×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Click Like? You May Have Given Up the Right To Sue

fnj Re:CORRUPTION (214 comments)

what it will do is add more difficulty and expense to challenging them in court

Nonsense. It doesn't add a single synaptic transaction of difficulty or a single cent of expense to challenging them.

2 days ago
top

Click Like? You May Have Given Up the Right To Sue

fnj Re:Possibly Worse Than That (214 comments)

Wrong, GM will use it as a way to bash people into submission. When someone talks about suing and gets noisy enough, GM will send them a very powerful letter explaining to them in the most confusing way possible that they're already agreed to not sue them and that suing them would break this contract which would result in a counter suite from GM.

Go ahead. Try that shit on me. I'm begging you.

2 days ago
top

Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

fnj Re:The Canadian Exodus.... (1574 comments)

Every single article of the Constitution requires common sense to interpret. Of speech the First Amendment says simply "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". It doesn't say the President will not executive-order that nobody can say anything mean. It doesn't even say that States can't infringe on the freedom of speech. It doesn't imply that you can threaten people recklessly with impunity. Hardly anyone even claims it implies you can shout "fire" in a crowded theater when you have no reason to believe there is fire.

Do you really want a Constitution 10,000 or 100,000 pages long? One whose Second Amendment alone has to be constantly reviewed and updated because new devastating chemical and biological agents are developed, or something 1000 times more powerful than a nuclear weapon and weighs only one pound is invented?

3 days ago
top

Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

fnj Re:The Canadian Exodus.... (1574 comments)

Since an "arm" is defined as a "weapon", then you see no limit. The qualifier in "small arms" is there for a reason - because "arms" are unlimited. I don't think you will find much company. Your suggestion that maybe the 2nd Amendment needs to be qualified is well taken, although arguably a guy driving an M1A2 tank with a nuclear demolition charge aboard down the street is not "bearing arms", and a lot of us think it is plain enough that the clear intent is not to allow unlimited weapons in private ownership.

The Constitution is supposed to be interpreted with common sense. If it tried to spell everything out to the nth detail, it would be 100 times its size. It would probably be the size of the tax code or the Affordable Care Act, and nobody who finished reading the 5000th page could possible remember what it said on page 10.

3 days ago
top

Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

fnj Re:The Canadian Exodus.... (1574 comments)

We're on pretty exactly the same page.

3 days ago
top

Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

fnj Re:It's crap (1574 comments)

Interesting that you phrase that control in the past tense. A two-bit IED kills you just as dead as a million dollar smart weapon. And you don't measure the victor by who suffers the least casualtes. The victor is the one left standing on scene after the fury ends. The one who, in the end, cares more about the outcome and is willing to endure. As such, the best it can possibly end for the US at this point is a draw. The worst is an outright loss.

So I'll tell you what happens when you pit guys with rifles and IEDs against a standing army and air force. A lot of people on both sides are killed and maimed, but eventually the standing army finds something else to do, or in the domestic case gets fed up and goes home, the indigenous people endure, and their aspirations have not been killed. Remember Vietnam?

If the purpose of the Afghanistan conflict was to punish and run off an evil regime supporting the civilized world's enemies, that was accomplished with stunning effectiveness and economy within a year. That was the time we should have declared victory, left a threat that the same devastatioin would be visited again if such an evil regime ever returned, and left the hellhole alone. The remaining 12 years were just dick-yanking - not the guys on the scene; the morons directing US policy. Leave the hubris of nation building entirely to those whose business it is - those who live there.

3 days ago
top

Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

fnj Re:Dear Stevens (1574 comments)

Much as I agree with your points a, b, and c, actually your oath to support and defend the Constitution would obligate you to honor this amendment, properly enacted, just like any other part of the Constitution. I don't think the oath restricts you after your term of enlistment ends, though. You fall back on the same love of country and countrymen, and if the Constitution were to be so corrupted, then the regime would become the enemy.

3 days ago
top

Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

fnj Re:Bad suggestion (1574 comments)

To a European, used to being able to walk down the street without being threatened by guns ...

Baaa. Baaa. Get a clue. You are not free from being threatened by guns. Any terrorist or criminal willing to break the law can acquire a gun and threaten you with it. What you are free from is the opportunity for self defense in broadly equal terms, or being helped by other lawful citizens on the scene.

3 days ago
top

Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

fnj Re:It's crap (1574 comments)

Oh, terrorists can run the US military out of Iraq and Afghanistan with its tail between its legs, but the US' own more numerous citizens could never hope to do the same? Really?

A 30-03 cartridge in a bolt action rifle, or a 38 special in a revolver, kills you just as dead as an AK-47 whether you are surrounded by artillery, tanks, and airplanes or not. Even if the military is all wearing body armor, I bet their faces and limbs are exposed.

3 days ago
top

Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

fnj Re:It's crap (1574 comments)

I guess we should tell Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and other non-state lethal actors they can disband because they can't hope to stand up to, or to tie up the most powerful and well-trained militaries in the world in protracted conflict.

