Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Rol..!! (Score 1) 328

> NOBODY should be permitted to assault another except under attack.

There are two injured guards here, which neither party disputes. There are no allegations of injuries sustained by the reporters just yet (they allege that a window and a seat belt were harmed, though).

> The security guards were not likely to be being attacked by the journalists thus the only defensible position is in the journalists favour.

That is contradicted by the injuries sustained by the two guards. Neither party disputes the injuries and the police who have investigated this believed there was sufficient evidence to arrest the reporters for causing those injuries.

The guards may have also done something wrong, but we do not have undisputed evidence of this yet.

Comment Re:Record License Plate Number? (Score 5, Insightful) 328

I agree in part--security people are normally trained to stay out of harm's way and this illustrates exactly why they shouldn't put themselves in harms way for a license plate or to detain someone. But I would also say that:

a) You can't legally just drive over people, even if they're doing something they shouldn't be. It's hard to reconcile the "rock attack" with any part of the stories, other than the collision with the ATV. You can't really hit the driver's window (or cut their seat belt) from behind the car.
b) The fact that they injured multiple people is worrisome. You can say that running over the first guy was an accident, but it's less credible the second time you hit someone and nobody alleges that both injuries were sustained at the same time.
c) We need more facts, especially camera recordings (if any), to see what's going on here, or at least a detailed reconstruction of the scene of the accident. The police should have taken lots of pictures of the state of everything, so it shouldn't be too hard to see where exactly the blood stains, rocks (if any), skid marks, etc. were found.

But just for right now, we have several injured guards and no injured reporters. I don't know about the "rock attack" bit of the story, it doesn't add up yet. So it's certainly possible the guards did something legally wrong, but the two stories disagree and there's no corroborating evidence other than the car itself. We'll know if any evidence is found for the "rock attack" because charges will probably get filed if they can substantiate their claims of being attacked first.

I would tend to reserve judgement until the evidence is presented at trial, but I do see it being problematic that the guards are hurt and the reporters are not and neither side appears to dispute the claim that the reporters caused injury to the guards. If, as they say, they were attacked first, why is it that they are unable to allege any specific bodily injury as a result?

I use the same logic when someone is arrested for "resisting arrest" and the injuries sustained are completely disproportionate (i.e. one party is unhurt and the other party is severely hurt). If you were actually attacked, there should be some evidence of injury. Similarly, when one side tries to flee before the cops arrive--a part of the story that neither side appears to dispute--they become automatically suspect for that very reason.

Comment Re:Don't trust the gov to use good technical solut (Score 1) 470

> Name the lie.

They've changed the story every time they've told us about this server. That's not how it goes when you're being honest.

You've jumped on to point out all the R lies I was talking about. Yes, there were many. Yes, they were bad. But you've jumped into defense mode for the D team here when I'm happy to call out both parties. Maybe we'll be lucky and she won't lie about something like yellowcake or WMD, but I'd rather have someone who might implement actual transparency. Lessig and Sanders might be okay options. The Bushes have not rather bad about this sort of thing, though (see also: WMD). And no, I wasn't fooled by those lies, either, like when they tried to pawn it off on "bad intelligence" (though maybe you could claim it was "bad intelligence," if you're referring to IQ rather than secret agents, but I digress...).

> Clinton asserts no accountability rules were broken

You're worried about the rules, I'm worried that she set up a server to evade oversight. I don't even care if there was a law against it or not, I hate the very purpose for which the server existed--to keep email out of the archives. Now, you do have a good case that Washington accountability is already broken, I actually agree with you there! Both parties are a problem! Yes, the Rs too!

> Like when Palin use Yahoo Mail for official government business, and the Republicans rushed to defend her?

Yup! I don't like that either. I never liked Palin. I voted for Obama that time.

My problem is that people are just going to play team politics here and not let anybody on their team get punished, ever. Every time, we'll hear "they did it too!" (it's true, they did!) and then after a lot of fuss, everyone will still get away with it every time.

