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

 



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

Comment Re:I don't understand these warnings. (Score 1) 141

People have a right to their property, But if you intend to exclude others from it, then you need suitable notice, otherwise, people walking around are just exercising their natural-born right to explore the streets and unimproved areas, and simply pass through.

Not according to the law where I live in Louisiana.

Comment Re:I don't understand these warnings. (Score 1) 141

You are correct. Again, some kids get excited, look at the phone, and play it right away instead of "moving away to a safe zone" to initiate the capturing.

There's no need to go onto private property to capture a pokemon on the private property. Once you know the pokemon is there you can capture it. There's no moving away to safe zone. You tap on the pokemon thats in private property from the public sidewalk.

Comment I don't understand these warnings. (Score 3, Interesting) 141

Yeah I'm not getting these warnings. Until the pokemon comes out of hiding you can't tell where they are so trespassing to find them makes no sense. Then once they're out of hiding you tap to bring up the capture screen. There's no need to get closer to capture em. So why would trespassing even come up?

Comment Re:I wonder if they'll cancel Petraeus's sentence (Score 1) 801

What you asserted is, and I quote:

Clinton did not lie.

You're not quoting me there. My first post on the subject was

Clinton probably didn't lie to the FBI, whether you call what she did lying or not she did it publicly. In her interview with the FBI I guarantee you everything she said they felt was the truth.

You're quoting some anonymous coward.

Comment Re:I wonder if they'll cancel Petraeus's sentence (Score 1) 801

You are correct: what he confirmed was that Clinton lied under oath to Congress, not to the FBI.

Once again totally irrelevant to the discussion
I asserted:

Clinton probably didn't lie to the FBI,

And you tried to argue that I was wrong. You seem to think "Clinton lied" + "Clinton spoke to the FBI" == "Clinton lied to the FBI" and you keep your nonsensical arguments going. on that premise. But the fact is according to a direct quote from a discussion you yourself cited. Clinton DID NOT lie to the FBI.

She couldn't have lied under oath to the FBI because she wasn't put under oath

You don't get put under oath to talk to the FBI, but you can still be arrested and charged for lying to the FBI, being under oath doesn't make a difference

Comey will now be tasked with a formal investigation of her lying to Congress. If we're lucky, they'll still get her.

And it doesn't matter one bit because if she gets elected she can simply pardon herself. The people voting for her will simply believe it was a republican conspiracy and she did nothing wrong so they will vote for her anyway. Since there is no prohibition on felons running for presidency this is all a moo point. Even in the unlikely case that she ends up with a felony conviction (and remember, the republicans are now just trying to get her security clearance terminated and not a conviction) she will simply pardon herself if she gets elected and since the president is exempt from security clearance requirements any action that the house takes against her will be negated should she get elected. All they can do is make it so that if she does get elected then Trump can't add her to his cabinet... You know without pardoning her himself, which if he were to add her to his cabinet he would just do that anyway. Congress is impotent in this matter and just throwing a hissy fit because they don't have anything else they think matters.

Comment Re:karma's a bitch (Score 1) 393

What legal basis to shoot him? Because the guy was struggling against an arrest?

The police had exhausted non lethal techniques including verbal orders, a taser, PPCT and open handed control tactics against a man they knew to be armed with a gun, he then proceeded to overpower and lift both officers and there is some pretty clear evidence he was reaching for his gun at the time he was shot. What do you think the officers should have let him do? Remove the gun from his pocket and hope he just intends to hand it to them?

Comment Re:I wonder if they'll cancel Petraeus's sentence (Score 1) 801

It is, because you incorrectly claimed that "Clinton did not lie". In fact, not only did Clinton lie in general, she also (according to Comey in today's hearings) lied to the FBI.

Are you sure about that?

Here's a direct quote from Comey in today's hearings:

We have no basis to conclude that she lied to the FBI

Comment Re: karma's a bitch (Score 1) 393

Too many people think that their local neighborhood is what everyone else must also live in and haven't seen anything that could be described as a bad neighborhood, let alone mildly troubling

Funny you say that. I looked Mr Sterling up on the sex offender registration site and his last known address (keep in mind he was wanted for failure to register so it's probably out of date) is a known bad neighborhood, a little boy was murdered there not long ago, it may be over a year by now but the memorial is still out, I drive through his neighborhood every day on my way to work.

Comment Re:Really? A paedophile with a history of violence (Score 1) 393

When he posted up and managed to lift both officers, yes they rightfully felt fearful for their life. And watch the video closely. Right before they start shouting "He's got a gun" the officer on his chest's eyes went wide and his mouth dropped. And after the shooting they knew exactly which pocket the gun was in, they didn't need to frisk him. He clearly revealed the location of the gun at some point during their interaction AND somehow scared a man who had been on the force 5 years (or is it 4?)

Comment Re:I wonder if they'll cancel Petraeus's sentence (Score 1) 801

Well the laws about using a private email server in her office were passed after she left that office, so they couldn't indict and convict her on that. They would have to prove she knowingly put classified information on the server. Much of the information was up to her to decide classification, much of it wasn't really classified despite reports it was, and the rest was classified after the fact. It would have been an uphill battle to prosecute her. And all of this is irrelevant to the discussion you are jumping into because I was responding to this exchange:

Clinton did not lie.

Clinton lied about not having classified information on her server. She lied about only deleting personal E-mails, and she destroyed evidence.

Comment Re:Power (Score 1) 290

These vehicles generally have electronic power steering. If you think you're screwed when your mirror goes out wait till you see what it's like to suddenly have the full force of the steering wheel unexpectedly

Slashdot Top Deals

"A car is just a big purse on wheels." -- Johanna Reynolds

Working...