some errors.

In this case however, 43 states do charge for public defenders (which is even more than I thought) and it is a horrific path for poor defenders to start on. It seems fundamentally unjust to offer a public defender and then charge them for the public defender. In the interest of justice, public defenders should be well funded and any charges should be based on the defendent's income.

Comment Re: Fools think this is horrible. (Score 3, Informative) 442

Invalid argument.

Everyone is wrong occasionally.

I seriously doubt a major 15 minute segment would be wrong in any central and fundamental facts. And in this case, it's not.

You'd need to show the areas he said charge for public defenders actually do not charge for public defenders. Which you did not do.

Put it this way... you were wrong sometime in the past year about something, so your current argument is invalid.

It's just as invalid a technique when I do it to you as when you did it with john oliver.

Comment Re:Fools think this is horrible. (Score 1) 442

You had a reasonable expectation that the police couldn't track every citizen every minute of their travels in the public.

This is something new and will need new laws to address it.

License numbers are public information but the public would have never accepted policemen on every street filming the public constantly.

Comment Re:This is crazy... (Score 3, Insightful) 301

They do not commit murder in the performance of their duties.

When they commit murder the public gets upset, the city that hires them loses millions, they lose their jobs and sometimes (not often enough) they go to jail.

The situation actually analogous to your situation is if the police murdered a person when told to while undercover. That would be murder.

Police in large scale undercover operations are allowed to consume drugs (they have to report it as soon as possible and get treatment after the undercover operation is over). Vice police are allowed to solicit prostitution. Normal police are not allowed to consume drugs or solicit prostitution. No police are allowed to murder people.

Police are allowed to shoot suspects if they fear for their safety or if the criminal poses a danger to the public.

That's why you see the police saying that the 16 year old kid with a 4" blade who was walking away from them that they shot a full clip into the kid's back made them fear for their safety. Or how the guy tasered and spasming face down on the ground who they shot in the back multiple times (after a traffic stop) made them feel in fear for their life.

Child porn is treated as very evil to ludicrous lengths (i.e. where a person is flagged as a sexual predator for life for having a picture of bart simpson with a fingerlike undetailed cartoon penis). I'm not sure if it is bad as murder.

I'm not sure if they should have been allowed to operate the site for two weeks. It seems dubious to me. It probably depends on if people who were actively hurting children (as opposed to trading old pictures of people who are probably of age now). It's a terrible crime tho so I guess I'd cut them some slack in this case. Sort of a slippery slope tho.

Comment Re:Basically no (Score 5, Informative) 532
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an Ohio statute that prohibits anonymous political or campaign literature is unconstitutional. Writing for the Court, Justice Stevens asserted that such action is protected by the First Amendment, and therefore violated the constitutional principle of freedom of speech.

Mrs. McIntyre was fined $100 dollars for distributing anonymous election materials against a levy tax. In the case the Ohio Election commission vs McIntyre, the federal supreme court overturned the fine because:

  * The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible.
  * More-over, in the case of a handbill written by a private citizen who is not known to the recipient, the name and address of the author adds little, if anything, to the reader's ability to evaluate the document's message.
  * Thus, Ohio's informational interest is plainly insufficient to support the constitutionality of its disclosure require-ment.
  * Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.
Doe v. Cahill represented another victory for the protection of free anonymous speech on the internet. The precedent was notably applied in Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe in 2007[6] and still serves as the standard for anonymous internet speech and defamation "in the context of a case involving political criticism of a public figure."[2]
The 1960 case Talley v California , was the first major win for anonymous speech advocates. Mr.Talley was arrested for distributing a handbill that was calling for a boycott of certain businesses in the area because the businesses did not hire minorities.

  Justice Black reason for repealing the Los Angeles Ordinance was:
        "Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all."
The final watershed case on this topic is NAACP v Alabama . The issue was whether the NAACP had to give a list of its members to the State of Alabama before it could operate there. In the end, the NAACP was not required to give a list of its members because:

        "We hold that the immunity from state scrutiny of membership lists which the Association claims on behalf of its members is here so related to the right of the members to pursue their lawful private interests privately and to associate freely with others in so doing as to come within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment." ....


Comment Re:Naughty cannabis (Score 2) 232

Let's see. I've been irritated by the lack of editing (conservatively) fifty to eighty times. No.. really probably over 100 times over the last 6 years. And I can't even quickly post a correction note.

The number of times someone has edited their post to make me look like a troll on ANY SITE that allows edit... is zero times.

What is it with this concern? Did that used to happen somewhere a lot? I've seen that objection before but I've never seen the problem occur.

Usually there is an "edited X times" inline text at sites that allow editing.

If you are really concerned put the changes in colored text. Perhaps indicate how much the article was changed with a percentage.

Include the original text at the bottom of the message in italics.

I hate the current system.

Slashdot Top Deals

"There are things that are so serious that you can only joke about them" - Heisenberg