Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Eric Holder (Score 2) 616

They argue about teachers' salaried while the kids graduating from high school are dumbasses with no willingness or ability to think independently, since following instructions is what they know. They argue about unresolvable (thus to them, perfect) debates like abortion while the republic crumbles, they may as well play the fiddle too like Nero did. They quibble about how many scraps should hit the floor instead of taking a hard look into why everyone doesn't have their own floor.

The differences exist but they are minimal and designed to give only an illusion of choice. One day something like abortion is demonized and made more difficult, another day this is reversed. Over the course of years and decades the status quo does not change; it only becomes more so. That's what matters.

You may not want to believe that a single entity with two factions has completely usurped all political power in the nation and locked it down like what the guilds of old did to trade, but it's a fact. Consider what Microsoft did to the PC market. That's what the Demican/Republicrats did to politics. Compare either or both of them to say, the Libertarian party and you'll see what actual differences are.

Comment Re:Two parties my ass. (Score 2) 148

Wow. It must be nice to live your black and white world. Mine is so many confusing shades of gray that I find that I am just unable to put suitable labels on most people and things.

The point was that the world is a great many shades of grey, and is therefore not suitably represented by our black-and-white two-party system.

Reading comprehension is gravely on the decline. It's been replaced by an insatiable need to be right at someone else's expense, even if you have to put words in their mouths to do it.

Comment Re:In related news: Domestic spying got the OK (Score 1) 148

I'll blame you for resorting to childish name calling, which makes your point completely disappear as people instantly flag you as just some other ranting lunatic.

Being hypersensitive and too easily offended makes you look like the ranting lunatic. Specifically, it looks like you just don't like the guy and are clutching at straws for some way of taking a jab at him. Whether or not that's actually the case. It also makes you appear to promote this phoney decorum and perfect inoffensiveness that no living human being actually embodies in real life.

Second ... STOP USING FUCKING BOOK REFERENCE WHEN YOU UTTERLY FAILED TO UNDERSTAND THAT PLOT. God, the slashdot meme of all time is for people to reference 1984, while Animal Farm is closer, you still failed to get the actual point. Stop trying to reference it to look smarter.

He referenced a very specific part of it in order to make a joke about how incredibly similar the Democrats and Republicans are on any truly important issue (such as state surveillance). Getting hysterical about that makes him look like a goddamned genius compared to you.

Comment Re:Dupe (Score 1) 148

well there is a need to watch people

A very limited one with an established procedure, yes.

we live in complex societies where a group of jerks can do terrible things if they have enough brains to organize themselves properly.

Yes, we call them politicians. In the past their own disagreements divided them, but they're all uniting under the monied banner of Big Brother.

This does not mean we should let the 'feds' do anything they want but we possibly need a method to do it so as to enable them to look for information when need be and at the same time guarantee privacy whenever that is possible. This all can be done in relatively satisfying way as long as the 'feds' do not want to eavesdrop on all of us real time all the time which apparently is what they want. Eventually we will have to find a common ground.

We have a satisfying way that works for everyone involved. It's called getting a warrant. It begins when the police have reason to suspect that someone has committed a crime. Next, they convince a judge that these reasons are real and not bullshit fishing expeditions. Finally, the judge agrees to provide the warrant and it specifies the persons/places to be searched and the items or activities they are looking for.

The problem is, this system prevents massive surveillance and massive fishing expeditions. That's precisely why the politicians don't like it. But it's a solved problem and has been for hundreds of years now. Don't be fooled by the phoney debate and the appearance of legitimacy (of two coequal sides) it tries to create. All of this is a power grab, pure and simple. It's not necessary to protect anyone and it's not necessary to catch criminals.

