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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:hey dumbass (Score 1) 607

by diamondmagic (#49543909) Attached to: Bill To Require Vaccination of Children Advances In California

Furthermore, this question "What religion are you" violates the equal protection of the laws, that the same law protects everyone equally (and religion is generally subject to strict scrutiny), the Fourteenth Amendment.

And it violates the Fifth Amendment - that a person cannot be compelled to speak against themselves: Providing the wrong answer would be speech against one's self.

Comment: Re:hey dumbass (Score 1) 607

by diamondmagic (#49543887) Attached to: Bill To Require Vaccination of Children Advances In California

Religious exemptions are unconstitutional under the free exercise clause. Perhaps a rephrasing of my original point makes this clearer:

Judge: "You're being tried for $foo. How do you plead?"
Defendant: "Not guilty by religious exemption"
Judge: "What religion is that?"

If this is indeed a constitutional question, then if the defendant provides the wrong answer, they're guilty. That is an unconstitutional abridgment of the free exercise of religion: It makes certain religious guilty.

Comment: Re:Mandation of vaccines is not okay (Score 1) 607

by diamondmagic (#49533553) Attached to: Bill To Require Vaccination of Children Advances In California

Really? Libel, slander, inciting a riot, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, false advertising, yadda, yadda, yadda. You're aware these restrictions on your so-called absolute liberty are working out just fine, right? It's called the real world and you actually live in it.

Libel, slander, and false advertising can generally be reduced to fraud. It has to be false, and someone's reasonable belief of it has to have caused an injury (in the common law understanding).

Fire in a theater was a hypothetical in an old SCOTUS case. It's not illegal, and no one has ever been found guilty of it. Penn & Teller yell "Fire! Fire!" in a full theater every night. In the face of real flames. Still waiting for someone to get trampled.

Comment: Re:hey dumbass (Score 1) 607

by diamondmagic (#49532105) Attached to: Bill To Require Vaccination of Children Advances In California

And SCOTUS has held that laws permitting inquiries as to a person's religion for the basis of determining guilt violates that.

Further, equal protection of the laws is the Fourteenth Amendment, and declining to answer such questions is the Fifth Amendment.

Article VI further prohibits religious tests for holding office. This theme is very well established.

Comment: Re:hey dumbass (Score 1) 607

by diamondmagic (#49531977) Attached to: Bill To Require Vaccination of Children Advances In California

The Constitution says "No law". Religious exemption sounds like a law regarding religion.

A Protestant would be mortified if a known Catholic judge asked them their religion. This is the same thing. Courts are prohibited from inquiries and special treatment based on a person's religion. If a judge can ask a question that can help them, then there's an answer that can hurt them. That's an unconstitutional denial of equal protection of the laws.

Comment: Religious exemptions are unconstitutional (Score -1, Flamebait) 607

by diamondmagic (#49531667) Attached to: Bill To Require Vaccination of Children Advances In California

You really shouldn't need any law. Religious exemptions are unconstitutional... under the free exercise clause. Think about that for a moment. Why would that be the case? Well, consider how this goes down in court:

Defendant: I don't want to get this vaccination/serve this person/cut my hair/I want to smoke this cactus
Judge: Why?
Defendant: I have a religious reason
Judge: What is your religion, and what does it say?
Defendant: Objection! The First Amendment and the equal protection of the laws prohibits you from asking this, and the Fifth Amendment doesn't require I answer.

Comment: Re:Limited Resources Used Badly (Score 1) 672

I don't think you understand what comparative advantage actually means. Comparative advantage is why two places can produce the same good and have it be economically beneficial to both even though one has an absolute price advantage. It has little to do with why building large cities in the middle of the desert is bat-shit crazy.

From the article you linked to, comparative advantage is related to marginal cost, which is a comparison of two goods. The law of comparative advantage says if the costs of production for the two goods are different, it will be advantageous for the two parties to specialize and trade, even if one party produces both goods at a lower absolute cost (money, labor, time, natural resources, any way you want to measure it).

Suppose the north produces very cheap water and electricity. Further suppose the southwest produces slightly more costly, but still fairly cheap electricity, and very costly water. Even though the southwest is disadvantaged in both markets, it still benefits both parties if the southwest produces only electricity and the north produces only water.

Comment: Re:I thought we were trying to end sexism? (Score 1) 599

providing facilities for each gender that are suited to them but don't disadvantage or advantage either.

That's the problem. That's sexism.

You're providing services to individuals based on the traits stereotypically associated with their gender, whether or not the individual actually has any of those stereotypical qualities... that's sexism.

Comment: Re:looks like Indians are smarter than us (Score 1) 75

Charge too high and that's "gouging"
Charge too low and that's "dumping"
Charge the same as everyone else and that's "collusion"

Is there anything that's not antitrust?

Charging per GB is OK.
Charging per month, unlimited is OK.
Charging per GB except certain kinds of services... not OK?

Antitrust is completely irrelevant here.

One can't proceed from the informal to the formal by formal means.

Working...