Slashdot Mirror


User: X0563511

X0563511's activity in the archive.

Stories
0
Comments
10,035
First seen
Last seen
Profile
(view on slashdot.org)

Comments · 10,035

  1. Re:We're dark on Ask Slashdot: What Can You Do About SOPA and PIPA? · · Score: 1

    Get your people on this, if you want to address the root of this fucking problem:
    Move to Amend

  2. Re:I sent letters to my representatives on Ask Slashdot: What Can You Do About SOPA and PIPA? · · Score: 1

    Yea, and I hope the next time she runs, you're out there demonstrating this very thing that happened to you.

  3. Re:Why Didn't Slashdot blackout? on Ask Slashdot: What Can You Do About SOPA and PIPA? · · Score: 1

    I suppose you missed the blacked out logo, and this bit from the very story you just replied to:

    Note: This will be the last story we post today until 6pm EST in protest of SOPA.

  4. Re:What can you do? on Ask Slashdot: What Can You Do About SOPA and PIPA? · · Score: 1

    So, do you want to just give up on .com, .net, .org and a bunch of other TLDs? Because what you want requires that.

    This shit is too naively worded. You have domestic companies with foreign domains, foreign companies with domestic domains... it just doesn't fit into an A and B listing.

  5. Re:Spread the word on Ask Slashdot: What Can You Do About SOPA and PIPA? · · Score: 1

    ... and on that note, this is something you might want to look into then:
    We the People, Not We the Corporations

    The amendment:

    Move to Amend 28th Amendment

    Section 1 [A corporation is not a person and can be regulated]

    The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.

    Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law.

    The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

    Section 2 [Money is not speech and can be regulated]

    Federal, State and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, for the purpose of influencing in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.

    Federal, State and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.

    The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.

    Section 3

    Nothing contained in this amendment shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

    Some background (because yes, corporations are made of people, but this does not make them people):

    1. Corporate Personhood in a Nutshell

    There are two conceptions of corporate personhood. The first simply bestows upon corporations the ability to engage in many legal actions (e.g. enter into contracts, sue, be sued, etc). This is widely accepted and we do not object to this. However, corporate personhood also commonly refers to the Supreme Court - created precedent of corporations enjoying constitutional rights that were intended solely for human beings. We believe this form of corporate personhood corrupts our Constitution and must be corrected by amending the Constitution. Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution ever mention corporations, which were rare entities at our nation’s founding. But thanks to decades of rulings by Justices who molded the law to favor elite interests, corporations today are granted privileges that empower them to deny citizens the right to full self-governance. For example, the Supreme Court has:


    • prohibited routine inspections of corporate property without a warrant or prior permission, even though scheduling such visits may permit a company to hide threats to public health and safety. (Marshall v Barlow’s, 1978)

    • struck down state laws requiring companies to disclose product origins (International Dairy v. Amnestoy, [pdf] 1996), thus creating “negative free speech rights” for corporations and preventing us from knowing what’s in our food.

    • prohibited citizens wanting to defend their local businesses and community from corporate chains encroachment from enacting progressive taxes on chain stores. (Liggett v. Lee,
  6. Re:Community resistance on Tackling Open Source's Gender Issues · · Score: 1

    Because that's "sport" - not "game."

    Not literally, I know, but the connotative definitions are what matters here.

  7. Re:Why isn't slashdot blacking out? on SOPA and PIPA So Far · · Score: 1

    Doesn't do it at all if you come from outside the US, it seems. France at least. (tested via proxy)

  8. Re:Some are harassed and attacked into leaving. on Tackling Open Source's Gender Issues · · Score: 1

    Sorry. I get pissed off when people think I'm White Knighting, when I don't even care about the genders involved. I see a victim and an asshole, and respond.

    Just a personal peeve, I suppose. I saw your post, and it lit the fuse.

  9. Re:open source lives by a different motto on Tackling Open Source's Gender Issues · · Score: 1

    Good thing 4chan has nothing to do with the Open Source community, then.

