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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Idiotic (Score 1) 590

It raises a good point, though. Once upon a time, executions took place in public where citizens could observe what their government does in their name.

Compared to the shame with which the US kills people, you almost have to admire Saudi Arabia's public beheadings. At least it's honest, and actually provides some deterrent value. Good old-fashioned barbarism has its advantages.

Comment: Re:Idiotic (Score 4, Interesting) 590

if a murderer should be released or escape from prison

I've never understood this argument. If a murderer is legally released, that should mean that on our best evidence, we believe the offender is unlikely to reoffend, or that we didn't have sufficient evidence to incarcerate them in the first place. In either case, having executed them first is an abomination.

As for the escape argument, saying that we should kill people because the prison system sucks at its primary job isn't exactly the most persuasive line of thinking I've ever heard. (Or is the argument that we should pre-punish inmates for escaping before they do?) That's quite apart from the fact that almost exactly nobody escapes from correctional institutions these days; they're pretty much all from work release or work camps.

Comment: Re: Idiotic (Score 2, Insightful) 590

Precisely what problem does execution solve that "life without possibility" doesn't?

It's certainly not cost; executing someone costs far more than life does.

If it's prison overcrowding that's the issue, we have better ways to manage that, like not incarcerating so many non-violent offenders.

Comment: Re:Viability nothing (Score 1) 169

by Pseudonym (#49491267) Attached to: 2K, Australia's Last AAA Studio, Closes Its Doors

On the contrary, it fits definition 2 perfectly, definition 3 slightly, and definition 1 not at all. Copyright infringement is appropriation without right. It is not taking property.

I think that the confusion is that it's more-or-less correct to call it "stealing", but it is not correct to call it "theft". "Theft" is a legal term, and "stealing" is not.

Comment: Re:regulation? (Score 1) 245

by Pseudonym (#49455877) Attached to: 3D Printed Guns Might Lead To Law Changes In Australia

Why did I choose 1995? Simple. The Australian government started cracking down on gun ownership in 1996.

If you look at the long-term trend, you can see that 1995 was an unusually non-violent year. If you take a rolling average, there is a distinct downward trend from 1997 (the first year of the buyback) onwards.

Comment: Re:personal privacy trumps all (Score 1) 134

by Pseudonym (#49455855) Attached to: U.S. Gov't Grapples With Clash Between Privacy, Security

To put it another way: There is no clash between privacy and security. Privacy is security.

The word "security", or any variant thereof, appears exactly once in the US Constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated [...]"

We don't know one millionth of one percent about anything.