Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



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

Journal Journal: Any uptick in hate crimes by Trump-supporters? 2

It has been a while since Trump's win, has there been any evidence of the foretold uptick of hate-crimes by his supporters? And I mean, actual crimes — not just speech — that are real, reported to police and investigated?..

Comment Re: Hey, cable companies: (Score 1) 200

if a government official requires that a private utility (e.g. Cable company) makes concessions to the local community as a condition of having access to that community, how exactly is that ineptitude?

If the would-be ISP walks away as a result, the community is left without that ISP's service. Or, as probably happens too, the company says, Ok, we'll do that — and then some, but in exchange you make sure, no one else ever gets to offer their service in your town. Which, obviously, is also quite damaging to the community. Hence ineptitude. And corruption.

I'd call that doing a good job instead of merely taking the shitty deal the utility likely laid on the table to begin with.

The requirements for everybody ought to be the same and clearly spelled-out. In a country with separation of powers, such requirements can not be left to the executive to formulate.

I'm flabbergasted, I even need to explain this...

Comment Re:Whoah there (Score 1) 22

But in saying it this way, you're attempting to imply you can provide evidence. And I am simply pointing out that there is no reason to even consider that this is a possibility. Don't tell me you will do it later, because that's irrelevant. It's no different than saying nothing at all, or even saying "I have no evidence" or "I cannot provide evidence." They are all exactly equivalent in the end, except that the other methods do not have the implication that you might actually provide the evidence, despite you not giving us a reason to believe that, so it smacks of dishonesty.

Just say nothing at all, unless you have something to contribute. You'll be better off.

Comment Re:It's the media's fault (Score 1) 22

If not for you, then it's not difficult for anybody.

I make no claims about what is not hard for others. I do assert that most people do not do it, regardless of how hard it is.

In this case blaming the media is just doing the democrats' dirty work ...

Yawn. I am uninterested of your characterizations. Either actually make an argument against what I wrote, or do not. So far, you have not.

We all have the same power to turn our backs. You're not that special.

You are not, in any way, arguing against what I wrote.

In theory humans can make the choice.

Of course they can. So? Again: this, in no way whatsoever, implies that the media is not to blame. It just means that we have the power to ignore their bad behavior. But it's still their bad behavior. They are still to blame for it. Obviously.

Comment Re:Hey, cable companies: (Score 2) 200

If there were high prices and lack of competition in 5 or 10% of locales, then simple corruption and ineptitude would be a reasonable explanation

Why must my methodology differ?

when the problem exists everywhere, you need to look for systemic structural problems.

Indeed it is a system problem. And, according to the article I cited, that problem is the local governments mistreating commercial ISPs. The companies need the governments' cooperation to lay cables, and the local mayors, town councils et al consider it a golden opportunity — to extract favors. The favors are either for themselves (corruption) or for their cities (ineptitude)...

Now, you didn't include the requested citation(s) in your reply. Was that an accident you can promptly rectify, or are you taking back your earlier claim:

99% of the cost of providing service is the trenching

?

Comment Re:Whoah there (Score 1) 22

Incorrect. Page views and the like are cash money.

I meant -- obviously -- there is no journalistic or democratic reason to do it. Everything has a reason.

I don't know of any broadly reported unsourced attacks on Hillary Clinton.

Of course not, you don't read the NYT.

So you have no examples, then. Good to know.

Comment Re:Hey, cable companies: (Score 0) 200

Since 99% of the cost of providing service is the trenching, this will make the market far more competitive.

Citation, please...

Imagine how competitive the package delivery business would be if FedEx, UPS, and USPS each had to build their own network of roads?

Kinda hard to imagine... But I don't think, the conclusion you are trying to project is all that obvious. At any rate, there is a LOT more to package delivery, than roads. There is nothing else to ISP beyond running and maintaining cables (and routers), so your analogy is not valid.

A single network of publicly owned roads fixes that problem, and allows competition to thrive.

The real hurdle to ISP-propagation is the local governments' corruption and ineptitude. Giving them more power will only make things worse.

Comment Re:Whoah there (Score 1) 22

I'm not talking about evidence, I'm talking about railgunner's assertion that it's "obvious".

I get that, but the main point is that there's no reason to report it in the first place, because there is no evidence ... regardless of how much you think it might be in line with his character to do it.

Besides, it worked so well on Clinton, can you blame anyone for adopting the tactic?

I don't know of any broadly reported unsourced attacks on Hillary Clinton. Can you give an example? The main attacks I know of on her were based on hacked documents that the DNC and others admitted were genuine; on a report by the FBI that no one called into question on the facts (though admittedly we couldn't verify some of those facts, such as that the information Clinton mishandled was actually classified); and so on.

Comment Re:It's the media's fault (Score 1) 22

The media has 'trained' us?

Yes.

Is it really so hard to turn your back?

Not for me, no. I am one of the very few who actively dismisses any unsourced report.

Where is all this *personal responsibility* that you speak of?

Of course, it is our responsibility to ignore unsourced reports. But that doesn't mean the media isn't responsible for incessantly giving those unsourced reports to us ... obviously.

Comment Re:It's the media's fault (Score 1) 22

'Fake news' and the official narrative are frequently synonymous. Why is it the media's fault if people decide to believe them?

Did you not read my comment? I already answered this question: because it's the media that has trained us to believe assertions without evidence.

Submission + - Is it time to hold police officers accountable for constitutional violations? (washingtonpost.com)

schwit1 writes: Recently the Supreme Court issued a summary opinion in the White v. Pauly case.A police officer was sued for killing a man during an armed standoff during which the officers allegedly never identified themselves as police. The Supreme Court, however, concluded that the officer had “qualified immunity.” That is, he was immune from a suit for damages, because his conduct — while possibly unconstitutional — was not obviously unconstitutional.

The doctrine of qualified immunity operates as an unwritten defense to civil rights lawsuits brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. It prevents plaintiffs from recovering damages for violations of their constitutional rights unless the government official violated “clearly established law,” usually requiring a specific precedent on point. This article argues that the doctrine is unlawful and inconsistent with conventional principles of statutory interpretation.

Members of the Supreme Court have offered three different justifications for imposing such an unwritten defense on the text of Section 1983. One is that it derives from a common law “good faith” defense; another is that it compensates for an earlier putative mistake in broadening the statute; the third is that it provides “fair warning” to government officials, akin to the rule of lenity.

But on closer examination, each of these justifications falls apart, for a mix of historical, conceptual, and doctrinal reasons. There was no such defense; there was no such mistake; lenity ought not apply. And even if these things were otherwise, the doctrine of qualified immunity would not be the best response.

The unlawfulness of qualified immunity is of particular importance now. Despite the shoddy foundations, the Supreme Court has been reinforcing the doctrine of immunity in both formal and informal ways. In particular, the Court has given qualified immunity a privileged place on its agenda reserved for few other legal doctrines besides habeas deference. Rather than doubling down, the Court ought to be beating a retreat.

Government officials, especially those with the power that Law Enforcement officers have, should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one.

Slashdot Top Deals

The disks are getting full; purge a file today.

Working...