Forgot your password?

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

by BringYourOwnBacon (#47310217) Attached to: Interviews: Ask Lawrence Lessig About His Mayday PAC

Okay, so maybe it should be structured differently. Like a voucher system. Everyone gets, say 5 vouchers per election cycle they can donate to any candidate or party they would like. With those vouchers, candidates or parties can "buy" airtime/billboards/whatever. Let's not tie this to major parties only, please. I personally don't give a shit if the American Nazi Party gets airtime. We have to rely on people to filter out the bullshit on their own, otherwise we'll necessarily end up with censorship.

The main take-away is that money is not an equalizer and should not be relied upon for a functioning democracy.

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

by BringYourOwnBacon (#47299317) Attached to: Interviews: Ask Lawrence Lessig About His Mayday PAC

So you think our current system is perfect; anyone with access to millions of dollars should be allowed to influence elections in any way they see fit. That must be why congress has the best approval ratings we've seen in years and politicians don't have to waste any time/resources campaigning when they could be, you know, doing their jobs.

Give me a break.

I agree that we should be careful with how we restructure elections. 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. I don't pretend to know the details of how a system like this should work, but it's certainly better than restricting political speech to individuals/groups with millions of $$$ to throw around.

+ - Comcast Acquiring Time Warner Cable In All-Stock Deal Worth $45 Billion 1

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "Comcast has agreed to buy Time Warner Cable for $45 billion in stock, in a deal that would combine the nation's two biggest cable operators, according to people familiar with the situation. The boards of both companies have approved the transaction, which will be announced Thursday morning, one of the people said. If this merger goes thru, the new cable giant would tower over its closest video competitor, DirecTV, which has about 20 million video customers."

+ - Slashdot creates beta site users express theirs dislike-> 4

Submitted by who_stole_my_kidneys
who_stole_my_kidneys (1956012) writes "Slashdot started redirecting users in February to its newly revamped webpage and received a huge backlash from users. The majority of comments dislike the new site while some do offer solutions to make it better. The question is will Slashdot force the unwanted change on its users that clearly do not want change?"
Link to Original Source

+ - Once Slashdot beta has been foisted upon me, what site should I use instead? 2

Submitted by somenickname
somenickname (1270442) writes "As a long time Slashdot reader, I'm wondering what website to transition to once the beta goes live. The new beta interface seems very well suited to tablets/phones but, it ignores the fact that the user base is, as one would expect, nerds sitting in front of very large LCD monitors and wasting their employers time. It's entirely possible that the browser ID information gathered by the site has indicated that they get far more hits on mobile devices where the new interface is reasonable but, I feel that no one has analyzed the browser ID (and screen resolution) against comments modded +5. I think you will find that most +5 comments are coming from devices (real fucking computers) that the new interface does not support well. Without an interface that invites the kind of users that post +5 comments, Slashdot is just a ho-hum news aggregation site that allows comments. So, my question is, once the beta is the default, where should Slashdot users go to?"

+ - Slashdot beta sucks 9

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "Maybe some of the slashdot team should start listening to its users, most of which hate the new user interface. Thanks for ruining something that wasn't broken."

+ - Bradley Manning gets 35 years in prison->

Submitted by EthanV2
EthanV2 (1211444) writes "US Army Pfc. Bradley Manning was sentenced to 35 years in a military prison this morning after being convicted of 20 counts related to his leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks, which consisted mostly of diplomatic cables. (He escaped conviction on the most serious charge of "aiding the enemy.") In addition, he will also forfeit all of his pay and allowances, have his rank reduced to private, and be dishonorably discharged."
Link to Original Source

+ - Bradley Manning Sentenced To 35 Years->

Submitted by schwit1
schwit1 (797399) writes "Pfc. Bradley Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison Wednesday, the culmination of a trial that posed tough questions about the balance between government secrecy and national security.

Pfc. Manning was facing a maximum 90-year sentence. The prosecution had asked for 60 years and the defense no more than 25.

After an eight-week court-martial, Pfc. Manning was convicted in July of espionage for downloading volumes of classified military and diplomatic information that he handed to the antisecrecy group WikiLeaks for public release. The presiding judge, Col. Denise Lind, rejected the U.S. government's most serious charge—aiding the enemy—which could have led to a much harsher sentence.

Pfc. Manning, 25 years old, won international notice after his May 2010 arrest at a U.S. military base in Iraq. Supporters, including WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, hailed Pfc. Manning as a heroic whistleblower who risked his own freedom in an attempt to rouse opposition to American foreign policy and its "war on terror."

The prosecution cast Pfc. Manning as a low-level military analyst who recklessly released classified information that could be used against American troops and their allies around the world.

During the court-martial, Pfc. Manning defended his decision to release the information as an effort to spark a broad debate about American foreign policy. Last week, in a final appeal for leniency, he issued a public apology and cast himself as a misguided young soldier who didn't realize that his actions would hurt the U.S.

"I look back on my decisions and wonder how on earth could I, a junior analyst, possibly believe I could change the world for the better," he told the judge"

Link to Original Source

+ - Bradley Manning Sentenced to 35 Years-> 1

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "After a long and protracted trial, Judge Denise Lind has handed down a sentence in the Bradley Manning case: 35 years and a dishonorable discharge. Manning initially faced a maximum sentence of 135 years, which was reduced to 90 years when Manning was found not guilty of Espionage Act offenses and certain other charged were merged. He has already served over 1000 days in prison, and his sentence will be reduced by 1,274 days."
Link to Original Source

+ - Manning given 35 years->

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "he US soldier convicted of handing a trove of secret government documents to anti-secrecy website Wikileaks has been sentenced to 35 years in prison.
Pte First Class Bradley Manning, 25, was convicted in July of 20 charges against him, including espionage.
Last week, he apologised for hurting the US and for "the unexpected results" of his actions.
He will receive credit for three and a half years, but be dishonourably discharged from the US Army."

Link to Original Source

Comment: Proposed solution to these leaks (Score 3, Interesting) 529

It seems tragic that the only way to expose the overstepping of the government on human rights is to have lone leakers throw themselves under the bus and expose information, often haphazardly, to the world. There should be a system in place where government employees can appeal anything they consider unconstitutional to a special court for review. It is up to the judicial branch to uphold the constitution and seems utterly ridiculous that these secret overreaches by the executive branch are not eligible to the same checks and balances put in place for public laws.

I want to see publicly nominated and vetted judges sitting on a board to review classified procedures and actions for their constitutionality. The proceedings can be secret, but the number of cases overturned and left standing should be made public. It may be a pipe dream, but I think this would go a long way to restoring the people's trust in their government by restoring the accountability that was supposed to be there in the first place.

Error in operator: add beer