Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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 Want to stop this efficiently? (Score 1) 95

It can be done pretty easily -- let people kill any wolves that come into populated areas, like they used to be allowed to do. The wolves that survive will be those that fear people and stick to the wilds.

And it's not like it would actually endanger the wolves -- the IUCN listing for them is Least Concern. The "Endangered Species Act" listing of them as "endangered" merely indicated they were rare in the lower 48 states; Canada, Alaska, Russia, and China have plenty.

Comment Bzzt, failed analysis on "free speech" (Score 3, Informative) 157


First, it's explicit in the Constitution that "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member." Whatever rules a House likes for its proceedings are the rules, and whatever punishment it designates for violating them is the punishment. The case law on that goes on to state that this means that the courts may not hear a case on such matters; no Federal court has the authority to even hear a case on the rules, much less get to the point that it can rule whether something is free speech or not.

Second, the Speech or Debate Clause only protects members form being held responsible "in any other Place"; their own House is perfectly allowed to hold them responsible for what they say. In accordance with the previous bit.

Third, this isn't a law, it's a proposed rule of the House, in the decidedly non-public forum of the floor of the House. The First Amendment doesn't remotely apply, at all, either literally or in any of its court-extended meanings. Even if the courts were allowed to rule on the rule (see the first problem), current precedent would fall on the side of the rulemakers.

Comment Re:WTF? (Score 5, Informative) 107

Read the summary again. It wasn't a "dummy" bomb, it was a real Mark IV nuclear bomb.

What it didn't have was the fissile core loaded. Which is exactly what would be expected; the Mark IV was designed to have the core loaded into the bomb by the aircrew during the flight.

So, it certainly wasn't a dummy bomb; it was a real Mark IV, with the normal uranium and TNT in the casing. But it almost certainly wasn't a live nuclear bomb, because there would have been no reason at all for the plutonium core to have been loaded on the plane, and even if the plutonium was on the plane, no reason at all for the aircrew to load the plutonium into the bomb.

Real bomb and no plutonium core.

Comment Re:Not the real thing? (Score 1) 365

Mmm. There was an underlying social movement involving the engagement ring. As US courts became more reluctant to award damages in breech-of-promise suits, valuable rings as a mark of engagement became more common. If the man broke the engagement, the woman kept it, thus collecting the value of the ring without having to go to court. If she broke it off, she was expected to return it; courts, in fact, would enforce the demand for the return.

The standardization on diamond rings was very much DeBeers marketing; initially, rubies were actually more popular. But the underlying phenomena didn't have particularly much to do with the traditional wedding ring at all.

Slashdot Top Deals

Every young man should have a hobby: learning how to handle money is the best one. -- Jack Hurley