3 days ago
top

Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

fnj Re:The Canadian Exodus.... (1574 comments)

Do you think there are ANY weapons which should be restricted in terms of private ownership? An M1A2 tank? A 155mm howitzer? How about a nuclear bomb? These are all well within the financial means of billionaires to acquire. I am asking seriously. I consider myself as strong a supporter of gun rights as anyone, but I see the need for SOME limits. Most likely I would draw the line roughly at machine guns - I mean machine guns should be fine, but the above examples should all be limited. Clearly, nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons are way over the line.

3 days ago
top

Student Records Kids Who Bully Him, Then Gets Threatened With Wiretapping Charge

fnj Re:All-party state (790 comments)

Recording something that happens out in the public is not wiretapping.

According to you or according to the law? They are not the sam,

Christ. According to COMMON SENSE and English grammar, you twit. According to REALITY.

3 days ago
top

Student Records Kids Who Bully Him, Then Gets Threatened With Wiretapping Charge

fnj Re:So while all of this was happening (790 comments)

Remember, disarming people is to keep the strong in power.

Of course. That's because you CAN'T disarm "people". Only a moron thinks you can. All you can do is disarm the MEEK people. The PREDATORS will find a way to arm themselves. You fools out there, try to think. I know it's hard, but try. The police are not there to protect people. They are there to protect the State. The "protect and serve" is just fascist window dressing.

3 days ago
top

Microsoft Confirms It Is Dropping Windows 8.1 Support

fnj Re:u wot m8 (573 comments)

You guys are ALL wrong. Don't you know? It's sudo pacman -Syu.

4 days ago
top

Commenters To Dropbox CEO: Houston, We Have a Problem

fnj Re:Recycling Personalities (447 comments)

I understand very clearly the difference between accumulated debt and rate of growth of debt (which is what the deficit is).

At the same time, you should understand that you can't "inherit" a deficit. The idea is poppycock. The budget for each year stands fresh on its own. You can change a massive deficit to a surplus in a single year just by adjusting the numbers in your budget. Yes, interest on the debt (which IS inherited), and a piss poor economic climate (which is inherited to some extent) are burdens on the budget, but it within the power of the budgeters to counteract these. I don't claim it would be an easy choice to do it, or to live with, but it is in point of fact utterly trivial procedurally to do.

A final point I'll throw in just to make the whole discussion even more fun. No President has any control over the budget beyond:
1) Submitting one, which can be mutilated or just replaced by the legislature.
2) Signing off on whatever budget DOES get passed by the legislature (if there is one).
3) Using the bully pulpit, which is not trivial, but still it's just talk and persuasion.

In passing, I call attention to the point that those responsible for making a budget can subvert the whole process by just failing to execute their duty. Both the President and Congress have been guilty of that.

One could argue that a President can take unilateral action, like engaging the military in action, which necessarily leads to hemmorhage in the budget, so yes, that has to be mitigated. However, the legislature can still use the war powers act to limit the effect by limiting the time scale - IF, and it is a big IF, they are willing to stick their neck out.

about a week ago
top

Google Chrome Flaw Sets Your PC's Mic Live

fnj Re:Temporary workaround (152 comments)

yes, but only because it was a spoken and language with no written documentation. now a days not so much. but I like where you are headed.

I would tell you to use American Sign Language, but then They would just turn on the camera.

about two weeks ago
top

Google Chrome Flaw Sets Your PC's Mic Live

fnj Re:What microphone? (152 comments)

I haven't had a microphone connected to my computer since about 2001.

No laptop? The mid 1990s called. They want to know how you missed the last 20 years.

about two weeks ago
top

Intel and SGI Test Full-Immersion Cooling For Servers

fnj Re:Too bad... (101 comments)

There's also the fact that Fluorinert is potentially toxic, but it's also a greenhouse hazard. One would hope that 3M learned their lessons in the development of Novec and it's not an environmental hazard.

All right, I'll bite. Aside from "OMG, it is, gasp, a CHEMICAL", if it is inert, how can it be toxic? From the MSDS for Fluorinert FC-40:

"Not classified as hazardous according to OSHA Hazard Communication Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1200."
"No occupational exposure limit values exist for any of the components listed in Section 3 of this SDS."
"Skin protection is not required."
"Inhalation: Vapors from heated material may cause irritation of the respiratory system. Signs/symptoms may include cough, sneezing, nasal discharge, headache, hoarseness, and nose and throat pain."
"Skin Contact: Contact with the skin during product use is not expected to result in significant irritation."
"Eye Contact: Vapors from heated material may cause eye irritation. Signs/symptoms may include redness, swelling, pain, tearing, and blurred or hazy vision."

Note, when they are talking about "heated", they are talking about heating to well above any proper operating temperature - greater than 200 C. The stuff CAN break down chemically under such conditions, and noxious/toxic products result. More or less the same as any fluorocarbon, including the refrigerant in your refrigerator.

It is non flammable, period. There is no flash point.

As for the GHG designation, absolutely true. However, essentially no evaporation of Fluorinert into the open should occur in a properly designed and maintained system.

about two weeks ago

Submissions

fnj hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

fnj has no journal entries.

Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...