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:Asinine. (Score 1) 436

Maybe we could get a top law enforcement guy for the whole US. We could call him, The President. And we could empower him to enforce the laws of the country through various agencies. Maybe we could name two of those agencies the Department of Justice, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. And then we could pass a law making it illegal for convicted felons who lost the right to have a firearm to try and buy one! We could call it, The Gun Control Act of 1968!

Then, that President guy could instruct his subordinates in those two departments, to enforce that 48 year-old law, and FINALLY we'd have some good controls in place to stop convicted felons from getting guns!

Do you see where this is going yet?

In 2010, out of 48,321 felons and fugitives who attempted to illegally purchase firearms, the Department of Justice prosecuted only 44 of them.

That's 48,321 open and shut cases of felons and fugitives swearing in writing on their ATF Form 4473 that they can legally posses a gun, when they couldn't. President Obama's Justice Department gladly allows 99.91% of the prohibited felons who attempt to buy a gun from a federally licensed dealer simply walk free. Right there are 48,321 of your felons illegally trying to get guns, and being allowed to get away with it.

We don't lack strong controls. We lack any will from President Obama to enforce the law, and it's quite on purpose. If the current gun laws were rigidly enforced, gun crime would drop, and the president wouldn't be able to whine incessantly about how we need more gun laws.

Comment Re:Asinine. (Score 4, Informative) 436

You may not, but the problem is that too many of the politicians you vote for do. HRC is on record many times this campaign saying she wants to see the "Australian model" implemented in the US. That means forced confiscation of all personally owned firearms under the guise of "buybacks." The buybacks are mandatory, and you go to prison is you don't comply.

Here's a list of politicians talking about confiscating guns, just from a short period in 2013:

Hawaii legislature proposes gun confiscation

New York Assemblyman asks colleague not to mention that original proposed SAFE Act included confiscation

Missouri Democrats introduce legislation to confiscate guns

VA has veterans who cannot manage their own financial affairs declared prohibited persons unable to own firearms

NJ State Senator "We needed a bill that was going to confiscate confiscate confiscate."

Oregon Legislator calls fears of gun confiscation a "paranoid delusion" and then states he is in favor of gun confiscation

Governor Cuomo says, "confiscation could be an option."

Feinstein suggests "compulsory buyback."

CA assembly proposes confiscating 166,000 legally registered guns.

And the classic from 1995:

Do you notice any common political party among the people calling for confiscation?

Comment Re:Broken Windows Policing (Score 4, Interesting) 191

Maybe the president could start enforcing the gun laws he has the power to enforce, instead of pushing for new restrictions on law abiding citizens?

In 2010, out of 48,321 felons and fugitives who attempted to illegally purchase firearms, the Department of Justice prosecuted only 44 of them.

That's 48,321 open and shut cases of felons and fugitives swearing in writing on their ATF Form 4473 that they can legally posses a gun, when they couldn't. The Justice Department gladly allows 99.91% of the prohibited felons who attempt to buy a gun from a federally licensed dealer simply walk free. Right there are 48,321 minor crimes that could have been enforced that weren't.

Comment No effect on greenhouse gases. (Score 1) 222

From the article:

"It will emit about 40,000 fewer tons of greenhouse gases per year than fossil fuels would to generate the same amount of energy. That's the equivalent of taking 150,000 cars off the road."

According to economists, about 80,000 - 150,000 people come of age each month in America. (This is the number used to see how many minimum jobs need to be created in a month to have an effect on unemployment.) How many of those people do you think have a car? Statistically, in America, 63,760 - 119,550 of them will have cars. (797 cars/1000 people in the US. Source:

From a greenhouse gas standpoint, the whole effort of building this windfarm is wiped out by 1.25 - 2.35 months of population growth.

Comment Re:Stupid bet... (Score 2) 303


My preferred bet would have been, "Are there more or fewer people recorded living in the zip codes of the Florida Keys during the 2020 census than there were during the 2010 census?"

The criteria for settling the bet needs to be something much more objective than highly variable and easily manipulable temperature data. Global Warming could be complete bunk, and these guys could have still lost the bet due to nothing more than yearly variation in temperature. They choose their bet poorly.

Submission + - Twitter censors #DNCLeaks trending topic and hashtag (

bongey writes: Twitter censored the 2nd trending topic DNCLeaks hashtag. The trending hashtag #DNCLeaks was climbing over 90k tweets when it disappeared from the trending topics. It was replaced with PraisinTheAsian(17k) and TheWalkingDead(38k).

Comment Obama. What a joke. (Score 4, Interesting) 95

The president with the worst history of blanket denial of FOIA requests, running the most opaque government in our lifetime, signs a law "improving" the FOIA system. What a joke! If he and his executive branch didn't respect it before, they wont respect it now.

I was reading on a gun blog recently about a lawyer who sent the FBI an FOIA wanting to know what offenses would make a person a "domestic abuser" and disqualify them from buying a gun. The FBI said the list was secret and refused to answer. There's your most transparent administration ever!

The BATFE has stopped responding to FOIAs completely. If you want anything from them, you have to sue, pay for counsel, and wait for the lethargic court system to sort it out for a few years. They've even claimed they're not subject to FOIA requests AT ALL!

Submission + - Colorado university investigates professors for noting alternative opinions

An anonymous reader writes: Two professors at a Colorado university are under investigation for mentioning to students the existence of opposing viewpoints.

