Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Full Text of 2nd Amendment (Score 1) 663

I was being a bit flippant, but I think this is just a quibble. Well regulated meant that they were trained, prepared, supplied and ready to fight. "Shoot straight" wouldn't have been the dictionary definition, but that's what it boils down to.

"[A citizenry that is ready and capable of using their own guns] being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This is the only logical reading of the second amendment.

"[Citizens that are controlled, supervised, and follow all the rules imposed by the government] being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the [army] to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is self-contradictory and nonsensical.

Comment Re:Full Text of 2nd Amendment (Score 1) 663

Yes, in the mid- to late- 1700s, "well regulated" meant they could shoot straight. The necessity of such a militia was NOT meant to protect our liberties from foreign attack (the government has a military and the idea of needing a constitutional amendment forbidding the government from taking it's OWN guns away is laughable). Rather the goal was to preserve the right to revolt.

In 1776, regulation most definitely did NOT mean "controlled by the government." You did not need a license to practice medicine, much less sell lemonade or pretty much any business activity. You didn't need to get a permit to burn your trash or permission ride a horse. Governments were not about setting prices, insuring safety, or controlling who could perform what job. In fact, the first modem government regulations didn't come until the "robber barons" started colluding on prices for railroad hauls. They had the audacity to charge a higher price based on demand for a route rather than just charging by the mile. The ICC was formed to bust this oligopoly. The first commissioner just so happened to have been a lawyer for the railroads (who else would know enough about their business), and his first act was to set uniform pricing (at the higher rate). The oligopoly finally had a way to enforce their pricing without the possibility of defectors or cheaters. And thus the modern era of regulation began.

Comment Re:Ehhhh... (Score 2) 133

That's all true and not even disputed in the paper (which is linked in the article). The paper doesn't argue that all universal search results are bad for consumers, and some definitely are better. What's at issue is "local" search, like looking for a doctor in your city. In this case, there isn't one correct "answer," there are a bunch of them. And what you probably want are doctors with lots of good reviews. Instead, you get doctors with fewer reviews who happen to also have google+ pages.

Comment Re:Why is Uber better? Serious question. (Score 2) 230

> 2) Ease of Payment

2.a. Payment is handled via Uber, not the driver, and price is agreed ahead of time. No possibility for hidden charges, unapproved charges, sightseeing tours, etc.

2.b) Pricing Standardization. Ever been in a DC Taxi before they installed meters? They had a "zone" system and your rate was based on how many zones you crossed. Not familiar with the city? Good luck figuring it out. Every city has its own quirks and pricing games. With Uber, you know exactly what you're going to pay and how the transaction will be handled.

5) Convenience. No standing on the corner waiving your hands in the air. In a strange city where cabs aren't everywhere? How do you call one? How long will it take? Where are they? With Uber, you'll see where your cab is while it's on route and know exactly when they'll arrive.

Comment Re:No, the film is *bad* satire. (Score 1) 331

The puppy housetraining in the book was a flashback to his Moral Philosophy teacher explaining why the old civilzation collapsed (namely, because parents stopped spanking their children). Apparently, the "scientfiically verifiable theory of morals" (exact phrase from the book) proves that the way to keep society from collapsing is through corporal punishment in schools and public flogging, just like there is NO way to housetrain a puppy without hitting it.

Comment Re:If only PJ was still running groklaw! (Score 1) 173

I was a regular user on groklaw as well. She quit because she was a private person and email was no longer private. You may be able to protect the contents of your email by encrypting it (assuming that the encryption hasn't been intentionally compromised, which is NOT a safe assumption), but that doesn't encrypt the "From/To" fields. PJ quit the internet (not just groklaw) because she's a private person who didn't want to be watched.

You have your view, I have mine. Everyone else can read what she wrote and decide for themselves.

Comment Re:If only PJ was still running groklaw! (Score 1) 173

You claim you can "just encrypt" your email, but it was the creator of lavabit, the "secure" email system that Snowden used, who stated essentially that email can NOT be made secure. It's not just a technology problem. When Secret Courts tell citizens they can't talk about Secret Orders, "encryption" isn't the solution. It's not just what you're saying, but with whom your talking to (e.g. metadata).

You may not agree with that, but you can't declare that no one else can believe it. You can read PJ's statement for yourself. You may not believe her, but you can't look into her heart and know that the reason she gave wasn't sincere:

My personal decision is to get off of the Internet to the degree it's possible. I'm just an ordinary person. But I really know, after all my research and some serious thinking things through, that I can't stay online personally without losing my humanness, now that I know that ensuring privacy online is impossible. I find myself unable to write. I've always been a private person. That's why I never wanted to be a celebrity and why I fought hard to maintain both my privacy and yours.

Comment Re:If only PJ was still running groklaw! (Score 1) 173

She didn't quit because it was time consuming or because her collaborator wasn't precise enough. She quit because she can't communicate securely:

The owner of Lavabit tells us that he's stopped using email and if we knew what he knew, we'd stop too.

There is no way to do Groklaw without email. Therein lies the conundrum.

Comment Re:From Jack Brennan's response (Score 4, Informative) 772

The Committee's Study outlined 20 specific cases that the CIA claimed either solely based on EIT (torture) or thwarted attacks. In ALL cases, there was either other corroborating intelligence (so they didn't need to torture anyone) or that the "attacks" were either fantasies or non-operational.

Brennan's statement doesn't actually refute this. Providing intelligence that "helped" is not the same as intelligence that was critical.

Slashdot Top Deals

If I were a grave-digger or even a hangman, there are some people I could work for with a great deal of enjoyment. -- Douglas Jerrold