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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: In other words (Score 1) 318 318

A few months back, while visiting my parents(and spending three week with them), my mother and I started "binge watching" Hulu. About an hour after we started, my sister, her husband, and my niece came over and joined in watching various shows. After approximately four hours, I had to different commercials "seared" into my brain. One was Hulu's "You Know You Wanna" commercial(s)(I guess there is more than one, but the same exact version played on each show, and at each break, I know I wanna beat the shit out of the person that created that commercial, then thought it should be played on every fucking break, during every fucking video), set to a song titled "Electric Love"(the course makes the title obvious). The other commercial "starred" some ugly "fatty", talking about a "serious condition, called, and I shit you not, B.E.D.(Binge Eating Disorder, because, fuck, we need to refer to real and/or imagined medical conditions by acronyms, not words). After those four irritating, mind fucking hours, I start bashing death metal music during Hulu's own commercial, and started to berate the ugly fatty, telling her to put down the cream puffs, HoHo, and hotdogs, get her ass out of bed(goddamn, that acronym is just fully of hilarious ironies). I starting to think someone at Hulu was fucking with us.

Point is, that shit alone is why my Hulu Plus(or Hulu+, or whatever it's "official title is) account has been canceled, and why, if Netflix starts putting ads anywhere before, within, or at the end of any served streaming videos, I will also cancel my Netflix account(or, rather, stop paying for it). I am not going to pay because Netflix failed to negotiate an acceptable deal, which let Netflix avoid serving commercials to end users, or increasing recurring fees(I realize that last point is of no concern to the discussion at hand, but that is the second reason that will lead me to cancel my Netflix account).

Why do more and more companies believe they have the right to make us sit through forced commercials, after we have paid an agreed to fee to access whatever content or service that was purchased? The point of commercials and other advertisements is to offset the loss of a payment( or payments, if the service is recurring over a specified time, and set as an "all you can consume"-style service) directly from the content consumer(s), but having advertiser(s) pay for the consumers' content, and reach whatever intent audience the advertiser(s) want(i.e free content for watching ads, or viewing static ad banners, screens, headers, etc).

Comment Re:Privacy? (Score 2) 776 776

One of those listed crimes isn't in the same "class" as the other crimes you listed. Murder, assault, theft, and similar crimes(essentially, crimes committed by humans, against other humans) are known as malum in se violation or crimes, which means the criminal act, or acts, are inherently wrong(or wrong in and of itself, regardless of social beliefs). "Drug peddling" is an act of malum prohibitum, which means that the alleged "criminal act" is wrong because society(as well as established and existing law) states it is wrong. There are, by far, exceedingly more "malum prohibitum"-based laws that exists and are enforced, than "malum in se"-based laws. That is just one of the many disgusting ways that the metaphorical "screws" are put to more and more people, and how more and more "criminals" are created each day.

I am vehemently against the vast majority of existing "malum prohibitum" laws in existence, both in the US and all the states, as well as across our planet's political subdivisions, or nations. Far to many people are now criminals, felons in fact, where, not a few years are decades said "criminals" were and would have continued to be "law abiding citizens". The "law" never was, or never should be used to define each portion and moment of a person's life; it exists to segregate and severely punish those that would seek to, or are currently engaging in an act, or acts harm another person, or group of people.

The ugly truth that those that wish to continue the current march away from why the United States was created, and towards oppression though legislation, refuse to admit to and see is that we all, at many points in our lives, and likely every day, commit an act, or acts, which legislation deems a crime. As such, there are no "law-abiding citizens, and the law has become a farce. Given that the courts claim that "ignorance is no excuse", and that people are ignorant of vast majority of criminal laws which don't govern acts against another person, it's not surprising the "state" we are in.

People need to accept that the current situation(actually, the problem) that exists(creating new crimes and criminals) will only become worse, if it isn't stopped, and the problem addressed and fixed.

Comment Re:And when capped internet comes then people will (Score 1) 286 286

That's "funny", seeing as I, and many others in the county I live in, still don't have any internet access. Save for either a supreme ripoff from Verizon Wireless(when there is coverage, which not everyone has), AT&T has even less wireless coverage, with neither AT&T and whatever company supposedly offer cable services(TV and some internet, though most aren't sure if our provider is Comcast or Charter) offering wireline internet access to the vast majority of the county residents within which I reside. Satellite is equally as useless, expensive, even less useful, and there are still waiting list for a super "late 1990-style internet connection". Yeah, fun times.

