Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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

Comment Re:Seems like violating the 4th amendment, not the (Score 1) 422

Former Lancaster CA resident here.

I don't know anything more about this story either. But it sounds highly atypical. Lancaster doesn't have its own police force, and contracts with the Los Angeles Sheriff's Dept. for coverage. As a general rule they're lighter-handed than the average metro cop shop, possibly because they're spread thinner and don't have time to pursue bullshit.

But a few years ago, when the Feds told L.A. County that they'd have to reduce their jail population -- they picked out the problem prisoners and dumped 'em wholesale in the Antelope Valley. What had been isolated perps sneaking around in the dark suddenly became swarms of perps boldly going in broad daylight. Theft abruptly grew from the usual petty urban stuff to a cottage industry (particularly for metal), and same for gangs and drugs.

So I'm thinking this might have been a sting against a large drug or metal-fencing operation, using the cellphone thing as cover for what they were really after, not to mention as a quick way to ID both those present and those who needed pursuing.

Not justifying their action (which was, IMO, blatantly unconstitutional), just thinking of rationale based on the local situation.

Comment Re: OMG that's a dodgy check (Score 1) 331

Here's the problem I have with this:

Program Expenses
(Percent of the charityâ(TM)s total expenses spent on the programs and services it delivers)

This doesn't say exactly what those expenses ARE, because it could well be that they spend 95% of their "program expenses" on admin, salaries, bribes, and various other overhead, and that only 5% actually trickles down to the nominal recipients.

This is something I became aware of while perusing tax info from a particular class of charities -- where "administrative expenses" is typically charity-speak for "owner's salary"... explaining why "administrative expenses" tends to be an upper-five to lower-six figure number even for charities that are basically one-man bands.

Comment Re:Different election this time? (Score 1) 331

Someone pointed out that if Trump actually had a proper collection of skeletons, they'd already be on parade... if one jock-talk tape is the best they can do (at least, with documentation so the tale can't be promptly refuted by genuine witnesses) there probably isn't anything all that terrible waiting to be unearthed.

Comment Re: Can't read my posts either. Strange obsession (Score 1) 549

Nope, just tired of crappy ad hominem arguments that don't actually say anything beyond "we're right, you're wrong". Give me reasons and rationale and hard data (and I don't mean conveniently doctored data, like Mary Koss did), not just BS, and I'll listen. I might even change my mind, like I did on basic income -- once hard facts got laid out, not just leftist whining about their mythical notions of equality.

But hey, keep that bag over your head and complain how everyone else is in the dark.

Comment Re:Can't read my posts either. Strange obsession (Score 1) 549

I've noticed it's the other way around: When liberals say something crappy, we're supposed to take it in the spirit, not the letter. But when conservatives say the same crappy thing, we're supposed to take it as the letter, not the spirit. Oh, and when a liberal says something over the top, it's just hyperbole, but when a conservative says the same thing, it's literal.

If conservatives are insisting that their words be taken at face value, maybe it's because they're tired of liberals twisting 'em like this.

And the sexism/racism seems to be almost exclusively the province of the SJWs, and they're very public about it, but woe unto anyone else saying the same things.

Heads we win, Tails you lose.

Comment Re: Can't read my posts either. Strange obsession (Score 1) 549

I think you're being disingenuous. We not only don't want someone picked on the basis of their skin color, we don't want "liberal" justices, and we're not going to fall for this bait-and-switch.

And did a quick skim through his Wikipedia entry and nope, I don't want Merrick Garland either, I don't care if he's black, white, green, or plaid. Go find someone who judges per the Constitution, not from the regulatory POV.

Thomas Sowell:

Slashdot Top Deals

"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire