×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Federal Court Nixes Weeks of Warrantless Video Surveillance

Loki_1929 Re:What? (440 comments)

Thank you, I'm quite flattered by the comparison.

3 days ago
top

Federal Court Nixes Weeks of Warrantless Video Surveillance

Loki_1929 Re:What? (440 comments)

You have the political will to gun down/blow up kids running for the fence? That's what Eastern Germany did.

You are making a strawman argument. Never did I suggest doing any such thing.

Funny, that's what Eastern Germany said too. Fat lot of good it did them trying to keep people in.

You can attempt to draw all the offensive comparisons you want while ignoring the fact it isn't a terribly challenging problem to solve when your wall isn't right through the middle of a major city and isn't easily climbable and isn't the only line of defense. Look at what happened when they put in a complex fencing system in the San Diego zone in the mid 90s: suddenly crossing attempts dropped by over 90%. Nobody got through there, so they all went into the mountains to go around the system.

Simply extend the San Diego system across the rest of the border and have heavy patrols. Anyone damaging the system is imprisoned for a period, then deported to their country of origin. Those who manage to make it through the system are quickly rounded up by the regular patrols and immediately deported to their country of origin. Most will stop trying. The few that remain will be far more easily managed.

4 days ago
top

Federal Court Nixes Weeks of Warrantless Video Surveillance

Loki_1929 Re:What? (440 comments)

Because it's impossible to secure 3,000 miles of border, and he would just sneak back in if that's all we did.

Pardon me, but that's bullshit.

Let's just take the forces we already have today. We have 1.4 Million in active duty military personnel and 850,000 reserves. Obviously we can't take every single one, so let's take half: 1.1 Million people. Now stick them on a 3-man rotation minus 1/3 for duty rotations and leave and spread them out across the 1,954 mile border with Mexico. That puts 125 people plus their equipment per mile of border, plus all their R&D budget going into technologies to increase protection. Those personnel aren't just idle all day; they're building fences, digging trenches, laying sensor grids, and basically doing all the stuff that completely shut down the San Diego zone for crossings and they're doing it 24/7/365 at 125 per mile or one person every 14 yards.

I think that's all way overboard for what we'd need to actually secure (~99% reduction in successful unauthorized crossings) that border, but in any event, don't try to say it's impossible to do. Say we lack the political will. Say we choose not to do it. Say we just aren't interested enough in the problem to do what's necessary to solve it. But don't say it's impossible; that's absurd. I'm not even getting terribly creative here; just sticking boots on the ground and a whole lot more boots than we'd ever actually need at that.

4 days ago
top

Time To Remove 'Philosophical' Exemption From Vaccine Requirements?

Loki_1929 Re:freedom 2 b a moron (1050 comments)

I'm not sure if you're replying to the wrong message or if you've just completely misread what I posted, but I never said people didn't benefit from having an educational system, regardless of whether they have kids. I merely stated that if we're to block kids from public schooling because of the perfectly legal, if likely quite poor parenting choices of their parents, those kids should have the opportunity to be educated just as any other child. And if the goal is to separate the unvaccinated-by-parental-choice kids from the rest, then it makes perfect sense to ensure that tax monies continue to fund their education for exactly the same reasoning you've suggested.

However, if the intent is merely to punish the children of anti-vaccination parents, then by all means let's kick them out of school and ensure their parents have as limited abilities to educate their children as possible so we can perpetuate cycles of ignorance and poverty.

4 days ago
top

Canada Waives Own Rules, Helps Microsoft Avoid US Visa Problems

Loki_1929 Re:Fucking Hell, Harper needs to go! (122 comments)

But in passing we can mention that even janitors make more than $18k.

Depends on where you live.

When you're making $18k a year, even if you have no kids, it's nearly impossible to save anything.

No it's not, you have horrible personal finances.

Depends on where you live.

about a week ago
top

Seagate Bulks Up With New 8 Terabyte 'Archive' Hard Drive

Loki_1929 Re: Just in time. (219 comments)

Your search - Google "7200.11" & "firmware update" & "didn't work for me" & "my driver serial ... - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:

        Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
        Try different keywords.
        Try more general keywords.
        Try fewer keywords.

about a week ago
top

Canada Waives Own Rules, Helps Microsoft Avoid US Visa Problems

Loki_1929 Re:Fucking Hell, Harper needs to go! (122 comments)

To be fair, a great many of that 42% have little opportunity to save based on the value of the work they're doing. When you're making $18k a year, even if you have no kids, it's nearly impossible to save anything. Now I know what you're going to say - get a better job - but ultimately, someone has to clean the toilets at your office building and that someone isn't going to make more than $18k because that work just isn't that valuable. Increasing everyone's pay is also not a solution as that merely increases prices to compensate and brings down middle class workers.