Did I mention that I live in the rather meaningless "Metro Atlanta Area"? One irony being that there is probably many areas around some actual "middle of nowhere, far past "BFE"" places in Africa that not only have internet access, but rather fast internet access. Though, those same areas probably don't have much, if any of the far more important services and utilities.

At this point, the house my wife and I built, own(outright; we don't owe a cent to a bank, and never have. We built our house with our own money), and have lived in for 10 years(the house was finished at the end of July 2005) will probably never see internet access. There are probably some loading coils still on our POTS lines that will soon be protected as "important national artifacts".

Comment Re:A sane supreme court decision? (Score 4, Informative) 409 409

You have no idea what "Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion"(RAS from this point forward) is, and how it came about. Terry v. Ohio(1968) is the case you would want to research, and how "Terry Frisks" came to be an exception(to which I don't completely agree with, based on court reasoning, and the rather plain language within the US Constitution(not so much for US or state law). No matter, probable cause is still absolutely required to initiate a "stop" or "temporary detention"(i.e. traffic stops, "Tier 2" encounters). A situation being "fishy" doesn't provide "RAS".

You are also wrong on searches. Absent "exigent circumstances"(say, gunshots and someone screaming "don't kill me" from within a structure), a search requires a warrant, based on probable cause, which specifies the items, or items, and specific places to be searched. The "Terry Frisk" is an exception, which requires RAS that one, or multiple potential suspects have just committed, are currently committing, or will soon be committing a criminal act, based on training and/or experience, and such a "search" is limited to "patting down" the outer clothing of any subject that qualifies.

I should also add that a traffic stop requires probable cause to effect. In other words, I can't initiate a traffic stop because some "asshole" didn't present or return a friendly gesture(wave at me, or wave back at me), or because I see an attractive female in a "rough neighborhood". Traffic stops are initiated because I, as a law enforcement officer, or another certified and sworn law enforcement officer personally witnessed the target of said traffic stop violate the portion of state law that applied to violations of traffic law(in the State of Georgia, that would be Title 40 of the O.C.G.A., or "Official Code of Georgia Annotated"). I can't intelligently comment on states outside of the Southeastern United States, but in Georgia, specifically, a citizen cannot legally witness an alleged traffic law violation, report said violation, and have that report be sufficient to provide probable cause to initiate a stop, or effect an arrest(outside of an extreme few violations, which cover the intentional loss of life, loss of life during the commission on another offense, etc). A law enforcement officer must personally witness, or have a verified third-party certified and sworn law enforcement officer(Georgia law enforcement-only, and said law enforcement must have a certification in good standing with the Georgia POST Council, which oversees all law enforcement certification on both the State(Georgia) and local level).

This isn't a completely comprehensive commentary on the subject. I hold a certification from the State of Georgia's POST Council(Peace Officer's Standards and Training Council), among numerous other certifications and recorded training. I am an ex-law enforcement officer, and I keep myself up-to-date on current training, case law, and other important information, as it pertains to law enforcement.

I am also happy to see this ruling, as it was long overdue. I am grown tired of this, among other problems, within the law enforcement field.

Comment Re:Fighting immigration fraudsters? Really? (Score 0) 104 104

The two ironies, the last being a rather massive one, is: 1.) US law enforcement isn't a part, in any fucking way, the US Military. 2.) US law enforcement has a legal and US Constitutional requirement to follow and respect US law and the US Constitution. As an important attachment to that requirement, law enforcement in the United States is required to disregard any illegal "orders", which is exactly what I was taught during education, and when I entered into the law enforcement field.

In short, Obama has "lost" his goddamned mind. US law enforcement should seek charges against his ass, of which, it seems, he really wants to happen. If not, then why is he acting like such an asshole?

