Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Headphone Jack is Pretty Crappy (Score 1) 536

I have a Bluetooth headphone set that I bought years ago and the sound quality on that one was total crap. It didn't even seem to be the headphone set itself, but the bluetooth connection. The best way to describe the crappy sound would be that the devices were constantly adjusting the playback speed. It was like listening to a record on a cheap record player with a bad drive string.

That was the first and last time I used a bluetooth audio device.

Comment Good news! (Score 1) 179

Although I've been using it less and less for the past couple of years, Slackware remains my favorite Linux distribution. Ohter distributions simply became easier to install and maintain over the years. However, I'm considering moving back to Slackware, because that vile concoction called systemd is starting to infest every Linux distribution that is out there, with the exception of some of the more esoteric distributions. And truth be told, IMHO Slackware is the only "real" Linux distribution left.

The first Slackware version I installed was 3.2, I still have the CD box lying around somewhere. I got it from the father of a friend of mine and couldn't install it at home, because all I had was a very old 286 (yeah, it's lame I know; it did run Minix for a while though, that was fun too). Although that soon changed, I got permission at the university to use a PC in one of the project rooms to install and learn Linux. That was an interesting time for me. For a while I even walked around with a Linux installation on a very portable medium: a ZIP floppy (this was before ZIPSlack). While everyone was doing their programming excercises on Windows (or rather in a DOS box in Windows 95), I had full access to a development environment that I could take with me and simply insert into lab computer and work on them. And then, when I got home I could simply do the same and work on them some more. Those were interesting times!

Comment Re: This is crazy... (Score 1) 301

What would be the criteria upon which law enforcement would make the distinction between those two? What would be the threshold between 'this was accidental exposure' and 'this was deliberate' ? Should law enforcement go indicting everyone who has pictures of underage persons in suggestive poses in their browser cache (provided there is existing probable cause in any case)? Or should law enforcement also go deeper and look for the reasons the pictures were there before deciding someone is suspected of being a sex-offender?

Comment Re:Doesn't matter. (Score 1) 259

You both misunderstood.

What I said was she should not be banned from driving straight away. Until she does something that shows her incapacity to function properly in traffic, it would not be fair to her to ban her from driving, because it -would- be a form of punishment. Maybe not intentional, but it would surely be perceived that way.

Now the moment she causes an accident, having been forwarned by her medical specialist(s), she would be culpable. Not before.

Comment Re:Isn't it still DUI? (Score 1) 259

The law is not just the law.

There is the law and the intent behind that law.

Laws are made for specific purposes and with a specific intention in mind. Whether or not a law serves its specific purposes and whether or not it serves that intention are wholly dependant on its wording. If the wording is insufficiently clear as to the intent behind its purpose it can never be properly understood or interpreted by legal officers and scholars. If the wording leaves insufficient room for those legal professionals to apply it properly in all circumstances the law can never be effective.

For example, if a law is made against drunk driving, then that is the intent and purpose behind that law. If that law however is worded in such a fashion that it provides both minimum and maximum penalties, there is no room for the judge to do his work properly as a legal professional, because metaphorically speaking, his hands are tied. The law does not allow for cases that do not fit the intent behind it but do fit the criteria for the purpose that it was made to serve. A person whose (non-alcoholic) drink was spiked with GHB and who causes an accident for example would legally be guilty of drunk driving, but would not be responsible for his own actions. However, because of the way the law is worded, the judge would still either have to sanction him with the minimum sentence or find him not guilty. Of course, this example is wholly exaggerated, but hopefully it explains the dangers of strict liability laws and the concept of minimum sentences in legislation.

Comment Re:Doesn't matter. (Score 1) 259

I can understand why you would say that. However, punishing her for having a medical condition is an injustice that trumps (in my opinion at least) any injustice she may cause while driving and that is exactly what would happen If the justice system were to ban her from driving. She would be punished for something she has virtually no control over. The fact that her baseline blood alcohol level is over the limit does not automatically mean she is incapable of functioning properly in traffic. This woman has a medical condition that skews the entire correlation between the amount of alcohol in her breath and the amount of alcohol in her blood. Medical conditions are the domain of medical professionals, not the justice system and therefore the latter should have virtually no say in the matter. Since medical professionals cannot - in most cases at least - legally prevent their patients from going against their medical advice that is the only thing they can do: advise their patients on their medical condition and the potential consequences of going against that advice. It is only after going against medical advice that the justice system can come in.

We, as a people, should always be wary of any kind of legislation that presumes guilt over innocence.

Comment Re:She should have her license revoked (Score 1) 259

The point you're missing is that due to her condition being part of her all her life her natural blood alcohol level is well above 0.00 like the rest of us. So for her she's not impaired by what would make most of us puke our guts out and be in a coma, because her body naturally adapted to it.

>

Actually, 0.00 is not the actual natural blood alcohol level. Ethanol is produced as part of the sugar metabolism, so there is always a tiny concentration of alcohol in everyone's blood and just like with this woman, that level will vary over the day. The difference is in the magnitude.

Slashdot Top Deals

You're not Dave. Who are you?

Working...