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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Government regulation of political speech (Score 1) 308

You can't run ads that mention political candidates or parties 2 weeks before an election.

How about political editorials?
Who will decide if "news" coverage is impartial or biased towards or against any candidate or party?

Congratulations, you found out that sometimes, there's a trade-off in a decision that you make, and a perfect solution doesn't exist.

Sure it does. Let people say whatever they want to say and in the marketplace of ideas, the most compelling argument wins.

LK

Comment Re:Should the US government censor political blogs (Score 1) 308

CocaCola does not get a vote in November.

Because CocaCola is not a citizen. Illegal aliens do not have the right to vote in November either. (We all know that many of them will anyway, but they have no right to do so.)

but the corporation is not a person.

Yes it is. Being a "person" under the law doesn't require one to be a human being. There is still a class of human beings who are not "persons" under the laws of the USA. You need to understand the underlying premise here.

The Constitution refers to "Persons", "The People" and "Citizens". These are three distinct types of entity under the law. I am a Citizen and by virtue of that, I am a person and one of the people.

Corporations are absolutely NOT people.

No, they are not "people". They are "persons". There is a legal distinction and an important one.

If a dog bites you, can you sue the dog? No. Why? Because the dog is not a person.
Can you sue a corporation? Yes. Why? Because it's a legal "person". "Incorporate" means to "bring together into one body".

LK

Comment Re:Should the US government censor political blogs (Score 1) 308

Rather than worry about how to restrict money flowing into elections (and dealing with "first amendment" issues) we should prohibit all political donations and give all candidates a set amount to work with to reach their constituents.

ALL candidates? Does that include candidates who have no chance to win? The American Nazi Party for example? Why in the fuck should they get as much money as the "established" parties or even the third parties that are on the fringes but still have the power to influence. Like the Libertarian, Green and Constitution Parties?

Your quick fixes lack foresight. I don't mean that as an insult It seems to me that you're genuinely concerned and motivated to fix the problem but when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you're supposed to do is stop digging. These "solutions" make the problem worse.

LK

Comment Re:Should the US government censor political blogs (Score 1) 308

I can try to convince a woman to sleep with me all I want. If I am influential, she will. But if I pay her for it, it's illegal.

If you pay a woman to have sex with you, in most places, that's illegal.

If you pay other people to tell this woman why she should have sex with you, that's not illegal.

Buying votes is illegal. Paying people to tell others to vote the way you want them to should not be illegal.

LK

Comment My concerns. (Score 1) 308

Other people here have already pointed these issues out separately but I'd like to combine them.

I don't think that anyone can honestly deny how NBC's portrayal of Sarah Palin had a tremendous impact on how the 2008 campaign ended. To this day, a lot of people still confuse Tina Fey's awesome satire for actual Palin statements. Bill Maher, in addition to his million dollar donation to a PAC for Obama's benefit, has constantly given media exposure to politicians who represent his point of view.

Do you have a plan to limit the effect that non-advertising content has on elections?

LK

Comment Re:This is what a right is (Score 2) 128

You are correct that nothing abridges that right. (I take the highly deviant and unpopular line that rights are inalienable, that that is why we don't just call them permissions.)

To say that it is an unmitigated good is, though, perhaps not a conclusion you can safely draw. It carries the implication that all contributing causes were also good, which is self-evidently false. The right is good. The requirement that things be properly documented is good. The staffing levels are bad (police officers should be providing the raw information, not reconstructing it to fit a specific system - have data entry specialists handle data entry). The system sounds very very bad - and unstable (who wants HAL running a criminal justice system?).

Releasing the individuals was correct, but correct for the bad reason that every level of the system failed.

That they couldn't manage in three days what police in Britain were once expected to do within 24 hours (now expanded to 48, as computer technology has been added, which seems kinda weird) shows that the wrong people are doing work that is wrong. If a manual system could do the job in one day, a computer-based one should be faster. Yes, there's more complex analysis to be done, but mass spectrometers can be thrown into the back of a van and give you results in minutes. DNA analysis for a tiny handful of markers (typically 12 for criminology, versus the 150 often needed for genealogy) can be done in an hour, tops. In-the-field DNA sequencers designed to look for specific information can also be thrown into said van.

Actually searching and finding things is the slowest part, but you shouldn't be looking for evidence to convict someone, you should be looking for evidence in order to determine who it is who should be convicted. In that case, search and lab time should only ever precede an arrest, which means everything that matters will already be known and in the computer.

In that case, the only new information is that surrounding the arrest and any supplemental information provided by the suspect. Confirming that supplemental data should not be relevant to the case, if the case warranted bringing the person in at that point. Even if it is, you're looking at three or four hours in parallel with the data entry. Raw data is raw data, that can be delivered live from a mobile lab or detective, so it's merely the time to get there, find the supplemental evidence and run the analysis.

With a modern setup, the time between initial arrest and completing the filing should never exceed 6 hours. Three days is stupid.

If six hours isn't enough time to do everything, do more (much, much more) beforehand and parallelize the shit out of everything after. If you don't have the money, find it. If necessary, reduce coverage until you can afford it, then demand taxes pay to cover everyone else correctly. If a couple of extra people get robbed or murdered, you've reduced false convictions by far more than that, so there's a net reduction in deprivation and death. You trade a negligible bit of extra crime in the streets for a massive reduction in crime by cops and/or in prisons. You get a miniscule dash of extra cynicism in the populace, but carve vast chunks of cynicism and contempt within the constabulary.

Seems an acceptable price to pay in order to have acceptable cops and acceptable standards.

Comment Re:Any good shows with lots of episodes (Score 1) 139

Start with the first ever Doctor Who. Make sure you take a break between episodes to get the cliffhanger effect. There's audios of all missing episodes. Include all of the Big Finish stories for the Eighth Doctor and the Pertwee Radio Episodes, plus the first three Stranger and Miss Brown for the missing season, plus the Auton trilogy, plus the PROBE series.

If you are still alive after all that, I suggest you follow that up with both Ivor the Engine series, Sapphire and Steel (TV and Big Finish), The Tomorrow People (ITV and Big Finish, plus maybe the latest reinvention of it, but not the Nickelodeon one) and The Avengers (British 1960s spy-fi).

Slashdot Top Deals

The difference between reality and unreality is that reality has so little to recommend it. -- Allan Sherman

Working...