Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:I'll give you six amendments: (Score 1) 1347

by Sabriel (#46776417) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

Mostly like, but:

"2: Similar to Article 9 of the Mexican Constitution: Only US citizens can influence the politics of the nation."

Hmm, define "influence"? For example, Mexico's Article 2 forbids slavery. Would I, as an Australian citizen, be allowed to argue on American-hosted Slashdot that Americans should change the 13th Amendment to do the same? Would I be allowed to add my name to an American-hosted petition on that subject? Or would I subsequently have to worry about being arrested should I ever step foot on American soil?

Comment: Re:Militia, then vs now (Score 1) 1347

by Sabriel (#46776293) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

I wish folks would stop using Australia as an example. In the context of (dis)arming civilians, we Australians are a completely different culture. There was no big war with the natives (the British Empire pretty much rolled over them), there was no revolutionary war of independence, there was no civil war, and there was no second amendment. America's populace has always had far more firepower than Australia's ever did.

So it's very easy to claim comparatively huge percentage increases when the raw numbers are comparatively small. Basically, anyone who uses Australian crime statistics to push for arming or disarming Americans has drunk someone's kool-aid.

Comment: Re:Militia, then vs now (Score 1) 1347

by Sabriel (#46776125) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

Compare that to Australia, where the government confiscated all the guns to keep people safe, and violent home invasions skyrocketed.

As an Australian, one aware of the actual statistics, I feel eminently qualified to say: "That's bullshit, mate."

TLDR: using Australia as a reason for arming or disarming America is bad and you should feel bad. :)

Look, I truly get that unilaterally compelling the disarmament of the law-abiding proportion of a heavily-armed, high-density, disaffected population with a long history of armed violence is a Really Bad Idea, but when it comes to using Australia as a comparison point? You've been fed propaganda that exploits statistical shenanigans and popular ignorance of a distant country's cultural differences. Unlike the native Americans, the natives here lacked the technology, organisation and numbers to be much more than a speed bump in the British Empire's history of conquest, and we also never had a revolutionary war nor followed it with a civil war, so our nation was never armed on a level remotely approaching yours even prior to the confiscation. Our horse was still nudging the barn doors open, while yours is already up in the far paddock with a belly full of long grass and an eye on the short fence.

Comment: Re:Proletarian revolution the only solution (Score 1) 119

by Sabriel (#46775413) Attached to: Lavabit Loses Contempt Appeal

Because that worked oh-so-well for the USSR. Oh, wait, no it didn't.

The trouble with practical communism is that the Marxists never did figure out how to accomplish step 2:

1. Establish socialist state monopoly by arranging violent overthrow of capitalist state monopoly.
2. The heavily armed sociopaths used to achieve step 1 now hand over power to the proletariat.
3. Transition to stateless communism with world peace via post-scarcity technology.

World peace is cool, but step 2 is bloody tricky. Nobody's succeeded so far. Here's a method I wish would be tried instead:

1. Keep capitalist economy. Peacefully arrange a basic stipend for all citizens, with just enough purchasing power to meet the Physiological and Safety requirements described by Maslow's hierarchy of needs, then phase out copyrights and patents (since you just removed their reason for existing) along with a bunch of other obsolete subsidies and handouts.
2. Participate like everyone else in the capitalist economy to develop post-scarcity technologies.
3. Enjoy the quiet transition to world peace, you earned it without being an idiot.

Comment: Re:WTF?? (Score 1) 752

Thankyou for the correction (sigh, I should know by now not to expect slashdot summaries to get such "minor" details correct).

_However_ (now that I've read the article and followup articles including court quotes) that means it would be the principal and the other school officials involved who would be risking destruction and obstruction charges, and the officer still isn't blameless either. I mean, if I'm reading the articles correctly, this appears to be how it went down:

police: "oh hi I've been informed there was a potential felony wiretapping"
school: "I ordered the kid to delete it"
police: "you ordered destruction of evidence of a felony?"
school: "uh... but hey the kid was upsetting us by recording the bullying we were ignoring"
police: "oh that's alright then, I'll charge him with disorderly conduct"
prosecution: "sounds legit"
judge: "sounds legit"

Seriously, again, WTF?

Don't know about Pennsylvania, but in my state the school, police, prosecution and judge would all be guilty of the felony of "attempting to pervert justice".

Comment: Re:WTF?? (Score 4, Informative) 752

WTF? Bullying _is_ against the law. You repeatedly intimidate and threaten me, causing me to fear for my safety? That's "assault". You trip me, making me drop my lunchbox? That's "battery". And so on. Just because you're a child and in a sane system you would be required to undergo counselling rather than also be facing fines/prison as adults might, or because in the farcical bizarro world of many schools that you get away with it, doesn't make what you're doing even remotely lawful.

That officer who, instead of conducting a proper investigation into a potential serial harassment/assault/battery case, told the victim to delete the recording or be charged with felony wiretapping? That officer should be hauled up to explain why he shouldn't be charged with "destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice under colour of authority", which are federal crimes. And if it was done under orders from above? Add "conspiracy under colour of authority".

But, of course, that's in a sane and rational justice system that actually contains justice, rather than the authoritarian sociopathic farce that is far too common.

(note: exact wording of charges may/will differ depending on your jurisdiction / country of residence)

Comment: Re:Why so much resistance to climate science? (Score 1) 850

"And you know this how?"

I know this because we've built infrastructure of that scale before, and we had less knowledge and resources with which to do it.

If however you were referring to the sociopolitical problems inherent to accomplishing a common-sense goal on a national or international scale, note that all I was talking about was the technological/economic feasibility.

Comment: Re:Why so much resistance to climate science? (Score 1) 850

Because embracing anthropic climate change involves drastic controls on emissions, manufacturing, and energy generation (specifically coal) as well as being an excuse to raise a variety of taxes on an already strained economy.

The crazy thing is, if we weren't spending trillions on the force projection necessary to secure our unsustainable fossil based energy infrastructure, we could easily use that wealth to build a sustainable solar/nuclear-based infrastructure - no drastic controls or raised taxes required.

I don't believe there isn't a way to manage a peaceful transition. We went to the moon because we had the will to do it. We could do the same with our energy infrastructure.

Comment: Re:Good choice (Score 1) 313

by Sabriel (#46722359) Attached to: Double Take: Condoleezza Rice As Dropbox's Newest Board Member

Hmm. Concerning the theocracy and Shia Islam part, what's your opinion on the most recent attempts to (re)introduce Jaafari law to Iraq?

Iraq poised to legalize marriage for girls as young as 9
Iraq ready to legalise childhood marriage

But the legislation, known as the Jaafari law, introduces rules almost identical to those of neighbouring Iran, a Shia-dominated Islamic theocracy.

Comment: Re:Abolition of Slavery.. (Score 2) 507

by Sabriel (#46710695) Attached to: How Cochlear Implants Are Being Blamed For Killing Deaf Culture

That actually happened. Slavery was protected, not abolished, as it was reserved to the government. Read the exception clause in the 13th amendment, examine the commercialisation of the prison industry, and consider that the United States now has a higher incarceration rate than Russia and China combined.

The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -- Sagan