Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



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

Comment Misquoted the American Bar Association (Score 1) 1042

The American Bar Association concluded:
"However, under the First Amendment, individuals do have a right to speech that the listener disagrees with and to speech that is offensive and hateful.
Think about it. It’s always easier to defend someone’s right to say something with which you agree. But in a free society, you also have a duty to defend speech to which you may strongly object."

Assault and battery.
Two charges often mentioned in news and police reports. Assault is making threats of bodily harm against someone. Battery is actually harming someone, whether you threaten them or not. The 1st Amendment does not protect assault or battery, but "offending" someone's feelings is neither.

Making offending words illegal speech puts ammunition into the hands of unstable people, who are often exploited by those with a "politically correct" agenda for the purposes of speech, thought and political control. That's what Facebook, Google and YouTube have and are doing. The owners and managers of all three corporations were "in the tank" for Hillary Clinton, and used several methods to silence opposition against her, calling Conservative view points "hate" speech. Very convenient. YouTube, after years of encouraging people to create and post video content for a share of the ad revenue, turned on those with Conservative content and demonetized them. Those videos didn't just suddenly stop drawing ad money, but Google greedily keeping ALL the revenue for itself, destroying the livelihood of some who depended entirely on ad revenues for income. When deliberate detrending, shadow banning, or even altering the content of posts on Facebook or Twitter didn't stop the opposition to Hillary those corporations deleted the accounts of the "offenders". Very Orwellian of them.

The Public Commons was, in historical times, the place where citizens of a community gathered to discuss and debate issues of the day. Being a public place everyone had free access and freedom to say what they wished, aside from assault or battery. Facebook, Twitter and Google/YouTube all began supporting free speech but ended up turning to evil and placing limits on what people could say that went beyond prohibiting that which is already illegal. Some, especially those who own the corporations, and those on the Left whom the corporations represent more than any other part of the political spectrum claim that being private corporations they do not have to honor the 1st Amendment. I disagree. ALL of the Bill of Rights applies to ALL Americans no matter where they are on every square inch of this country, regardless of who owns the soil. According to current political dogma it is a violation of the 1st Amendment for a Christian baker to NOT bake a cake for a gay couple, but it is NOT a violation of the 1st Amendment for Facebook Twitter or YouTube to censor or ban Conservatives. Both businesses depend on consumers from "off the street". An example of their double standard can be seen in a Twitter experiment testing the fairness of Twitters application of the censorship rules:
http://www.informationliberati...

In previous generations children were taught that "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me". The lesson was "toughen up, the world is a dangerous place. Words will hurt you emotionally ONLY if you let them." Today, Social Justice "Warriors" rampage across our nation attacking people and destroying property, but if confronted in public places where their identity is not hidden behind bandannas, hoodies or balaclavas masks they retreat to their academic "safe places" to be coddled by their Marxist mentors.

Comment "Social Media Is Killing Discourse..." (Score 1) 219

"Social Media Is Killing Discourse Because It's Too Much Like TV" ?

Don't think so. Faceboook, Twitter and Google murdered discourse by silencing opinion that disagreed with their agenda, which was to get Hillary elected as POTUS.
http://harvardlawreview.org/20...

"Censorship
How "terms of service" abridge free speech ...
Professor Ammori tells us that Facebook lawyers have created “a set of rules that hundreds of employees can apply consistently without having to make judgment calls.”9 The details of these rules, however, we do not know. Unlike censorship decisions by government agencies, the process in the private world of social media is secret."

So, when Facebook, Twitter and Google collaborate to demonetize videos, while stealing their ad revenues, shadow ban posts, or outright delete accounts to censor non-Marxist views, Joe NoOne claims they became too much like TV? Like when MASH denigrated conservative views by having Frank Burns behave like an idiot, or Archie Bunker is portrayed as the typical representative of Conservatives, and Hollywood blacklists Conservative actors while claiming to be the victim of a blacklist? No, it's not like TV at all. Conservatives rarely had a voice in the Leftist Hollywood productions which flooded TV in the late 60's and onward. Facebook, Twitter and Google, while supposedly representing the public commons, puts a fence around it instead. That's why I canceled my accounts. I may not agree with someone's POV but everyone has the right to express them.

Comment Re: Change the law (Score 1) 1424

True. The vast majority of counties voted red this election:
http://www.redflagnews.com/hea...
Even Illinois.

When the Framers designed the House based on popular vote they knew they had a problem. The states with the most population, i.e., the biggest cities, would control the results of each election. The states with few people wouldn't be fairly represented. So, they created a second body, the Senate, which has two members from each state, regardless of their population. By requiring a bill to be passed by both houses balance was brought to the process.

