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


Forgot your password?
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:Epix was one reason they were forced to stream. (Score 1) 292

FiOS hasn't added a single new building in over five years

Correct, Verizon actually stopped further rollouts prior to selling the network to Frontier, who has also opted not to expand it.

On the plus side (for you), the chances of Comcast expanding capacity in Bellevue is far better than other suburbs.

Comment Re:Ironic (Score 1) 213

I am fully aware of that... and once you have a copy of someone's db & email account, there is no end to the fun you can have with regards to adding/removing/changing entries within... and the only way to prove it is for the original owner of the content to compare everything... however given what people think about AM and it's business model/practices... how likely would they be to be believed?

Comment Re:Ironic (Score 1) 213

Given the user database has multiple occurrences of email addresses it's pretty hard to imagine the actual owners of which using on the site (some of which even reported to have been validated)... it would not surprise me at all if the hackers decided to inject some false data into one of the stores to try to grind their axe even more.

Comment Re:Yes (Score 1) 698

Depends on how you define 'easier'

Up front it is as you don't need a permit... you do however risk calls to the police, reporting an armed man walking down the street and/or stops by police who will ask for some ID to make sure you are legally able to carry it (the legality of doing depends on your local), brandishing charges are also a risk as well.

You also open yourself up to harassment and/or assault from someone who doesn't like guns and may just try to take yours.

In some states (Washington) open carrying in a vehicle requires a CPL, so you best lock it away before hopping in the car.

No one knows if/when I am carrying concealed and I prefer it that way and by doing so never have to deal with any of the above... so I jump through the hoops to renew mine every 5 years and that's that.

Comment Re:Ouch? (Score 4, Informative) 301

I hope none. The database can't be trusted,

Agreed, when you see addresses like the following in the DB it becomes clear how easy it was to insert records that are not indicative of actual use:

  • billgates@microsoft.com
  • stevejobs@apple.com
  • Tim_cook@apple.com
  • barack.obama@whitehouse.gov
  • cllinton@whitehouse.gov
  • billybob@whitehouse.gov
  • barackhusseinobama@whitehouse.gov

Doubly so when some addresses show up more than once:

  • president@whitehouse.gov x13
  • gwb@whitehouse.gov x5
  • georgebush@whitehouse.gov x3

... as just a few examples.

Comment Re:Meet the new guy (Score 1) 393

There are plenty of them all over the country. It's the requirement to pay a punitive amount in order to get an ID to be allowed to vote.

Ok... name such a place.

Though they better not have any options for free or reduced price photo IDs which can be used for more than just voting.

I don't know any state that allows a minority to get an ID without paying a huge fee.

Wait... so 'minority' is actually part of the fee schedule and so charges what? 2x? 10x? 100? what a non-minority would pay?

Again, where is this place?

The Republicans hate us and want us to die. That is why they won't allow us to vote.

I think you've got your filters adjusted wrong... it was the Democrats who was the party of segregation, slavery, jim crow and domestic concentration camps... I really don't recall it being a Republican president being quoted as saying "Iâ(TM)ll have those n*****s voting Democratic for the next 200 years".

Comment Re: Meet the new guy (Score 1) 393

I think you need to look up the laws that recognize that effect can be proven even when intent cannot.

Not to mention disparate impact.

Disparate impact *MAY* have racial, even racist intents... but it by no means automatically means a case of disparate impact is racist... or do we need to go through set theory?

But hey, make it a state mandate to produce this ID even if the governor had to come to my home and paint my picture.

Hello reductio ad absurdum.

Comment Re:Meet the new guy (Score 1, Interesting) 393

But if you are trying to dispute that voter ID requirements disproportionally affect minorities the facts simply are not on your side.

Oh this should be good.

The states that have instituted voterid laws are all cases where its clear that:

a) there has never been any indication that voter fraud of the type voter id will prevent isn't actually a real problem

Except for that we lack adequate mechanisms to even detect or act on such a thing. More on that later though.

b) as a percentage more republicans have the necessary voter id documents in their wallets and purses right now than democrats; so it places a larger burden on democrats.