    I suggest you go back there.

  10. Re:Some are harassed and attacked into leaving. on Tackling Open Source's Gender Issues · · Score: 1

    I don't care if the target is a man or a woman. There's no excuse for that kind of behavior.

    Your "White Knight" bitching doesn't help. Shut the fuck up and let us self police our communities. You'd rather nobody gave a shit at all, wouldn't you?

  11. Re:Wat do? on Tackling Open Source's Gender Issues · · Score: 1

    Step 1: Stop announcing such personal details to people who don't care
    Step 2: Watch in amazement as the 'exclusion' drops away!

  12. Re:This again? on Tackling Open Source's Gender Issues · · Score: 1

    To take a stab at your dolls vs guns comment:

    For a very long time there was a strong selection bias towards that, and our cultures reflect this.

    This might be slowly changing, but you cannot say there was not a biological basis for it. It's been too soon for there not to be such a pressure for it to be discounted.

  13. Re:Community resistance on Tackling Open Source's Gender Issues · · Score: 2

    Tell her you like playing computer games, and she leaves.

    Here's the trick: Do you play games to the expense of most other things? That's bad. Do you enjoy games when you have nothing else better to be doing? That's not so bad.

  14. Re:Community resistance on Tackling Open Source's Gender Issues · · Score: 1

    Indeed. They just don't care.

    Now, that said - there's a lot of things they really do care about that I couldn't care less about.

    Shocking! This just in: gender roles actually have a basis they are... based upon. (just like stereotypes generally have a small grain of truth hidden away inside them)

  15. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays on DHS X-ray Car Scanners Now At Border Crossings · · Score: 1

    Not very practiced with links, are you?

  16. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays on DHS X-ray Car Scanners Now At Border Crossings · · Score: 1

    OK, since you know what you're on about...

    In the story's image, you can see clearly through the engine block, but the driver is quite strongly imaged.... ... is that even possible? Anything that can go through that much aluminum and barely ghost it... would barely (if at all) even image something like flesh?

  17. Re:I call slashvertizing on Nanocoating Waterproofs Any Gadget · · Score: 1

    True yes, but the difference between air and dust, and air at different human-habitable temperatures and humidities.... is much less than the difference between air and oil?

  18. Re:I call slashvertizing on Nanocoating Waterproofs Any Gadget · · Score: 1

    ... can be tricky, because mineral oil and air do not have the same dielectric constant.

  19. Re:I call slashvertizing on Nanocoating Waterproofs Any Gadget · · Score: 1

    Does this coating prevent conduction, or is it merely a method to avoid the corrosion water causes? That's the real problem - shorts are bad, yes - but that's usually not what kills a gadget.

  20. Re:speak for yourselves.... on Nanocoating Waterproofs Any Gadget · · Score: 0

    ... to my late grandfather's violin 110 year old violin.

    Wow! His violin has a violin? How old is this property-owning property?

  21. Re:shower tv on Nanocoating Waterproofs Any Gadget · · Score: 1

    My DX is -JUST- big enough to not fit in one. Sadface.

  22. Re:Simple solution...no more Russian taxis to ISS on Russian Official Implies Foul Play In Mars Probe Failure · · Score: 1

    ... at 50 miles my handheld radio could almost do the job wit the antenna it came with! Put anything directional on it at all and it would be able to reach the thing. Put a helical on there and I most certainly can - because those same helical antennas can let us amateurs talk to satellites in HEO.

  23. Re:Why is this crap even on Slashdot? on Doctor Warns of the Hidden Danger of Touchscreens · · Score: 0
  24. Re:Why is this crap even on Slashdot? on Doctor Warns of the Hidden Danger of Touchscreens · · Score: 2

    ... at the end of the day, it's probably even more entertaining for everyone involved.

  25. Re:Oracle and Java on Oracle's Latest Java Moves Draw Industry Ire · · Score: 1

    Aah. Another case of technical documentation being written by sales I suppose?