Of course, there's an argument to be made that such people should give up something they really like - TV, cell phone, something - to invest in a 401k. Putting aside $50/month in something like a 401k or IRA with no employer match turns into about $220,000 over 40 years ($335k over 45). However, that $50/month can be a huge amount to someone at that end of the scale and it'll be the first thing to go when they have a medical issue and need to pay the doctor to get better. Worse, these people often have one or more kids (and I don't know how they make that all work), which proves an even greater drain on what tiny resources they have.

Perhaps part of every welfare program should include some money and financial management counseling.

about a week ago
top

Time To Remove 'Philosophical' Exemption From Vaccine Requirements?

Loki_1929 Re:freedom 2 b a moron (1050 comments)

Stop being ridiculous; they aren't "endangering" anyone. They simply aren't using the medical tools available to reduce the risk of a threat that already exists completely independent of them and their kids. That threat comes from nature. The default state of all people is unvaccinated. They aren't increasing that threat by not getting vaccinated. You're being absurd.

Your irrational fear of the natural world does not entitle you to strap other peoples' children to gurneys and jam needles in their arms.

about a week ago
top

Time To Remove 'Philosophical' Exemption From Vaccine Requirements?

Loki_1929 Re:freedom 2 b a moron (1050 comments)

Of course there is. Once you go down the road of the state reviewing legitimate health and medical decisions made by parents, you're opening the door to all manner of things that busy-bodies like the GP would like to have enforced by the state upon all the other parents. Which is fine with the GP, right up until someone else decides that the GP isn't doing the right thing and comes down on them. Then, suddenly, they'll turn around and play victim, as if they had nothing to do with laying the groundwork for the mess they'll invariably find themselves in.

about a week ago
top

Hollywood's Secret War With Google

Loki_1929 Comcast legal issue (176 comments)

Emails also indicate that they are working with Comcast (which owns Universal) on some form of traffic inspection to find copyright infringements as they happen.

Doesn't this cause Comcast to forfeit 'Common Carrier' status under laws like the DMCA? My understanding was that ISPs basically said "we can't be held liable for copyright infringement because we can't monitor everything going across our wires for violations" and the government agreed that it all made sense. If Comcast now actually can monitor all the content rolling across its wires without any apparent undue burden, can't every copyright owner then sue Comcast for infringement if it isn't actively removing unlawfully distributed copyrighted works from its wires?

In other words, can't I copyright a 10 second video of myself slamming my head against a wall, then upload it to Bit Torrent with a clearly written copyright notice stating that one must send me a check for $50 Billion to view the clip, then sue Comcast into oblivion when someone on their network actually downloads it?

about a week ago
top

Once Again, Baltimore Police Arrest a Person For Recording Them

Loki_1929 Re:Fire all the officers? (515 comments)

Let's play the prosecutors' game!

1) Vandalism.
2) Unlawful destruction of private property.
3) Assault.
4) Battery.

5) giving a false statement
6) dereliction of duty
7) possibly perjury if it's a sworn statement

8) Destruction of evidence
9) Obstruction of justice
10) Witness tampering
11) Deprivation of rights under color of law
12) Criminal conspiracy
13) Possession of a firearm during commission of a crime

Should be able to get about 40+ years worth of charges in play, then plea bargain it down to 5 years in prison for each officer involved. Between that and the 7 mill in cash in compensation for the victim, I'd say that makes everyone square.

about a week ago
top

Once Again, Baltimore Police Arrest a Person For Recording Them

Loki_1929 Re:Fire all the officers? (515 comments)

I could not agree more. Subject the police to the same laws as everyone else when not in the performance of their duties (and hold them to strict scrutiny while in performance) and when some of these guys start going to prison, the rest will pay a whole lot more attention to the line between lawful and unlawful.

about a week ago
top

Time To Remove 'Philosophical' Exemption From Vaccine Requirements?

Loki_1929 Re:freedom 2 b a moron (1050 comments)

Some people can't get vaccinated because of medical reasons. Also vaccinations do not have a 100% effectiveness.

