Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re: Militia ? (Score 1) 336

But generally when an armed group takes over a building that is owned by the government it is generally called terrorism, yes.

No, it's not. You're a fucking moron for thinking so.

Terrorism involves killing people. Specifically, it involves killing *random* people. Occupying a building is not terrorism, it is civil disobedience. Unless they were planning on renaming the place the Alamo and fighting until the very last man, there is no conceivable way you can believe this to actually be terrorism, and advocating for it to be called that is a disgusting injustice where you are literally calling for the state to murder your fellow citizens. Considering they were arrested peaceably, this doesn't seem to have been the case.

It's even more astonishing that you would quote the UN (???????) with a definition which plainly does not fit what they were doing and definitions for a law regarding the

Requirement of annual country reports on terrorism

. How is that even relevant? You don't know the law, you don't know what words mean, and you don't seem to have a sensible grasp on what justice is or should be. What exactly do you know?

Here is a more relevant definition of terrorism (which also plainly does not fit): https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/i...

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

18 U.S.C. 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:

Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).

Anyone who thinks these people are TERRORISTS needs to have their brain adjusted. Mexican cartels murdering judges or leaving decapitated bodies laying around is a good example of violent coercion and intimidation and could only arguably be considered terrorist organizations. These people certainly have not been. The kind of fucking retard logic displayed here could categorize black sit-ins in the 1960s as being terrorist actions. It's insanity.

Comment Re:News for Nerds? (Score 1) 146

Well, I guess we could discuss the possible reasons why their speakers aren't loud enough? That's nerdy, right?

Please don't unfairly criticize the skills of our engineering brethren stuck in North Korea. It has nothing to do with lack of electricity, or proper materials, or whatever.

It's because the inverse-square law dictates that the South Koreans broadcasting propaganda to the North must broadcast at a much greater volume than the North Koreans broadcasting propaganda to the North Koreans need to do.

Comment Re:42 year old dies and nobody asks why? (Score 1) 464

Or maybe, he died of a brain bleed or brain swelling brought on by being roughed up my the cops. Or maybe, the cops went to his house and put him out of their misery to shut him up There are lots of possibilities. Everyone should demand a thorough investigation by an independent (from the SFPD) investigator.

It's possible, sure. But you're 100% wrong that "everyone" should demand a thorough investigation. Everyone should be following the wishes of his family here, whether that be them demanding a thorough investigation or whether it means they want to remember him as the good, productive, inspiring man that he was for decades before his suicide.

His family has more reason to see this investigated than anyone, so if they are content in believing it was an unsuspicious suicide, which is what it sounds like, then you probably should be too.

reply to AC below:

Nobody is suggesting his family murdered him.

People are suggesting that his family is partaking in the cover up by not demanding an investigation and "whitewashing" the announcements of his death. To suggest that they would do this for anything other than benign reasons absolutely is suggesting that they were involved in, complicit with, or are helping to cover up his murder. It's insane and incredibly disrespectful both to him and to his family.

Comment Re:42 year old dies and nobody asks why? (Score 1) 464

He threatened to kill himself. And then he threatened to kill himself again because his "career was over".

While successful criminal charges may be life-changing, they are not automatically an end to your career, especially not a unique and special one as Mr. Murdock had. His career was one which he created for himself, which he was the main driving force of, and which was based on his accomplishments and reputation in the Linux and Open Source communities where it was basically unassailable, as should be obvious from a lot of the replies about his death.

There's a drastic leap of logic here needed to believe any of this to be true.

You think assaulting an officer is a trivial crime?

Well, instead of just emotionally asserting "facts", as you seem to want to do, let's take a look and see how serious it is. A quick google search reveals that:

Battery on a peace / police officer is typically a misdemeanor in California law. The potential penalties are up to one (1) year in county jail, and/or a fine of up to two thousand dollars ($2,000).4

But if the battery causes an injury requiring medical treatment, then this crime becomes a wobbler (that is, a crime that may be charged as a misdemeanor or a California felony).

If it is charged as a felony, battery on a peace officer carries a potential sentence of sixteen (16) months, two (2) or three (3) years in county jail, and/or a fine of up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000).5

Seeing as no police required medical treatment, and that the description of his arrest(s) and treatment don't seem to be out of the ordinary, he wasn't likely to be charged with a felony and wasn't likely to see jailtime. Considering he was in good standing with the community and had no prior arrests (?), he was probably going to receive IF FOUND GUILTY some combination of probation, fines, community service, or mental health treatment. Do you consider that to be "serious"? Or worth taking your life over?

The entire argument against this being anything other than a tragic suicide rests on making up "facts" and emotionally appealing to the state being able to do anything it wants, with the proof being the same thing as the question in the first place: that they just murdered Ian Murdock and are conspiring with his family members to cover it up.

I'm going to go with option (b) here, which is that his family desires privacy because he tragically took his own life in a way that never needed to happen and they don't want to drag his name through the mud. His family has more reasons than anybody to pursue the truth here.

