Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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:775 fine for permanently disabling two people?! (Score 1) 200

In my city, you have to keep the sidewalk clear of ice. You can get a $100 penalty for not doing it. It's rarely enforced unless they're trying to lay pressure on an absentee landlord, or if you live in a wealthier area.

Anyway, if somebody slipped and hurt themselves because I didn't maintain my sidewalk, I would totally get slapped with a $100 fine. The city wouldn't pursue it further because that's all I've done wrong. On the other hand, the person who slipped could sue me for medical bills, etc.

In this case, it seems that he got a typical penalty for distracted driving. Probably closer to the maximum, given the circumstances, but I'm not sure. He'll still end up paying the injured couple more directly in a different court.

Comment Re:Good ruling in THIS case..... (Score 3, Insightful) 200

Don't you understand why? If you watch a youtube video with a song in it, you're depriving the artist of money for their work. It's just like cutting off the hands that played the instrument. But in today's society, these rights are held by corporations which are made up of thousands of people. That's thousands and thousands of hands that you cut off on purpose. Of course there's a higher penalty than smashing off two legs accidentally!

Comment Re:Not good for society (Score 1) 113

If it's cheaper to the government, then it's also less profitable for the prison. I think that roboguards would lead to a reversal of that trend, and therefore not catch on in the US.

Also, you can still shank a robot, you just need a sharper toothbrush. Maybe something made out of robot parts.

Comment Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking (Score 1) 316

I think you are wrong.

Putting something in print is "publishing" it and thus you extend that to "putting something on Facebook is publishing because it uses text and it is observable by the public". This is IMO false. A status update on Facebook isn't publishing, at least not in the same way that putting an ad in the paper or writing a newspaper article is publishing, nor is it like writing a lengthy blog post. It is more like saying something in public, only you are doing it with text.

The employee isn't necessarily publishing, but they are making criticism available.


Slashdot Top Deals

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. -- H. L. Mencken