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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Density vs fractures (Score 2) 62

by phantomfive (#48671523) Attached to: Scientists Say the Future Looks Bleak For Our Bones

we know that dairy product consumption is correlated with higher density and fractures. There is no consensus on how to explain that,

If you're talking about this study, there is no consensus that milk causes fractures other than "looks interesting, more study needed." Even the authors say that.

Comment: Re:bill of rights restricts GOVERNMENT (Score 1) 104

by khallow (#48671515) Attached to: How Laws Restricting Tech Actually Expose Us To Greater Harm

Being a lesser "weaker" accomplice was still being an accomplice. They may have been benevolent rulers (some of them even let their own slaves go free), but rulers they were.

"Accomplice" has a certain negative connotation that I think is wholly inappropriate here, unless you were an English imperialist, of course.

Peers referring to mostly white, mostly land owning, and most certainly males, sure.

And it means something else today.

Every slave owning business that operated was in a sense chartered by the power seekers.

No. It's not a charter. And you ignore that the slavery laws were at the state level. The US Constitution, even as aggressively interpreted as it is by modern courts, still throws less restrictions on state governments than on the federal government.

You say that, but then you insist the Constitution written by those Founders must have meant YOUR interpretation on what its purpose was?]

Who has a better interpretation than I? There are several characteristics of a correct interpretation. First, it is consistent as it can be given US law. There are peculiar constraints forced on us by the US Constitution. For example, I prefer an federal-level asset tax, proportional voting for all states, and a privatized post office. But all of these things are precluded by the US Constitution.

Second, any such interpretation holds the US Constitution as the highest law of the lands of the US. If a law, treaty, or action runs counter to the US Constitution, then they are illegal and should be blocked or prevented. There should be no case of declaring something to be legal only because it'd be rather inconvenient to reverse it. A recent example of this was the Obamacare law. When the Supreme Court overturned part the law, they decided to enforce what was left (this is called "severability"). The legislature did not put instructions in for how to partition the law should parts of it be overturned. It's not the Supreme Court's place to decide what parts of a law to keep and to throw away. If the legislative branch doesn't provide otherwise, they should only wholly keep or reject.

Third, policy should not set by interpretation of the US Constitution. A classic example of abuse are some of the interpretations of the Second Amendment,

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Somehow, because there is a preamble that justifies the second, active part of the amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms can readily and trivially be infringed upon. For example, arguing that you're not a member of a "well regulated Militia" and hence, should not be able to have firearms. Or the classic, you can have a black powder musket, but nothing more dangerous. Or forcing people to store their firearms at a tightly controlled firing range. Or forcing people to have firearms with constraints like reduced capacity magazines or gun locks. The games go on and the interpretations mean whatever the would-be law maker wants them to mean.

Comment: Re:Old quote comes into play (Score 1) 188

by SuperKendall (#48671127) Attached to: Sony To Release the Interview Online Today; Apple Won't Play Ball

Because as everybody knows, all Apple employees are special little snowflakes whose precious little lives

They are human beings who deserve a break from a rough work schedule, and again what is even the point of serving Sony's 11th hour demands when a release next week has essentially the same effect? Are you truly so daft as to imagine the physical act of release means anything next to the symbolic act of simply saying the release will go ahead?

I somehow get the sense you are that daft, and perhaps far dafter than can be discerned at first glance... I'll let you have the last response as you are quite simply batshit insane and not worthy of further correspondence.

Comment: PC covers what we are afraid might be TRUE (Score 1) 255

by hessian (#48671079) Attached to: UK Man Arrested Over "Offensive" Tweet

People will not let you criticize the Emperor (democracy, multiculturalism, welfare, consumerism) because to do so is to suggest that all of us are wasting our time on a civilization that is heading toward collapse.

#GamerGate, #metalgate and many other scandals show us that anything related to inequality, whether racial or sexual or sexual preference, causes government and media to immediately explode and go after you, as will lots of Useful Idiots (UIs... sorry, SJWs) out there who want to crucify you.

All because they are afraid the criticism might be true and, if it is, the stakes are MUCH higher than anyone has thought.

Comment: Bias in titling (Score 1) 329

by argStyopa (#48670975) Attached to: Study: Police Body-Cams Reduce Unacceptable Use of Force

"During the 12-month Rialto experiment, use-of-force by officers wearing cameras fell by 59% and reports against officers dropped by 87% against the previous year's figures"

From that, you determine that the title of the article should be that it "reduces police use of force"?

Clearly, the MAIN result is that it reduces BS claims of "police brutality" more than anything.

I'd be curious to understand why the submitter and editor so-titled the article.

Comment: Re:I was suspicious from the moment they denied it (Score 1) 168

by CanHasDIY (#48670769) Attached to: Did North Korea Really Attack Sony?

I was suspicious of the U.S. allegations that the North Korean government was behind it when the North Koreans denied it was them.

Yes, because the North Koreans are forthright and honest chaps, their statements are always unbiased and true...

Sure, but in fairness, American TLA's aren't well known for their honesty, either. Remember James 'my job is to lie to the American people' Clapper?

Comment: Re:The perps? (Score 1) 329

by laird (#48670403) Attached to: Study: Police Body-Cams Reduce Unacceptable Use of Force

The difference, of course, is that a camera will accurately report what it sees. Police can, if the like, say whatever they feel they need to say to make a case. So if the police will freely lie about your behavior, you might as well put up a fight, because you might win. If the camera will show you being cooperative, you can trust that as being reliable evidence. And I'd hope that in court, the evidence of a digital camera (with timestamps and digital signatures, etc.) will trump witnesses, even police.

C for yourself.

Working...