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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Place and manner (Score 1) 141

The lawsuit says publishing a voted ballot on social media can be a powerful form of political expression.

Sorry. Campaigning by the voting booths or threatening to hurt people who don't vote or who do vote differently from you would also be some powerful forms of political expression, but all those are also prohibited by lawful place and manner restrictions on free speech.

There are certain places where no public expression is allowed, and the voting booth is one of them, unless your 'selfie' is to expose some newsworthy thing, and not, say, what your votes were....

In other words.... campaigning, or taking selfies is prohibited, regardless of the content of your message or who you voted for, so it's not a particular restriction based on content of your message, so it's not considered an infringement on free speech rights.

Comment Re:Love the new FCC (Score 2) 41

I think the FCC caught these companies off guard.... the broadband providers weren't expecting to be regulated, so
they didn't make the right investments in getting the regulators bought off, and ensuring cronies were appointed to the
commissions: Also, an opportunity has not yet presented itself to get FCC board people replaced;
these folks are in for an entire administration, and it would take something like a new president coming into office,
to give major carriers a shot at re-populating the board with their own people.....

I expect things will be dramatically different in the upcoming years, as the broadband providers
make larger investments in buying more politicians, and getting laws changed through congressional lobbying, and
more influence in the selection of FCC commissioners through bought-and-paid-for government executives.

Comment Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms (Score 1) 265

Municipalities impose all kinds of zoning ordinances on property owners.

Zoning ordinances are only able to restrict what can be built on the land.
Those aren't able to control what private business property owners do inside their homes.

Land rented out on AirBnB is still being used for residential functions, just like normal house rentals --- one person, or less than 10 people are living there
at a time, albeit, the arrangement may be a temporary one; it's immaterial in regards to land use whether a friend is staying over or whether there's a
formal business transaction.

Comment Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms (Score 1) 265

always available for rent because the owners were making more money on it then renting them out as housing.

Makes sense. In other words..... listing that unit on AirBnB provides more value to both the owner and to the public than offering
that unit for long-term rent, since there is more consumer demand for what AirBnb provides than for long-term housing,
otherwise the two should cost about the same per day to rent.

Meaning what AirBNB does makes things fairer for people.

With a long-term rental I get stuck in a lease for perhaps an entire year, and then have to pay a penalty if I want to move early.....
With a short-term AirBNB-style rental, I would be free to move my apartment to a different part of town every month.
How come I should get gouged for that? The price for a short-term VS a long-term ought to be relatively equal, and
there's clearly a market distortion / manipulation being done designed to bolster profits for the long-term tenants at expense of the public.

Also, BOTH renting for long term AND renting out short-term through AirBnB ARE ways of getting housing. One is just a longer term agreement.
The difference in price should be mostly the average administrative costs for each rental period. Obviously renting through AirBnB or other
short-term arrangements have a higher average per-day administrative cost.

Comment Re: Legal? (Score 1) 283

Tell that to the dead squirrel that I removed from my dog-rated wire

It sounds like you might have found one where the manufacturer cut corners to save $$$.

Or it is possible that your dead squirrel had a mishap aside from encountering your electric fence.

I imagine your dog-rated installation is closer to the ground than a normal electric fence, and it's possible that
a squirrel tried to crawl underneath, then got trapped in there and snagged on the wire, unable to withdraw.....

This is different from just coming in contact with an energized wire...... In fact, a completely Non-electrified fence can
sometimes snag and get small rodents killed.

Comment Re:It's a 4th amendment issue (Score 1) 430

The constitution only says "described."

It doesn't say just described; it says particularly described

particularly (Adv) - in a particular manner; specifically; individually.

That means you can't write a search warrant that jut says "Search and seize cell phones from the person of anybody on premise."

The level of detail required is: "Search and seize iPhones belonging to Bob"

Comment Re:how about 4A (Score 4, Insightful) 430

That's not what they did.

It's more like you had a party at your house with 50 people, and the police got a warrant to search your house,
that included a clause "allowing" them to search the fingerprint-protected safe of any person who was at your party

scope that allowed them to force anyone inside the premises at the time ....

Contrast that against the Fourth amendment's requirements:

supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Note that the constitution requires that warrants describe particular people or things.

It's Unconstitutional and Illegal/violation of the supreme law of the land to have a "generic search" or a "generic warrant document"
allowing police to search and seize or disseminate the personal property of ANY random person they happen to find at place X.

The constitution requires they have made a specific list of people to search people, or a specific list of things to search objects not in peoples' personal affects.

Comment It's a 4th amendment issue (Score 5, Insightful) 430

Unreasonable search and seizure

A search warrant for building contents is fine.

Searching the personal affects of every person just because they happened to be present is not reasonable.

The constitution requires a specific warrant. Searching someone's person constitutionally requires that person be named in the Warrant.

Merely being present at a place of work or being at a restaurant or other public place is not probable cause for a search of someone's person.

Comment Re: Legal? (Score 1) 283

Mmm. And you can just put one of those up alongside a busy city sidewalk or next to a primary school can you?

If there's no law against you installing it, then yes you most definitely can put one in; a school being nearby doesn't affect that.

Now if it was a busy city sidewalk FIRST, and you adding that fence there is deemed a nuisance, they might be able to force you take it down, for the same reason they could force you to take down any fence you added -- forced easement (Your new fence is an eyesore or blocks a public view previously enjoyed).

City dwellers tend to not like electric fences very much, and many towns have passed a local ordinance restricting where
they can be installed to agriculturally-zoned land, OR require permits for fence projects, and may simply deny you the permit to install an electrified one.

On the other hand, if you got any required permits and had it installed it before the ordinance was passed, then the city cannot make a post-facto law to force you to remove it, provided it is on your property.

Comment Re:Legal? (Score 1) 283

Congratulations the crook that actually cut the lock, took off and received a minimal dose and you just killed someone.

You had no control of the actions that resulted in that person's death, and put a lock containing a clear warning.... the bike thief set those events into motion.

Next you'll say the shiny sports car had too much bling on it which distracted a pedestrian into kicking a dog, who then ran across the street, snatched a woman's baby, and dropped the kid down an open sewer vent where the child drowned, Therefore, having too much bling on your car makes you a baby killer.

Comment Re:Legal? (Score 1) 283

Why the heck would a police officer be cutting your bike lock unless you are illegally parked?

Destruction of the offender's property is not a legal remedy for illegal parking, anyways.

If they need to forcibly remove your bicycle, then they can get a Locksmith to make a key for the lock without
destroying your property, impound your bike AND your $100 lock, and bill you for the costs, or auction off the assets.

Comment Re: Legal? (Score 1) 283

If it's right next to a public space where a kid might accidentally touch it, you are going to be held liable if negligence.

Assuming the fence is installed correctly with a proper fence charger; coming into contact with it is just going to sting --- not capable of causing al electric shock or serious injury even to a squirrel, let-alone a kid.

Comment Re: Legal? (Score 1) 283

The electric fence you can have with proper signage is limited in amperage to about 100 mA, AND more importantly; it's not a continuous current like line power, but a small pulse of current lasting 1/300th of a second, and another pulse every second..

Therefore..... it's not even something that can kill somebody. It's not the sign that makes electric fences legal or not a boobytrap...... It's the fact that these devices have to be designed in a certain way, and they are safe.

Slashdot Top Deals

So... did you ever wonder, do garbagemen take showers before they go to work?