Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:why should i care?` (Score 1) 555

No, some teachers at a different school sued. They were using the Berkeley videos as classes, but didn't want to pay to make the videos comply to the ADA.

No students were part of the lawsuit. Gallaudet University was trying to freeload, and they won.

Gallaudet University should have been sued for using the videos as their own classes without making them accessible.

You wold have known all this had you had any clue as to the details of the lawsuit.

Comment Re:Snowden (Score 2) 384

Finally Snowden's leaks might have harmed intelligence gathering efforts, disclosing methods and capabilities but they did not out people as Manning's leaks almost certainly did. There is cause to believe lives may have been lost due to Manning's leaks. That issue alone should make it a very different discussion about pardoning him, and the moral justification for his actions.

I can see a pardon or reduced sentence for Snowden but there is no way I would ever let Manning out of the clink.

The very witnesses called against Manning had to admit, under oath, that there was no evidence that anyone was outed or killed due to the actions Manning took.
The government spent millions investigating and came up with no evidence. How is it that you seem to have some secret knowledge about what 'really' happened? Where is your proof, and why have you been hiding it for the last 3 years?

You can believe whatever you want, but without evidence, it has no value.

We should strive to deal with facts and evidence, not just comfortably repeated lies.

Here is a link with actual information. It requires a bit of time to read, but isn't that a small price to pay to be able to have some idea of what you are talking about?

Comment Re:Not Pardon, only Commute Sentences (Score 2) 384

Please prove evidence that anyone died or had their cover blown due to Manning's actions.

Here is a link where the government actually admits that they cannot find any evidence that people died or had their covers blown by Manning's actions:

If you make a claim, but cannot support that claim with evidence, then you have nothing but your opinion. It might be correct, but until you can show it is correct, it has no place in a conversation.

Here is another link where the witness against Manning admitted that there was no evidence that anyone died due to the actions of Manning:

A lot of people believe that Manning put lives in danger. The agencies that are tasked with dealign with those lives said otherwise. They might think it 'could have' or 'might have' but when asked to provide evidence that it did, they all said they could find nothing that tied Manning's actions to any deaths. The one guy that the Taliban claimed to have killed because of the leak, his name wasn't in any of the materials Manning leaked, and appeared to be an example of the Taliban attributing a reason for a killing that was simply made up by the Taliban to try and embarrass the US.

But we agree on commutation rather than pardon. Manning and Snowden did actually do something illegal. I think it is fair that in Manning's case, time served is seen as an adequate punishment.

Comment Not broken, why fix it (Score 1) 369

I have been on /. a while and don't see the problem with AC as it is now.

People will always find a way to game a system, and the effort to try and prevent that will only be used to silence others.

Leave it alone. The AC system works to allow people to post without any fear, and moderation and filters allow for people to only see it if they choose to.

You expand freedom, never reduce it. Forcing AC to register in some way is anti-free speech, no matter the good intentions behind it.

Comment Re:Liberty Minded (Score 1) 388

You keep bringing up the NSA and middle east bombing adventures as if other political 'isms' are in favor of such madness.

You assume that the rest of us are happy about it, and only people with your label have any principles or reservations at the hell hole we have created on this globe. At least that is how you sound.

The rest of us don't think a change in tax policies will fix anything. People are the problem and until we choose to stop murdering each other over stupid shit, or evils of the past, nothing you do will change anything other than the name of the philosophy that claims to have the cure for the problem.

But at least you are trying. Regardless of the end result, willingness to try something is better than the alternative.

Comment Re:REALLY!!!!!! (Score 1) 388

No one is chasing you. If anyone were, then there would be this swath of libertarian promised land and the idea of 20k people agreeing to move to/invade a part of New Hampshire would be moot.

'Us' Liberals can condemn Israel and the Palestinians at the same time. Not sure what libertarian kool-aid you are drinking that makes the scale of the violence the thing that determines if the violence is good or bad, but I'm pretty sure it has less to do with libertarianism and more to do with your inability to defend your position without painting those that disagree with you as 'the real ISIS'.

This doesn't even touch on the historical fact that before Israel was dumped into the Middle East by Jew hating Europeans, there were already millions of people living in the land we now call Israel. And that it is the descendants of those people that are fighting Israel today, because Israel, backed by the people that hated the Jews as much as Nazi Germany (just never enough to try and kill them all), declared the land to belong to the Jews and started killing anyone that disagreed. And the US didn't need to chase them out, since we refused to allow them entry into the US, even after we knew that Germany was rounding them up and making them disappear. But you ignore these recorded facts because your rant doesn't work if people know the actual history.

So, maybe you should use fact and reason to make your case for why Liberals are wrong and leave the insane ramblings to people that have nothing but ignorance and hate to support their nonsensical delusions.

If you can. No one that has even an elementary understanding of 20th century history could ramble off the nonsense you did. Unless you are either intentionally lying, ignorant of recorded fact, or delusional. None of which make you ISIS I might add, just sad and pathetic and part of the problem you seem to blame on people that wear a label you do not like. It should be the genocide that angers you, not which genocidal cause is better at the actual evil of genocide.

Or, in the name of freedom and liberty, keep making an ass of yourself in public because you are so consumed by your hate of anyone that doesn't agree with you, that you feel the need to demonize and belittle them, rather than provide proof and fact that would make your case for you. No insane nonsense about being chased by the Liberal devils required.