And sometimes the best of hammers will mangle a perfectly good nail. Yes, the tools we have are imperfect; no one is disputing that.

If too many people decide to not get vaccinated

Whoa whoa whoa, stop right there. The default state of a human body is unvaccinated. No one is removing a vaccine from themselves. No one is removing antibodies from themselves in an effort to make themselves or others more susceptible to disease. The default state is unvaccinated. It isn't about "if too many people decide not to", it's "if enough people decide to do it... positive things can happen". And yes, there's a huge difference. See the previous post.

then an outbreak could spread through all of those people and the ones where the vaccination didn't take as well as the people who could not get a vaccination. If the percentage of people who were successfully vaccinated is high enough then you will have individual cases here and there.

I completely understand that. However, you need to understand that disease is part of the human existence. Don't want to deal with disease? Stop being alive; that fixes the problem. Otherwise, accept the existence of risk and understand that your desire to minimize your risk and the risk of your loved ones does not entitle you or the government to strap a child to a gurney, jam needles in their arm, and pump them full of drugs (albeit very good and beneficial drugs).

Vaccines are a wonderful tool of modern medicine. The fact that that tool's effectiveness increases when more people make use of it does not entitle you or anyone else to force others to make use of that tool. You are not entitled to a risk-free or even a risk-reduced existence. The default state of a human being is naked, defenseless, and susceptible to all manner of diseases and predators. The fact that you're now safer than any other human being in the history of the planet ought to be enough. You have no right to perfect safety and you have no right to force others to help you get closer to perfect safety.

about a week ago
top

Time To Remove 'Philosophical' Exemption From Vaccine Requirements?

Loki_1929 Re:freedom 2 b a moron (1050 comments)

You appear to be confusing "not be able" with "would not be a hardship."

No, you appear to think that everyone else is doing as well as you are. There are plenty of families barely putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their heads with two incomes. There are plenty of single mothers and fathers who aren't even doing that well. Homeschooling is not an option for them. It simply isn't.

Again, you are advocating that it should be a reasonable option for parents to be unreasonable.

Yes, I am. You seem to be advocating that people who make different decisions than you or I might should be punished by the state. That's not just unreasonable, that's tyrannical. These people have every right to be idiots and if you don't want their kids in school with your kids, free up the tax money so they can send them somewhere else. STOP TRYING TO CONTROL EVERYONE ELSE'S LIFE AND START JUST LIVING YOUR OWN!

about a week ago
top

Time To Remove 'Philosophical' Exemption From Vaccine Requirements?

Loki_1929 Re:No (1050 comments)

Don't remove the exemption, just exempt the people using the exemption from being able to frequent public areas without protective clothing (protective as in protecting others from them, not protective as in protecting them from everyone else).

Its illegal to be naked in most public places, its illegal to knowingly infect others with dangerous illnesses, so why shouldn't it be illegal to knowingly be in a public place when you are much more open to infection from dangerous illnesses and thus to infect others with them...?

That's not only absurd, but requires the kind of despotic tyranny many would fight with force of arms. Let's take it in another direction so maybe you'll see just how ridiculous it is. How about a law requiring everyone to be armed with a loaded M-16 in public? After all, there are all kinds of threats in the natural world that can be significantly reduced when lots of people have M-16s. Therefore, everyone must always have an M-16, fully loaded and ready to fire, while out in public so the public can be protected from physical threats.

It's also stupidly backwards. People who are not vaccinated are not some kind of super-threat we need to be protected from. They're simply not using the tools of modern medicine to reduce a threat which already exists and has for millions of years. And those threats are quite few among the natural world. If 0% of the population is vaccinated against a disease, then the threat is at the NORMAL level found in NATURE. As more people get vaccinated, that threat is reduced. Does that fact make it right to strap unwilling citizens (children, no less!) to a gurney and jam a needle full of drugs into their arms so they can be injected against their will? No, it does not. To say otherwise is to invite all kinds of other dictatorial bullshit and eventually it'll be the kind of dictatorial bullshit you won't like.

Of course, you won't be able to do anything about it by then.

about a week ago
top

Time To Remove 'Philosophical' Exemption From Vaccine Requirements?