Comment Re:IRS Too? (Score 1) 835

On the NZ shows they are almost placid - look up "always blow on the pie" to see what I mean. I am sure they have their rough and tumble, but the sort of assault and direct threats you see on COPS is not present, and even when they go against someone drunk and agro they try and talk their way down and only deploy capsicum spray or tasers as a last defence. The Australian cop shows are too heavy edited to show some of a heaviness the cops use here - I have do doubt they have certain groups they don't mind putting the boot into, but most of the confrontations you see on COPS would be resolved differently on the Aussie cop shows in similar situations.

Not coincidentally, I would assume the average New Zealander has much more genuine respect and admiration for the police than does the average American. Cops sincerely seem to wonder why they aren't respected and welcomed, why average people aren't glad to see them. I wouldn't be surprised if the law-abiding fear the police more than the criminals do.

I think shows like COPS though are the sort of thing that attract the wrong people to policing. The sort that like the power trip and the odd chance to rough someone up under the cover of a badge, rather than actually engaging and protecting the community.

That describes all cops without exception. A large number of cops are directly like this, while all the rest of the cops decide to indirectly be part of the problem by not doing anything about it, giving their own silent consent and approval. It happens so often that there is a term for it: the "blue wall of silence". The otherwise honest cops care about their crooked brethren more than they care about the civilians they're supposed to be protecting.

I forgot who said it, but a long time ago I read a post by another Slashdotter that summed it up. He said that in the minds of cops, there are three kinds of people: 1) Cops 2) Cops' families/friends 3) Suspects. The poster was not joking.

Comment Re: Summary of TFS (Score 1) 835

As a bystander who happened upon this thread, I say: bless you, sir!

It's gotten to the point where the moment I hear "racism", I immediately assume that whoever said it is completely full of shit until and unless proven otherwise. In years and years I have never once seen "racism" called when there was an actual instance wherein a person claimed that one race was inherently and genetically superior to another race. I have, however, seen many instances where it was a cheap, cowardly and dishonest manner of shutting down a debate that said person was losing.

Comment Re:And it's only going to get worse (Score 1) 835

When lawmakers tell police to go arrest bar-betters or marijuana growers, what do you expect them to do, say "that's a bullshit order" and go shoot the lawmaker instead? You wish!

I don't wish they would shoot the legislator (the non-dumbed-down version of "lawmaker" - the media deliberately aims at a 5th-grade reading level, this does not deserve to be emulated). But to say "that's a bullshit order" and refuse to follow it, yes I absolutely want that. The cop in question could then go to the media, or resign, or resign and go tell the media why. Then and only then would police officers EARN the respect they seem to want so badly.

Cops who are mindless myrmidons following any and all orders without question are definitely a big part of the problem. Perhaps they are the single biggest part of the problem. They're supposed to be peace officers who serve their community, not goons or hitmen or jack-booted thugs.

The other huge, glaring part of the problem is the insane idea that any activity confined to consenting adults should ever be considered a crime. The War on Drugs hasn't worked, isn't working, and isn't going to work if the goal is to reduce or eliminate drug use. It works fantastically well if the (unstated of course) goal is to create criminals, scare the public into voting for stricter laws that make no sense, and fill the coffers of the private prison industry, lobbyists, lawyers, and a whole chain of other parasites who profit from criminalizing victimless behavior.

I hate to say it but it's hard to name a body of people more stupid than the American public. Prohibition was the lesson here. In their mindlessness, the American public missed the principle and learned a lesson only about alcohol.

Comment Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up (Score 1) 569

In terms of why not let juries hear evidence? Well because it may not be relevant and it may bias them. Just because someone did X that people do not like it does not also follow that they did Y. That is why you can't generally mention a defendant's prior bad acts unless they somehow relate to the particular case. So if someone was convicted of robbery in the past, you can't bring it up in an unrelated murder case just to try and make them look like a bad guy.

In your example there, true a previous robbery does not mean a person commited a murder. But it does demonstrate that this person has little or no regard for the law and has a history of committing serious crimes.

Comment Re:If he had only learned from the Simpsons (Score 1) 135

They own the jail. And the courts. And the legislature. And if you want to run for office you take their money and probably not directly from their hands.

