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


Forgot your password?

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?


Recession Cuts Operation That Uses Hair To Clean Up Oil 119

Matter of Trust, a nonprofit that uses human hair scraps to make mats to clean up oil spills, finds itself with 18,000 pounds of hair and nobody to process it. Lisa Gautier, who runs the organization, says that the recession has closed many of the textile makers that produced the mats and the warehouse that stored them. Unfortunately for Lisa the hair keeps piling up. From the article: "Hair is good at soaking up oil because, up close, the strands are shaped like a palm tree with scalelike cuticles. Drops of oil naturally cling inside those cuticles, says Blair Blacker, chief executive of the World Response Group. A pound of hair can pick up one quart of oil in a minute, and it can be wrung out and reused up to 100 times, Mrs. Gautier says."

Comment Re:Hardly qualifies as porn (Score 1) 574

It's illegal for a woman to expose her breasts in public (excluding for breastfeeding, which is protected in 47 states)

So, you're saying that breastfeeding in public is allowed in 47 states...

It's illegal for a woman to expose her breasts (except for the case of breastfeeding, with condition). You are incorrectly asserting some statement about breasts after the main point of the sentence (which is about nudity only) is the only idea expressed, and that's incorrect.

Exceptions are California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New York, Ohio, and Texas.

According to this, it's illegal in 7 states to breastfeed in public.

Nope. You are having trouble with the parenthetical statement. When in doubt, erase what's in parenthesis, then read it again. IF you delete everything in the parenthesis, the meaning is absolutely clear (thought technically inaccurate). The parenthetical statement is a footnote regarding the legality of breastfeeding being an exception to the "no breasts" rule. That you were never taught how to properly read parenthetical statements doesn't mean that there was any ambiguity at all in the statement. And even if there was ambiguity, you chose to read the statement in the only impossible way, when there was another obvious reading that would be possible. That makes you an offtopic troll posting flamebait.

You would know that I don't know how to read a parenthetical statement, wouldn't you? I'm awestruck at your skill at word-smithing and grammar-handling, and evaluating the skills of others, all based on a single occurrence of someone misreading a statement. Where ever did you get your BE in English? The City College of San Francisco?

Comment Re:Hardly qualifies as porn (Score 1) 574

Illiteracy != missing a clause or misreading it. Most of you guys seem kind of illiterate, since I admitted to misreading it.

Okay, apparently I misread the original statement. It was ambiguous to me.

I misread it. As a result, the statement was ambiguous to me. I don't know how much simpler I can make this phrase. Let me try: Misread something, interpreted based on misreading, interpretation incorrect.

Does this compute yet?

Comment Re:Hardly qualifies as porn (Score 1) 574

No, 47 states allow women to expose their breasts strictly for the purpose of breastfeeding. Of those 47, 7 of those allow women to expose their breasts under any circumstances. 43 states do not allow women to expose their breasts, and of those, 3 do not make an exception for breastfeeding.

it's 40 (exemption for breastfeeding) + 7 (allowed, period) + 3 (not allowed, period).

My statement made perfect sense to me, though maybe I'm tripping over something specific to American English.

Point taken. I had misread the original statement as stating that 47 states allowed it, and 7 with exceptions allowing for it.

Slashdot Top Deals

The number of computer scientists in a room is inversely proportional to the number of bugs in their code.