Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:breaking news (Score 4, Insightful) 190

What are you even talking about?
These systems have been around forever, SpaceX is (once again) doing nothing new or special. They only work when there is forewarning, and that is unlikely to be had during a fueling mishap. This isn't a cartoon or action movie, you can't just outrun an explosion in progress by jumping fast and wearing cool shades.

Comment Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? (Score 4, Informative) 158

Read up on Investor State Tribunals in CETA here:

Basically it allows corporations to sue states in arbitrary "tribunals" if a state violates its Non Discriminatory Treatment obligations (CETA, section 3, p 156 f) or because of a violation of the guaranteed investment protection.

So corporations can claim that environmental protection laws are arbitrary and give unfair advantages to domestic companies that comply with those laws, while penalizing foreign companies that do not comply.

The fear is that corporations will claim, "You are only enacting those environmental, worker protection, and social justice laws to penalize us, it's just code for 'protect local business.'" This is a realistic fear because it has happened before.

Comment Here's a study that proves you right (Score 4, Interesting) 192

I remember reading about this study this years ago, it shows that people with more bumper stickers are more likely to be involved in road rage incidents. The theory is, people who personalize their vehicle tend to view the vehicle as their own private space, even when on the public roads. Because they are in their own private space, they literally do feel that they own the road.

Comment Re:Flip Argument (Score 1) 1128

Thank you. That is helpful.

In the interest of sharing of information, and especially since so many here seem to think that the grand jury testimony is some sort of slam dunk, I'll mention some interesting points about it:

1) Grand juries almost always indict. They literally have a record of about 99.9% indictment. Many articles on the subject quote a NY judge who said that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich if that's what the prosecutor wants. The strange (or maybe not so strange) flipside of that is when the defendant is a police officer. Grand juries almost never indict in those cases. Literally, about 99% end up without an indictment.

2) It is not up to grand juries to look at exculpatory evidence, or even hear testimony from the defendant. Typically they spend a few minutes looking at a small collection of evidence against the defendant, and then say "sure, sounds like he needs to be tried". In this case, however, boatloads of exculpatory evidence was introduced, and WIlson testified, contrary to normal grand jury procedures.

3) Although a ton of defense evidence was presented, the prosecutor did not cross examine Wilson. There are countless holes in his story that needed to be challenged (for example, why did he tell investigators Brown punched him ten times and then tell the grand jury it was only twice, or why did he tell investigators he didn't know what Brown handed to Johnson or make any connection to the robbery and then tell the grand jury that he pulled over because Brown and Johnson were suspects in the robbery and were carrying the stolen goods?). All of this, and more, went unchallenged.

4) There have been suggestions of other sneaky tactics that I'm not familiar enough with to comment on, but I'll provide this link as just one example.

Comment Re:Flip Argument (Score 1) 1128

As I said, it may or may not have been justified to shoot at him in the car during the scuffle. But once Brown started running away, having not gotten hold of Wilson's gun, did Wilson still feel Brown was an imminent threat? Did he somehow think that Brown could shoot bullets from his back while fleeing? Or did he perhaps think that getting down on his knees and raising his hands was some sort of attack stance?

Wilson didn't kill Brown in the car during the scuffle. He killed him 150 feet away after chasing him.

Comment Re:The "Protesters" (Score 5, Interesting) 1128

In 1995 I was in Dusseldorf, Germany, taking part in a large peaceful protest that occurs annually there. It's a march through the centre of the city, all mapped out in advance. Police in full riot gear were on hand, as they are every year. Thousands of them, brought in from all over the country. The previous year, some shitheads had started rioting, and some shops were looted. As we marched through the streets, I remember noticing bystanders gathered along the planned route, just watching the march. Nothing unusual there. Except that there just happened to be particularly large clusters of bystanders, mainly young man, watching the march from right in front of each liquor store and electronics store that we passed. I found that to be an interesting coincidence.

Unfortunately for the "bystanders", that year's march remained peaceful, so they didn't get the opportunity to cash in.

Comment Re:Flip Argument (Score 1, Insightful) 1128

It would seem that the shooting was, in fact, justified.

Which shooting was justified? The one that occurred at close range during a scuffle? Maybe yes, maybe no. But the fatal one that occurred 150 feet away from the original scuffle, after Brown had surrendered? Not a fucking chance.

Running from a police officer is not an offense worthy of public execution without trial.

Slashdot Top Deals

Talent does what it can. Genius does what it must. You do what you get paid to do.