Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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

Comment The trouble with mass shootings (Score 1) 242

is that they can happen to anyone, including the well off. Those "normal" shootings tend to be the lower castes shooting each other. That's why the mass shootings get all the noise. I don't care of two drug dealers blow each other away. If I'm middle class I probably don't care that the occasional kid gets caught in the cross fire. When somebody walks into an upscale theatre and starts blowing everyone away I start caring.

This goes back to my original comment, which is that gun control didn't get anywhere until whites wanted to take guns away from blacks.

Anyway, getting back to your point, you're more or less right. If we actually want to stop gun violence (and violence in general) the solution is to attack wealth inequality and legalize drugs. I'm all for that.

Comment Seems like violating the 4th amendment, not the 5t (Score 4, Insightful) 113

We have very little information to go on. I'd like to read the actual warant and know the cirumstances, but based on the article it seems like a violation of the FOURTH amendment. The cops are supposed to have a warrant, based on probable cause, describing what particular things they are searching for and where, and why they think those things are in that place.

I can't imagine a probable cause to believe that everyone in the building has some specific evidence on their phone. Thus the search itself is unconstitutional under the fourth, with or without a fingerprint.

The fifth says you don't have to testify against yourself. It doesn't say you can't be fingerprinted. Thus I see no *fifth* amendment violation, though it seems like a rather onerous *fourth* amendment violation.

Comment Re:Yes, selecting the US president isn't "gossip" (Score 2) 219

Those parts of the emails are valid to report on. Stuff like a staffer thinking Lessig is smug is not valid to report on.

Who determines what is "valid" to report on?

Good reporters report on the part that matters, bad reporters just try to find something salacious to poke a bee hive.

Yeah, except "the part that matters" is never some objective category valid for all places, times, and people. This site used to have a tagline about "stuff that matters," but the reality is that a lot of the stuff posted here didn't "matter" to the vast majority of people in the world. Meanwhile, a lot of stuff that "matters" to the vast majority of the world wouldn't be of interest to a significant portion of the audience here (e.g., sports, celebrity gossip).

Here's the reality of journalism -- the "news" is mostly about selling stuff, NOT informing people. Yes, "good journalists" who want to be respected generally tend to focus on certain topics and ignore others, but they are conscious of the "bottom line" like everyone else. And if some reporter claims to be completely oblivious to stuff like that, you can darn well bet their editor isn't.

So, the question is rarely "Is this too salacious to be 'legitimate' news, or does it 'matter'?" The question is usually, "We know that this will get a lot of clicks/sell a lot of ads/papers/whatever. But will it piss off our readership or advertisers if we do so?" Somewhere down the list, far below that set of concerns about revenue, maintaining readers and advertisers, etc., are things like, "Is this 'respectable journalism'?" Or, "Does this matter?"

Because, let's be honest here -- even if something appears to be "too salacious" to be a story, if it gets caught up by SOME major media source, eventually most of the other major media will start reporting on it. You don't want to be the newspaper or whatever who steps "out of line" and starts looking like a cheap tabloid, but as long as everybody else is writing about it, it's gonna be fair game.

What really "matters"? Human life? Well, most Americans (even educated liberal well-meaning and loving ones) don't really have much interest in African news. I mean, some say they do -- but they really don't care about reading about that stuff every day, even if every day is pretty much a bad day for millions of people in Africa.

Meanwhile, is the Queen of England having another great-grandchild?!? Let's devote weeks of news for that. Does that "matter"? I don't mean to pick on the royals -- any celebrity gossip will do. Or what about sports? Does that really "matter"? It's certainly not going to have as much of an impact as that genocidal African dictator, but editors know that there are loads of people who basically pull the "sports section" out a newspaper (or do the equivalent online) and ignore most of the rest.

But to bring this back to the current political stuff and scandals, we basically end up in a situation where fans of politician A think stuff "doesn't matter" and publishing it is "salacious" but people who don't like politician A definitely think it matters. To many fans of Bill Clinton, the various scandals about possible affairs and interns "didn't matter" compared to his leadership capabilities as President. To some Trump fans, clearly his views on women also "don't matter" to the evaluation of his leadership abilities. (I'm not equating these two people or their actions by any means, just noting similar reactions I've noted among fans.)

To those fans, publishing a bunch of stories about such stuff is just "salacious" and yellow journalism, which is targeting stuff that should be irrelevant to their political life. To others, this "matters" deeply and it's irresponsible NOT to publish something that tells you something about their "character."

Anyhow, getting to TFA, the question of where information came from is WAY down the list, far below other ethical concerns about journalistic "integrity" and reputations of the media source and individual reporter. (Note that I'm assuming the information is verifiable, as much of it seems to be in the present case. Obviously if there was a question of whether the information was even true, that's a separate issue. But assuming it is believed to be true, it's really unfathomable to me that most modern journalists would ignore a story simply on the basis of where the information came from... legal or not. Even if they tried not to report, other media sources would, and then they'd be duty bound to do so as well to avoid being left behind in coverage.)

