Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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).


Comment: Helpful websites will provide (Score 2) 157

by mpercy (#49347277) Attached to: Many Password Strength Meters Are Downright Weak, Researchers Say

A reminder about their password requirements.

I cannot begin to count the number of times I've had to hit "Forgot my password" simply because they do not remind me up fron that my password must have special character in it. For websites that do not have my personal information and especially not financial (blog sites, sport sites) I tend to use a common password so I don't have to remember different passwords. Again, completely different from any important password and used only for essentially throwaway sites.

But some sites require at least digit, others at least one Capital letter (or at least one lowercase), others at least one special character, others some combination.

The throwaway password usually meets these by virtue of the way it is constructed, but not always. Sometimes it has to be doubled to meet a length requirement, for example. But while they tell you this when you create the password, they never seem to remind you when you later have to enter your password.

Comment: For certain values of disproportionate (Score 1) 759

Which for "progressives" often appears to mean "he got more than me! it's not fair!"

Ronaldo makes $80M per year kicking a ball around a field. I can kick a ball around a field, why am I not paid what he is paid?

Nancy Pelosi once said "Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance." I *really* want to be a professional basketball player, it's my life-long dream. Alas, I am a meager 5' 10" and have a shooting percentage measured in single-digits. But by Nancy's notions, I should not be denied my dream just so I can have health-care (and presumably lots of other things).

Comment: Nope (Score 1) 759

It may be true that people with wealthy parents will become wealthy via inheritance, but it is far from being the more prevalent manner in which wealth is attained.

Check the real statistics on this. The number of "self-made" millionaires or first-generation millionaires is much much larger than the number of inherited millionaires. Forbes estimates that 70-80% are millionaires are first-generation millionaires who earned an invested their way to wealth, compare to 20% who inherited significant portions of their wealth.

For billionaires...Forbes:

"Over the past 30 years, the origin of the wealth of the richest people in the United States has shifted away from old, inherited money...In 1984, the first year for which we have crunched the numbers, we found that nearly one-fourth of the members of the Forbes 400 inherited their fortunes and weren’t doing anything to grow them...At the same time, only 2.5% were ranked as 10s, or absolute bootstrappers...The trend began to break down in 1994, when we saw an equal number of inherited and self-made billionaires...Already in the 2000s, our data finally showed a greater proportion of self-made billionaires. In 2004, we had 59% of the Forbes 400 having made their own fortune, as opposed to 41% who inherited it...Thus, the most encouraging results come from this year’s Forbes 400. For the first time in our data set, we see the number of self-made billionaires who rose from nothing, and overcame various tough obstacles, outpacing those that just sat on their fortunes. A total of 34 billionaires, or 8.5%, scored as 10s, or more than three times as many as in 1984. The number of 100% inherited fortunes as a percentage of the total fell to 7%, with 28 billionaires in the 1 category, compared to 99 back in 1984.

Forbes defined a 10 as "To qualify as a 10, a member of the Forbes 400 had to have been raised in a poor household, and have endured extreme duress. Oprah Winfrey, who endured sexual abuse, and George Soros, who survived both the Nazi and Communist occupations of Hungary, are great examples." OTOH, a 1 was someone who inherited wealth and has done nothing with it.

Comment: Not at all. Actions have consequences. (Score 1) 320

by mpercy (#49124339) Attached to: FedEx Won't Ship DIY Gunsmithing Machine

When libertarians expound that businesses should be able to deny service to any one for any reason, they also say "but then they can expect to be held up o public ridicule for it." So a baker has a right to refuse to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, but can expect protests on his doorstep.

Same thing here: FedEx can refuse to do their services for any reason they care to spout (or to keep secret if they wish) as is their right (or at least it ought to be).

Two things though. One is the concomitant public exposure for their decision. If they HAD refused because of gayness or blackness or something else, it would be a media circus. But since they refused on some wishy washy left-leaning reasoning, the normal chorus of "corporations are evil" will be silented for a bit.

The second thing is that their stated reasons are apparently hogwash. Claiming a law requires them to do X when there is no such law is just weak. And they should rightly be ridiculed for that.

Comment: Re:The sad part? (Score 1) 577

by mpercy (#48968589) Attached to: DEA Planned To Monitor Cars Parked At Gun Shows Using License Plate Readers

Yeah, I know what I'm posting. That's why I'm posting it. "Gun-control" laws have been around for a long time, and courts, including SCOTUS, have a long history of striking them down based on the clear language of the 2nd. 2nd-supporters didn't just start advocating and fighting for their rights because of some Black Panthers in the 70's, they've been fighting for 200 years.