Even if we assume everybody has equal access to government offices, and time off to visit them, it STILL means that more voting democrats are going to be too busy or too lazy to actually get their documentation together. Yes, some busy, lazy republicans will be excluded as well. But less of them overall.

If true... which I am not prepared to accept finding no evidence to support that just yet... if that is the case, is the solution to simply not require such IDs... or to make an effort to make sure as many as people have such IDs? Things which are more often than not required in plenty of other facets in life be it flying, driving, opening a bank account or just buying a six-pack of beer.

More so, if one accepts the premise that exercising rights should not unduly burden one side more than another... is it safe to say Republicans tend to be more likely to buy/own firearms then Democrats? Is it then also discriminatory that a photo id is required to buy a gun at an FFL, further burdening Democrats? Is not a photo id requirement in this case an infringement on their second amendment rights?

The upshot is indisputable. voter id laws are biased for republicans while really having no other effect.

What about increased turnout? Is that an effect?

Since the type of voter fraud it prevents is statistically irrelevant anyway.

Can you, or anyone conclusively say exactly what the rate of voter fraud is? Sure, you can point to a low conviction rate... but that's pretty specious evidence as no one can... as there are not adequate means to detect it.

If I show up at your polling place nice & early and claim to be you and vote on your behalf, I've just committed fraud, though unless the poll worker knows you and says "no you aren't! and tackles me to the ground while calling for police... how do you detect/prevent that later in the day when you show up?

Best case, because it's impossible to find the ballot I cast at 7:01 am that morning, you get a provisional ballot and vote a similar way to me and our candidate gets 2x the votes from 'you'. Worst case, you don't get to vote, or your real vote gets canceled out by my fraudulent vote.

What if instead I drive to various polling places early in the morning with a pre-determined list of people who I am going to vote on fraudulently behalf of and who I do not think are likely to vote later in the dead (recently deceased, homebound, hasn't voted in a while)... is that going to be detected at all? Probably not, and my chances of getting away with it are just as good, even if I have a few people joining me to help sway an election for our guy.

Where you've margins of 100k sure, such fraud doesn't really matter, but when you've got close local or state elections that come down to a few dozen or a few hundred ballots out of several million cast... we are beyond the margin of error or carelessness (accidently scribbling an identifying mark, double voting, etc)... it's almost certain that we are in the margin of fraud... granted only some kinds can be reduced by requiring photo ID.

Not asking for photo id is like turning off the password requirement on a server after disabling anything but the most basic logging mechanisms (ie "Joe Smith logged in at DD/MM/YYYY") and then assuming no one is going to hack you... and if they do, you'll be able to figure out who did it and go after them.

Comment Re:Meet the new guy (Score 1) 393

Nobody said there would be "no blacks" signs.

Actually I did... as a question as one possible reason for blacks not getting voter IDs.

If you don't think voter suppression is real

I don't recall saying voter suppression doesn't exist. Trying to create an air of inevitability of one candidate over another is actually one form of voter suppression... effectively trying to discourage the other side from turning out to vote... which is actually legal.

Some forms can be illegal for sure, and while you cite the Wikipedia article, I see plenty there that are legal... even if a bit sleezy.

you are an idiot and should in fact read the entire Wikipedia page.

Ok... if I'm an idiot why not point to something specific for me? Keep in mind I was referencing voting IDs at the start of this convo... so do please make sure your cited example is in that area.

Comment Re:Meet the new guy (Score 2) 393

Wow - what a great set of insults. Too bad they completely failed to respond to the actual issues I raised.

I'm sorry your feelings are so easily hurt, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with sarcasm.

For example, I show you how Texas is attempting to do something illegal against college students and you pretend that I think that is racist

No, you didn't 'show' anything, you 'claimed' something. Further, you failed to cite specifically how it was illegal as constitutionally (see 10th amendment) it is up to the states to define eligibility requirements to vote... restricted by a few areas (religious test, race, sex).

Of course you make no attempt to deny that what they are doing is illegal, instead you make fun of me because you thought I was claiming racism in that case.

Correct, I'm not going to try to prove a negative.