Two professors at the University of Northern Colorado were investigated after students complained that they were forced to hear opposing viewpoints. The complaints were made to Northern Colorado’s “Bias Response Team,” an Orwellian office on campus that asks students to report their peers and professors for anything that upsets or offends them. When the news outlet Heat Street made an open records request for some of the complaints, it discovered that two students had become so upset about having to hear an opinion they disagreed with they filed reports with school administrators.

And rather than telling the students to buck up because they might hear those opinions outside of college or on the news or in the media, the schools told the professors to stop teaching that there’s an alternate viewpoint. [emphasis mine]

In both cases the professors were not advocating the alternative viewpoints, only teaching their students that those viewpoints exist. To the students and the university, even this was unacceptable.

There is no way you can have a free and open society if the people running the universities consider it unacceptable to even mention the existence of alternative points of view. Be prepared for worse things in the coming years, as these coddled close-minded students take the reins of power. They won’t be satisfied with merely shutting up their opponents. They will want to eliminate them entirely.

Submission + - Clinton's Private Email Was Blocked By Spam Filters, So State IT Turned Them Off (

An anonymous reader writes: Documents recently obtained by the conservative advocacy group Judicial Watch show that in December 2010, then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her staff were having difficulty communicating with State Department officials by e-mail because spam filters were blocking their messages. To fix the problem, State Department IT turned the filters off — potentially exposing State's employees to phishing attacks and other malicious e-mails. The mail problems prompted Clinton Chief of Staff Huma Abedin to suggest to Clinton (PDF), "We should talk about putting you on State e-mail or releasing your e-mail address to the department so you are not going to spam." Clinton replied, "Let's get [a] separate address or device but I don't want any risk of the personal [e-mail] being accessible." The mail filter system — Trend Micro's ScanMail for Exchange 8 — was apparently causing some messages from Clinton's private server ( to not be delivered (PDF). Some were "bounced;" others were accepted by the server but were quarantined and never delivered to the recipient. According to the e-mail thread published yesterday by Judicial Watch, State's IT team turned off both spam and antivirus filters on two "bridgehead" mail relay servers while waiting for a fix from Trend Micro. There was some doubt about whether Trend Micro would address the issue before State performed an upgrade to the latest version of the mail filtering software. A State Department contractor support tech confirmed that two filters needed to be shut off in order to temporarily fix the problem — a measure that State's IT team took with some trepidation, because the filters had "blocked malicious content in the recent past." It's not clear from the thread that the issue was ever satisfactorily resolved, either with SMEX 8 or SMEX 10.

Comment Re:Doesn't really matter. (Score 1) 327

Additionally, hydrocarbons wont be replaced for use in more than a small minority of air travel, ocean travel or rail travel in my lifetime. Cars, yeah, you probably wont be able to buy a new ICE car 40 years from now. The rest of our modes of transport will still be hydrocarbon then.

Also, we've seen how well utility scale solar is working out at Ivanpah. Utility scale solar is a dead-end. Utility scale wind power is limited in deployable area. The environmentalists wont allow tidal or nuclear. So, we're left with fossil fuels.

Personally, I'm long XOM, CVX, RDS, COP, and a whole host of smaller upstream, midstream and downstream companies.

Comment Re:I wonder... (Score 3, Informative) 663

I don't know, but I can give you a useful data point. My wife and I went to the annual NRA convention in Houston in 2013. Eighty-six thousand NRA members attended that year. Since concealed carry is legal in Texas, and since concealed carry could not legally be prohibited in the convention space (because it was owned by the city), and since it was in Texas (where gun ownership is high relative to most of the rest of the country), and since it was the NRA convention (so gun ownership among attendees was probably close to 99.99%), it probably represents the single largest non-military event in human history both in terms of number of guns carried by attendees and percentage of attendees carrying guns.

And what happened?

A whole lot of nothing. Three days of exhibits, conferences, speakers, events, etc. And a lack of people being shot.

The RNC convention in 2012 was expected to have 50,000 attendees. Assume 2016 will be the same. Even then, the number of people and the % of people who want to carry guns at an RNC convention is going to me MUCH less than at the NRA convention.

If they allowed it, even if they requested that people do it, it would be shocking if anything bad happened. In Texas, concealed carry license holders are more law-abiding than police officers according to the statistics that the Department of Public Safety is required to collect and publish as part of our carry laws.

The liberal hand-wringing over "what if" and "might" and "blood in the streets" when it comes to carrying guns in public is so so tiring.

Comment Re:So no used ebay phones any more (Score 1) 556

Imagine that: another California Democrat looking to restrict your freedom in order to make themselves feel better, with no useful law enforcement outcomes realized, or even possible.

The background check analogy is spot on: a useless check, easily bypassed, that does more to harm the law abiding than it does criminals. There's predictive power in that analogy too: bad people caught attempting to buy burner phones wont be prosecuted, just as known felons attempting to buy guns from federally licensed gun dealers aren't prosecuted now. In 2010, out of 48,321 felons and fugitives who attempted to illegally purchase firearms, the Department of Justice prosecuted only 44 of them.

The proof is in the pudding. Democrat President Obama's Justice Department gladly allows 99.91% of the prohibited felons who attempt to buy a gun from a federally licensed dealer simply walk free. Firearms background checks, and similarly background checks for burner phones, aren't about crime prevention or law enforcement; they're about restricting your rights to property and privacy, and in the burner phone case specifically it's about a kind of sick cryptophobia where a law-abiding person is hated by their government for their desire to not be constantly spied on by that same government.

Slashdot Top Deals

The cost of feathers has risen, even down is up!