Everyone's being played here by both Ds and Rs. I'm sick of seeing the public get played for a fool, and even more sick of seeing it work.

Comment It's a conspiracy (Score 1) 470

That's a good point. Someone else registered (along with, and with the Clintons' home in Chappaqua, New York as the contact address. Then all they had to do was convince a bunch of people like Sidney Blumenthal that it was her email and years later they could create a minor scandal for her, after she'd already lost in the primaries to Obama.

Comment Re:Don't trust the gov to use good technical solut (Score 5, Insightful) 470

> I'm saying she did something stupid, not malicious.

Leaving out that setting up a server to bypass public records laws is inherently malicious as far as the public interest goes, even if setting it up wasn't malicious, repeatedly lying to us about it most certainly is malicious. The fact that they can convince a non-trivial faction of America of non-factual things is a serious problem. It will continue to be a problem whether it's being abused by Ds or Rs and it was just as bad when the Rs were doing it and I was complaining about them.

If we want a responsible government, we can't let them off the hook when they deliberately and knowingly subvert the accountability rules, no matter which faction they belong to. If nobody can be held accountable, then the government controls us when it's supposed to be the other way around in a democracy.

Comment Re:Market Forces (Score 2) 231

There is an economic fix for this: remove the parts of the H1B that tie the person to a specific employer. That is, allow them to take any job. This would devalue it because the companies would have to pay them as much as an American would make or they'd simply jump ship after getting the visa. By making them more expensive, they could no longer be used as cheap replacements for an American.

But what will actually happen is that they will make the rules stricter and pretend that's a solution... even though it simply reinforces the status-quo, ensuring that H1Bs are good as cheap replacements for Americans.

It shouldn't be hard to understand--this is all about money. If you want employers to buy less, then H1Bs need to be more expensive.

Comment Re:That needs a stable solution, not a chaotic one (Score 1) 557

> The problem is, how do you determine who's disadvantaged?

Money, as it can be used to obtain pretty much all other advantages.

> but when you start to look at it carefully there's all sorts of possible issues. Some families are better at budgeting than others, so a family with lower income might have more money available for the kids than a family with higher income

This is not an inequality that we can (or should) correct for. People who work harder have a natural advantage. It's not right to take that away, as doing so hurts everyone. It was by gaining enough advantages to live lives where people could spend their time studying things like science that we obtained what we have now. We would all be worse off without this.

> It's a lot easier to tell if somebody is from X or Y group than to determine their level of disadvantage and what's necessary to help equalize their opportunities.

I disagree both with the idea that it's easier and the idea that it advances any sort of good for society.

Comment Re:Feminist vs egalitarian (Score 1) 557

There's a stable solution for that: help everyone who is disadvantaged, regardless of what they were born as. This will fix the bias over time without creating new victims.

Somehow it never gets put forth as an option, because enough people are more interested in their self-interest than in equality for everyone.

Comment That needs a stable solution, not a chaotic one. (Score 1) 557

In that case, you add x kg to the lighter side. But that's not at all what gets advocated. They advocate adding x kg to the X group or the Y group or whatever, rather than helping all disadvantaged people equally. If we always help those who are disadvantaged equally--regardless of whatever traits they were born with--the scales will tend towards balancing and the group interests will tend to be more aligned, as we're not deciding which groups are worthy or not worthy of society's support.

If we're always trying to figure out which group is or isn't disadvantaged based simply on group membership, rather than any observable facts, we trend towards a world where the group interests are in perpetual conflict. This is why equality cannot be achieved by perpetuating inequality against future generations. As shown, there's a way to address past inequality without creating new injustices that's stable over time.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a world where society decides that you have less rights than someone else because of how you were born. Anyone who advocates treating others as lesser due to how they were born is some kind of KKK-level scumbag in my book.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Little prigs and three-quarter madmen may have the conceit that the laws of nature are constantly broken for their sakes." -- Friedrich Nietzsche