The same problem existed with regards to the presidential election based on the popular vote. The big cities would control who sets in the WhiteHouse. The EC is to the presidential election what the Senate is to legislation. It give a balance of power that would be absent if there was no EC. With no EC why would a candidate want to spend anytime in a state with a low population, like Kansas, Nebraska, North or South Dakota, etc...? The candidates would spend their time in the top metropolitan areas with a million or more residents. Each of the top five cities have more people than the entire state of Nebraska. Thirty nine percent of the total population voted this year, 125,000,000 people. The top 10 hold almost 30 million residents, which would be 24% of the total votes cast for in the presidential election this year if all of them voted. Forty eight percent, almost 112 million eligible voters didn't vote. What to doto improve the election process? Force people to vote. Have voters supply their Social Security number at the polls, which then submit the voter's name, address and SSN to the IRS on a signed form. People of voting age who don't vote get a citizenship "fee" (ACA is the precursor) added to their income tax. Make it equal to two days of their average wage. Annual income divided by 2080, the number of working hours in a year. If more than one voting form with the same SSN is submitted the a fraud investigation can ensue. Or, the same name and address on more than one form with different SSN numbers. Unassigned SSN's would trigger a fraud investigation.

What candidates do now is focus on the "swing" states. States where political power is somewhat equally divided and there is a sufficient number of EC votes at stake to swing an election: Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania. In the current situation Michigan has already recounted and Hillary gained a little over 500 votes, but Trump still had a 10,000 vote majority, so he keeps the 16 EC votes. Wisconsin has 10 and Pennsylvania has 20 EC votes. Even if the recount flipped both Wisconsin and Pennsylvania that would leave Hillary nine votes shy of 270. Hillary even made an campaign video ad pointing out Trump's response to Mike Wallace's question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

She has lost.
And, by refusing to accept the results of the election, she is guilty of what she accused Trump of doing: "Denigrating our democracy and downplaying how we've elected presidents for 240 years ... it's horrible".

By Federal law the recounts have to be completed by Dec 13th. The ONLY purpose for the recount demanded by Progressives now is as a blatant attempt to throw the election into the House, as was done in the 1824 election. The Progressives will deliberately drag their feet in the count process to ensure that. Trump will still win because the House is controlled by people he swept into power, but Progressives will use the Constitutional solution to the problem they caused to claim that Trump "stole" the election. THAT is denigrating and abusing our Constitution.

Because of Trump this election cycle revealed several previously denied or hidden things. First, the media is entirely controlled by Progressives, as is the entertainment and education industries, after years of infiltration. Secondly, many hidden Progressives threw off their Republican garments to reveal their true political alignment. They are called RINOs. If they weren't obvious before they are obvious now, and never to be trusted again. It is also very obvious that there are just two major political groups of people in the USA today: the Progressives and the Conservatives. All other groups and labels are meaningless.

The Progressives are against "that little book" and the freedoms its supplies. Obama weaponized several Federal agencies against Conservatives. Progressive's sustain a constant attacks on the several Amendment in the Bill of Rights with political correctness. They debase every debate with personal attacks, claiming to be "inclusive" but ostracizing any who do not bend their knee to their PC bullying. They would rather that America become a weak socialist state under UN control, as part of a growing Marxist world order. Their current intimidation tool are the "Social Justice Warriors", where "Social Justice" is just a code phrase for "Communist", as Bill Clinton revealed in a clip as part of the Democrat greeting from Howard Dean to the 2009 meeting of the Party of European Socialist.
https://youtu.be/PblVo9y735k?t...

The SJW behavior is identical to that of the Red Guard in China during Mao's "Cultural Revolution", and he cast the Red Guard aside just as callously as the Progressives will cast aside their SJW useful idiots when their purposes have been served. Where are all the Black problems occurring? In cities where Progressives have controlled the politics for decades. But, aren't Progressives supposed to be for helping Blacks? Then why are they killing each other in record numbers in Progressive strongholds like Chicago, Baltimore, Kansas City, etc...?

Comment Hillary said not accepting the outcome .... (Score 1) 1424

would be denigrating and talking down our democracy. That's what she said about Trump when he said he would accept the results of the election only if he won. He said several times that he thought that the process was rigged, and in most major cities it probably is. But, now that she has lost, apparently not accepting the results of the election isn't such a bad idea after all. Flip-flop?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Comment The USA county map (Score 0) 1424

Abandon the Electoral College and most states will NEVER see a presidential candidate again. The candidates will spend all their time campaigning in the largest metropolitans areas. New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Huston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas and San Jose. They each have one million or more people and combined they have about 26 million. All of them are Democrat strongholds and have been for decades. They'd never stop at any "fly over" states.

Lessig should know better. The House was created to allow each member to represent approximately the same number of people. This gives the edge to states with large populations. They could control all the legislation coming out of Washington.. The Framers solved that problem by creating the Senate, where each state has an equal vote. Legislation must pass both houses before it can be given to the President to sign or reject. The election of the President, if by popular vote, would present the same problem. The most populous states would always be electing the President. The Electoral College moves the contest away from states where one party controls most of the votes and toward states where could "swing" either way, i.e., neither party has a clear voter majority in those states. All this is moot, however, because the reason why Hillary lost is that the Democrat voters believed what the media was proclaiming, that Hillary was a shoo-in, she had a 98% change of winning, Hell would freeze over before Trump could win, etc..... Hillary's voters believed that message and stayed home. They figured she had it "in the bag" because that is what the media, a sock puppet for Hillary for the last 18 months, kept telling them.
When one looks at the map of the US showing counties, with each county marked in red or blue, one can get an image of how large Trump's victory was:
http://www.redflagnews.com/hea...