Loki_1929 Re:freedom 2 b a moron (1050 comments)

The simple fix is to do what some countries in Europe already do: have the tax money used for schooling children attached to the individual child. As such, whichever school the parent chooses as best for their child gets the tax money allocated for that child. Schools then compete with one another to get students (and the money that comes with them). Not only does everyone end up with a better education (no monopoly produces better results and that holds true for education as well), but you'll also end up with a small subset of schools allowing unvaccinated kids to attend. That results in no additional cost to the idiot parents who aren't vaccinating their kids and everyone else can take advantage of herd immunity. And perhaps when the first few waves of preventable disease decimate the population at those schools allowing unvaccinated children, some people will take the hint and start using the tools of modern medicine to reduce the natural threats of our world.

about a week ago
top

Time To Remove 'Philosophical' Exemption From Vaccine Requirements?

Loki_1929 Re:freedom 2 b a moron (1050 comments)

Then I guess their kid just has to take their chances with the natural world like everyone other human has for millions of years.

I think it's a stupid decision to not vaccinate your kids (when that's possible which is nearly always), but vaccines are tools of modern medicine used to reduce a threat that already exists because of the fact that we live in a natural world. The moment a person makes the decision to bring a child into this world, they accept all the risks that come with that, and disease is merely a small part of the risk. More people getting vaccinated results in lowering the risk for one of a hundred million different ways to die. If some choose not to do that, so what? They're idiots and it's unfortunate. Would it be beneficial to the kid who can't get vaccinated if more people did? Yes. Does that give them the right to jam a needle full of drugs into someone else's arm and and inject them? No.

about a week ago
top

Time To Remove 'Philosophical' Exemption From Vaccine Requirements?

Loki_1929 Re:freedom 2 b a moron (1050 comments)

Why? Don't get me wrong, I think it's a stupid decision, but parents make stupid decisions all the time. Is every poor decision impacting the health of your child now child abuse? Mac and Cheese is a poor decision impacting the health of your child. Ever feed them that, abuser? Soda? Child abuse! Cotton candy? Child abuse! McDonalds? Child abuse! Ice cream? Child abuse! Failing to get them to the dentist on a perfect schedule? Child abuse! Dishes left in the sink a little too long or trash left in the trash can a little too long? Child abuse! Pizza party? Child abuse! Using [cleaning product that isn't specifically designed to be completely child-safe]? Child abuse!

You really, really want to wander down that slippery slope? Think before you speak, lest you find your own home visited by Child Protective Services.

about a week ago
top

Time To Remove 'Philosophical' Exemption From Vaccine Requirements?

Loki_1929 Re:freedom 2 b a moron (1050 comments)

In some other countries, the money allocated for the schooling of each child follows that child to whatever school the parents decides is best for their kids. That's the easiest way to solve this. So long as there's at least one school in the area allowing unvaccinated kids (and certainly there would be in areas where many parents are dumb enough not to vaccinate their kids), they can all face the full brunt of natures fury together in small, confined spaces. And maybe some of these idiot parents will learn some lessons after the first few waves of preventable diseases decimate those schools' populations.

In the meantime, everyone else wins out because all the schools in the area suddenly have to compete with one another to get the kids (since they're only getting the money attached to the kids actually attending their school).

about a week ago
top

Time To Remove 'Philosophical' Exemption From Vaccine Requirements?

Loki_1929 Re:freedom 2 b a moron (1050 comments)

Ergo, if you don't want to vaccinate your child you're free to do that, but be prepared to pay for private education. You can't have the best of both worlds - taking advantage of the publicly funded education system whilst endangering the health of the other participants.

Fine, refund them all property taxes tied in any way to public education. You can't force them to pay for an education system they're denied access to because of their wrongheaded, stupid beliefs. Or better yet, have the tax money follow the kid so that every parent can actually choose where their child is schooled. That way everyone wins because schools have to compete with one another to get the money from the kids. Hell, even some of the Europeans have figured this out already.

In terms of unvaccinated kids, you'll likely see a concentration of them in a small subset of schools that allow them to attend and you'll also likely see disease after preventable disease make its way through those schools' halls. Maybe after the population there is decimated once or twice, some of those morons will wake up and start vaccinating. Or not; their choice. The diseases are all from nature and refusing to use the tools available to keep nature at bay should be every person's choice for themselves and their kids.

about a week ago

Submissions

top

Green deaths: The forgotten dangers of solar panel

Loki_1929 Loki_1929 writes  |  more than 3 years ago

Loki_1929 (550940) writes "Often lost in the ideologically driven debates over which source or sources best fit humanity's needs for clean, safe power moving forward are the hazards of implementing each proposed solution in scales large enough to make a difference. This writeup covers the dangers inherent to solar panel deployments for rooftops and speaks to how that scales in a country like the United States."
Link to Original Source

Journals

top

A few items of interest, you probably will want to read on..