People like you are what fires the public image of Libertarians being gun nuts wanting to build a compound out in the woods because they think hiding in the woods makes them any more free than the rest of us. It is an image that defames the people behind the Free State Project, and distracts any real conversation about if a more Libertarian society can or should exist. If you feel the need to demonize your enemies, there are countless groups you can go join that would be glad to give you a target for your madness. Please go find one and leave the adults alone so we can discuss the serious issues without distractions like you interrupting the conversation.

There is a difference between being angry and being mad. One can fuel determination and resolve to see a some injustice corrected. The other leads to madness.

Pick one.

Comment For me... (Score 1) 199

My Logitech Cordless Optical Trackman. The singular failure of this device is that it is not Bluetooth, or Unifying receiver compatible.

You kids can keep your mice, forcing you to move your arm all over the place. I'll stick with my finger control.

Comment Re:Questionable (Score 1) 277

You should learn to read more carefully.

Most of the people here talking about the 'interview' are talking about the last segment of the show where a person comes out and talks to Jon regarding something. Those are almost never edited, and as has been mentioned, when they are, they tell you to see the entire interview on the web site.

The 'guest interviews are edited to hell and back' that you keep parroting are in fact the bit segments where one of the show's corespondents go out and talk to someone. Those are so completely and obviously edited, It surprises me that you seem to think no one does.

I would argue that they are edited for comedic effect, especially when it is a guy saying that $2 an hour is a wage for interns and, in his own words, the 'mentally retarded', or a guy that has a state level job of representing a fetus in court, even though the state (my home state to be exact) doesn't provide the same level of representation for already born people, even though the Constitution suggest that everyone in a criminal case has the right to legal counsel. And oddly, the people that seem to complain the loudest are not ones that claim that TDS twisted their words into saying something they did not say, it is almost always people complaining because they didn't think TDS would air them saying that the only people willing to work for $2 an hour are interns and retarded people.

They are upset because their distractions were cut out of the bit and all that was left was a guy saying that people do no deserve to make a living by working. Unless the honestly believe that people can survive on $2 an hour?

One is the interview, the other is a bit carried out by the correspondents; not the same thing.

If you are going to disagree with someone, it would help if you were talking about the same damn thing. Doesn't mean you are wrong or right, just that you cannot talk about something with another person unless you actually talk about the same thing. Otherwise, it just makes it look like you are repeating a phrase because you have nothing substantive to offer in the conversation, or you are not aware that you are not talking about the same thing as the rest of the group.

Just saying.

Comment Re:they will defeat themselves (Score 1) 981

Actually, ISIL hasn't flown planes into anything, that was Al Qaeda (not Iraq). They haven't beheaded children.That story goes to a single source, not in the area ISIL currently controls, is the single person claiming this. The only photo of a beheaded child is from 2013, and was killed by bombs dropped by the Syrian government.

14 of the guys in the planes were Saudis. Why not go hate on them?

But please go on and spread propaganda to lead the US into yet another war in a place we never should have been in the first place. These wars of choice always work out so well in the end.

Comment Re:Not all religions are bad (Score 3, Insightful) 910

Not a condemnation? Are you high?

Leviticus 20:13
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

You can argue as to what 'lie with mankind' means, but to suggest that ' to’evah ' translated to abomination isn't a condemnation is just dishonest.

Comment Re:Christianity offers a wide range of opinions (Score 4, Insightful) 943

The problem is that they claim their book is the word of their god. If they can discard parts as allegory, but others as truth, then how do they decide? At whom's whim does the decision rest?

That people need to create new explanations for why the Bible says something that they decided it doesn't mean to say anymore makes me think that the book wasn't right in the first place and people are desperate to keep it relevant. If 'god' didn't want people to think the world was 6,000 years old, why say it was in the book? Seems like 'a long long time ago' would have conveyed the same idea, but prevented people that believe the book to be true from running around with obviously flawed information. Even George Lucas figured out it was easier to be vague, one would think the creator of all things would at least be at that level. That some are 'quite comfortable' with their ever changing assumptions regarding the content of their book doesn't make them enlightened, it makes them look like they would rather change the entire meaning of the book rather than admit it might not be true.

Making one's faith fit science seems to be a lesser evil that forcing the science to the faith, but in the end you are still forcing something to be 'true' when an entirely different conclusion could reached by throwing away the requirement that the answer hold to a bronze age religion.

Comment Re:Speaking as an Creationist and Evolutionist (Score 1) 943

Why would the creator of all things need to worry about his 'spiritual enemies'? We are talking about something that, according to some, existed before the universe. Beings so far removed from the physical plane wouldn't need to worry about humanity moving into the stars or trying to trick the bad guys into wasting their time so the good guys could convert more people. Unless you are suggesting that the same beings that supposedly go before the throne of 'god' to tattle on believers need to concern themselves with something as mundane as distance between stars? That 'god' even has enemies seems to undermine his claim to being a god. He can create all existence, but he needs to worry about the evil schemes of his creations? That doesn't sound much like a god. Sounds like a bad science fiction novel in which an entire armada is powerless to stop the enemy until a lone pilot flies in and saves the day...

More power to you I guess.

Slashdot Top Deals

Like punning, programming is a play on words.