Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:window period (Score 1) 84 84

The point of this device - or any other at-home/POC HIV screening test - lies in the "screening" part of the name. It's NOT designed to provide a 100% reliable answer, it's designed to SCREEN OUT those who are definitely infected, and definitely past the window period. Would you have sex with someone whose test results are DEFINITELY positive? I don't think so. There ya go. That's the point. If the results are inconclusive / not available, then use your discretion and use protection. But willingly stare down the barrel of a loaded gun? Let's prevent those situations.

Comment: Re:Sex tourist's dream... (Score 1) 84 84

Yes, I can completely imagine it. Instead of asking "hey, are you clean, have you been tested?" - which is perfectly acceptable (at least in major cities, I can't vouch for West Podunk, ND) - and *trusting* the person's answer (because we all know humans are 100% honest, 100% of the time, right?) - how about asking "hey, I'd like to not die in 15 years, so stick your finger in there and let me be a little more certain?".

Comment: Re:But the Tokyo area is so crowded (Score 1) 133 133

Or little slips of gold or silver, encased in plastic so they're legally classified as a "novelty item" or "jewelry", but the grade & weight are stamped on them, so you know you're holding, for example, 5 grams of 24K gold, and you know the exact value of it (pending knowledge of current precious metals, of course, but what's stopping you from downloading the Kitco app?). But hey, it's not actual (paper/coin) money, so there's no legal issue ;)

Comment: Re:Militia, then vs now (Score 2) 1633 1633

It's not a strawman. If you're going to hold the Constitutional Amendments to a strict interpretation of the technological limits of the time, be consistent and hold all of them to the same limit.

If you're not going to hold the amendments to the historical technological limits, then your previous argument is invalid.

What you're calling a "strawman", is a thorough refutation of your argument. But just because you don't like it, doesn't make it a strawman.

Comment: Re:Militia, then vs now (Score 1) 1633 1633

Regarding the question of what TYPES of weapons are/should be covered by the 2nd Amendment:

Based upon the strict literal interpretation of the meaning of "bear", the only weapons that are covered are those that can be "borne", i.e. carried by 1 person. This specifically excludes things like crew-served weapons, such as SAWs, mortars, artillery, etc., and complex machinery such as tanks, jet fighters, and combat ships, all of which require a crew and/or a support structure.

Things like biological / nuclear / chemical weapons are not covered, either, since they're not "arms" but rather "weapons of mass destruction". The key differences are: a.) the effects of NBC's cannot be restricted to any one person / target in particular (i.e. you CAN target a pistol round to harm only 1 individual, you canNOT target a nuke or a cloud of sarin in the same way), and b.) they're likely to cause permanent and extensive damage to structures, biosphere, and environment, i.e. the effects of the weapon will persist much longer than the tactical significance of the target.

So, no tanks, nukes, jets, artillery pieces, neurotoxin SCUDs. Regardless of whether you can afford it or not. Arms, yes. Weapons of mass destruction, no.

Comment: Re:Banning 3D guns like banning anal sex (Score 1) 414 414

The more laws with vague definitions & variable enforcement exist, the easier it is for the State to suppress whomever it wants to. It's not "unenforceable", it's there so they can gain entrance under another pretense and, oh, hey, lookitthat, a 3D printer! *handcuffs*.

Comment: Re:Sandy Hook? (Score 1) 414 414

Yeah, and because one more law would have stopped a delusional, homidical maniac.

Reality according to US Congress:
  • A psycho decides to murder children / shoot up a mall full of people
  • The psycho gathers firearms, ammunition, and/or explosive devices
  • The psycho heads out to the school / playground / mall (full of nicely unarmed victims, no potential resistance)
  • The psycho sees a sign that says "Gun-Free Zone"
  • The psycho says to himself, "Oh noes! No guns! What am I going to do? Well, I guess I'll just go home now." :(
  • The psycho goes home & goes back to watching TV
  • ?????
  • PROFIT!

Comment: Re:Already Banned (Score 1) 414 414

the language of the law is so amazingly vague ... could use it to outlaw just about any...

NAILED it!

Vague laws & variable enforcement = pathway to tyranny.

You can be arrested for even being suspected of having illegal gun parts - high-capacity magazines, silencers & fittings, automatic sears (yes, Citizen, a cube of metal 1/2" on the side can equal 5 years in jail...), even rubber O-rings that can be qualified as being "potential parts of grenade launcher attachments". Vague definition = arrest, fine, jail time, and a ruined life... for a piece of metal or an O-ring.

Meanwhile, David Gregory can wave around a highly illegal high-capacity magazine on public TV, and the DA will "decline to prosecute". Because the law that will land YOU in jail doesn't apply to the Ruling Class. Variable enforcement = some people are above the law.

Comment: Re:good riddance (Score 1) 146 146

It wasn't necessarily that the information was misleading, but that it would lead patients to make decisions about their own care without necessarily consulting a doctor, which the FDA thinks is not a good idea -- and I totally see their point, frankly.

So, by the same logic, let's shut down:

  • wikipedia.org - plenty of medical information there
  • RXList.com
  • WebMD.com
  • WrongDiagnosis.com
  • Healthatoz.com
  • DrKoop.com
  • Merck Manual at www.merck.com/pubs/mmanual/
  • ...and about 1000 more

Oh noes! Medical information out in the open! How dare those peasants make decisions for themselves! We must protect them from themselves! ...etc.

Yeah, let's deny information (however flawed it may be, it's better than nothing) to people with a capacity for independent thought, for the sake of coddling & protecting the morons.

Comment: Re:The FDA's mission to save idiots from themselve (Score 1) 146 146

OK, so they screw up once in a while. It's your responsibility to take ANY medical advice with a grain of salt, and to seek a 2nd opinion. Which is why there's that entire concept of a "2nd opinion", that's been around for centuries.

But noooo, we can't have that, let's shut down the information for EVERYONE because SOME people might misinterpret, or because there's a TINY error chance in the testing process.

Typical American attitude - "this might annoy/damage some morons, so let's shut it down for everyone".

Experiments must be reproducible; they should all fail in the same way.

Working...