Hey, outside of the US Military, which organizations have the most organized manpower and firepower/ordinance? Yeah, law enforcement. That isn't a good organization(in part, or as a whole) to threaten, especially when that asshole(Obama) doesn't have authority over the vast majority of the people inside the various law enforcement organizations(outside movies, TV shows, and other entertainment avenues, which all have it wrong, the US Government has no authority over state and local law enforcement. Local and state law enforcement is governed by the states alone, with the local governments sharing(at best) said authority with their respective state, along with major state oversight of local law enforcement. Hence the reason law enforcement certification and training is a state-level matter, or tightly governed by each state, and why each state, legally, is a "sovereign" entities, equal with the US.).

Comment Re:Need competition out in the sticks too (Score 1) 417 417

I live in a rural area myself( in Haralson County, Georgia). Our only real option for internet? Verizon Wireless. Ironically, we had to get a data device so that my wife could work from home, which AT&T Wireless required of those in her position(though, I know many others work from home, too). You might ask, "why didn't you get a AT&T Wireless data device?" Yeah, Hell no! Back then, just before Verizon Wireless switched the nearby towers to LTE, AT&T was still EDGE-only. That and the coverage gap was, and still is, ridiculous and horrid.

My wife and I built a house together, which sits on 10 acres of land, surrounded by hundreds of acres more of land her family still owns. Regardless, there are far more people that live just on our road that most people I have ever discussed this issue realize, which tends to confuse them as to why AT&T doesn't offer Uverse, or even a low-end, "good luck getting it to work" DSL plan. This summer will be 10 years since we built our home, and I couldn't be happier, save for being ripped off by one company (Verizon Wireless), and completely ignored by another(which employs my wife, AT&T Wireless).

What do I mean by "ripped off"? Well, at $80 a month, for 10 GB of data usage, plus $10(all in USD, to be clear) per 1 GB over the allotted 10 GB. Oh, and I never got to enjoy the fucking luxury of paying "only" $80 a month. On average, we were paying $1200 to Verizon Wireless, for far less fucking data usage, on average(usage per month, stats that are now, at the very least, to years old), for a home with 2(possibly 2 to 4 occupants; I can't recall, at the moment, how the number broke down on that part) occupants. Our monthly Verizon Bill was never below $1,000 a month, and very little(a few hit of Slashdot, and a couple of emals...maybe) was actually utilized towards our own enjoyment.

Our telephone number's NPA-NXX originates from one of the small towns in our county(Tallapoosa, GA), but, apparently, our physical line originates from a central office in another town(Buchanan, GA). Tallapoosa has had Uverse available for a couple of years, at least, and Buchanan only has, last I checked, DSL available. Though, even if we weren't just over four miles from two of the three central offices in Haralson County, the load coils that still exist on the telephone lines out here(this according to a line tech I talked to, while he was out here working around two years ago) makes the discussion rather academic, at best.

This whole damn mess has pushed me seriously consider taking matters into my own hands. I am going to get a second SDR board(I have one transceiver board already), and setup a point-to-point solution myself. If the FCC doesn't like it, the whole agency can fuck off. Those assholes avoided handling the situation, and has lead us(my wife and I) and a number of others to chip in a support a few Verizon executive's cocaine and hooker habit(while I say that in jest, it isn't funny that I have been paying what amounts to a rather nice motor vehicle loan payment...for fucking internet access).

I would add that the states are co-equal to the US government, and are both sovereign entities(in the legal since; no government entity in the United States, on any level, has any rights whatsoever. Said entities only have limited authority, given by the citizenry. Legal sovereignty assists in protecting each side, especially the states, from being dissolved by force or legislative fiat. Local(city, county, or a combination of both) governments have no such powers(that is authorities, not rights), and exist solely because the state allows them to exist(save a small number of exceptions).

I say all of that to say that the states need to tell all within the US Government to stop reaching into state matters, or attempting to obtain more unauthorized power. I mean, those guys keep screwing up as it is; more power will only make things worse.

Comment Re:Weather is NOT climate (Score 1) 567 567

Why would someone be "concerned" about a "tomado"(I take it that you mean "tornado"?), when "weather is not("NOT", for, I guess, "dramatic effect"?) climate"? I guess "weather" is only "climate" when the data is favorable to your views. If I am incorrect, then please correct my view of your statement.

Comment Steal/Access(without authority) motor vehicles... (Score 1) 131 131

...with a piece of paper? Unless there are secondary and tertiary sensors to verify the person in the vehicle belongs to the "authorized face", then this "security measure" is more "security theater". To add to this posted thought, I have to wonder if there are more nefarious plans for this technology(either desensitization to having cameras watching each individuals every moment of their lives), or if this is some uneducated idea from someone/multiple people in the Ford marketing department, who believe that cameras(or all electronic sensors) are infallible sensors.