Comment Hold down power button and ... (Score 4, Informative) 113

... keep holding it down.

Seriously, this is such an unconscionable violation of basic privacy that even people who have done nothing wrong should automatically have that reaction. And anybody who has done something wrong should know better than to use a fingerprint for unlocking anyway. What was this supposed to prove other than that they have a judge who will rubber-stamp any order no matter how appalling?

Comment I'm a socialist (Score 1) 242

I talk to plenty of them. We've got our nuts. Our version of the alt-right. We ignore them, same as the right. They're much less loud and much less potent since they lack a fox news equivalent ( MSNBC isn't even close, they're still pretty conservative on economics outside of Rachel Maddow who's got her hands full defending gay rights).

The goal, by and large, is to stop the mass shootings and suicides. If we thought we could get the right wing to pay for mental health services we'd all shut the hell up about guns. You do know it was the Black Panthers and fear of the Bloods and Crips (remember Colors?) that made gun control a thing, right? The right wing didn't want blacks to have guns. Reminds of of one of the funniest things I've ever seen: A bunch of alt-right douche bags thought they'd go scare some Muslims by cruising by their church with their AR-15s; apparently unaware that the Nation of Islam was something a little different :P

Comment No right/wrong, no good or bad? (Score 1) 219

> Why is it that left-leaning groups do not seem as able to get right-leaning operatives on tape, admitting pretty bad things? ...

> If we assume that folks on both sides are up to just the same sort of things, to what should we attribute the reason?

Certainly some conservatives have done, and admitted some bad things. Former Democrat turned reality show clown Donald Trump certainly has. But you may have a point. The worst thing Mitt Romney said was that 47% of voters had already decided to vote for Obama, 47% had decided to vote Romney, and he was now focused on the 6% undecided. They had to try really to make that bad.

Perhaps a difference is that a significant portion of liberals believe that there is no such thing as right and wrong, no good and bad. Many others don't go quite that far, but halfway at least. It's not wrong for them to do anything if they decide it's okay this time (aka if they feel like it). On the other hand, the majority of conservatives can point to the same list of 10 right and wrong ways to act, and most agree on which of those is most important. It's probably easy to do "pretty bad things" when you've decided it's not bad, if you decide so. If there is no right and wrong, only preference, anybody can justify to themselves all sorts of "pretty bad things". In general, conservatives have a steady, objective standard they *try* to live up to. There's little wiggle room in "thou shalt not bear false witness." You can't justify why it's subjectively okay this time.

Comment It'd be nice for AR-15s (Score 1) 242

you don't usually use one of those to scare off a bugler, you use a pistol (to be fair, the AR-15 _was_ designed from the ground up for killing men, but I digress).

Put it on your target shooters and "hunting" rifles. That way when some depressed teenager reaches for it (either to shoot themselves or someone else) it doesn't work. Good friend of my brother's, Amazing singer, killed himself that way. Temporary chemical depression that coulda been treated. But pulling the trigger's real, real easy...

Comment You use an AR-15 to protect your home (Score 1) 242

or a pistol? The guns that scare the libtardos (because they're used over and over in mass shootings) are either "hunting" rifles (if /. allowed css fonts I'd make those quotes bigger) or used for target practice. If you were planing on using them against the United States Military when Crooked Hilary gets elected it'll be too late by then. You and your AR-15 don't stand a chance against a modern mechanized army with supply lines and tactical training. If freedom's your bag start trying to figure out the wealth inequality problem. Money is freedom. It's the only thing that really matters. People don't oppress you for the hell of it. They want your money.

Comment You're being silly (Score 3, Informative) 242

or inflammatory. Not sure which. The evil libtardos aren't coming for your guns. And what possible difference would it make if we did? Do you have any idea what you're chances are against a modern, mechanized army? Stop caring so damn much about your precious firearms and start doing something about oppression brought on by wealth inequality. About Wage Slavery. About Voter disenfranchisement. Hell, there are folks who matter talking about taking away women's right to vote. And all I can get out of 40% of the country is some nebulous fear of 'Bama commin' for yur guns. It's been 8 years. Don't you think if he was going to do it he would have? Hell, since 'Bama took all the guns what's left for Crooked Hilary to take?

Comment If we're following protocol (Score 1) 219

you're suppose to give it to a Journalist who scrubs it of the personal and private stuff and just leaves the stuff of public interest. That's what you do if you have a code of ethics and such. That's what's leaving a bad taste in the month from what Assange is doing. He's not cleaning it up before he releases it.

Comment Yes, selecting the US president isn't "gossip" (Score 5, Insightful) 219

Agreed. The article tries to cast this is "for gossip". No. Kim Kardashian's emails would be gossip. An inside look at the actions of the US Secretary of State, who is running for President, is far more important than mere gossip. As is bringing to public scrutiny the process used to select the candidates. The purpose of the DNC is to put people in charge of running a superpower nation, and to strongly influence the policies of the United States. How that's done, by whom, for what reasons and what the back room deals are is all information of importance to The People.

Slashdot Top Deals

It's later than you think, the joint Russian-American space mission has already begun.