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


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 25% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY25". ×

Comment Re:Violence! (Score 1) 277

Mandatory Palestine. What became Isreal. When the jews acted just like the arabs of today. No hands over there are clean, it's just Isreal is pretending they are the sole victim instead of just aggressor #854 in that cursed plot of dirt. If you even want an easy specific, AOL Keywords: David Hotel Bombing

Comment Re:That's a first (Score 1) 350

It does happen. Not going to bother with linking but....

In Maryland some lady was hit with 2 miles under speed limit, for hogging the left lane. Her excuse that there were 40mph winds that day making for hazardous conditions was denied.

In North (South?) Carolina a stop was ruled valid because 'The speed limit was 60, everyone was doing 75, so the trooper was right in pulling you over for doing 55'. This was an attempt at an appeal on the basis of unlawful stopping pursuant to a possession charge.

In Ontario a man was dinged for doing 17 kmph over the speed limit: 'you are breaking the law if you do even one kilometer over the speed limit' said the judge. He protested a month later by doing the exact speed limit, causing a 4km long traffic jam. He was hit with obstructing traffic and had his license suspended. Of note: he had a 'partner' that was nailed with the same fine, who was driving in tandem in the adjacent lane.

Ontario has a section of it's Highway Traffic Act (132) that states basically 'don't slow or block traffic unless there is a damn good reason' - 110$ fine and 2 demerits.

Lastly, someone in Australia was nailed by photo radar for 'allegedly doing the speed limit in a speed limit zone'. That one I'm pretty sure was dismissed as a stupid glitch.

Basically people do get nailed for driving too slow, but it's generally because they are interfering with traffic, or in a few cases, are a safety concern (i.e. it's more that the vehicle is unfit for the highway/severe grade).

Comment Re:Or perhaps... (Score 4, Insightful) 618

Beyond faking screenshots (editing the shot, editing the page), maybe not a 3-minutes-storm of multiple tweets with perfect punctuation and grammar by an account with no other posts, that were some how 'caught' within 12 seconds of its final message while not logged in to twitter? Cue Patreon link

I'd also accept threat notifications submitted to the FBI and deemed credible, as opposed to submitted to twitter and deemed fund-able.

If words were that worrisome, pretty sure most of us would be dead by that Navy Seal that likes to post.

Comment Re:Well if its anything like the US... (Score 5, Insightful) 220

And what you said is "'Opinions must be politically correct or we will arrest you' is a good thing. Go Oceania!"

Churches should be allowed to be homophobic - and should also be toothless in matters of law and called out on their views. Idiocy and being wrong hasn't been outlawed - just pity the bigots and only raise your ire if they act on their views. [That said they can have their little homophobe club and exclude girls too for all I care - bygone relic of a superstitious age :P ]

Comment Re:Issue is more complicated (Score 1) 928

I might be misreading, but think you think I'm siding with status quo. I'm saying *everyone* is seemingly emotionally involved in it - not just some poor girl getting upset at pronouns. They all should leave feelings out of it. (though if it's a private club and they all enjoy being jerks then um.. carry on and don't breed?)

While humans cannot avoid action without someone somewhere taking offence at it, this is also not a justification to seek to offend. Saying "you're being a fuckwad' is hardly a neutral response. I cannot associate chan-culture dialogue with 'professional'.

On second thought, I can, and picturing a G8 Summit where they speak like they were out of /pol/ would be popcorn-worthy.

Comment Re:Issue is more complicated (Score 1) 928

Problem: jackass is relative. One person's offense is another person's hello. To use two female coworkers: actions to one if done to the other would piss her off, but if NOT done to the first, would piss her off. How about instead, just do the job and leave feelings out of it *entirely*.

You are in the hall of the mountain king.