Loki_1929 Loki_1929 writes  |  about 11 years ago

So I was reading about slashdot's little subscription-as-a-gift thing, and I was thinking that I might randomly select a few individuals from my fans list for a gift subscription. I was going to do the whole bunch, but then I pulled out my calculator and figured out that ~100 fans times $5 is really freakin' expensive. I really don't love you all that much - really. Anyway; I'm pondering how to do it exactly, but I'm thinking I'll probably do it Christmas morning and announce the nicknames of the lucky few in my journal. Please stay tuned for more.

Also, for those of you who were asking about the bootable CD I mentioned before, please stay tuned and I'll give you more info about what's on it and how to set it up for yourself once I have the time and inclination (probably within a week). I'll try to post replies to everyone who asked about it, but by the time I get into it, the discussion could very well be archived. One more reason to check my journal every so often.

top

RIAA RICO defense...

Loki_1929 Loki_1929 writes  |  more than 11 years ago

This was from a previous Slashdot posting of mine, but I wanted the discussion to continue if possible. Post is reposted below:

"The suit ... charges that the RIAA's program is deceptive and fraudulent business practice."

Which brings us one step closer to my idea. If there are any real lawyers here, could you please tell me why no one has bothered to attack the RIAA's charges using the Federal RICO Act? The RIAA and member organizations have engaged in a pattern of corrupt business practices for over 50 years, and are now using the law to intimidate individuals, companies, and universities to further their interests.

From my (admittedly limited) understanding of RICO, you must prove that the organization has engaged in a pattern of criminal activity, and is using illegal means, especially under cover of authority (court actions, copyright law, etc) to further their interests. Now, the ongoing illegal activity is really two-fold. That being, the RIAA's member companies have illegally maintained an effective distribution monopoly by engaging in anti-competitive acts, and have conspired to defraud consumers with a massive price-fixing scheme which caused consumers to be overcharged by more than $480 million (USD) since 1997 alone, according to the former head of the FTC. This scheme was labled "Minimum-Advertised Pricing", or MAP by the Attorneys General who investigated and eventually brought about a settlement. With regard to the anti-competitive acts, the RIAA and member companies have engaged in such practices as "payola", in which radio stations were paid money in order to ensure that music not controlled by the RIAA's members was never played, and therefore never heard by the public at large. Thus, their only competition, the independent artist/label, continues to struggle to get by, while the RIAA monopoly takes in billions each year.

So I ask again, why is it that no one has attacked the RIAA on RICO grounds. A corrupt organization cannot use the legal system to facilitate its illegal activities. The lack of legal online modes of music distribution is but more evidence of the RIAA's desperate struggle to maintain its distribution monopoly with an iron fist. It would seem to me that showing these lawsuits to be nothing more than tactics designed to further the interests of a corrupt organization is a far better defense than, "my client didn't know it was illegal".

top

The New America

Loki_1929 Loki_1929 writes  |  about 12 years ago

---

DISCLAIMER: What I write below is in no way meant to incite any sort of violent action on anyone's part. Violence is never the only way, and a truly strong person will accomplish his or her goals through peaceful means regardless of how much more difficult it makes things. What comes below is specifically designed to provoke thought and a response; nothing more. Please, do NOT go out and do something stupid because of anything that comes from this thread.

---

So I started thinking about things a bit after starting this thread which has 18 replies thus far. Someone said that the US government isn't fucked up past the point of no return, yet. That got me thinking about what happens once it is. Should all freedom-loving people move somewhere else? Where? There is no "New World" left on planet Earth where we can set up our own government and our own way of life. What else is there then? Revolt? Not exactly a viable option when the police in this country could easily crush most any revolt. Then factor in the FBI, CIA, Army, Navy, Marines, etc, etc.

So I'm left thinking that we can do one of three things. Option one is to sit on our hands and see what happens. Maybe things get turned around in 20 years or so. Maybe it goes back to being good ole' America before we're dead. Or perhaps we resign ourselves to telling our granchildren about what it was like to be able to go anywhere you want or say anything you want without being taken away by government agents.

