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. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Wow (Score 1) 218

"causing undue harm to a spec[i]fic segment of the population" is not one of the recognized exceptions to the free speech clause of the Constitution. Generally, reporting true facts is protected. The exceptions are few and far between, and heavily constrained. The most obvious one is the prohibition on the disclosure of classified national security information. But that prohibition applies to those who receive clearances and agree to the relevant restrictions. It does not apply to those who obtain and disclose the information without breaking their own agreements. This is why no reporters were prosecuted for publishing information from wikileaks or Snowden.

Comment Re:Popcorn time! (Score 4, Insightful) 1321

Actually, you've stated it exactly wrong: the counties with the differences were not "demographically similar." When you control for demographics, the difference in voting patterns disappears. See also https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/... and https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/....

Comment Re:Carbon dioxide makes food plants more efficient (Score 1) 345

The summary is incredibly misleading when it says that the opinion calls "man-made climate change an 'undisputed' fact." The opinion says, quite correctly, that man-made climate change is undisputed "for the purposes of this motion." This happens in every opinion about a motion to dismiss, because that's what a motion to dismiss is: an argument by the defendants that, even if every fact alleged by the plaintiffs is true, the plaintiffs should still lose. The court has definitely not held that climate change is an undisputed fact. (Note, I'm not making a comment about science; I'm making a comment about the way civil litigation works.)

Comment Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms (Score 1) 310

So both responses to this post decided to respond to something I didn't say, rather than what I did say. I wasn't making an argument for no zoning regulation (and I didn't address fire or safety codes at all). I said that zoning regulations, *as implemented* make it much harder to afford housing in many places. Which suggests we should come up with better zoning regulations. For example, San Francisco could stop restricting denser housing development--something that makes perfect sense once you recognize that the problem is a shortage of housing. There are numerous studies about this, from researchers across the political spectrum. I suppose I'm lucky neither of you made the Somalia argument that is the usual straw-man response to anyone who questions a particular set of regulations.

Comment Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms (Score 2) 310

And there is strong evidence that current zoning policies have contributed a lot to the unaffordability of housing in cities. That's not to say that all zoning regulation is bad. But as implemented, they make it much harder to afford housing in many places.

Comment Re:So? (Score 4, Informative) 194

You've identified the two most important points. "Robbery" (when used correctly) indicates a violent crime involving force or threat of force. It is usually classified as a crime against the person, rather than a crime against property (like mere larceny or, in some cases, burglary). A robbery is, by definition, a violent felony. And, of course, the officer got a court order.

Comment Re:dont know (Score 1) 254

"Paid for your time" does not mean "work for hire" in the U.S. If someone is not an employee, then only certain types of works can be works for hire: "a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire." Notably, even a written contract saying "work for hire" doesn't make something a work for hire if it doesn't comply with the statute. That's why it's important to have a proper contract, typically one that says work for hire *and* grants the customer an exclusive lifetime license.

I have no idea of the merits of this case or about German law on the subject, but if the contract did expressly grant a limited license, it's likely that it wasn't contemplated as a work for hire.

Comment Re:Mercury switched = pin ball tilt switch (Score 1) 431

"Breaking and entering" is a synonym for "burglary." And in Georgia, burglary doesn't require any kind of breaking. It requires entering without authority with intent to steal (or commit any felony). It is a felony. So if he committed illegal entry and theft, as you said, then he's committed burglary and can be properly convicted of a felony.

Comment Re:Not pointless... (Score 2) 461

"I don't know what shops are at the mall his car was found at, but I would imagine that they sell pressure cookers." The "shops" at the mall in question (that is, the National Mall) sell bottled water, sodas, and ice cream bars. Plus cheesy souvenirs, hats, and t-shirts. Also, the shops are tiny trailers or pushcarts. I suppose the gift shops at the Smithsonian might count here (though I think that's stretching a point), but I haven't seen pressure cookers at any of them.

Comment Re:Not pointless... (Score 0) 461

"Did you know that in the District of Columbia, the Mayor or his representative can revoke your license for any reason at all, and the only appeal is to the Mayor?" No. Could you please point us to the law that authorizes mayoral driver's license revocation? (I'm betting you can't.) Also, no matter what DC law might say, there would definitely be a way to obtain collateral review of such revocation in the federal courts. Review might not succeed, but it would be available.

Slashdot Top Deals

I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove it.