Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Dangerously wrong. Stay bad orders, don't ignore! (Score 4, Informative) 238

This is wrong. Dangerously wrong.

If a judge gives a bad order that will hurt you, you file for a stay of that order pending appeal. Ignoring the order leads to punishment, as happened here! The Supreme Court has limited jurisdiction, they are simply going to ignore almost all of the petitions for a writ of certiorari sent to them. And it you will still get punished for just ignoring the order even if you were right! You can't just wait for orders from a higher court to comply. If the judge refuses to stay their order while you appeal it, you have to comply. Period. If they were wrong, well, you'll have to convince the courts of that on appeal. You don't get to just ignore everyone but the Supreme Court because you don't like an adverse ruling, it simply does not and hasn't ever worked that way.

I can't believe people modded this up, because it displays utter ignorance of legal process. Seriously, at least a few of you should have read Groklaw. You can go back and find that even SCO knew better than to flat-out ignore a court order like that. You can find many times where they asked for stays, plenty of times where they sent surreplies and dug in their heels at every opportunity to avoid complying, but not so much where they simply ignored the order.

So let that sink in for a moment: Gawker sunk below SCO's level here.

I tend to blame the client here, because I have to believe anyone could have made it through law school if they were giving advice that bad. If not, they're free to explore a legal malpractice claim against their own lawyers. Because what they did is so mind-bendingly stupid that you have to be willfully ignorant of legal process to think it makes any kind of sense that you can ignore anyone lower than the Supreme Court.

Comment It hasn't even been truly investigated yet... (Score 2) 706

The Snopes story confirms that he was shot for essentially no reason. We might know more if we had info from his girlfriend or the ambulance team, but nobody has made any public statements. I understand that it's way too early to go around pinning it on somebody, but it's hard to say it's "debunked" when basically no investigation has actually been done yet.

Comment Re: No chance they'll be indicted (Score 1) 424

Tortuous? Nazi stands for National Socialist. It's not some strange accident that it's right there in the name. I mean, I'm sure we'll hear that it wasn't "true" socialism, but I'm not sure how we're supposed to recognize true Socialism as opposed to what people calling themselves that have actually done. Don't get me wrong, some of the Nordic states have managed a more peaceful version of it, funded by the oil wealth of their country, prudently invested for the good of the nation, but it's kind of hard to ignore that some of the worst mass-murderers in history flew the flags of Socialism or Communism, or that the Communists considered Socialism a means to move society towards their ideals.

See, the Nazis loved to talk about taking down the rich, like the rich Jewish bankers they demonized and blamed for all of the German workers' problems. And they pretty much did so to everyone they hated, robbing them of everything and then disposing of them.

Of course you might say that what they believed is all nonsense--and it is--but this is what they were doing and why they believed they were doing it. They believed that they were taking society back from a rich, corrupt elite. Sure, anyone can find anything they want to compare any group they dislike to Nazis, but it's hard to ignore that the flag they flew under.

And don't get me wrong, there are, as I've noted, more peaceful varieties thereof. But we can't just ignore facts when they become inconvenient, now, can we?

Or perhaps you haven't gotten that far in history class yet?

Comment Re:Um, (Score 3, Insightful) 424

You didn't read them, did you?

Half of the recent protests/panics/etc. were staged by DNC staffers, which one might note is how they get away with being racists without media rebuke. They held a clandestine fundraiser with the Washington Post that their own lawyers disagreed with. They funneled all the DNC money straight to Hillary and it never mattered what the voters wanted. They'll call your CEO and demand apologies from any media type that dares call them on any of their BS.

But no, go on, rant about irrelevant nonsense and just ignore the fact that they are effectively above the law at this point.

Comment Re: No chance they'll be indicted (Score 1, Insightful) 424

> No, progressive always meant this (pick up a dictionary and take a civics class):

You're the one who should take a history class if you think that "progress" has always had a consistent meaning across years and cultures.

The Nazis believed that they were creating a superior version of the human race by removing all the "inferior" people, for example, and this was their "progress" as they fought for (in their view) the common German worker and against those who they viewed as corrupt bankers (Jews).

The fact that they were wrong about basically everything simply underscores the point that not everything called "progress" is good and it requires more than simplistic sloganeering to evaluate the merits of something. In other words, if all someone can tell you is that they promote "progress" and everyone who doesn't is somehow inferior, rather than explaining the actual merits of their ideas, you should be very suspicious of them for that very reason.

Comment Apropos Akbar (Score 1) 769

A trap? You mean like ignoring their own lawyer's advice over what is and is not legal?

Interestingly enough, I can't help but notice that this is from the WaPo, which is the same one that held this fundraiser the lawyers told them not to hold...


Explanation: https://theconservativetreehou...

Comment Another Giveaway? (Score 3, Insightful) 86

Why don't they collect on the broadband promises that never materialized from the last round of subsidies before giving away another half billion dollars? Oh, right, never mind. They're just bribing people with our own money and trying to make it sound like a good thing, knowing that most people won't be able to call them on it.

Maybe this time it'll be different? I wish I could believe that.

Comment Re:Google needs to be responsible (Score 1) 153

> Well guess what: that isn't the copyright holders problem. If your business model is such that you can't monitor everything, then YOU NEED TO FIX your business model.

This is utter nonsense. One, that's not how the DMCA is set up--this burden is squarely on the copyright holder to identify and issue takedowns.

Two, it shouldn't work the other way. You see, copyright relies upon PERMISSION. So even if I upload a "leaked' video that looks completely pirated to an outsider, if I have permission from the copyright holder, it's legal. Given that the copyright holder is the only one who can reasonably be expected to know who they have and have not given permission to, they are the only reasonable party to do so. If you think this example sounds far-fetched, then you need to go back and read Viacom v. YouTube, because Viacom did exactly this and had to remove "infringing" videos they'd given permission to from the case. Twice. After extensive review by expensive lawyers. If their own lawyers with all that information can't get it right, what hope does a 3rd party have?

That this burden is unreasonable is of no concern to the rest of us--it's simply not our property, so it's unreasonable to expect the rest of the world to manage it for them.

Slashdot Top Deals

The rich get rich, and the poor get poorer. The haves get more, the have-nots die.