Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Working with? [Re:well well well] (Score 1) 769

You just tiptoed up to a point that I think is most interesting.

Why would we assume the Russians would do this to support Trump, instead of the candidate who is a self proclaimed socialist, on the eve of his last logistical chance of getting the nomination, who was the one who was directly hurt by the exposed actions?

Now I might have my reasons but to take this question one step further, why would Hillary or the DNC assume this was to help Trump and not Bernie?

Comment Re:So what is YOUR plan? (Score 1) 406

Look up "IRA, Terror Campaign, History of". Also a few reference to mass- and targeted murders by members of certain sects of the Christian religion in the last 10 years. OK, so you don't like what I have to say. What is your solution?

Or is your solution to do nothing and ignore human history and the US Constitution?


Comment Re:Founding Fathers (Score 1) 983

While I agree with some of your statements and assertions, your conclusion and proposed solution is flawed. Yes, the founding fathers distrusted standing armies and envisioned the 2nd Amendment as a remedy for this. However, some of the founding fathers felt the entire bill of rights as superfluous as the constitution already granted sovereignty to the people, not the elected government. By extension, the notion that there should be a "well armed militia" instead of a standing army is also a contradiction IF (caps on purpose) the army reports to the people. I have no idea how that would be accomplished in practice, but I do know that the order of soap box to ballot box to ammo box is that way for a reason. Power determines the course of civilizations and national and international politics. Money and guns equal power and the federal government started out with neither. Alexander Hamilton provided money to the feds and they use it expertly to influence supposedly sovereign states to bend to their will in small and large ways. Ultimately, it was as you pointed out, the standing army that secured the federal government as the prominent power in our federalism experiment.

Now here is where your conclusion is flawed. Power cannot be taken without power. It can certainly be given up, but that is an idealistic dream. There is not one single case of that ever happening to a nation state without the threat of greater power forced upon it. Machiavelli was right that it is better to be feared than loved and we are proving it again in the USA. The problem is not having guns (power), it's having too many and allowing them to be used for things that they shouldn't be used for. England is an example of what I consider too far to one extreme -- where only hunters are allowed guns and even the police don't regularly carry firearms. I'm not a flag-waiving NRA member, but I do believe that we must uphold the laws of the land, which includes the 2nd amendment. I also believe the US is too far to the other extreme with a militarized police force with too-lax provisions in place to allow them to kill citizens. The founding fathers provided checks and balances at the highest levels of government and I believe this model should be followed down to the lowest levels. If power is the problem, then balancing it is the solution.

Instead of giving up power (guns), we should re-think how guns are distributed and used. I like the Israeli model, where all citizens are trained in the military, possess weapons and know how to use them properly. Their crime rate is famously low for a reason (terrorism aside). My proposal would be to require training for all gun owners (to encourage safe and sensible use), prohibit military weapons or tactics to be used by the police and to return to a state of balance. I could go into greater detail, but I'm neither a lawmaker or policy influencer -- just an armchair philosphizer.

Comment Re:This isn't about platforms. (Score 4, Insightful) 983

You're right. This isn't about platforms, this is about following the law and IMNSHO, DPD did not do that. Without any information except what has been reported on this and other websites, it appears that after preventing his ability to move, cordoning off the area and attempting to negotiate for hours, they made a judgment call to end his life. He may or may not have been a threat to the general population or to the officers on scene. Regardless, the power to end another life is precisely what is at issue in the mind of the shooter, the mind of the police and the mind of every US citizen that is aware of the increase in police violence. Civilian police forces should not be in the business of killing people and that's what the constitution is talking about with the phrase "due process". It's the military's job to kill people and the military are not peace officers, they are war officers. The distinction is important and bound by law, but increasingly ignored by police forces with the aid of the federal government. The militarization (not just a FUD word, but literally, the conversion of peace officers to war officers) of police forces is the issue and the reason why there was a protest in Dallas and the reason why Johnson went mental and decided to kill cops there. Assassinating him (look up the definition) only reinforces the feeling among Americans that the police are out of control. Did he deserve to die? Most likely, but it isn't the job of police forces to determine that. That is what a judge and jury are for and one of the reasons thirteen colonies because thirteen states after a long and bloody war. If there is not a strong legal reaction to DPD's use of force in this way, the situation will get worse, not better. If there is not a show of restraint by those who are sworn to "serve and protect" there will be escalation that leads to civil war. The USA has already had one and we should do everything we can to avoid another because it was the single great cause of American deaths, ever. If you say you care about people, then you should care about upholding the law, especially for those who are given guns by the government chosen "by the people".

Comment Re: older employees won't put up with abuse (Score 1) 144

This is the problem with young people: they think they are invincible, immortal, and everything they have accomplished they have done on their own.

Personally I wouldn't hire a database architect under 40, nor one who could not give me a basic history of databases back to 1960 and a description of similarities/differences across each database era.


Comment United States Mail (Score 1) 180

After the second call, stop using phone or e-mail. Send a notarized letter via US Postal Service, registered return receipt, to the CEO of the company, with a cc to the Corporate Secretary. No results, the next letter goes to the chairman of the Board of Directors audit committee. That tends to get results.


Comment Re:Why not be like Hillary? (Score 5, Insightful) 138

= = = Get your own phone, server, whatever. There are no punishments or consequences for anyone involved. = = =

Yeah, Karl Rove proved that when he routed 22 million W Administration e-mails through a Republican Party server which was claimed to have no archiving or backup process.


Comment Re:AirPrint (Score 1) 249

Agreed but what I would like to see is printing supported on iDevices properly. Yeah I know about AirPrint but guess what? Millions of printers don't have that (including all of mine) and Apple can't be bothered to make a simple way make existing printers compatible with AirPrint despite it being technologically trivial to do so. It could be done with a simple network attached print server or an app on any macintosh. I get if they don't want to support Windows but it's absurd that my mac can't provide AirPrint services right out of the box.

Yes, if only Apple had been making something like that for the last decade. What a wonderful world we would be living in...

Slashdot Top Deals

It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do. -- Jerome Klapka Jerome