Comment Re:It's not surprising... (Score 1) 176

And this attitude is exactly why Desktop Linux hovers at around 2% or wherever it is today.

Ah, I can see from your comment that you've been in a coma for the last ten years. You're probably parroting the Windows centric site, NetApplications, that remarkets EXE's under new names and it tracked the OS of people looking for Windows software. No surprise that only 1 or 2% were running Linux.

Here is the detail of another site that tracks the OS of its visitors:
http://distrowatch.com/awstats...
You can see that 41% of the visitors were using Windows and 47.3% were using Linux. Now, shall I claim that Linux has a greater market share than Windows? Using your logic and proof I could. Of course, you could use the Microsoft retail chain bean counters to tally how many installs there are of Windows, but Linux doesn't have such a retail chain and no one bean counts it. Someone can download a Linux install ISO and use it to install Linux on one, two, dozens or hundreds of PCs. And, most likely, those PCs were running Windows before Linux replaced it, but the count on WinX installs doesn't drop and the count on Linux installs doesn't rise.

The fact is that Linux had double the market share of Window back in 2013!
http://www.tomshardware.com/ne...

Goldman Sachs recently published a chart which shows the shift from Microsoft's 95 percents hare of the computing platform market in 2004, when PCs dominated the computing landscape, to just 20 percent in 2012. The forecast suggests that Microsoft will be able to grow its share back to 26 percent by 2016 and Android will shrink to 39 percent, while Apple's iOS and MacOS X will expand from 24 percent today to 29 percent in 2016

Goldman Sachs was wrong. Microsoft's Windows phone is dead, at less than 1%, and Android (based on Linux) is now at 75.6% of the market share.

The PC market is in decline, and it is affecting Windows sales the most. Windows XP, 7 and 8 users are forced by Microsoft to pay for an upgrade to the latest version, that's how bad Win10 sales have been.

Comment Re:It's not surprising... (Score 1) 176

"Having worked in plenty of state/local government offices ... most of their work is done in proprietary software systems tailored to their specific job function (processing taxes, business registration, managing licenses, etc). There simply isn't enough of this software written for other platforms besides Windows."

I spent the last 11 years of my programming career (I retired in 2008) writing in-house solutions for a state dept of Revenue. The last eight was spent writing those applications using the Qt API on Linux, with Kate as the editor, gcc as the compiler and Kdbg as the debugger. I used the Linux environment because it was at least 2-3X faster than using the Qt API on Windows with the Visual Studio 6.0 C++ RAD. On Linux (SuSE 6.3) I used compiler defines to test the compile environment in order to switch between PostgreSQL and Oracle database code. I didn't need to buy an Oracle license to write and test code on LInux for the backend because PostgreSQL was 95% compatible with Oracle. I dropped the VSC++ and replaced it with the free Express C++ 6.0 compiler on XP. Oracle attempted to counter by buying the OneWorld RAD HTML system, renaming it APEX, and giving it to Oracle database owners for "free". They made that up in Aces when they switched from single computer licensing to core licensing. That raised the costs of an Oracle seat by 2X to 8X per server/blade.

The truth is people can't leave many proprietary systems because they were not far sighted enough to realize the data lock-in that would occur buying proprietary systems. I attempted to get the suits to use PostgreSQL instead of Oracle but they claimed that 1) "anything that is free can't be that good" and 2) it doesn't have support. They didn't consider the free user supported websites supporting PostgreSQL as "real" support. After Oracle was purchased and problems arose, the Oracle admin found he could get faster and better results on the free website than from a ticket posted on Oracle's support site. In the last 10-12 years Oracle license fees have cost state taxpayers millions of dollars.

Comment Re:It's not surprising... (Score 2) 176

""Accenture was chosen to co-author a report assessing the use of Microsoft software..."

Accenture worked with Microsoft to create the .NET "solution" to the London Stock Exchange attempt to get to 2 ms transaction times. They failed miserably and the second crash of the system kept the LSE off line for an entire day, costing them over $1 BILLION dollars in lost business.

Before the crash Microsoft had an ad featuring the "Highly Reliable TImes", a make-believe news paper which headlined a make-believe "fact" that WIndows and .NET "won out over Linux in head to head tests". It was later revealed that the LSE hired a Windows centric CTO who immediately contracted with Accenture/Microsoft to write the trading software. There was no "run off" between Linux and Windows. After the crash the LSE looked around for another solution and found a company which wrote a trading system called, IIRC, Xchi. It had been running at a small stock exchange for five years without a single failure and it already achieved 0.2 ms transaction times, the target .NET was trying to reach. The LSE didn't buy the software, they bought the software and the company that made it.

To its credit, Accenture wasn't responsible for the crash of the .NET/SIlverLight application which threw a BSOD onto the ceiling of the BirdNest at the Chinese Olympics.

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.

Working...