Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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:Turned and twisted (Score 2) 519

If "anyone" means the general public then yes, that could very well be the case depending on circumstances. He could tell some people, for instance those who provided him the information and therefore already know.

One thing trump seems to enjoy is slandering people. As president, those who suffer from that have no recourse until he leaves office. He can't be sued as president.

Comment Re:Highly irregular (Score 5, Insightful) 519

It very well may be illegal. Presidents are not above the law although some, including trump, believe they are and have said so.

"Not if the president does it."

Trump has said this and it's very, very wrong. Nixon said it too. He was wrong as well and paid the price for it.

Comment Re:Highly irregular (Score 3, Informative) 519

"If he wants to speak about classified information than he can, and literally nobody can stop him."

That's true of everyone, not just the president. Doesn't mean there won't be consequences, that's how the law works.

Of course, with the president there can be no prosecution while in office but he can be prosecuted after he leaves office. Furthermore, he can be removed from office through impeachment and disclosing "whatever he wants" could constitute an impeachable offense. You are simply wrong on this, the constitution has more authority than the president and he can't simply do what he wants.

Presidents always have a direct line to public, twitter hasn't changed that and people don't dislike it. People don't like trump for other reasons.

Comment Re:"It's a feature, not a bug" - seriously (Score 1) 469

Why not set a speed limit of zero? Make it illegal to drive on the streets at all? I mean if damaging the usefulness of a few roads is good and damaging a lot more is better, why not go whole hog?

Some people are truly self-interested idiots. The problem is inadequate shared resources; you don't fix that by taking more of it away. Don't give a crap about the residents, it's everyone's problem. Making the residents feel pain would actually help the issue, not hurt, but only if those motivated to act aren't willing to settle for a half-assed measure intended to shut them up.

Comment Re:Public roads? (Score 1) 469

"Essentially, yes. Write your state congress-person. Demand additional lanes be added to all freeways in the area. Get 100,000 of your closest friends and family to sign it too."

Sounds great. Why don't the local residents do that? Why should they not be burdened by the problem just as much as the drivers are? Why the double standard?

"...but I also don't blame communities for adding in signs, speed bumps and other traffic slowers to make things safer for residence."

Then you are a fool. The drivers are not only helping themselves but also improving the overall throughput for everyone. The residents are deliberately ruining a public resource for everyone. The two are not comparable.

Comment Re:Public roads? (Score 3, Informative) 469

"It's the sort of thing that prompts local authorities to put in traffic restrictions, entirely reasonably,..."

Not "entirely reasonably", not reasonably at all. What causes authorities to put in restrictions is the endless complaints of an entitled few, not concern over improper use.

"...because residential streets are designed for access, not throughput. And if they get misused, then that's bad."

BS. All roads are designed for "throughput", some for higher throughput that others. No road, however, is optimized for throughput since it's speed limit is set intentionally too low, at least in the US. Driving on a public road to get somewhere is NEVER misuse.

"Anyway it's a classic case of "this is why we can't have nice things". People will abuse the residential roads and eventually the authorities will intervene."

No, we can't have nice things because a few ruin it for others. The few in this case are not the drivers, it's the residents who think that public roads are their private property.

"Then those abusers will whine and the locals will grumble a bit about the restrictions, but not that much because of the reduced traffic on unsuitable roads."

The way to "reduce traffic on unsuitable roads" is to fix the roads which are intended to handle that traffic. No discussion of that though! Who cares just so long as the residents get the roads reserved for their use only.

Comment Re:Public roads? (Score 2) 469

No they are not. Public roads are for use by all, not by a select few. It is not within a few citizens' "rights" to deny others use of taxpayer-funded public roads.

The entitlement here is the residents. If they don't like their side streets being used to overcome traffic congestion they should lobby for improvements to all roads, not to f*ck over the other 99%.

I'd like to see proof that drivers on their commutes "don't care" about residential neighborhoods. What a BS inflammatory statement.

Comment Re:Two different things (Score 1) 70

Furthermore Doudnav and Charpentier are unlikely to have written the patents so the "work" the judges consider is not theirs, they are merely the inventors. You can invent anything but you are entitled to only what the patent says you are.

The statement was written by a person ignorant of the issues.

Comment Re:Reverse logic (Score 1) 641

"In the eyes of the law and insurance companies, if you're in an automobile accident while driving impaired, you're at fault no matter the circumstances. This is why we don't drink and drive."

No, we don't drink and drive because it's unsafe, not because of punitive definitions.

"...and the driver's BAL was three times the limit."

This lie is working as intended. The BAL was not "three times the limit".

Comment Re:Something is missing (Score 1) 359

Except this is not categorically correct. More deliveries per hour means a shorter work day unless other steps are taken, steps which may not always be possible. Even if those steps are taken, total mileage may not always be reduced.

Anything's possible if you're willing to assume details not provided. That discussion is not interesting.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The number of Unix installations has grown to 10, with more expected." -- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June, 1972

Working...