Comment Re:Circumstances surrounding his death disturbing (Score 1) 464

he probably suffered torture at the hand of police.

Torture? He didn't even suggest that. It sounds like he was arrested against his will. He suggested that the arrest was unnecessary or illegal, not that there was torture.

It's certainly fair to ask why, but presumably his family has done that or feels it is unnecessary because the why is already obvious. I'd rather not see his decades of effort bettering society being minimized if he had some kind of substance abuse or emotional issues and ended up taking his own life.

Comment Re:42 year old dies and nobody asks why? (Score 2) 464

No, there is every reason to honor their wishes. His family presumably wants privacy because they don't want to see anyone's memory of him be tarnished, and most likely that's because he obviously committed suicide in a non-suspicious manner after having some kind of mental breakdown. Which may have been the culmination of some kind of ongoing series of mental breakdowns that they'd rather not have him be remembered by.

The guy threatened suicide, and ranted about the police, and then stated that "my career is over now, so I'll be gone soon". It's fucking idiotic to suggest that the family is in on a police coverup of his murder or whatever the fuck crazy ideas people are having all because they might inherit some dollars, or that they're threatened, or that they just feel so terrible about him being murdered that they don't want to ever think about it again.

The guy's last wish was to kill himself. I wish it hadn't happened, because he did a hell of a lot for Linux. Doing a little bit for his wife and kids and family in return is the least anyone could do. Go fuck yourself if you're some kind of conspiratorial moron who would use his name to feed your fantasies without a SINGLE piece of evidence otherwise.

Comment Re:Evaluation bubble (Score 1) 54

http://quotes.wsj.com/TWTR

volume of 8,107,527 today as I write this, meaning 8 million have exchanged hands just today.

That's what makes it public - what an IPO does - is that the shares are all theoretically publicly available. There's no extra secret stock going on here. It's not an extrapolated value because an angel investor dropped $10 million into a startup. It's the public stock price, which people are openly paying millions of times daily, multiplied by the number of public shares which people own and could sell if they wanted to.

If twitter really did dump almost 700M shares on the market it's unlikely they could sell them.

of course, it would likely drop. But they're not all owned by twitter. Twitter could issue more stock, or can pay its employees with stock, or whatever, and those would all negatively impact the share price. People who already owned shares would still own the same dollar value, but they might end up with more stock, like in a stock split.

But that's not the point, because people aren't doing that, and aren't willing to do that. Until people are literally willing to give away shares of twitter, twitter is actually worth a fuckton of money.

Comment Re:Evaluation bubble (Score 1) 54

True for some startups, but twitter's market cap is $19B. It's a publicly listed company with 676,300,000 shares outstanding which are being bought and sold for $28.17 each.

$28.17 x 676,300,000 = $19,051,371,000

Until people want to start literally giving away twitter shares, it's *actually* worth a fuckton of money.

Comment Re:Bottom line (Score 1) 86

like apple, they have encryption on the phone that apple cant crack

If Apple can't unencrypt it on the phones, then they can't unencrypt it ever.

but when that message\data is passed\synced through apples servers they can allow other access to it

When the phone owner unencrypts his unencryptable data and sends that in an unencrypted message through Apple's servers, then Apple has the unencrypted data.

Comment Re:Leave it to idiots.. (Score 1) 241

Per Clarke - it was already too late to stop it. Nothing that could have been done based upon information available and recommendations/intelligence from the Clinton Administration.

You're completely misreading this testimony. It's not a question about if anything could have been done to prevent 9/11, it's a question of whether killing or capturing bin Laden would have prevented 9/11. Why would a hypothetical drone strike on OBL in July of 2001 have stopped 9/11 if the plan was already in progress and the hijackers were already in the US? What does that have to do with anything?

It was only "too late" to prevent it in January 2001 if you think killing Osama bin Laden is the only possible thing that could have been done to stop the hijackings, unlike, say, arresting or killing the hijackers themselves, which would have assuredly stopped them from hijacking airplanes.

Comment Re:Trump vs Clinton -- Whats different for voters (Score 0) 102

live in Denmark, you know, among one of the first democratic countries in the world (besides the original democracy Greece), and our feet crumble when we see and hear the US talk about human rights, equal rights, and your so called democracy (which is a republic which is not a democracy which many people in and form the US claims).

This is the dumbest thing people talk about. A republic is not democratic? Spoken by a poster who hails to his king (queen), baby?

The US is a liberal democracy. It is THE liberal democracy. Calling it "not a democracy" is fucking retarded. You're a poster living in a kingdom claiming that his democracy is one of the oldest in the world despite it actually being a monarchy and almost a century younger than the USA. Sure thing, guy!

I'm just going to go on with the rest of my day thinking that democracy must have some otherworldly meaning in Danish than it does in English because your post is full of things that have nothing to do with democratic values.

Slashdot Top Deals

We all like praise, but a hike in our pay is the best kind of ways.

Working...