Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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 So exactly how close is "right by," ScentCone? (Score 1) 325

Some people would say that Proxima Centauri is "right next to" us,because it's only about four lightyears away. Presumably Martin was within four lightyears of his home, so that statement is true even if rather ambiguous.

Martin never returned home from the 7-11.

Martin never returned home from the 7-11.

Martin never returned home from the 7-11.

We will say it as many times as it takes to sink in.

Comment Martin never returned home from the 7-11. (Score 1) 325

Martin never returned home from the 7-11.

Martin never returned home from the 7-11.

We will say this as many times as it takes to sink in.

You have repeatedly claimed that Rachel Jeantel testified that Martin returned home after the first encounter with Zimmerman, but you've provided no citation, transcript, source or quotation to back you up. Don't worry, though; the Emperor has done the research for you, and tracked your claim back to this tweet. The tweet, in turn, cites a blog post, but unfortunately the blog post doesn't corroborate the tweet.

Obviously numerous other sources have reported on Jeantel's testimony, and absolutely none of them make any mention of Martin returning home. The same can be said of the numerous timelines and maps that have been drawn about the shooting. Now, which of these two scenarios do you think is more likely: that a single Twitter user picked out a key piece of Rachel's testimony that was somehow missed by every credible news source, or that the single Twitter user was simply mistaken?

Martin never returned home from the 7-11.

Martin never returned home from the 7-11.

Martin never returned home from the 7-11.

Submission + - Jailed Facebook teen finally getting a hearing (

the simurgh writes: A Texas teen who's been jailed more than four months for a Facebook comment he jokingly made during a video-game argument is finally getting a day in court that could let him go home. Justin Carter, who was 18 when he was arrested, will appear in Comal County (Texas) District Court on Tuesday, July 16, for a bond hearing, according to his lawyer. his lawyer will argue to have Carter's $500,000 bond, which his family cannot afford to cover, reduced.

his lawyer, who is working the case for free, met with Carter for the first time on Tuesday. He said Carter is not doing well, and his family says he has been placed on suicide watch. "Justin is in bad shape and has suffered quite a bit of abuse while in jail, We will likely bring out these issues at the bond hearing."

Comment you know damn well which part you despicable worm (Score 1) 325

Martin didn't "decide to go back and dish out a beating on the 'cracker.'" He encountered Zimmerman while Zimmerman was in his car (possibly exchanging a few words at this point). At some time shortly thereafter, Martin ran away from Zimmerman, running back in the direction he came from.* This means that in order for Martin to continue home, he needed to turn around and return to where he first saw Zimmerman. A few minutes later, Zimmerman and Martin met each other a second time, leading to the fatal shooting.

You have absolutely no basis to declare that Martin returned with the intention of starting a fight, no explanation of why Martin would run away and *then* decide to ambush or attack Zimmerman, and absolutely no evidence (except Zimmerman's own word) that Martin was the one who started the altercation.

*This is a reasonable thing to do when being followed by a potentially dangerous stranger. If Martin had simply run towards his house, and Zimmerman followed him, Zimmerman would have discovered where Martin was staying, potentially putting Martin in danger. Zimmerman understood this as well, which is why he didn't give the 911 dispatcher his home address when he was asked.

Comment Re:Ocean currents (Score 3, Interesting) 218

It's gotten to the point where upstream governments have outlawed collecting, in rainbarrels, water that falls on your roof to water your garden, because it's "not your water". But it is Southern California's water, you see.

That's called "non-riparian water rights," and it goes back to before the western states were even founded. The basis for this system is Common Law legal precedent, not legislation (although most states have passed laws formally codifying their water rights systems... as of over a hundred years ago).

But don't let facts get in your way.

Comment Oh FFS (Score 1) 1359

The Puritans (the ones who were "escaping persecution") only founded the New England colonies. They immediately set up their own theocratic governments and began their own vicious persecution, most famously the Salem Witch Trials. Religious persecution caused BY the Puritans was one of the main reasons for the Religious Test clause of the Constitution and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The Continental Congress, the Revolution, and the eventual establishment of the Constitution was a completely different event than the Puritans founding a colony and happened around a hundred years after. Historically speaking, this is about as big a miss as confusing the Revolution and the Civil War.

Submission + - New York Proposing Legislation To Ban Anonymous Speech Websites ( 2

Fluffeh writes: "Republican Assemblyman Jim Conte "[this] turns the spotlight on cyberbullies by forcing them to reveal their identity." and Republican Sen. Thomas O’Mara "[this will] help lend some accountability to the Internet age." are sponsoring a bill that would ban any New York-based websites from allowing comments (or well, anything) to be posted unless the person posting it attaches their name to it. But it goes further to say New York-based websites, such as blogs and newspapers, to “remove any comments posted on his or her website by an anonymous poster unless such anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post.”"

Comment "valued at multiple cities" (Score 0) 172

In the ancient Chinese nation of Chu, during the reign of King Li, a man named Bian He discovered an incomparable piece of jade encased in a stone. When he presented the stone to King Li, the king did not believe it actually contained a piece of jade and ordered that Bian He have one of his legs cut off. When King Li died, and King Wu succeeded him, Bian He again presented the jade to the royal court; he was disbelieved a second time, and the King ordered his other leg cut off. When King Wu died, he was succeeded by King Wen; it was King Wen who finally believed Bian He and ordered that the stone be cut. Ultimately the stone was fashioned into a great jade disc, called the "jade disc of He" to honor its discoverer.

The jade was later stolen from Chu and sold to the state of Zhao. The King of Qin offered fifteen cities for the jade, giving rise to the Chinese idiom, "valued at multiple cities." Eventually the jade was surrendered to King Shi Huang of Qin, who became the first Emperor of China. Qin Shi Huang ordered the jade be cut down to create his imperial seal. The seal was lost about 1300 years later, but a thousand more years of imperial rule still followed.

The moral is that a) human beings with money make really stupid decisions b) even if you make a great discovery and serve loyally the king might still chop off your fucking legs.

Comment That isn't how qualified immunity works. (Score 1) 1174

A good analogy for this case would be Safford Unified School District v. Savanna Redding, when a 13-year-old girl was strip-searched after another student accused her of possessing prescription-strength Advil. The SCOTUS ruled the search was unconstitutional, yet still held the school officials had no liability because they did not violate "clearly established law."

The rule, basically, is that the government can wantonly violate your rights and you can only sue if both a) the people violating your rights KNEW their actions were illegal, and b) the government has waived its sovereign immunity.

Comment It wasn't the notation that tripped you. (Score 1) 404

The Emperor has tutored many people in set theory and seen that exact error many times. You made the mistake because the idea of computing the union of sets of sets (as opposed to sets of "objects" (ur-elements)) is very non-intuitive, and requires a significant leap of abstract thinking.

Comment That was the Peano Construction, not ZFC (Score 4, Interesting) 404

It also contains an error: Peano defined 2 as { {}, {{}} } = {0,1}. 3 is 2 U {2} = { 2, 1, 0 }. Larger numbers are defined inductively as (n+1) := n U {n}.

You can tell it was supposed to be the Peano construction (and not something else) because the GP defined zero as the empty set and 2 as {0,1}. The error was to also define 2 as {{{}}}, which is clearly not equivalent to {0,1} (since the former set has cardinality 1 and the latter has cardinality 2).

This is an incredibly common mistake even for math undergrads and good evidence that set theory really isn't very intuitive. There's a reason New Math failed.

Slashdot Top Deals

A university faculty is 500 egotists with a common parking problem.