Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Don't worry (Score 1) 433

The parts about "strong economies" and "low unemployment rates, especially in the US" should have been a very quick tip-off...

Don't forget how America's strong, robust housing market can also be attributed to not hamstringing finance companies with oppressive regulation.

I don't know if any of you have noticed this, but those low unemployment rates don't seem to have been made better by the wonderful policies like "debt monetization" (aka printing money) instead of trickle-down economics.

Comment Re:Business as usual (Score 1, Insightful) 419

In the U.S., we don't get health care from the government. We don't even get health insurance from the government, unless you fall under Medicare or Medicaid.

No, you won't get health care from the government, or insurance. Nope. Thanks to the law, you'll have to buy it for yourself, even if you don't want/need it. Of course, it was just so gov't actuaries could claim that most/all of the populace is insured and it looks good on paper. Thanks Barry.

Comment Re:Let's wait and see... (Score 0, Flamebait) 64

...how long it takes before Big Brother decides he can use this to track all of the "troublemakers" in large crowds (everyone is a troublemaker, according to the Gov't).

Apparently the Flamebait mod is now given to people who disagree with the Party...

ah ha ha. ...or maybe just to those comments consisting of knowingly over-simplified-to-falsehood, generalizing, argument-inducing statements that don't contribute to the conversation and are about off-topic subjects, particularly "government"?

It's an extremely valid concern. If I disagree with the Gov't's actions, I can't exactly take my business elsewhere, can I? Sure, I can go find another one, but I can't go without one, or start my own (with the idea of doing it right). A private company can't fine me, put me in jail, nor can it execute me. The government can. That's why I usually direct concerns at governance about really great technology (it is really cool). But I don't want it turned against me. And if the government turns it against me, it's far more likely to be successful.

Comment Re:Holy Biased Article, Batman! (Score 2, Interesting) 413

it's their job to take into account the Constitution and court precedent and make their argument based on logic

No, their job is to interpret the Constitution when a major question arises. Their job doesn't require them take into account precedent, though they usually do. (http://civilliberty.about.com/od/historyprofiles/g/stare_decisis.htm)

The principle of judicial review was established by Marbury V. Madison in 1803 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States). It didn't establish Stare Decisis (precedents).

As a rule, lower courts have to abide by the decisions handed down from a higher court, but a court can reverse a decision it made earlier. Not only this, but a decision handed down in a district only applies in that district (however, other districts may adopt the reasoning). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis)

The SCOTUS has jurisdiction over all of the federal courts (not the state ones). However, SCOTUS decisions are usually applied to state courts via 14th amendment mechanisms. The SCOTUS usually does respect decisions it made previously, but there is nothing to prevent it from reversing its stance. (http://www.rbs2.com/overrule.pdf)

Comment Re:good idea there, buddy (Score 1) 352

It wouldn't be the first time people have masturbated to pictures of me. As long as I don't have to see it, I don't really care. Don't forget, I used to work for a porn company. No much really scares me any more. If they're being distributed, I want a percentage of the profits though. No one gets into porn for the beauty of the human form, the get into it for the money. Since I'm not getting paid for the pictures being taken by the TSA, I'm more than a bit offended. What the folks do in their little viewing booth is their own business.

I'm reasonably sure the TSA isn't selling scans of people for a profit (or at all). You may want to consider filing suit against airports, banks, and gas stations, since they're usually all equipped with cameras, and aren't typically constrained by regulations about how to handle that stuff.

Likewise, them having an image of you could be considered in the same manner as someone taking a picture of a known landmark (Eiffel Tower comes to mind). Sure, the owners of the landmark will scream about wanting royalties, but as long as the picture isn't being used for commercial purposes (fair use), there aren't any grounds for to bring suit.

That said, I don't particularly cotton to the way things are being done in airports and other "secure" environments. That's why I'm a proud contributor to airlines' falling profit margins (contributing to their fall, not to their survival).

Comment Re:good idea there, buddy (Score 1) 352

1. Given to or expressing lust; lecherous. 2. Exciting sexual desires; salacious.

Viewing of my genitalia has been cause for lust and has excited sexual desire. Even a normal mask wouldn't hide my full package (as it were). In that, it could be believed that a viewer would find it sexually exciting to view a nude image of me, in a normal photograph or a TSA/DHS authorized scan. Therefore it could be argued that the image of me in such a manner does fall under the cited laws.

So, what you're saying is that if you were the one in the scanner, your co-workers wouldn't have been making fun of your small dick, but would've been masturbating to it, and you wouldn't have been fired?

Slashdot Top Deals

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.