Are you really stupid enough to think a crime is still acceptable unless I prove it is racist crime?

Still waiting to see/hear how it is a crime. Feel free to cite a specific statute if you'd like.

I also love how you did not understand a simple comparison

I also love how you do not understand sarcasm or taking ideas and added a good mix of progressive double-think in to highlight the ridiculousness of what you are saying.

Let me explain. Massachusett's Voter ID law lets you vote if you don't have a Voter ID - even if just provisionally.

Yup, saw that the first time you said it... but again, you are describing different states, which sometimes have different laws believe it or not. Ex: Age to get an unrestricted drivers license in Texas is 17, Massachusetts's is 18, while Maine it's 21. Racism? (is that better?)

Texas's Voter ID law does not let you vote at all - if you don't have the ID.

Yup, they have specific requirements. Different states have different rules for ID, polling times, absentee voting, etc. What is the news?

You might do better if you go back and re-read everything I wrote.

Why? You keep repeating the same arguments without actually considering their place in the larger system.

Unless of course you are just a troll paid to insult intelligent people (or worse, doing it for fun)

And there is where we know I've won... you assume I'm trolling vs arguing against your nonsense while using a fun bit of rhetoric along the way.

Oh and finally, your huge attempt to pretend this is all about race basically proves that no you do not care about anything EXCEPT racism.

I'm confused... you claim I'm pretending this is all about race... but I don't really care about anything but race? How exactly does that work? More so... how exactly do you know just how I'm thinking? What if... you are wrong about more than just that?

Or is it just a battle against out of state college students? I don't often hear that argument on the evening news or from lawyers who are fighting against voter ID laws... they tend to be the ones who scream racism.

You yourself implied that you think the "lazy/stupid/poor" should not be able to vote.

Wait... I thought you said 'finally' above... still more?

Oh that's a good one! You accuse me of not reading/comprehending what you said... and yet you have this good nugget. I use that line as a rhetorical play against those who claim it is all about race who simultaneously are practicing the soft bigotry of lowered expectations.

Which happens to be the most Un-american of ideas

Agreed... any other arguments you wish to try to straw-man me with?

The Supreme Court found that when some piece of shit tries to prevent the 'lazy/stupid/poor" from voting, it is racist.

Odd, note how you didn't mention it only applying to a given race? Perhaps there is something you aren't saying...

SCOTUS found in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, that attempts to weed out the "lazy/stupid/poor" were violations of the 14th Amendment of the United States of America.

There it is! In fact Harper had to do with poll taxes, not racism. Damn that 24th amendment and textual evidence!

In other words, yes, the very things you are claiming are not racist, the Supreme Court of the US declared to be racist

By 'in other words' I think you mean "assuming we find meaning from words I've referenced but don't actually understand"... you are right. Alas, you aren't in fact. I can find no words in the ruling to support your claim about it, in fact just the opposite. It says. Would you like to try?

In the mean time it's worth noting that in 2014 SCOTUS allowed the Texas law to go forward, but did block a Wisconsin law... so racist in WI but not in TX? Maybe there is something more than race at place?

Comment Re:Meet the new guy (Score 2) 393

It is entirely within the realm of possibility for a policy to not have racist intent and still have a racist result.

I think you need to look up the meaning of 'racist'

(Though in this particular case, there is certainly the appearance of intent.)

In such a ridiculous hypothetical yes... but it is just that, a non-existent hypothetical.

Let's assume that only one of the qualities you list can present an impediment.

So skin color is automatically an impediment? Still waiting to see/how/where that is to getting a voter id.

If blacks are on average more poor than non-blacks, is it possible that this is a result of racism?

It's possible, but I'm still waiting to see an explicit example of that being the case across the board.


Citation? And yet that apparently only applies to blacks? How then do we account for those who are not in fact poor? No one was racist enough to them?

The whole voter fraud problem is itself a fraud.

Tell you what... turn off most of the logging on your server, disable most of the firewall rules and publish the IP address of it publically... I assure you any rumors of it getting hacked are just a rumor as you've got no concrete evidence of it happening... because you lack the tools to identify such actions.