Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Case Backwards (Score 1) 433

Someone might make such an argument if they did not realize that there are a very different set of laws when it comes to injuring or killing people than there are for property damage. Fortunately, folks here are smarter than that.

Are they smart enough to see the words "used to support" an argument and not assume it means "fully justify in the eyes of the law?" And the words "for any reason" allude to situations much less serious than someone breaking into your house or threatening you with a weapon ("I was afraid for my life"), such as "a five year old girl standing next to your mailbox at the end of your driveway 200 feet away from you."

Comment Re:Just stop this nonsense (Score 1) 151

Because inherent in your claim is that the people who do go and register have interest and are better informed.

Wrong. I said nothing at all about people who are interested enough in voting enough register. The fact that a registered voter is or is not informed has nothing to do with the people who don't care about voting at all. You are applying a logical fallacy that "A isn't B" must mean "Not A is B". "Uninterested voters are not informed" does not imply that "Interested voters are informed."

That is generally not the case.

That is irrelevant to the discussion about why you don't just send ballots to everyone who is a citizen. It would be an argument for a poll test, but that's not legal.

Comment Re:A effective attack and defense (Score 1) 151

So does my wife. She shouldn't need to register to do so.

Why not? Why should she be mailed a ballot if she's just going to throw it away? If she's not interested enough in voting to register, why bother? Why should YOU even get close to a ballot that you can simply fill out and send in on her behalf when she isn't interested enough to even register?

As a non citizen (of the US) I've not noticed anyone offering me such a reward for voting illegally in a US election.

Oh, please. People don't need someone to walk up to them with a gilt-edged invitation to know that illegal voting can be beneficial to them. You think illegal aliens need someone to tell them that it would be in their best interests were a politician who will not enforce immigration law be elected to the highest office in the land? (As if local political activists aren't already telling them that, too.)

That case is the corruption of the voting system by the administrators of the voting system, not the voters.

Who do you think walks in the door asking for ballot for a dead person, or is bused around the city to different voting places so they can vote? The voter. The election officials turn a blind eye, and then try denying that there is any fraud, but there are people casting those ballots.

Comment Re:A effective attack and defense (Score 1) 151

If you're a citizen, you can go in to vote.

Go in where? I get my ballots by mail.

Non citizens have absolutely zero incentive to vote.

Really? "If I vote for someone who promises to give me free stuff, I might get free stuff." Or "if I vote against someone who wants to enforce the laws that would deport me, maybe I won't be deported." Doesn't sound like zero incentive to me.

Why bother taking the risk?

With half the people in the country denying that it does or could take place, the risk is minimal. And when the person you helped elect takes charge. the risk goes away completely.

This is why the data shows it almost never happens.

Except in Chicago where it is a running joke. And of course, few waste time collecting data on something that they actively deny ever happens.

Comment Re:Case Backwards (Score 1) 433

Further, this argument that claims that it was the fault of the drone pilot for being "on private property" can be used to support the shooting death of any person who happens to wander onto your private property, for any reason. "If only they hadn't been there, my discharge of a lethal weapon wouldn't have killed them ..."

Comment Re:25 to 30 feet above the trees? (Score 2) 433

... they are violating FAA minimum altitude regulations ... (1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA

Were there any FAA routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for that location? No? Then they aren't violating the FAA minimum altitude restrictions.

Comment Re:Just stop this nonsense (Score 1) 151

It's cute you this makes them less informed than the average voter.

Logical fallacy. I said nothing about the 'average voter'. I said that they would be uninformed because they have no interest in the process. It's not cute, it's the truth.

Why do you seem to have a problem with letting people who have no interest in voting remain unregistered to vote?

Comment Re:No...just, no. (Score 1) 151

No offense, but when you've promoted "Second Amendment solutions" to prevent a president from appointing judges, and you're promoting a civilian "Deportation Force", and you're ginning up the notion that if you lose the election, it's because it was "rigged", what the fuck do you think he's talking about? You can't be that stupid.

So no, you are intending offense, and you have no actual quote or citation that shows him calling for "armed observers to act menacing". You're making it up.

As for your fear of "second amendment solutions", what was actually said what that "second amendment people" know how to deal with the political process of infringement of their second amendment rights. It's amazing to me, ten minutes before he made that comment every anti-Trump person on the planet knew all about how much political influence the NRA has (and blames it on bribes and not just having a lot of people as members), but five minutes after he referred to "second amendment people" every one of those anti-Trump people forgot all about the NRA and jumped to the ridiculous conclusion that Trump must be calling for an armed overthrow of the government. An armed overthrow that the "second amendment people" have never resorted to, so to believe that Trump was saying that they had experience in doing that would be ridiculous.

The New Black Panther party was two guys standing outside of a Philadelphia polling place.

Check. Voter intimidation is ok as long as it isn't too much. And we ignore all the other reports of similar things.

And they were not responding to a public call for a show of force by candidate Barack Obama.

And neither did Donald Trump make any call for a show of force.

So, you dumb fuck, the "worse" part is that it's Donald Fucking Trump who's the one asking for thugs to stand in front of polling places.

