Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Provoking (Score 1) 1130

Hey, numbnuts - How would the American government fund a war against Americans, if it caused us to stop paying taxes? Where do you think the U.S. Military's funding comes from, anyway? Magical unicorn farts?

Logistics - they ain't yer strong suit.

With debt? Something that our government is well acquainted with?

Comment Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (Score 0) 350

I'm for gun rights but it's pointless to cite these stories because you're 22 TIMES more likely to use a gun against someone you know. Throwing more guns into the mix will definitely stop crimes, but you're going to create FAR more inicidents than you stop.

[BEGIN NRA LOGIC] Well, the solution for this is even more guns! Every person should have at least three guns on them at all times. Every child over three should have a handgun also. Babies can use our new "shotgun pacifier." What? Now there's even more gun violence? Ok, let's try ten guns per adult, seven guns per child, and turning every baby stroller into an armored tank. That should keep us safe. [END NRA LOGIC]

Correlation does not indicate causation.

What's the statistics for murder without a gun with regard to people you know and strangers.

Comment Re:How is this gasping news (Score 1) 443

Drunk driving is not a "mistake". You chose to get drunk. You chose to drive. You know it's wrong. You know it's dangerous. You know you may kill someone. You choose to do it anyway. That's not a "mistake", that's wilful culpable recklessness.

"mistake: an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc."

Seems pretty cut and dry that drunk driving is a mistake.

Comment NNI's submission to Copyright Review (Score 5, Informative) 227

I was skeptical when I first read this submission so I did some digging around and found the National Newspapers of Ireland's submission to the Copyright Review Committee here. I'm dumbfounded

The Consultation Paper, at page 48, briefly discusses the issue of linking and goes on to provide for a proposed amendment to existing copyright legislation to provide that the offering of a link on a page on the internet is not an infringement of copyright law. The underlying rationale set out by the Consultation Paper in this section is misconceived and we do not accept as being based on fact.

Section 6.3 of the Consultation Paper provides that Courts, (although it does not specify which Courts) are increasingly concluding that a link, by itself, should never be seen as a publication, reproduction or communication of the content to which it refers, even where that content is an infringement of copyright. The NNI takes serious exception to the statement included in the Consultation Paper that “the fact that links make access to that content straightforward does not change the reality that a link, by itself, is content neutral.” "

It is the view of NNI that a link to copyright material does constitute infringement of copyright, and would be so found by the Courts.

Just when you thought people couldn't get any stupider...

Comment Re:The chase (Score 2) 150

Perhaps I'm being overly pedantic, but how is what he said racist? It's a comment about government in a particular country, I fail to see how racism comes into it. Apologies for zeroing in on this, but I really dislike the "racism" card as it is thrown around in arguments these days.

Comment Re:Why is this bad? (Score 1) 553

I've never bought any Humble Bundles, but when people are saying that this has outsold all the previous that just in numbers of units sold? If so, I would assume its possible for this bundle to outsell all the old ones in terms of quantity, but can you compare how much money was sent to charity between the different bundles? If this one has a significantly higher amount, that could send a pretty strong message about DRM.

Comment Re:That is a very touchy subject (Score 1) 1706

In yesterday's scenario, yes, I would have to agree. You've got a small, very crowded, dark environment mixed with tear gas, a shooter dressed in riot gear (when a lot of the crowd is dressed up for the movie), and mass panic. In this situation, it's hard to say anything short of a full SWAT team on site immediately would have really helped. That's not an argument for tighter gun control.

The notion of disarming a civilian population really does not sit well with me. There are plenty of situations where knowing not only how, but when to use deadly force is appropriate and will save more lives then simply waiting for Uncle Sam to come rescue you (see my above post). He's not always going to come around in a timely fashion.

In a world where criminals are willing to kill, tighter gun laws are not going to be much of a deterrent. Just look at how the "war on drugs" has been working out. If criminals want guns, they will have guns. I at least want to be on equal footing and not a severe disadvantage if there comes a time (rare that I hope it to be) where me being armed could have saved the lives of innocents.

Comment Re:That is a very touchy subject (Score 5, Informative) 1706

Has any shooting like this been ended by a civilian carrying a gun? Any? Ever? I don't know.

Look at the massacre on UT campus in the 60s. Troubled sniper got up to the bell tower and started firing mostly indiscriminately (1 shot, 1 kill or he left you alone). Once people realized what was going on, many of the students who owned guns got them and started returning fire, severely limiting the number shots the sniper (Whitman) could take as he was forced to take cover. There was even an armed civilian in the group of 4 people who got to the bell tower and ended the killing spree.

Authorities have stated that the large number of armed civilians returning fire was instrumental in keeping Whitman from inflicting further harm

Charles Whitman

Slashdot Top Deals

A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on. -- Samuel Goldwyn