Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

The Almighty Buck

US Supreme Court Expected Political Ad Transparency 617

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the oh-yeah-that'll-happen dept.
T Murphy writes "The Supreme Court, when ruling that corporate and union political donations were allowed under free speech, assumed the source of the donation would be disclosed immediately under current donation laws. Due to loopholes, this has not been the case, eliminating the hoped-for transparency the Supreme Court ruled to be vital to democracy. Justice Kennedy, who sided with the majority on the ruling, has been called naive for his expectation that there would be greater transparency. In the meantime, campaign spending for House candidates alone is expected to reach $1.5 billion."

Comment: Re:Vimes is not a Vigilante (Score 1) 411

by dspeyer (#12473089) Attached to: Favorite vigilante?
He lost his badge briefly in _Men_at_Arms_, but only in an act of reverse psychology from Vetinari, so that doesn't really count. He resigns in protest of the military coup in Jingo and takes up his duties as a knight instead. Neither of these is vigilante-ism.

More importantly, Vimes is always determined to maintain himself and those under him as officers of the law (even though no one knows what the law actually is) who do not (for example) just kill the accused, even if ordered to. This becomes very important in many books, including Jingo, Fifth Elephant and Night Watch.

He's still the coolest character listed, though.

The Courts

Journal: Why copyright isn't a fundamental right 1

Journal by dspeyer
A lot of people are arguing about copyright, and many are claiming that it is equivalent to physical property, not in that it resembles it (it doesn't really), but because they are both fundamental rights. Many others have declared that copyright is not a fundamental right. However, neither side has been particularly eager to show reasons.

What good is a ticket to the good life, if you can't find the entrance?