Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:So, the other side? (Score 1) 315

by _Sharp'r_ (#49804867) Attached to: Mandriva CEO: Employee Lawsuits Put Us Out of Business

They're typically defining "poverty" as less than 1/2 the median income. It's really a dumb way to compare poverty across countries.

The U.S median income for a household is much higher than in France, thus someone below the "poverty rate" in the Unites States can be much wealthier than someone above the "poverty rate" in France.

In France, even with purchasing power parity, the median household income is (depending on if you use Gallup or OECD numbers) 70-77% of what it is in the United States. Using Gallup numbers, the "poverty line" in the US would be $22K/year vs $16K/year in France. Remember, these number take into account purchasing power parity (PPP), so you can literally buy about the same things in each country.

To put that into perspective for variations within the United States, the median income in Maine or Hawaii is 65% of that of Virginia or Utah (adjusted for cost of living).

According to the OECD, the "poverty rate" in Mexico is about $2250, based on a PPP median income of $4500. By their measurement, a barely "poor" person in the U.S. ($22K) would be considered upper middle class in Mexico. I won't bring up the really poor countries in Africa and elsewhere, but the "poverty rate" they're talking about is virtually valueless across countries for comparison purposes.

Put another way, the median income and thus "poverty rate" of Mississippi is higher than that of France, so I know which country I'd rather live in...

+ - Massachusetss Rep. Katherine Clark Calls for Prosecution of Gamergate Trolls

Submitted by PvtVoid
PvtVoid writes: Representative Katherine Clark of Massachusetts is urging the Department of Justice to prioritize prosecution against online harassers of women:

We have to stop seeing this as just an internet issue,” said Clark. “When women are targeted with violent threats online, they are not only forced to fear for their safety, but their ability to fully participate in our economy is jeopardized. We have to examine how well we’re enforcing existing protections and work to keep the internet open for everyone.”

She specifically mentions Gamergate in her statement.

Good for her.

Comment: Re:Where does the Fed claim to get power to ban th (Score 1) 302

by ScentCone (#49804199) Attached to: Silk Road Founder Ross Ulbricht Sentenced To Life In Prison

Given that you clearly do not know what the term "well regulated" meant in 1791

I know exactly what it means. And the authors are clear that having a well regulated militia is necessary. Are you foggy about that, somehow?

They're also very clear, having stipulated that, just like with their British overlords had one, they're going to have a continually armed and well regulated military ... that they're not (UNLIKE their previous British overlords) going to let the necessary existence of that entity be an excuse to deprive the rest of the people from keeping and bearing arms.

telling people what the people who wrote the document *intended* is borderline delusional

What? They authors themselves, in a huge parade of letters, recorded debates, and supporting documents, explain exactly what they were thinking when it comes to the constitution and every one of its amendments. Those amendments didn't just cryptically appear and get signed, they were talked to death in congress and documented personal discussions, mused about in journals and letters, and openly debated. It was very clear they considered the personal right to own firearms to be paramount, and distinctly separate from the collective need to keep a well-regulated militia ready to go. Despite their allergy to a standing army of some flavor (having seen what they'd seen), they knew it was necessary to have that capacity always in place.

The existence of it being necessary, they knew that the temptation was going to be there for someone in military or civilian executive/legislative power to skew towards making that militia/military the only holders of armed power. Remember that the constitution is all about minimizing government power, and the amendments are there to remind everyone that even though they should know well enough from the structure of that charter that personal liberties are a hands-off affair, there are some areas (like political expression, assembly, arms, the sanctity of one's home, etc) that it was worth explicitly laying out as beyond the reach of government control. The linguistic construction of the second amendment may fall oddly on modern earns, but it really is simpler than most people seem to think: "The existence of an armed organization is necessary, but don't assume that the government's power to form and run such an organization gives the government the power to deny the people the right to themselves be armed."

Yes, "militia" had a very specific meaning at the time. Their urge to use that word was a reflection of how distasteful they found the notion of a large standing federal military (that being too close to their experience with British power). And it's precisely BECAUSE the assumed that the states and even more granular local powers would be taking on the responsibility to have armed groups under their control that they made the individual's right to be personally armed a fundamental, nationally protected right - to prevent a local government from becoming locally tyrannical (and likewise federally).