Option two is a full out revolt. "Great idea", except everyone who joined in would be dead or jailed within days if not hours. Even if it somehow succeeded, the cost would be too high. To win a war in modern times, you pretty much have to obliterate the place of conflict. The result? Our homes, our businesses, everything we own is destroyed. In the War of 1812, this pretty much happened. The English burned the White House to the ground, along with much of the rest of our country. In the end, it worked out well for most of them, but something like that has massive potential to be a Pyrrhic victory. Ultimately, I think this option is ridiculous, unworkable, and undesirable.

The thid option, and the one I'd suggest as the only sane alternative to option one is to fashion a new government, with a new Constitution which draws on all the knowledge we've gained from more than 200 years with our original US Constitution and to prepare to put this government in place if the time comes that our current government is beyond redemption. This differs from a revolt in that it requires broad support from the citizens of this country as well as the police and the military. The idea is that if the police, the military, and most citizens support the new government, the old government becomes irrelevent with no one left to enforce its decrees. Hence, a peaceful transition to a new and (hopefully) improved government.

Now, if we are to entertain the possibility of a new government (assuming it one day becomes necessary, and no I don't think we're anywhere near there yet - as in at least 5 or 10 years away), we'd need several things. One: a formal declaration of the rights and powers of the government, its structure, and its limitations. Two: a method of trasition (ie. how do we get from gov A to gov B without violence?). And thirdly: a list of potential people to head up the new government. Personally, I think the formal declaration should be based on the US Constitution; specifically a constitution of enumerated powers for the government, broad by its very nature, but taking into account instances where it's failed over the last 200 years. Think McCarthyism; think Japanese internment camps; think dept of Homeland Security; think indecision 2000; think DMCA. Lastly: We need a specific, yet somewhat vague list of absolute rights and privilages of all citizens, as well as those visiting, etc. Think Geneva convention; think basic human rights; think Amendments to the US Constitution. The difference here is that these would be more thoroughly explained (without being too specific as to preclude allowances for not-yet-imagined technologies and ideas), and completely absolute with some sort of fail-safe mechanism to prevent any loopholes or lapses.

Please post comments, thoughts, ideas, and suggestions. All constructive posts are welcome, even if they're controversial in nature.

top

M2 (MetaModeration

Loki_1929 Loki_1929 writes  |  more than 12 years ago

"Have you Meta Moderated recently?"

I'm seeing this quite often lately. Then again, I just started moderating not too terribly long ago, so maybe it's normal to answer that question with "yeah, about 4 hours ago". Then again, I haven't gone more than two days in a row without answering the call to M2, so I suppose I'm a prime target for the asking. I've found plenty of M1's I didn't agree with, but only a handful that I could honestly say were 'unfair'. I suppose using the unfair M2 sparingly is the best way to go, as I wouldn't want to deny anyone M1 simply because I think it was a little "off". That being said, I've been leaving alone the ones where I can't make a strong decision either way, which amounts to an average of 2 or 3 per 10 M2's. If anyone has been M2'ing a bit longer, feel free to share any advice you might have, as the guidlines for M2 are (probably necessarily) a might bit vague.

top

First journal entry, so I'll start in the complaints dept.

Loki_1929 Loki_1929 writes  |  more than 12 years ago

* 2002-02-26 07:29:41 The Register Invades US (articles,announce) (rejected)
        * 2002-03-12 00:01:32 Creative to aquire 3d Labs (articles,announce) (rejected)
        * 2002-04-06 01:19:53 Comcast.net users blocked from google (articles,news) (rejected)
        * 2002-04-29 15:29:57 Hollings' new bill just as bad as the last one (articles,news) (rejected)
        * 2002-06-11 15:10:32 US Citizen to be held indefinitely without counsel (articles,news) (rejected)
        * 2002-07-29 17:39:05 "Pre-Crime" may become a reality (articles,news) (rejected)
        * 2002-09-13 01:36:28 The future of computing - CDS (articles,news) (rejected)
        * 2002-10-03 03:29:28 Mitnick's laptop for sale on Ebay (articles,news) (rejected)

Of the 8 stories I've submitted since I started doing that, I believe 7 were good, solid stories, with at least 4 well-deserving front-page shots. 3 were posted several hours or days after I submitted. I'm not so much complaining about the rejected stories, as I'm asking whether or not I should continue taking the time to submit them.

Are there just so many people submitting stories that I need not bother?

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?