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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Make up your mind (Score 0) 77

Or how about the police that has militarized to the point where they are an occupying force?

So, when the police show up to serve a warrant and get shot and killed, you're cool with that. When they show up to serve the same warrant and protect themselves with better technology, that's them being an "occupying force," and evil. Gotcha.

Or how about police in neighborhoods that regularly target minorities?

You mean police in neighborhoods with wildly higher crime rates, who are targeting the criminals that commit crime there? Right. Gotcha.

and don't care about the plight of your brothers and sisters

If you cared about your "brothers and sisters," you'd be all for reducing the crime in those areas. But you're not, so your entire pious hand-wringing display is as phony as your pretending you don't understand the real issues in play.

Comment Re:It gives me pleasure to introuce you to the fut (Score 3, Insightful) 77

This is the first signs along with the robot blowing up a gunman with a bomb.

The robot didn't do anything. The police controlling the robot used it to deal with the guy remotely so they didn't have to lose any more lives approaching a guy who was promising to do more killing. How is that a single bit different than shooting him from 500 yards away? It's not. Not a bit.

The apologists will, as always, talk only about the benefits and how it will help against the "bad guys"

Why should someone apologize for telling the truth? If it was your job to deal with an armed, violent person, and you were handed a tool that allows you to do that with less of a chance of you being killed while doing your job, are you really saying you wouldn't use that tool? Let me guess, you think it's unfair for the police to wear body armor, right? Yeah. Right.

Comment Re:fallacy (Score 3, Insightful) 136

The problem with that approach is that you will tweak the algorithm until it works in 1996.

In other words, you will incorporate 1996 into the test set.

This is the big problem with almost all climate studies, and the reason why people that understand statistics really hate the current climate "science" as it is done. You really do need to make a prediction, and then test the prediction. If you get it wrong, you cannot re-try against the same data set until it works.

Comment Re:how about 4A (Score 2) 365

force them to arrest you

So, effectively ruin your life? By doing that, you not only get into databases that you might have had some chance avoiding otherwise, you also fuck over your chances of ever having a decent job again (unless you happen to be in a career such as activist or journalist where getting arrested is respected instead of condemned). HR departments are too stupid and lazy to know or care about the difference between getting arrested because you're a criminal and getting arrested because the police are criminals.

In the totalitarian police state of America, it's injustices all the way down.

Comment Re:You're being silly (Score 2) 376

The evil libtardos aren't coming for your guns.

Well, Hillary Clinton thinks the Supreme Court is incorrect, and that we don't have the individual right to own guns. That what she says to her money people when she hopes the press isn't listening. She's also said she'd consider confiscation, a la Australia. And the left is cheering her lying, corrupt self into office - not least because they agree with her on this - the constitution is there to be "reinterpreted," as Clinton puts it.

Do you have any idea what you're chances are against a modern, mechanized army?

What does that matter? That's not why millions and millions of Americans own guns. They use them for sport, for hunting, and - as record numbers of recent buyers are showing in research - for self defense, especially in the context of social unrest. That's EXACTLY what the founders had in mind when they said that the government could not be allowed to have the monopoly on keeping and bearing arms: so that individuals could exercise their own rights to do so if and as they see fit. For whatever reason they see as appropriate. A standing army being necessary for the country, it's not to be considered justification for infringing the people's rights to their own tools of self defense. Sound familiar?

Stop caring so damn much about your precious firearms and start doing something about oppression brought on by wealth inequality.

Ah, I get it. Because someone else is prosperous, your right to vote is being oppressed. Or your right to assemble, or freely speak. Or your ability to go to school. Or your ability to ... which ability is it that you're being denied because someone else has money, again? It's not a fixed-sized pie, dude. If it was, we'd all be living in total poverty. But we're not. The standard of living has never been higher in human history. The "poor" live better than the vast majority of humanity ever could have dreamed.

Wage slavery? Get rid of nonsense like Obamacare, which went out of its way to entrench the system that prevents you from shopping across state lines for health insurance, and went out of its way to keep such services expensive by carefully avoiding tort reform at all costs. Or... do you mean that people who haven't trained themselves to do something valuable are finding it hard to move on in life? Yes, getting rid of our ability to defend ourselves will definitely fix that. We can only do one thing at a time, right?

Voter disenfranchisement? Yes, this is a real problem. We have millions of dead an ineligible people registered to vote. Every time a vote is cast in one of their names, that disenfranchises a person who is voting legitimately. When the Clinton campaign spreads around information, as we've just seen, about how to get illegal immigrants into the voting booth, that disenfranchises people who play by the rules. Definitely a serious problem, I agree. But the disenfranchising actions of voters mostly as encouraged by liberal activist groups go largely unprosecuted because that task would fall to the very party in power that encourages the crime. So, we have to live with it. Steps to mitigate it, like having to show who you are when you vote, just like you have to when you cash a government check, are considered "racist" by disingenuous people who know perfectly well it's not, but there you have it.

Hell, there are folks who matter talking about taking away women's right to vote.

They only "matter" in the sense that you're enjoying mentioning them. There is nobody with any prospect of infringing that liberty calling for that. Unlike Hillary Clinton, who certainly leans towards infringing constitutionally protected liberties and says so out loud, to great applause from the usual would-be little tyrants on the left.

It's been 8 years. Don't you think if he was going to do it he would have?

He knows he can't get what he wants past a legislature more inclined to protect those rights. He fails on that front because what he proposes - usually in the wake of some broken person killing some people - fails on the face of it to even address the actual problem (broken people). He doesn't propose making it easier to lock up crazy people, he proposes making it harder for law abiding, non-violent people to possess or transfer a firearm ... even though that would exactly nothing to stop, say, a Sandy Hook type incident. So every time he talks about "using his pen" to limit rights, it fails because, of course, people see right through the total lack of causality in the chain of things he pretends he's addressing. He's had multiple unconstitutional executive orders smacked down in the courts, exactly as they should have been. Hillary Clinton wants a court that would prevent those checks and balances from impacting her agenda (see above-mentioned confiscatory sensibilities and assertion that, for example, the second amendment doesn't mean what the founders said it means).

Comment That's not what they did though. (Score 1) 365

They went in and searched everyone's phones. Unless there's an important detail we aren't being told here, that's unconstitutional. The 4th amendment says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The important part there is "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." That is in there specifically to ban general search warrants. The idea is the police can't go to a judge and say "We think there is something illegal in a house somewhere in this 500 home neighbourhood, we'd like a warrant to search the houses," and the judge issues them a blanket warrant allowing them to search any home there, and look through anything in said home. That isn't allowed. They have to say specifically where it is they want to search, and what it is they are looking for, and also why they have probable cause to believe that what they are looking for is there.

If you read the article they say right at the bottom "I think it's very questionable whether the 4th Amendment" -- which protects citizens against unreasonable search and seizure -- "allows such an open-ended extension of the search warrant."

Slashdot Top Deals

1 1 was a race-horse, 2 2 was 1 2. When 1 1 1 1 race, 2 2 1 1 2.