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:Really, Microsoft? (Score 1) 320

When ReactOS (or equivalent) can do most anything Windows can do.

People & businesses want a drop-in replacement for Windows, and all their software that runs on it. Rewriting (or buying) software for another OS just isn't going to happen. And WINE isn't up to the challenge for graphic intensive games or device drivers.

Comment Re:Trump doesn't run borders (Score 1) 627

And they decided that a group of people has the same rights as a single person

Not quite. What courts have ruled in previous decisions is that individuals have rights, and individuals don't lose rights just by joining a group. It might seem like I'm splitting hairs, but the difference is profound, especially in the Citizens United case.

Quick background: Michael Moore, during the 2004 election cycle, released Fahrenheit 9/11, which advocated de-electing President Bush. Citizens United complained that this was a violation of the campaign finance reform, but the FEC said it was just a documentary and not advertising subject to campaign finance regulation. So Citizens United did the same thing, but on the other end of the political spectrum. Citizens United created a documentary on Hillary Clinton, and released it during the 2008 election cycle. This time, however, just when the content happens to be critical of a Democrat, the FEC said it was advertising subject to campaign finance regulation, and banned the movie as illegal campaigning.. Hence, the lawsuit.

In arguing the case before the Supreme Court, the court asked how far such a ban could go. Roberts asked a 500-page book had a single sentence in it that said “vote for X” could be banned under this same law. The government said yes, if corporate money were used to pay for the book. Given the first amendment implications banning books, the court ruled it an unconstitutional violation of the first amendment.

While I am not comfortable recognizing corporations as persons, I think they did the right think in this case given the circumstances.

Comment Re:Tourism drops (Score 1) 627

Why should I choose a country which is openly hostile to visitors?

Um, Saudi Arabia will put you in prison if you try to bring in alcohol; show up intoxicated; bring in more Bibles than you need for your own personal use; or eat, drink, or smoke in public during the month of Ramadan. They will cut off your head if you try to smuggle in drugs (although I have less sympathy for this one).

I wouldn't run the CBP the way it's being run now. However, if you think looking through facebook posts and electronics is "openly hostile," then you have been living a very sheltered life.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Marriage is low down, but you spend the rest of your life paying for it." -- Baskins