Citation required. Oh, you've already admitted you have none.

Jesus wept. It wasn't "local fraud" that caused 2000 to be seen as a crooked election.

It was fraud alleged in various counties in the state of Florida. At least, that's where all the court cases were being filed. You can't get any more "local" than the county level when it's the county elections departments who run the elections.

It was the fact that it was decided by the Supreme Court along partisan lines.

No offense, but you are lying. The fact is that the election was decided by the legal process as it was designed and implemented prior to the election, by the legislature of the State of Florida, who is tasked with deciding that process for the electors in the State of Florida. The Supreme Court correctly decided that it was the State of Florida legislature that had that authority and that they acted appropriately.

Comment Re:Just stop this nonsense (Score 0) 151

No, auto-register them but they still must come to the polling stations to get a ballot.

What's a "polling station"? Here in Oregon we have nothing like that.

The current setup has virtually no voter fraud

Sure. We know this because? How does someone who didn't vote know that he voted so he can report the fraudlent vote? And what was all that complaining about Florida a few years ago? And how many dead people have to vote in Chicago before it's fraud?

as they don't know who is registered to vote or not

You don't know that voter registration lists are available to the public, do you? That's how the parties know who they should be calling to "get out the vote" and who they shouldn't, for example.

ID laws as they serve a huge purpose in turning away voters.

They turn away people who want to vote but aren't supposed to. That's fine with me.

Another AC:

because one of the political parties in the US really doesn't want everyone to vote

That's correct. One of the political parties wants only those people who are legally authorized to vote to do so. The other party wants everyone to vote, even those who aren't authorized, especially those who are beneficiaries of government largesse.

Comment Re:No...just, no. (Score 1) 151

One side is already making this argument, and is recruiting an army of armed "observers" to stand around polling places and act menacing.

Citation required. No, neither of your links talks about armed observers, and nothing about acting "menacing".

And you'll have to explain why asking people to keep an eye on the process is worse than the New Black Panther party "keeping an eye on the process" by acting menacing and shouting racial slurs at potential voters.

As for the second link claiming there is no fraud and no fraud could possibly change the result of a "national election". It's interesting that they then list a bunch of voting fraud at the end of the article, admitting the notorious "cemetary voting" in Chicago. And they're politically ignorant for calling the election of the President a "national" election. It's an election held on the same day in all fifty states, resulting in state-by-state winners that are later tallied in the Electoral College.

If no local fraud could swing the results of a national election, then what all the crying about the state of Florida results when Bush was elected over Gore?

Comment Re:Just stop this nonsense (Score 2, Informative) 151

Please stop this nonsense and autoregister everyone who is allowed to vote.

So you send ballots to everyone, even those who have no desire to vote, and have not bothered to study any of the issues at all because of that. Why should they be voting if they really care so little about the process?

Voter registration is so easy that it is a barrier only to those who really don't care to vote, and I think that not handing them a ballot is a good answer to the question "why should I register to vote when I don't want to?"

Comment Re:Conflating with Network Neutrality (Score 1) 91

how can throttling P2P still be considered a violation since it was the primary motivator of the movement?

First, just saying "P2P" doesn't say what the service was. Throttling P2P video from outside sources while allowing ISP video services unlimited throughput is an example of a violation.

But it wasn't P2P that was "the primary motivator". It was throttling (and in some cases just congestion due to border gateway issues) that was the primary motivator. That awful Comcast, for example, that allowed congestion at the border gateway to limit people's access to NetFlix, even though Comcast video services are on a different delivery mechanism so it wasn't a true case of net neutrality.

What you described would allow them to throttle P2P however they like as long as they didn't use the protocols themselves.

Not the protocol, the SERVICE.

There is a huge difference between protocols handling data differently as part of their design (ie. UDP doesn't guarantee delivery, TCP does) and ISP's throttling specific content.

Yes, there is. That's why the specific content (i.e., the SOURCE of the data) is a critical element in determining "net neutrality", and not just "this data isn't treated exactly the same as that data". It's not just the difference between UDP and TCP that means some data is treated differently, it is the design of TCP that allows this.

Everything at layer 7 should be considered off limits for ISP's to fuck with.

That's a nice opinion, but it has nothing to do with net neutrality. The Internet was designed with the ability to handle some data differently that other data. It's part of the protocol. It's the SOURCE of the data that is what determines neutrality. Is the ISP treating this kind of data from an outside server differently than the same kind of data (not "same protocol", same kind of data) from its own servers. THAT is net neutrality. Having your FTP session run at a lower priority than a Skype call has nothing to do with neutrality; your Skype call at a lower priority than the ISPs VoIP service IS.

Comment Re:Morons (Score 1) 297

Why do people think things like the Bechdel test are worth more than a fart in the breeze/

For the same reason they think "the lack of qualified people to fill 500,000 U.S. tech jobs" has anything to do with "how STEM careers have been presented in film and television" instead of the fact that the primary "qualification" being looked for is H1-B eligibility.

Slashdot Top Deals

Mater artium necessitas. [Necessity is the mother of invention].