Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



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

Comment Re:Sour grapes (Score 1) 1430

There are a sources saying that this is the purpose of the EC. I have no reason to doubt them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.historycentral.com/...

As far as my reading goes, the EC was designed with the current situation in mind. In that they can ignore BOTH the popular vote AND/OR the winning EC vote in favour of choosing who they think is the person best for the role.

I didn't suggest the EC should be forced to obey the will of the people (either popular or EC vote). I was pointing out that they can ignore the popular vote. It's part of their mandate. So there is as much merit in arguing that they should pick Stein as that they should pick Hillary or Trump.

Is it broken? To many people it's not broken. But almost everyone would agree it's not ideal. Name a system that is. There are levels of change that one can talk about. You could leave it as is. Tweak it. Massively overhaul it. Or even replace it.

My opinion is that a two-party preferred system similar to Australia's would better represent the people. It wipes out the EC in favour of direct election of representatives and senators with every vote counting. I'm unsure whether following the lead on compulsory voting is the right way, but it sure does seal the deal on what the people wanted.

But that's my opinion and it's not what America has now. Right now they've got the EC, and like it or leave it, unless they can convince a whole bunch of Republican EC delegates to vote a non-Republican ticket, they should save their breath.

Comment Re:Sour grapes (Score 1) 1430

So really you meant to say:

"We should start the process of changing the constitution now".

One could readily interpret your original statement as others already have.

The popular vote system based on first over the line is not representative of the most popular candidate. This is solved with a preferential voting system.

Case in hand, if you'd used preferential voting, where would the 4,429,019 votes for Johnson, 1,403,558 to Stein, 559,853 to McMullin, and 1,282,470 other votes spill over to? There are enough votes here to change the results either way.

Comment Re:Watch the USA (Score 1) 266

Just to be super clear here, Hillary Clinton did not "win the popular vote". She didn't win it because there was no competition around the popular vote measure.

The competition wasn't about the most votes in total across the nation. The competition was about winning the most electoral college votes. That is the metric by which the winner was measured. The metric was announced several hundred years beforehand.

Complaining about losing the competition because you have some other totally unofficial metric by which the loser measured as better is the same as complaining about the results of a football match because the loser had more yards gained / ball control / ball passes / whatever.

Back on topic. I thought we were over this hurdle. Jobs are meant to be earned on merit.

Submission + - Feds Demand Everyone's Fingerprints To Open Phones (forbes.com)

ArtemaOne writes: Under the Fourth Amendment, Americans are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures, but according to one group of federal prosecutors, just being in the wrong house at the wrong time is cause enough to make every single person inside provide their fingerprints and unlock their phones.

Back in 2014, a Virginia Circuit Court ruled that while suspects cannot be forced to provide phone passcodes, biometric data like fingerprints doesn’t have the same constitutional protection. Since then, multiple law enforcement agencies have tried to force individual suspects to unlock their phones with their fingers, but none have claimed the sweeping authority found in a Justice Department memorandum recently uncovered by Forbes.

Submission + - SPAM: FBI agents dismayed by failure to charge Clinton

Okian Warrior writes: The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved claiming that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged.



“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute — it was a top-down decision,” said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.


Link to Original Source

Submission + - "Clinton Is Not the Tech Privacy Candidate. Not Your Privacy Anyway." (reason.com)

Nova Express writes: The lengths Hillary Clinton has gone to in order to protect her own tech privacy are well documented. Protecting the tech privacy of ordinary American privacy? Not so much. "Amid the dump of hacked emails from Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta are bits and pieces of discussion that help indicate her mindset on citizen privacy and the use of encryption to protect data." When asked to come out for privacy, the Clinton campaign demurred. "When a top politician appears to take an uninvolved stance in a conflict between the executive branch and private citizens or companies, don't mistake it as neutrality. It's deference to authority. As a candidate running to be in charge of the executive branch, 'staying out of it' is really approval for the Department of Justice to push the issue to see what would happen."

Comment Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! (Score 1) 331

Have fun cleaning your gun then. Because unless you can successfully clear it and declare it safe, you can't clean it.

Or, as in Australia where firearms must be stored unloaded in a safe, unless you can successfully clear it and declare it safe, you can't store it.

You're 100% wrong. Firearms can be rendered safe. Not pointing unloaded (safe) firearms at people is a habitual thing and a courtesy. Without cartridges in them they are lumps of steel, wood, and plastic that cannot do anything.

Comment Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! (Score 1) 331

No they don't. The majority of studies, and all meta analysis concluded the firearm law changes did not affect Australia's firearm (and total) death rate. Firearms are readily available in Australia. The vast majority of the population can purchase semi-automatic handguns, bolt action, pump action, and lever action rifles, break open and lever action shotguns, etc.

Look at New Zealand. They have the most similar culture and living conditions to Australia than any other country in the world. In 1997 (when Australia's firearm laws changed) they did not change theirs. Consequentially you can purchase semi-auto handguns and rifles and high capacity magazines. Yet over the last 20 years their homicide by firearm rate has remained lower than ours (and their total homicide rate also has remained lower than ours).

Guns are never *assumed* to be safe. After visually checking that a firearm is safe by everyone present then it is in fact safe. As a habit we still don't point our firearms at anyone.

Comment Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! (Score 1) 331

Red herring. The term is perfectly adequate for this situation. The context is firearm related human death. We are not talking about the death of food animals or pests. As an aside, hunting is a legitimate sport and so is paper and steel target shooting.

I did "think that". I clearly asked you if you were. You on the other hand assumed that I thought you were afraid when I didn't (you asked "why" I thought that).

You're moving to a different point (the efficacy of spoons versus guns in killing people) and not addressing the point at hand. I'm not arguing that firearms are not better at causing acute trauma than spoons. We are talking about why people are afraid of guns and the comparison made with spoons. You pointed out that spoons cause less death. I pointed out that as a proportion of bullets fired down barrels, firearms also cause hardly any death.

A much better comparison is with knives. Knives cause twice as many murder deaths in Australia each year (where I live) versus firearms, yet people are not afraid of knives. Going by the numbers they should be more fearful of knives.

Slashdot Top Deals

The finest eloquence is that which gets things done.

Working...