Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment with so many dots... (Score 1) 1232

with so many dots, you'd think there would be a much higher incidence of gun violence in that neighborhood, right? That's what the newspaper is apparently trying to make you think, anyway. After all, guns lead to innocents' death, right?

That, or the goal of the newspaper is to instill shock and fear into the public about the "proliferation" of weapons in their community without taking the time to analyze the data in context, hoping that the readers will just take the newspaper's word that this is the "whole story". If the idea that guns lead to innocents' death is true, then the number of dots in this map should indicate a disproportionate level of innocents' death per square mile. Without that data, this is pure sensationalism for the sake of forcing their neighbors to disarm.

The real truth to the data shows the VAST MAJORITY of gun owners are responsible and law abiding (they registered their guns), and therefore presumably non-violent (they'd be in prison and would no longer have a permit to own a gun if they used their gun illegally.) Exactly the opposite of the point that the newspaper was trying to make. This data plot should be relabeled "number of registered gun owners who are not responsible for the death of an innocent person."

Comment Re:Benign household chemical #1 plus ... (Score 1) 630

I'va always argued that charging extra for "hate" crimes is a slippery slope, leading logically to actual application of thoughtcrime. This seems to validate my thoughts on that... even without specific threats of imminent harm, it's possible now to be charged with something merely for "having intent", which can't be proven without a confession. (It's early, that probably doesn't make as much sense as it does in my head... If you have a notebook filled with specific threats, then you have evidence of a threat... simply having components that might be assembled into a dangerous item is not a specific threat, and the fallback of the police is then to determine and charge for "intent", which can never be known without something like that notebook or a confession.)

I teach my children to avoid contact with the police at all costs. It's not worth the trouble to deal with a cop if they happen to be in a bad mood, even if you've done nothing wrong, and I have to just assume they're always in a bad mood.

Comment Re:No harm done (Score 4, Insightful) 630

I know almost nothing about the NY Daily News, but if they have a news story about weapons followed immediately by an active plea to fill out a petition to ban weapons, I'd have to say their motives for printing not only the story itself but the uncited photograph fall very short of journalistic neutral positioning... so I gotta see that uncited photo for what it is: unrelated unless otherwise specified.

"Here's a photo of some explosives in a basement. I'm not saying it is from this kid's basement, but I'm not NOT saying that either, and we're leading with the photo, anyway. You figure it out."

Comment Re:Lousy ideas (Score 2) 1013

actually, no, the sound of a cycling shotgun will not chase most home invaders away. Most of those types of criminals are either high enough or stupid enough not to recognize the sound for what it is - especially since they're not expecting to hear the sound at all... (and not all shotguns sound like the stock Foley SFX from the movies). But, if you start off with a very loud "I have a shotgun aimed at your head, asshole" followed by racking a round, *then* they'll know what's happening. But you've probably just ejected a perfectly good cartridge just for dramatic effect when all you really had to do was turn on the lights so he could see you coming. This gives him an opportunity to flee, which is by most accounts the best outcome, if only so you don't have to call for someone to come replace your carpet and drapes in the morning.

Of course, the most effective way to let a home intruder know that you have a shotgun, if that is the primary goal, is to cause it to make a brief flash of light followed in quick succession with a very loud bang. If you have it pointed in the proper direction, he'll even *feel* it.

Comment Re:Bureaucracy (Score 4, Funny) 735

but without the bureaucracy, how would those government workers in the Solar Panel Installation Licensing Department feed their families? You don't expect them to find meaningful, productive work, do you? The SPILD provides jobs where none others would exist otherwise!

Comment Re:How likely are they to hear the case? (Score 4, Informative) 146

additionally, the conflict between application of case law between the various Federal Circuits needs to be resolved; someone living in Illinois might get an entirely different set of Federal case law applied than someone in Arizona, and at this stage it's unreasonable to allow that to continue.

Comment Re:Thanks Apple, Amazon, Dell, and Exxon Mobil! (Score 2) 347

Actually, Google has a track record of doing exactly that. They just fought (and lost) a case this last week to a patent troll company. In it, the jury awarded a 3.5% royalty of (bear with me here) the amount of demonstrated revenue increase for the previous year of infringement for U.S. revenues, plus 3.5% going forward until the patent expires. This amounts to an estimated $700-900 million over the next 4 years. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/08/idUS136757+08-Nov-2012+HUG20121108

They could have settled for about half that based on the offers the patent holder made, but they went to the mattresses, and lost big time, even though the evidence was CLEARLY in favor of the patent inventor. (He was CTO at Lycos, who owned the patent before they went tits up and sold it back to the inventor, who formed the company which sued Google.)

So, even when Google KNOWS they're infringing on a valid patent, they still fight it to the end. Why would they start settling cases in which they know they are not infringing a patent?

Comment Re:Let them (Score 1, Insightful) 223

Well, we certainly don't want fewer sources of opinion, so having them disappear entirely would not necessarily better for everyone... I think their effort is a good way to kick Google in the balls and encourage them to start paying the folks who make them legitimate in the first place.

After all, if it weren't for the news outlets, Google would have nothing to link to (as far as news, anyway)

Slashdot Top Deals

After the last of 16 mounting screws has been removed from an access cover, it will be discovered that the wrong access cover has been removed.

Working...