Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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:Two separate things here (Score 1) 482

"The way these things are best challenged is usually after-the-fact in court. If you want to ignore that and challenge police while they're doing your duty, you'd better have a really good reason."

There is no way to challenge a police order to stop filming or to disperse *except* to refuse to obey, get arrested, and then argue the validity of the police officer's order in court. So a person can't follow your "best challenged" argument EXCEPT by "ignoring that" and challenging the police.

Also, you do NOT need a "really good reason" to ignore the order (e.g. a police officer's demand that you stop filming or taking photos). You just have to be right, that the order is an illegal infringement on your constitutional rights. These rights aren't conditional on your having a "really good reason" to expect your rights to not be infringed upon. You don't need to have some reason like "I'm with the New York Times and this is an Important Event that I've Been Assigned to Cover". You can have a reason such as "I'm a citizen of the US. I'm engaging in my constitutional right to take photos in a public space. " While a "really good reason" may also include "My presence here is not disrupting anything except YOUR ability (as a police officer) to wantonly commit acts upon my fellow citizens in a possibly illegal manner, without risk of being caught in the act by my photos." this is not a requirement for being allowed to engage in activities (such as photography in public) that are protected by the constitution.

Comment Re:The lesson here isn't about free speech (Score 2) 400

He violated a restraining order. He could have simply had filed for a mirror order put in to restrain HER behavior as well as his (so they are both in the same situation), and then they BOTH follow the judge's orders.

Instead, he ignored the court's order. When someone does that, it's called contempt of court and you can indeed go to jail for it. We do not have "free speech" to speak out in public in violation of a court-issued restraining order. This has nothing to do with "free speech" and everything with following a judge's orders.

The link to TFA is broken, here's the correct link:

Comment Meeting start times (Score 1) 445

A friend who managed an IT team insisted that if one of his team members was required at a morning meeting, and the meeting "had to start before 10 am" that the meeting must be scheduled for 7 am. If they were going to make HIS team members come in early, they could darn well get themselves out of bed and into the office early as well. Otherwise, they could schedule the meetings for 10 am or later. Fair's fair.

Comment Re:Misleading to call it "non-copied" (Score 1) 657

the second photo was intentionally made to avoid licensing fees from using the original.

This is the key factor. There was a copyright infringement case that centered on the same issue back in the 1970s, about a photo that was used on an album cover. The photo was of a woman on a beach at sunset, with the sun coming thru between her legs and creating a starbust (rays of light) spreading out from the sun. The band liked the photo but balked at paying the licensing fee, and hired another photographer to create a photo that was not identical, but which had the same key features (woman, sun, starburst, beach). They lost the lawsuit and had to pay a 6 figure copyright infringement fine.

I will post a follow-up if I can find the cite to the photos in question.

Comment Re:Missiles? (Score 1) 59

Tornadoes form where hot moist air and cold dry air meet, the two weather systems creating a strong downdraft on one side, strong updraft on the other. I think it might be possible for a well-placed explosion to create an updraft on the downdraft side, disrupting the initial horizontal rolling air column that, when it dips down at one end then becomes a tornado. You would want to do this long before it develops into a mile-wide vertical column of a massive tornado. Testing this would be difficult, and implementing it on all possible tornadoes before they form is impractical (and then there would be explosion fallout problems), but it is still theoretically possible.


Submission + - "Digg Patriots" bury liberal stories on Digg ( 1

jcdill writes: From TFA: "A group of influential conservative members of the behemoth social media site have just been caught red-handed in a widespread campaign of censorship, having multiple accounts, upvote padding, and deliberately trying to ban progressives. An undercover investigation has exposed this effort, which has been in action for more than one year. "

Submission + - A Google-Verizon Deal that Might Not Violate Net N (

saddleupsancho writes: Writing on the New York Times Op-Ed page (subscription required), Robert X. Cringely suggests that a Google-Verizon deal could involve placement of Google data centers in or near Verizon data centers, resulting in shorter latencies from users to Google and back, without explicit favoritism toward some traffic over others. "With servers so close to users, Google could not only send its data faster but also avoid sending it over the Internet backbone that connects service providers and for which they all pay. This would save space for other traffic — and money for both Verizon and Google, as their backbone bills decline (wishful thinking, but theoretically possible). Net neutrality would be not only intact, but enhanced."

Submission + - Flash ported to iOS and iPhone 4 (

An anonymous reader writes: You may remeber in early July Flash was ported to iPad under the name of Frash. Well, now that same port has been updated to allow it to run on iPhone 4 and iOS. But that’s not all, the same port will run on iPhone 3GS, iPad, and iPod touch.

Submission + - Do Traffic Signs And Signals Make The Roads More D (

Suki I writes: Spotted this from Amy Alkon:

Do Traffic Signs And Signals Make The Roads More Dangerous?

Stossel writes at reason:

It ... turns out that government roads often run more smoothly when drivers have more, not less, freedom. This sounds paradoxical. Politicians often sneer at libertarians, saying, "You want to get rid of traffic lights?!" Well, yes, actually. In some cases, traffic moves better and more safely when government removes traffic lights, stop signs, even curbs.

It's Friedrich Hayek's "spontaneous" order in action: Instead of sitting at a mechanized light waiting to be told when to go, drivers meet in an intersection and negotiate their way through by making eye contact and gesturing. The secret is that drivers must pay attention to their surroundings--to pedestrians and other cars--rather than just to signs and signals. It demonstrates the "Peltzman Effect" (named after retired University of Chicago economist Sam Peltzman): People tend to behave more recklessly when their sense of safety is increased. By removing signs, lights and barriers, drivers feel less safe, so they drive more carefully. They pay more attention.

Slashdot Top Deals

Machines take me by surprise with great frequency. - Alan Turing