I don't think the early American government believed it could be specific and have these amendments stand the test of time (and they've been proven right over and over.)

Do you foresee a situation where the right to free expression or the right to assemble perhaps should be considered just a little too dangerous, and we should consider taking that away?

If so, you can start the process of putting a new amendment in place, one that kills of the First. While you're at it, you can try the same with the protections proclaimed by the Second (or the Fourth, if you think that's also a "living" amendment that's worth scrapping), but you're not going to get the supermajority and ratification needed to make any of that happen.

Comment: Re:Where does the Fed claim to get power to ban th (Score 4, Insightful) 302

by ScentCone (#49802885) Attached to: Silk Road Founder Ross Ulbricht Sentenced To Life In Prison

Since you're apparently an expert in the colloquial interpretation of 18th century American English, could you please explain what this part of the 2nd amendment means?

You're looking at the language and purpose of the amendment incorrectly. To translate its essence into more modern parlance, if would go something like: "Because it's always going to be necessary to have a trained and equipped military organization ready to defend the country, the government - in the interests of not allowing the government to have a monopoly on the tools of defense - shall not prevent citizens who are not in the military from having arms."

The people who wrote that amendment still had a very bad taste in their mouths from living under a monarchy that DID reserve the power to capriciously allow only the military to keep and bear arms. Knowing that a military/militia is necessary, they used the second amendment to be VERY clear that they considered the fundamental right to keep and bear arms to be NOT exclusive to the military. Just like the considered the freedom to speak to be not under the control of the government.

Comment: Re:outrageous (Score 1) 302

by AK Marc (#49802563) Attached to: Silk Road Founder Ross Ulbricht Sentenced To Life In Prison
I've supported fraudsters, getting enough information to protect myself from them. Someone offering to kill for you isn't right in the head. Pissing them off by rudely declining "fuck off" would probably not be a wise move. Failing to rebuff immediately someone who approached you is far from soliciting them, or transacting with them.
Linux Business

Mandriva CEO: Employee Lawsuits Put Us Out of Business 315

Posted by timothy
from the cost-of-doing-business dept.
Julie188 writes: As you probably heard by now, Linux company Mandriva has finally, officially gone out of business. The CEO has opened up, telling his side of the story. He blames employee lawsuits after a layoff in 2013, the French labor laws and the courts. "Those court decisions forced the company to announce bankruptcy," he said.

Comment: Long chain of stuff (Score 5, Interesting) 72

by Impy the Impiuos Imp (#49802219) Attached to: Hacking Your Body Through a Nerve In Your Neck

I wonder if it can affect stress. There is some evidence gut bacteria feed stress-inducing whatever back up to the brain via this nerve, and that stress promotes abdominal (inside it) belly fat deposition, as opposed to more distributed body fat deposition, which in turn releases chemicals which cause insulin resistance, which is the main cause of Type II diabetes.

Comment: Re:Professional trolls (Score 3, Informative) 171

by swillden (#49802071) Attached to: Professional Internet Troll Sues Her Former Employer

are called shills.

This is wrong. As is the use of the word "troll" in the summary/article. Trolls and shills are distinct, and the difference isn't whether they get paid. You can be a paid or unpaid troll and a paid or unpaid shill.

Trolls post messages written specifically to generate responses. The term derives from fishing where trolling means to drag something through the water to catch fish. Internet trolls post baiting comments trying to get people to respond to them. Flamebaiting is a subset of trolling, where the aim is to generate angry responses.

Shills post messages to talk up some product, service, etc., trying to make it look good and its competition look bad.

Both categories also assume that the writer likely doesn't fully agree with what he or she is writing. If two people write the same words but one believes them while the other doesn't, the former is not a troll or shill, but the latter may be.

Note that paid trolls are pretty common on the Internet, but they tend to write the articles (or, on /., the summaries) not the comments. "Clickbaiting" is almost the same as trolling in this respect, except that a clickbait article is to collect clicks, while a troll article is intended to generate comments.

All life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities. -- Dawkins

Working...