So no, none of them in jail.

Atypical /. poster that doesn't know the difference between illegal, and unethical. In turn, doesn't know that many of said changes were made by government in the first place which allowed things to happen. Following with that, banks used the system in place. So you end up with: Illegal no, unethical yes.

Actually the point was that we would have a stronger nation and a better world if there were more overlap and less distinction between illegal and unethical.

And you may wish to brush up on your own history there. The bankers have a long history of trying to control the nation's currency, beginning with Andrew Jackson (who was shot in a pointless duel), again with Abe Lincoln (who was assassinated after issuing interest-free greenbacks), and finally succeeded with the current Federal Reserve system. Incidentally, Kennedy wanted to revert back to government-issued currency.

Banks funded the politicians who put the system in place. You're an asshole to read my post in the most hostile he-must-be-a-total-idiot manner possible and then assume ignorance on my part because of your assumption. This kind of shit and the way it's become so fashionable lately is why intelligent adult discussion on this site is becoming such a rarity.

Comment Re:Voice votes (Score 1) 106

True, bipartisan support is hard to find since the rise of the Tea Party

Yes, that's because "bipartisan" is usually code for "time for Republicans to acquiesce to the demands of the Democrats". Unlike most Republicans who just want to appeal to their base and do whatever is politically expedient to get re-elected, the Tea Partiers generally operate on a belief system. This is why lots of more mainstream Republicans don't like them, because they will say and do things perceived to hurt the Republican party's election odds.

For some reason people here just love to assume things that were never said, and read meanings into posts that are simply not there, so I'll reluctantly add: I don't like either major party one damned bit. I wish we had more of a parliamentary system where third, fourth, and fifth options were viable. But what I observed remains true. The Democrats have lots of support in the media and are effective at portraying their postions as mainstream and normal, with any dissenters branded as "racist" or otherwise bigoted, which many Republicans are afraid of and don't know how to stand up to.

Comment Re:They needed to use it. Duh. (Score 1) 106

Why is it gun owners in internet threads so often find it necessary to convert almost any discussion about the government to gun control? Are there people at banging on your doors demanding your weapons while simultaneously threatening to shoot you? The days of the Wild West are over. When are people going to get it?

Why is it that one cannot mention a clear, simple, easy-to-understand example in order to illustrate a point without the small-minded becoming obsessively hung-up on the example while missing the point being made with it?

The example I gave would be valid and legitimate whether or not I believed anyone should own a gun. The hypocrisy was the point. In fact I salute the way several European countries do things: they ban citizens from having guns AND the police (generally, with some exceptions) don't have guns either. That's how you do it without being a hypocrite about it.

I personally do like gun ownership, yes, but it is you who are trying to convert this into a gun-control debate. You are emotionally reactive and small-minded, unable to use reason to understand the distinction between a useful example and the point being made. I hope that one day you realize the self-limitation this represents, for that realization alone will overcome said shortcoming.

Comment Re:They needed to use it. Duh. (Score 3, Insightful) 106

Where's the news? As soon as some politicians notice that some "illegal" tool, device, substance or whatever is useful to them, suddenly it's no longer illegal.

That's actually a bit unusual.

A more typical example would be the anti-gun politicians who really don't want any private ownership of firearms at all ... but their own guards are armed. Usually the politicians are complete hypocrites about it because they think they're special and the rules for everyone else shouldn't apply to them.

Comment Re:They've blown the case against the defendant (Score 1) 569

And now they're lashing out in spite at whoever's nearest. No coincidence that this only happened after the jury retired.

How pathetic they are for dealing with it that way. They could instead be glad that a man received a fair trial that wasn't some kangaroo court where guilt was already assumed. You know, the way the system is supposed to work?

Slashdot Top Deals

I consider a new device or technology to have been culturally accepted when it has been used to commit a murder. -- M. Gallaher

Working...