This idea is almost as bad a biometric sensors on a firearm. This is just another point of failure on a critical tools used everyday, by millions of people. While I am well aware that movies are for entertainment, and are full of inaccurate depictions of technology(as well as many other aspect of the real world), I think back to a recent movie: Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Yes, the technology used by Nick Fury, during the vehicle chase from the faux police is mostly, if not completely possible, but even the made-up system wasn't without a few inserted flaws("Reboot, damn it", while Nick Fury's SUV was getting raped by a pneumatic battering ram, on a stabilized stand). Again, I know that was a fictional system, as a system failure would most likely be more catastrophic, and the system reboot would probably taken far longer(if successful at all).

This doesn't even begin to focus on the implications of privacy invasions with yet more network camera sensors. How long until some random corporation employee or government employee starts posting videos of sexual encounters engaged in front of entertainment equipment, or other electronics with camera sensors installed, which the couple, or group(yeah, whatever makes you happy, as long as you aren't harming anyone...or embarrassing yourself), when said people believed(rather naively, as one should never assume negative functionality of any device in his or her possession) the equipment in question was in a non-functioning state and not transmitting data. You know, because playing "electronic peeping tom" will stop "terrorist" activity.

Yeah, technology will make us all "Kim Kardashians", or the target of humor, based on the "sex lives" others consider the source of good and effective, but disparaging jokes. I know a lot of what I have posted is, for now, based on long odds. That doesn't mean those odds won't change in the near future, and for the worst.

Comment Re:Gun nuts (Score 1) 1374 1374

Correct, the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution applies the "Bill of Rights", among other legal protections, to all citizens and equally binds the US Government, and various state governments from infringing on the protected rights(though that has been violates a numbers of times). See Mcdonald v Chicago for the US Supreme Court finally clarifying what I, and many others already knew: The Second Amendment applies to the states, just like the other "Bill of Rights" already do.

There are a number of states that restrict local(city, county, etc) governments from enacting firearm restrictions through state constitutional restrictions. Georgia(the state I live in), does this, but specifically restricting firearm laws to the General Assembly. Though, the Georgia General Assembly(bicameral legislative body in Georgia) is restricted by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

Comment Re:Gun nuts (Score 1) 1374 1374

"Well regulated" doesn't refer to restriction or control; it refers to being well trained, prepared, and equipped, more or less. When interpreting constitutional issues, or other legislative matters(through the courts, usually), how language was used at the time of the passing of any amendment, law, etc, is all that matters. How language is used in society currently means nothing. This is how we protect from the uneducated "busy bodies" from stripping away our rights.

I also feel it's necessary to add that the "Bill of Rights", nor any other legal document, gives us any rights. We have no First Amendment rights, no Second Amendment right, no Fourth Amendment rights, etc. The "Bill of Rights" only serve to protect per-existing rights from legislative(and/or executive/judicial) fiat. The "Bill of Rights" don't enumerate our only rights(individuals do have more rights than are listed); it only serves to protect the rights that the Founders believed government might attempt to modify or completely restrict. I am very thankful for that, as the United States would have been far worse, had it not been for the US Constitution, the "Bill of Rights", and the succeeding amendments.

One large issue is getting individuals to stand up and protect their rights. That is something only we citizens can do, not some arbitrary governing body.

Comment Re:Uh... (Score 1) 461 461

Again, probable cause is required to initiate a traffic stop. Do you even understand the difference between "probable cause" and "reasonable, articulable suspicion"(RAS)? Further more, some random person making unsubstantiated claims to a law enforcement officer doesn't come close to RAS, nor probable cause. That is call hearsay, gossip, and a waste of time. If a law enforcement officer uses that to initiate a detention, it's called a "violation of right under color of law", among other serious offenses.

Comment Re:Uh... (Score 1) 461 461

Probable cause is still required to initiate a traffic stop. No matter what is claimed today, "reasonable-articulable suspicion"(RAS) requires an officer personally observe acts or other behavior to initiate a "Terry Stop". RAS doesn't allow for general traffic stops; probable cause is required to initiate a traffic stop. At best, if a call is received an law enforcement find the vehicle which was alleged to have committed some claimed "wrong", the law enforcement would need to follow and observe the driver, witness a violation, and initiate a traffic stop.

