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


Forgot your password?
Back for a limited time - Get 15% off sitewide on Slashdot Deals with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re:Nonsense law still can't be ignored (Score 2) 157

This is particularly bad in consideration of the fact the the (right wing of) Supreme Court has severely weakened the 'Fruit of the Poisoned Tree' Doctrine.

I obtained this evidence illegally, but this evidence pointed to evidence I could have found legally, can I use *this* Evidence?

The answer used to be a flat 'No'. However Several cases of late have shift that to a 'Well, did you have a good faith belief it was obtained legally?' (Because it turns out Ignorance of the Law *is* an excuse, if you're a professional! Only Amateurs can be held liable for not knowing the law!). Indeed, even the illegally obtained evidence itself can be introduced now, as long as there was 'Good Faith'.

To Paraphrase J.R. Ewing: 'Good Faith', if you can fake that, you've got it made!


Comment Well that was esoteric (Score 1) 250

Whatinthehell did I just read?

I've reread that post three times, and although I think he came down in favor of the GPL, that doesn't actually match what little I could get out of the meandering stream of consciousness of that post.

Why is that here?

Comment Re:Perspective (Score 1) 277

Horrible policies like listening to scientists, letting people control their own bodies, keeping the government out of the bedroom, and providing better healthcare to more people for less money.

What horrors will they visit upon us next!


Comment Re:Perspective (Score 1) 277

Frankly in my experience Politifact is annoyingly biased in their ratings, against liberals.

You may or may not agree with their articles - I usually *do* agree with the written article. But they will *happily* rate a liberal 'false' because their review shows that 'Yes it's true, but they left this or that context out, didn't mention this exception, yadda yadda' and then do backflips rating a conservative 'halftrue' when the article clearly shows it's not true at all, but 'if you consider that maybe they meant this esoteric way they might have meant it . . .'

I think it's because if they didn't grade on a curve, no conservative would ever read any of these fact-check sites, but my God is it annoying to watch liberals get bounced down one or two stars for minor mistakes, then watch them hem and haw and rate something half-true because there's is some esoteric 13th century use of a word that a conservative *might* have meant.

Our liberal media bias in action!


Comment Re:Questionable (Score 1) 277

"Trusted newsman" is going a bit far. The problem I have with political comedy is that, to be funny, it has to take an idea to the extreme, which means everything turns into a strawman argument, reinforcing the tribal polarisation of political discourse.

Actually, while TDS certainly indulged in fallacies on occasion, the Straw Man argument, e.g. actually misrepresenting the argument someone is making, was something I thought they did a very good job of dodging over the years.

Probably less 'journalistic ethics' than that Straw men don't actually get laughs.


Intel CPUs are not defective, they just act that way. -- Henry Spencer