SCOTUS decision in Heller is 100% in line with courts throughout the land and over the centuries:

[thanks wikipedia]

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

Anyone claiming the "militia" is the National Guard, or that people do not have a right to arms that might help them should a citizens militia need to form against despotic government with standing army, are the ones trying to change 100's of years of consistent reading of the plain language of the 2nd.

Comment: Re:The sad part? (Score 1) 577

Please explain.

Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557

But to prohibit the citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm, except upon his own premises or when on a journey traveling through the country with baggage, or when acting as or in aid of an officer, is an unwarranted restriction upon his constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky.

Whether or not an act of the legislature conflicts with the constitution, is, at all times, a question of great delicacy, and deserves the most mature and deliberate consideration of the court. But though a question of delicacy, yet as it is a judicial one, the court would be unworthy its station, were it to shrink from deciding it whenever, in the course of judicial examination, a decision becomes material to the right in contest. The court should never, on slight implication or vague conjecture, pronounce the legislature to have transcended its authority in the enactment of law; but when a clear and strong conviction is entertained, that an act of the legislature is incompatible with the constitution, there is no alternative for the court to pursue, but to declare that conviction, and pronounce the act inoperative and void. And such is the conviction entertained by a majority of the court, (Judge Mills dissenting,) in relation to the act in question.
The judgment must, consequently, be reversed.

Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga.

We are of the opinion, then, that so far as the act of 1837 seeks to suppress the practice of carrying certain weapons secretly, that it is valid, inasmuch as it does not deprive the citizen of his natural right of self-defence, or of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But that so much of it, as contains a prohibition against bearing arms openly, is in conflict with the Constitution, and void; and that, as the defendant has been indicted and convicted for carrying a pistol, without charging that it was done in a concealed manner, under that portion of the statute which entirely forbids its use, the judgment of the court below must be reversed, and the proceeding quashed.

[Wikipedia: The Supreme Court in its ruling in Heller v. District of Columbia said Nunn, "...perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second amendment furthered the purpose announced in the prefatory clause...." The Nunn court concept of fundamental rights was relevant to determine whether or not the Second Amendment is a restriction only on the federal government or whether the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right that cannot be infringed by the state governments.]

People vs. Zerillo

The part of the act making it a crime for an unnaturalized foreign-born resident to possess a revolver, unless so permitted by the sheriff, contravenes the guaranty of such right in the Constitution of the state, and is void. The statute must be construed in accord with the provisions of our Constitution, and it may stand as an act prohibiting the use of firearms by unnaturalized foreign-born residents in hunting or capturing or killing any wild bird or animals, either game or otherwise, of any description, excepting in defense of person or property, but so far as it makes it a crime for unnaturalized residents to possess a revolver for the legitimate defense of their persons and property it is void.
Under the complaint and warrant and the evidence the defendant should have been adjudged not guilty. The conviction is set aside, and defendant is discharged.

State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574

On this occasion, the defendant threatened with violence was forced to abandon his property. He went to his place of business where he had the right to keep his pistol, "being on his own premises," and returned with it unconcealed. He was acting in self-defense of his person and in defense of his property. The court below most properly adjudged upon the special verdict that he was not guilty.

Comment: It is happening (Score 1) 577

From WSJ article on same topic:

The Journal reported Monday that the DEA, an arm of the Justice Department, has been quietly building a database to monitor and store data about vehicles on major highways. Internal documents show the primary goal of the database is asset forfeiture, a controversial practice of seizing motorists’ possessions if police officers suspect they are criminal proceeds. Sometimes, those seizures take place without evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

Comment: Re:simple solution (Score 1) 577

"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws." (Edward Abbey, "The Right to Arms," Abbey's Road [New York, 1979])


Edward Paul Abbey (January 29, 1927 – March 14, 1989) was an American author and essayist noted for his advocacy of environmental issues, criticism of public land policies, and anarchist political views. His best-known works include the novel The Monkey Wrench Gang, which has been cited as an inspiration by radical environmental groups, and the non-fiction work Desert Solitaire. Abbey was born in Indiana, Pennsylvania on January 29, 1927 to Mildred Postlewait and Paul Revere Abbey. Mildred was a schoolteacher and a church organist, and gave Abbey an appreciation for classical music and literature. Paul was a socialist, anarchist, and atheist whose views strongly influenced Abbey.

Comment: Re:Why the DEA?? (Score 1) 577

Heck, ATF agents lose dozens of guns every year...

Over the 59-month period we tested, 76 weapons and 418 laptop
computers were lost, stolen, or missing from ATF. ATF's rate of weapons
loss per month has nearly tripled since Treasury's 2002 audit...

We also found serious deficiencies in ATF's response to these lost,
stolen, or missing items. ATF staff did not report many of the lost, stolen, or
missing weapons...

"Be *excellent* to each other." -- Bill, or Ted, in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure