Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:War on Whistleblowers (Score 2) 468 468

To clarify this the phone metadata was not declared unconstitutional, but illegal. There is a difference between the two. Furthermore the court deferred judgement based on the actions of congress who where debating reform to the patriot act at the time.

Secondly whether or not Snowden revealed illegality within the Federal Government's behavior is irrelevant. He is being tried under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which does not allow the defendant to use wistleblowing as a defense. What this means is that he will be tried only on whether or not he released the documents which no one is disputing. Any trial he faces in the United States will be a kangaroo court, and his only hope of winning will be on a jury nullification or a presidential pardon after the fact.

Comment Re:Jury Nullification (Score 5, Insightful) 468 468

Basically a kangaroo court. Under FISA he is not allowed to use wistleblowing as a defense. Meaning even if he revealed illegal behavior in the federal governments he can't argue that as a defense. He will be tried only on whether or not he released the documents, which no one disputes, and will be put away for the rest of his life.

The entire system is rigged to put him away in a safe, dark, and silent cell where he won't embarrass anymore powerful people.

Comment Re:The root of the problem. (Score 1) 398 398

There was a story on /. a while ago about a university that managed to achieve full gender parity by refocusing all of their CS curriculum around social issues. Sorry I don't have time to find the link, but trying to query anything related to gender and CS gives and unbelievable amount of crap.

Comment Re:This Social Justice fad ought to be over soon. (Score 2) 398 398

Comparing early advocates for social change and progressive policies with the current group typically associated with "Social Justice" is a bit like saying that African Americans should still be voting Republican.

How has 50 years of voting exclusively for Democratic candidates been working out for the African American community?

In fairness how well has voting for any party been working for anyone in the last 50 years?

Comment Re:This Social Justice fad ought to be over soon. (Score 1) 398 398

It's got nothing to do with numbers. The only time they are useful is for comparisons over time, to show if the number of women and minorities is rising or falling. For example, the proportion of women used to be higher, but it's been declining for 15 years now.

Its got nothing to do with the numbers huh? Then whats with the numbers that you just quoted? If the numbers don't matter then the numbers that you just quoted also don't matter, Unless of course the numbers only matter when they agree with your chose stance? Lets have a fact based, data driven argument like adults here, please.

Of course if the numbers do matter then I can point out that correlation does not indicate causation, and the decline in women in coding could just as easily be because when coding was first becoming a profession it was one of the few legitimate and rewarding careers that were available to women. Further there is ample evidence to suggest that women prefer to be employed in positions that are socially beneficial, and supporting an enterprise java application my not be what excites that demographic.

Comment Re:For an alternative (Score 1) 581 581

You are right that in terms of boards for certain topic Reddit does not have monopoly, but that is not the only way the censorship happens. When you provide a forum for discussion as open as Reddit, and then in the midst of a discussion you actively prevent only a certain subset of stakeholders from making their point (through stuff like shadowbans) then I'm sorry, but that is censorship.

Whether you stop someone from speaking with a gun to their head or by denying them to speak on the only relevant platform for discussion, the result is the same: potentially relevant ideas that are not popular with the controlling entity are suppressed and group think is perpetuated. Being denied the ability to be heard by potentially interested parties is just as damaging as being denied the ability to speak.

Also, in your response please refrain from attempting to associate me with racism or child pornography in an attempt to discredit my points as you did with the previous poster.

Comment Re:For an alternative (Score 3, Informative) 581 581

No the point is that some shitty behavior is not relevant to issues at hand. Yes, Benjamin Franklin loved his prostitutes, but that didn't make him any less of a brilliant inventor and leader.

The question that needs to be answered isn't how to stop people from being shitty, but when does being a shitty person begin to infringe on the rights of others. Take a few examples: In scenario 1 someone calls me an asshole. Certainly if said with n provocation that is a shitty statement to make, but it doesn't infringe on my rights in any way. Even if that person calls me an asshole I do not have to change my way of going about my life to accommodate their behavior.

In scenario 2 an anonymous individual on the internet tells me that they will feed me feet first through a wood chipper. Without any other supporting statements this still does not infringe upon my rights because by itself it is not a credible statement. despite being a shitty thing to say it is indistinguishable from basic hyperbole, and doesn't require me to change my life style.

In Scenario 3 some tells me that they will be waiting out side my house (providing a specific address) with a gun on xxx date at xxx time. THIS is where my rights are infringed because the threat is credible. It has tangible specifics about time and location, and assuming the threat resulted from a heated discussion (not a far fetched idea on the internet) there is motive. A threat like this is when I have to legitimately change my behavior to accommodate their speech out of fear for my well being.

As for shitty behavior in general, why should we be outraged? Are you or I under any obligation to listen to them? Of course not. They are free to speak, and we are free to ignore them, as long as their speech does not infringe upon our own rights.

I had never heard of r/FPH/ before this fiasco, and out of curiosity I went to check it out. Needless to say most people are right when they said the place was truly a den for some of the shittiest people imaginable, but that didn't matter because no matter how hard I looked I couldn't find a instance where the rights of others were being violated. The site shames fat people. I'm sorry but an individual being ashamed of being called fat is not and infringement of their rights no more than it is infringing on someones rights if I call them an asshole. You don't have a right to not be offended, and you are not obligated to be outraged at the words of shitty people.

Comment Re:Seems Reasonable (Score 2) 363 363

Honestly this seems like perfectly reasonable user feedback concerning a use case that was not considered by the developers. It is the natural process of software development.

The addition fewer left turns may also have a help on traffic for NY. Quite often traffic will pile up in turn lanes on two way streets until the turning traffic blocks the normal lanes. If there are more right turns it could prevent buildup of traffic at red lights.

Also another change worth considering in large cities: have an option to set the destination of your directions to the nearest available public parking. It is quite frustrating whenever you find the place you want to be only to discover that you will have to circle the blocks looking for a place to park.

Comment Re:Victory for common sense! (Score 1) 91 91

I actually think that this is a wise decision considering the people he is dealing with. He knows that Malibu is willing to ignore judicial instructions concerning the identities of individuals involved in the lawsuit, and it's not like the reasons given in his rebuttal from the article are wrong. If anything this feels like he is covering his bases to limit the appeal opportunities for Malibu. Remember if he holds Malibu in contempt then they can appeal, and go judge shopping. This way he can keep them locked in and force them to play by the rules. Furthermore he can't act too rashly in coming down for their sleezy behavior because it once again gives them a reason to site for an appeal if they can show that the judge was prejudiced against their case.

Comment Re:Victory for common sense! (Score 1) 91 91

The real reason that the judge is coming down on them is there behavior during the precedings. Malibu Media has been known to drop the names of the people they are suing in relation to their preferences in pornography as a shaming tactic to force the party into a settlement. The judge new about this tactic an before the trial began ordered Malibu Media not to disclose the names of any defendants. Malibu Media ignored the order and dropped the names that they had anyway which royally pissed off the judge. There is a letter somewhere where the judge basically says "What the fuck is this shit?" in legalese before giving them a period to explain themselves. I never followed through on what Malibu's response was, but my guess was nothing compelling.

Someone in the legal profession does not simply ignore the direct instructions of a judge.

The brain is a wonderful organ; it starts working the moment you get up in the morning, and does not stop until you get to work.

Working...