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 Constituional lesson (Score 5, Insightful) 280

He's lucky it was only Contempt of Court and just 30 days. This could have been considered threatening a judge, attempting to extort a judge, bullying a judge, attacking the court etc. Criminal charges could certainly have been levied against the idiot. You do not orchestrate an "attack" on a judge, especially one that is hearing your own case. Severe punishments are attached to such things simply to keep the impartiality intact (don't bother whining about that to me). The law upholds the integrity of the court and violating that integrity carries severe punishments.

No, this guy got off easy.

I am a Constitutionalist, and those claiming it was a violation of the Constitution have not read it. Grievances, petitions, etc. are allowed to be given to the GOVERNING body, not the judicial. The judicial branch is tasked with deciding based on the given laws. It is not to be swayed nor influenced by public opinion. The decisions are to be made based on the law and the evidence, period. The US is a Republic based on law. It is not (contrary to common belief) a Democracy based on the whims of the mob. Judges decide if you violated the law. They do not make law. Public petitions to sway decision have no legal place in the courts. Public petitions are for the Legislative branch.

This isolation of the judicial was designed to shield it from politics and the whims of special interests and the public. If the public didn't like a ruling or law, then it was their responsibility to petition the legislature to change the law. That is what the legislature is for. Judges are not there to change the law. Judges can only rule for the plaintiff or the defendant with only one possible third option, declare a law unconstitutional. That's it. The Constitution laid it out that way to preserve justice and keep it safe from the mob.

This idiot was attempting to usurp justice and bully the judge into deciding not based upon law and evidence but by public opinion and intimidation. If he feels the judge's decision was wrong, the law gives him the right to appeal that decision.

Comment Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You? (Score 1) 705

'We sang "Happy Birthday" to her in the theater,'

A copyrighted work? Performed in public? If I were a lawyer my nipples would explode with joy. The planets have aligned for an orgy of copyright violations! Tell me, in the video were you also photocopying the Harry Potter books with a scanner hooked up to a laptop with a cracked version of Windows 7 on it?

Welcome Citizen... to your future!

We were so busy being scared of the communists (a la 1984) that we forgot to fear the other extreme: Unregulated free markets. It's funny how the unregulated *free* market seems to regulate us so well.

Actually, that isn't a "free" market principle you are trying to use to tear down the free market. Overly controlling copyright and patent protections by an interfering government further restrict the free market. So, to be clear, it is government over-regulation that is making big and bloated corporations and making them walk around with stiff "units". Patents and copyright USED to be reasonable and enough to reward the inventor and after a short time then allowed everyone to compete with it. Patents and copyrights of a mere 15 years used to be the norm, and renewing a copyright you had to have a very good reason. Once the patents or copyrights expire, it allows everyone to compete and thus helps the free market. This also encourages continuous innovation and development without having to rely on older product. The government screwed up the free market by OVER REGULATION and increasing the patent and copyright expiration periods (to ridiculously long periods!) and restrictions. You can thank greedy politicians who are in the pockets of these conglomerates (all parties too). The kind of market that was created was a "monopolistic" market, not a free market. There are far too many companies that have been allowed to become too big. Splitting apart conglomerates is good for a free market. It is what the FTC was originally set up for. Who benefits from large conglomerates with a lot of power? Government and unions. You see a free market works better with competition. Had we had a true free market, then the likes of AIG, Enron, GM, Microsoft, and the large entertainment conglomerates etc. would not exist as they are now.

Comment Re:No Linux Support? (Score 1) 427

Sony's probably trying to ditch the Linux support to make room for features that the virtual machine is taking up room for. Could also be a new design to where the virtual machine is loaded and run instead of being part of the firmware, so science still can use the device. Fixstars may be a bit ticked off one of their revenue streams just got axed. Heck, Sony could make the Linux feature something you have to purchase separately now via a special kit or disc.

Comment "Mine is better/bigger than yours" (Score 1) 1010

Man, this argument has been going on since the late 1970's. The OS names have merely changed. Frankly here's my two-bits: 1> My "main" PC has Vista Ultimate 64 with 4 gigs of RAM, 3.2GHz dual core Core2 and GF 8800Ultra video card. A beast. Ever since I installed SP1 on it, it's been extremely fast and rock solid. I have had less problems and issues with it than I had with XP Professional up to SP2. 2> My media server has Ubuntu 9.04 (Beta) with 4 gigs of RAM, AMD-6600 x2 and GF 8600 card. It's also a beast. It runs very solid, and I use it to program in addition to serving my media. 3> My PS3 has Yellow Dog Linux on it and I am quite happy to sit in my lay-z-boy using that. 4> I have another PC with XP Professional SP2. It's more of my miscellaneous data store. It's old and tired, but works OK. It's the most flakey of all of them. I happen to like to use them all. My preference for games is my Vista machine. For tinkering I have my Ubuntu machine, which has more storage than I know what to do with. It's just as rock solid as my Vista machine. Due to the limits of my PS3, it's not as fun to use Yellow Dog as it is Ubuntu simply because it's only 256mb of RAM in the sucker, but it serves its gaming, media, and browser on TV purposes. Do I have some sort of evangelical or fanatic attachment to one OS or the other? No, all have their purposes. I'm happy with all of them. Nevertheless, if I would compare the two Microsoft OS', then I'd say that Vista Ultimate 64 SP1 is much better and more stable than XP Pro SP2. Seriously. Vista pre-service pack did suck rocks. However, SP1 was what the release should have been. It's even better than XP. Yes, the UAC is annoying, but it can be tamed. I use Linux, XP and Vista. All are good OS'. I don't have to be loyal to one and reject the other. By the way, I've been using Linux since RedHat 5.0 many many years ago. I have also been using Windows since 3.11. Obviously Microsoft is wagging their uh "unit" around making such claims. However, compared to their previous releases, Vista is pretty secure, out of the box. Nevertheless, Linux can be made to be more secure with tweaking, though it's not "out of the box" secure either.

Comment Re:But (Score 3, Informative) 595

The problem is, you aren't "in the country" until Customs says you are. This is international law. The areas marked for international travel are technically an "embassy", not US soil. This allows the governments (plural, no matter where you are) to send you back where you came from without you actually legally "arriving". The movie "The Terminal" shows this concept very well. So, until Customs approves your arrival, you're not in the USA (and its "jurisdiction") and the US Constitution does not apply. The same goes for other countries as well.

So, you can refuse a search, but then again, they can refuse to let you into their country. The control is left to you and them (mostly them).

So, remember, whilst in an international terminal, whether airport or border crossing, you are in a place where only international law applies until that country says you are in their country. Until they say you are in their country, they have every right to search anything you bring with you, and every right to confiscate anything deemed as contraband, every right to send you back where you came from, and every right to use anything they found as evidence against you according to their country's laws after they say you are "in their country".

Slashdot Top Deals

We will have solar energy as soon as the utility companies solve one technical problem -- how to run a sunbeam through a meter.