Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: Summary is flat out WRONG (Score 3, Interesting) 307

SCOTUS ruled against Dred Scott, Japanese Americans and all motorists too (/Sitz/). They're still wrong and defending illegal actions. Remember, the People hold the supreme power and give the government limited powers through the Constitution. That government may claim exceptions to those limits, but that's no different than a five-year-old claiming he has no bed time. It's only true if you let him get away with it. Where theory and practice diverge is when the five year old has no problem shooting you in the face to enable his My Little Pony marathon.

Comment Re:What about the rights of those injured by firea (Score 1) 1138

What I am claiming is that the difference between fatal and non-fatal injuries in a mass attack comes down to the same lottery luck as the election analogy. The (relative) skill of the attacker and defenders is more critical when determining the total number of victims, and less so when determining the extent of any particular injury.

Comment Re:What about the rights of those injured by firea (Score 1) 1138

Let me give you a second example.

Rather than taking the effort to tally all the votes cast in an election, let's throw all the ballots into a giant pile, mix them about (maybe in a cement mixer) so they're completely random, and pull one out. Whoever is on that ballot wins the election. If you fully believe that randomness is not bad for public policy, then you must conclude that there is no drawback to this voting system, and the lower work required to determine the winner makes it superior to the systems in use today.

Comment Re:What about the rights of those injured by firea (Score 1) 1138

What's wrong with your maths?

I could ask the same question of you—because from my perspective, the only difference between victims being injured or killed is a matter of luck. I consider it an error of the highest order to include that sort of randomness in the factors which drive public policy.

Comment Re:What the hell is wrong with people? (Score 1) 1138

A person with issues made what might have been a final plea for help the night before and everyone just blew it off.

"Online" is such a vague description. Was this somewhere like Facebook or G+, where tying your activity to your offline location is simple, or was it on 4chan or Xbox Live where the "identity protections" in place may have prevented properly contacting the police department in the correct local area?

Comment Re:What about the rights of those injured by firea (Score 1) 1138 you think someone can commit mass murder on this scale with knives and baseball bats?

It does not matter what I think, I happen to know it has happened. While typically these events are "less fatal" I don't think a 0-deaths attack should be considered better if victim counts remain high. Personally, I wonder why you prioritize guns, when nearly every previous mass shooting perpetrator has shown poor mental health? (It's still a little early in the reporting cycle for a solid analysis in this latest attack.) Since this is such a universal factor, even past the availability of firearms, I would say improving our treatment of mental health issues should take a higher priority in responding to mass attacks.

Comment Re:Won't buy from Motorola or Verizon again! (Score 1) 123

Easy, stop buying phones from them and only buy from

Has Google added any non-basic phones yet? I only have four requirements and I'd buy pretty much any phone that had them:
1) MicroSD slot (swap cards as needed)
2) removable battery (security)
3) unlocked bootloader (load useful software)
4) will activate on the VZW network (geography)

Everything else about the phones are common enough today that I don't even care. I haven't found a single one so far that passes this basic test. Prove me wrong, Slashmind.

Comment Re: Private property? (Score 2) 138

Right, the copier is prevented, with violent force if necessary, from doing what he wants with his *real* property, in sacrifice to the chase of possible profits derived from fictional propery rights.

But we expect judges to contort themselves to uphold laws, not to apply reason and philosophy to matters before them. Just don't look for any justice there and you won't find any surprises.

Comment Re:They knew what they were doing from day one (Score 0) 618

engineers that should have known better

You never know - the engineers might have been told, "look, these rules are stupid - our diesels put out fewer emissions than gasoline per mile driven and adding this cost will only keep more people on gasoline, so what you're doing here is actually the best thing for the environment." Which seems to be totally true in the real world - it's just that the US regulators are foolish, and made it illegal to operate them. But we have an EPA here that spends effort to pollute rivers, so nobody is actually surprised.

The corporate structure will keep any of the engineers from facing legal consequences, so only if abiding to regulations was their top concern might they have felt it was the wrong move.

Last yeer I kudn't spel Engineer. Now I are won.