Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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:Agreed (Score -1) 397

I know it's not (quite) legal, but sites like VoteSwap (I think that was what one of them was called) allowed Naderites to vote for Nader in their communities when it was all but known that that district would go to Gore, swapping with a vote for Gore in a community that was assuredly going to Bush. What I'm getting at is that you can't count all of those 3% as having been taken from Gore, because some went to Nader while the Electoral College vote still went to Gore. I would guess that at least 1% of the votes that went to Nader went this way. Source: I did it in San Diego County in 2000.

Comment: Re:What was the point of this exercise? (Score -1) 943

by suprslackr420 (#37919666) Attached to: Theologian Attempts Censorship After Losing Public Debate

A unicorn, if it were to exist, would be observable to someone. It would seem reasonable to suggest that something as large as a unicorn would probably have been observed at some point by a reliable person in recent times.

This is a wild-assed assumption.

Hey, why don't I just say, a unicorn that exists outside of our universe and does not want to be observed is inherently unobservable, so it is unreasonable to suggest that if one existed it would probably have been observed.

Comment: Re:Fully Informed Jury Association (Score -1) 277

by suprslackr420 (#36837508) Attached to: Jury Acquits Citizens of Illegally Filming Police

I agree with you in theory, but I have to disagree with the number "million". If you actually believe it's better to let a million guilty people go free than convinct one innocent person, we might as well not even have court or justice systems and just live in anarchy, because there is no possible way to do anywhere near those numbers.

Would you feel the same way if you were the innocent person in the example? Or one of your kids?

The Due Process model, in my opinion, is eminently preferable to the Crime Control model (see Herbert L. Packer), but it is hard to understand for those who have trouble taking the role of the other.

Comment: Re:What's a bus full of lawyers going off a cliff? (Score -1) 246

Q: Whadda call a lawyer giving good head?

A: A choking brief.

Q: If a lawyer and a priest are in a sinking canoe, what can be done?

A: Sodomize the priest and hire the lawyer.

Q: If a lawyer were speaking in front of Congress, how would you stop him?

A: Tell him his Bentley is full of drowning school kids.

Q; What's the best thing your can do with a lawyer?

A: Get him some hookers and blow. Then blow his fucking head off. Then bill him.

Thank you! I'll be here all night! Tip your server!

[Crash programs] fail because they are based on the theory that, with nine women pregnant, you can get a baby a month. -- Wernher von Braun