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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:outrageous (Score 1) 250

by 0111 1110 (#49803091) Attached to: Silk Road Founder Ross Ulbricht Sentenced To Life In Prison

Try making some bomb threats or death threats

Do it from an internet cafe or cafe/restaurant wifi or from any open wifi connection or one only protected by wep. Quite easy to do quasi-anonymously. This really had nothing to do with Ulbricht. He just provided the street corner where drug dealers could gather and offer drugs if they wanted. It's not like he put a gun to anyone's head and forced them to do anything.

Comment: Re:outrageous (Score 1) 250

by 0111 1110 (#49803061) Attached to: Silk Road Founder Ross Ulbricht Sentenced To Life In Prison

then I think I'll stick with not having this transaction platform exist at all for the betterment of humanity.

Good luck with that. Let me when you are victorious in your war against substances and black markets. Really. Let me know. I'll sign up for your We are Going to Win Any Day Now newsletter.

You can't win. Ever. Because your enemy is us. Human beings in general. You can execute as many people as you want. There will always be more.

Comment: Re:Labour laws (Score 3, Insightful) 219

It's not like they were used to doing business in Kansas and moved to France for the atmosphere and got surprised by the laws. From the very start, they have been a French company, and all of the principals are French. They knew exactly what they were doing and what the labor laws were.

Comment: Re:Where does the Fed claim to get power to ban th (Score 4, Informative) 250

Yes it can. [Gonzales v. Raich]

The issue was not in dispute in that case:

Respondents in this case do not dispute that passage of the CSA, as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, was well within Congress' commerce power

In my opinion, by the way, Wickard v. Filburn, the New Deal era decision that says making something for yourself (i.e. growing wheat to feed your own chickens, or growing marijuana to use yourself) affects interstate commerce (because you otherwise might have bought it instead, affecting the price) and can thus be regulated, is a travesty that is long overdue for the Supremes to revisit and reverse, as they sometimes do when a previous court broke something substantial.

But even if you agree that feeding your own wheat to your own chickens is a suitable subject for federal regulation under the commerce clause, don't you think it's a stretch to say that affecting the price of a banned substance by NOT buying it on the illegal market is a legitimate reason for the Federal Government to ban your growing and consuming your own plants? Either way you don't buy in interstate commerce, so how can the difference in your behavior affect it? (Or was it Congress' intent for you to buy illegal drugs?)

Sometimes more than half the Supreme Court justices follow some argument to a point beyond sanity.

Comment: Re:Play on words (Score 1) 21

by hey! (#49802133) Attached to: More About Dan Shapiro and the Glowforge CNC Laser Cutter (Video #2)

It's perfectly sound marketing logic.

Explaining things to people who aren't up to speed yet is difficult and tedious; and in any even people don't have the patience to sit through explanations. So the obvious thing to do is to describe your product in terms that confuse everyone, equally.

Comment: Re:Where does the Fed claim to get power to ban th (Score 3, Insightful) 250

The Commerce Clause?

Nope. (The powers it DOES confer were already alluded to in my posting.)

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

"Regulating" = making regular, setting standards, etc. It does NOT include banning whole classes of trade entirely.

If they want to PROMOTE drug and gun sales, that's fine. B-)

Comment: Where does the Fed claim to get power to ban that? (Score 4, Insightful) 250

Selling drugs and weapons are serious crimes and should be justly punished. Propz to GNAA

Let's devil's advocate a bit...

The Second Amendment clearly (to anyone who understands how English was used at the time) forbids the Federal Government from interfering, in any way, with obtaining and carrying weapons. (infringe ~ "even meddle with the fringes of") That includes gun trafficing, because stopping gun sales makes it harder to exercise the right.

The Tenth Amendment explicitly, and the Ninth Amendment implicitly, ban the Federal Government from use of any power not explicitly specified in the Constitution as amended. I don't see anything in there that explicitly gives the Federal Government to ban any drugs or traffic in them, or in any way regulate such traffic (beyond forbidding false advertising claims, setting standards for labeling, and the like). (Do YOU find any such power in there? If so, please point it out to us.)

So it could be argued that, by the Federal Government's own basic laws, these were NOT crimes and the "Dread Pirate" was a freedom fighter.

(I won't even get into the issue of the Anarchist claims that ANY government is necessarily illegitimate, coercively imposing its will on people who did not pre-approve this and are not attempting, themselves, to coerce others. The people who promulgated the Constitution were doing their best to get governments off people's backs.)

Comment: No. (Score 1) 119

The hospital didn't show that normal lagtime won't affect remote robotic surgeries. It looked for possible effects of that sort and didn't find any. That's a good result, but it's only the start of a process that might show that doing this is reasonably safe for patients.

The real world is much more demanding and uncontrollable than simulation. Remember the Therac-25 incident. Thorough functional testing apparently showed that the machine was perfectly safe; it didn't take into account the difference between testers and people who would actually be using the device every day. While you can never prove the non-existence of some unknown and unpredictable factor, that doesn't mean that a long and critical search for things you might have overlooked is useless.

The major difference between bonds and bond traders is that the bonds will eventually mature.

Working...