Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score 1) 574

by worthawholebean (#28571045) Attached to: US Couple Gets Prison Time For Internet Obscenity
In fact, in Miller v. California, the following test was given for obscenity:

  • the average person, applying contemporary community standards (not national standards, as some prior tests required), must find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
  • the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[1] specifically defined by applicable state law; and
  • the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

This test is still in use today.

Comment: Re:This is what happens when... (Score 1) 464

by worthawholebean (#27590087) Attached to: Energy Secretary Chu Endorses "Clean Coal"
If you RTFA, the summary is pretty inaccurate. His shift on coal was at most relatively minor, from "I don't know if this can happen" to "If it can happen, it will take a long time to develop." On nuclear, his opinions haven't changed at all. I think his statements contain a remarkable amount of sense.

Comment: Re:ex post facto (Score 1) 406

by worthawholebean (#26864661) Attached to: The Pirate Bay Is Making a "Spectrial" of It

Ex post facto has a relatively narrow legal interpretation in the U.S. - essentially, it only means you can't *increase* punishments in a criminal case retroactively. Decreasing punishments is (and should be) fine.

See Calder v. Bull. Note that compulsory sex offender registration is not considered a punishment by SCOTUS.

Disclaimer: IANAL

MATH AND ALCOHOL DON'T MIX! Please, don't drink and derive. Mathematicians Against Drunk Deriving