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).


Comment: Re:Double Standard? (Score 1) 569

Since filing a false report is itself illegal, free speech does not apply, but to assume that it was applied here: What Charlie Hebdo did would be considered protected speech in the US.

The standard in the US is exactly "speech directed to incite or produce imminent lawless action".

It means you must:

* Incite someone to commit a specific crime (e.g. kill someone)
* At some specific time (imminent) (e.g. tomorrow)


Comment: Re:The problem is the fuzz, not the swatters (Score 1, Informative) 569

As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, that has happened, and since it was a real emergency, the police department is now being sued.

"An investigations by NBC reveal that the police department was alerted anonymously, with the caller informing them that the suspect possessed several types of firearms and had expressed their frustration with the victim numerous times. When asked about this apparent warning, the commissioner declined to comment. An officer working the case who spoke with NBC on the condition of anonymity revealed that they did not take the warning seriously, citing many cases in which police were sent to a location based on such warnings only to find that the warning was a hoax, leaving bills in property damage and unknown damages in lost time and personnel availability. A spokesperson for the family of the victim has stated the family's intent to sue the police department for gross negligence in this matter, and NBC has learned that the caller - later identified as the suspect's brother - is also seeking legal recourse."

Comment: Re:No shit (Score 2) 248

by preaction (#49051237) Attached to: Smart Homes Often Dumb, Never Simple

Exactly. Present the UI all the users are familiar with, then add another UI that can do other things, like turn the lights on remotely, or on a timer, or something.

I remember when car stereos went to all buttons, no dials, and it was distracting because it was (a) new, and (b) suboptimal. Distraction + driving = dead.

Less chance of dying here, but still...

Comment: Re: Respect yourself (Score 1) 376

by preaction (#48928823) Attached to: Behind the MOOC Harassment Charges That Stunned MIT

We're going in circles now, and you keep putting words in my mouth.

Funny enough, there are reasons people steal. Doesn't make stealing right. People don't become mass murderers without some extremely fucked-up shit happening. Doesn't mean we shouldn't lock them up. But this analogy is terrible, because the woman violated no law by sending nude pictures to someone.

What you're saying is akin to saying that a murder _victim_ should be blamed, just a little bit, for being in the place where a murder was happening, and that's bullshit. Or that a mugging victim should be blamed, just a little, for handing over their wallet when faced with a gun, or a knife, which is equally bullshit. Or that someone in a subordinate position, like a student, should be blamed for doing what someone in a position of authority, like a professor, told them they had to do (and since sharing pictures is legal, as I mentioned in the previous paragraph, Godwin's Law doesn't apply here).

So when someone (I'll use "she" in this example) is told to take nude pictures or she'll fail the class, or she'll get fired from her job, or she'll go to jail, or she'll be killed, it's her fault if she capitulates, but not her fault if she fails her class, or gets fired from her job, or goes to jail, or dies?

Anticipating the next go-round this circle: "Well, failing the class isn't as bad as dying, so you're blowing things out of proportion." Do we know her academic situation? Was this a required class? Was she on a scholarship or financial aid (they've got pretty strict performance requirements)? Is there really no reason she might think that the consequences of not doing what the professor said would be worse than doing what the professor said? Can you not imagine any scenario?

Felson's Law: To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research.