In many states, traffic violations aren't enforceable by non-law enforcement. That is the case in the State of Georgia. That means that a citizen's arrest can't be effected in such instances. A law enforcement officer must observe a violation in order to issue a ticket, or effect an arrest. Though, instances like vehicular manslaughter, such restrictions aren't as heavy, as there is a mixing of traffic law and laws governing crimes against others(malum in se).

Comment J.L. vs Florida? (Score 1) 461 461

If the US Supreme Court actually expects everyone to believe the claim that precedent matter(stare decisis; though the US Supreme Court's exist precedent on quite a few issues ranges from suspect to an outright violation of individual rights.), then how does the Court reason this recent decision against decisions like J.L. v Florida? In fact, how does it rationalize tolerance of law enforcement insert itself in an individual's(or multiple individual's) private affairs, based on the claims of an anonymous source?

I myself am an ex-law enforcement officer, which I have discussed lightly in prior topics. One of the major discussions during more than a few training sessions and private discussions was the taboo of allow law enforcement to initiate a traffic stop(or any similar "detention") based off of an anonymous call to 911. One of many points of contention discussed was a law enforcement officer which was potentially looking for a reason to initiate a detention using a "burner" cellular phone, or one that isn't attached to a service provider, getting a "be on the lookout"(BOLO; a general notification, either over a general radio frequency or posted on a computer-aided dispatch system, concerning a potential issue or possible "criminal activity") notice issued(very easy and far too often a good portion of a given day's radio chatter), and using that as the basis for initiating a stop/detention.

I abhor this decision. Unless there is a verified witness, whom will swear to events he or she claims occurred, then a "BOLO" should, at best, continue to be a tool to alert officers to be vigilant of a potential problem or criminal activity. Though, the onus should continue to be on law enforcement to find probable cause(with more restrictions than exists today, given the far too lax and unconstitutional reasoning created by court fiat), based off of personal or verified third-party(sworn witness('s)) observations and statements, or other legitimate clues.

Comment Re:I for one . . . (Score 1) 1633 1633

Is there plain text in the Constitution that prohibits all imprisonment? I don't know anywhere that it says so. The 13th Amendment even explicitly specifies that involuntary servitude is okay for crime punishment.

The plain text of the Second Amendment gives ALL PEOPLE (not only citizens, not only Americans, not only the law abiding) the right to keep and bear ALL ARMS (not only the ones available when the Amendment was adopted, not only personal arms) at all times in all places with no exceptions. I say that because it does not give any exceptions.

Of course, to say that I have a constitutional right to take a nuclear bomb into a federal courthouse is facially preposterous -- nobody believes the Amendment means that -- which means nobody is actually a 'textualist' in the strict sense because that would be preposterous. Textualists are people who think we should focus much more on the plain text, and do much less interpretation, but even the ones who pretend to be hard-liners really aren't, because none of them will make the claim that convicted homicidal maniacs have a Constitutional right to own nuclear bombs.

Therefore the plain text cannot be used for interpretation. We MUST apply human reason to it. People who say otherwise are, in my opinion, nutters.

I was pointing out the ridiculousness of your previous argument, not stating a fact. Perhaps you would do well with learning to argue, prior to attempting to argue. While that might sound condescending, I can assure you it isn't.

Comment Re:I for one . . . (Score 1) 1633 1633

Give the liberals some credit. The reason the 2nd Amendment is difficult to interpret literally is because the literal reading is absurd. The plain text clearly gives every convicted death row inmate the right to take hydrogen bombs into their high-security prison cells -- because what else does "shall not be infringed" mean?. So, since we can't possibly look to the text to figure out its limits, we pretty much have to find the limits by applying reason -- and reasonable people sometimes disagree.

If your claim were true, then imprisonment would be unconstitutional, across the board. Though, we know that isn't true. People need to stop attempting to apply small portions of an issue to support their argument and start applying the whole issue during a discussion. At the very least, your argument might hold more legitimacy.

How can you do 'New Math' problems with an 'Old Math' mind? -- Charles Schulz