Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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

Comment Re:"Tacit approval"? My nose! (Score 1) 67

Considering the stuff that's come out from leaked emails including stuff like Hillary knowingly ordering the destruction of data even after demands for the data under law? You can take the link as you want, it does have backlinks to all of the previous leaked emails, previous statements and so on. That means she/they was lying, ignored official requirements, or simply believe they're so big they can avoid prosecution. So that leaves us with: Either the FBI is incompetent, turned a blind eye, or someone was holding a sword over their head in recommending prosecution.

This isn't even touching the pay-for-play stuff including the 12m payment to the clinton foundation while she was still sec. of state for her to come speak to the king of morocco. Or the enlistment of journalists/columnists to attack political candidates using her talking points.

Comment Re:You're being silly (Score 1) 296

The evil libtardos aren't coming for your guns.

Well, Hillary Clinton thinks the Supreme Court is incorrect, and that we don't have the individual right to own guns. That what she says to her money people when she hopes the press isn't listening. She's also said she'd consider confiscation, a la Australia. And the left is cheering her lying, corrupt self into office - not least because they agree with her on this - the constitution is there to be "reinterpreted," as Clinton puts it.

Do you have any idea what you're chances are against a modern, mechanized army?

What does that matter? That's not why millions and millions of Americans own guns. They use them for sport, for hunting, and - as record numbers of recent buyers are showing in research - for self defense, especially in the context of social unrest. That's EXACTLY what the founders had in mind when they said that the government could not be allowed to have the monopoly on keeping and bearing arms: so that individuals could exercise their own rights to do so if and as they see fit. For whatever reason they see as appropriate. A standing army being necessary for the country, it's not to be considered justification for infringing the people's rights to their own tools of self defense. Sound familiar?

Stop caring so damn much about your precious firearms and start doing something about oppression brought on by wealth inequality.

Ah, I get it. Because someone else is prosperous, your right to vote is being oppressed. Or your right to assemble, or freely speak. Or your ability to go to school. Or your ability to ... which ability is it that you're being denied because someone else has money, again? It's not a fixed-sized pie, dude. If it was, we'd all be living in total poverty. But we're not. The standard of living has never been higher in human history. The "poor" live better than the vast majority of humanity ever could have dreamed.

Wage slavery? Get rid of nonsense like Obamacare, which went out of its way to entrench the system that prevents you from shopping across state lines for health insurance, and went out of its way to keep such services expensive by carefully avoiding tort reform at all costs. Or... do you mean that people who haven't trained themselves to do something valuable are finding it hard to move on in life? Yes, getting rid of our ability to defend ourselves will definitely fix that. We can only do one thing at a time, right?

Voter disenfranchisement? Yes, this is a real problem. We have millions of dead an ineligible people registered to vote. Every time a vote is cast in one of their names, that disenfranchises a person who is voting legitimately. When the Clinton campaign spreads around information, as we've just seen, about how to get illegal immigrants into the voting booth, that disenfranchises people who play by the rules. Definitely a serious problem, I agree. But the disenfranchising actions of voters mostly as encouraged by liberal activist groups go largely unprosecuted because that task would fall to the very party in power that encourages the crime. So, we have to live with it. Steps to mitigate it, like having to show who you are when you vote, just like you have to when you cash a government check, are considered "racist" by disingenuous people who know perfectly well it's not, but there you have it.

Hell, there are folks who matter talking about taking away women's right to vote.

They only "matter" in the sense that you're enjoying mentioning them. There is nobody with any prospect of infringing that liberty calling for that. Unlike Hillary Clinton, who certainly leans towards infringing constitutionally protected liberties and says so out loud, to great applause from the usual would-be little tyrants on the left.

It's been 8 years. Don't you think if he was going to do it he would have?

He knows he can't get what he wants past a legislature more inclined to protect those rights. He fails on that front because what he proposes - usually in the wake of some broken person killing some people - fails on the face of it to even address the actual problem (broken people). He doesn't propose making it easier to lock up crazy people, he proposes making it harder for law abiding, non-violent people to possess or transfer a firearm ... even though that would exactly nothing to stop, say, a Sandy Hook type incident. So every time he talks about "using his pen" to limit rights, it fails because, of course, people see right through the total lack of causality in the chain of things he pretends he's addressing. He's had multiple unconstitutional executive orders smacked down in the courts, exactly as they should have been. Hillary Clinton wants a court that would prevent those checks and balances from impacting her agenda (see above-mentioned confiscatory sensibilities and assertion that, for example, the second amendment doesn't mean what the founders said it means).

Comment Smartphone with VMs? (Score 1) 236

It'd be nice if we could run a phone VM on our phones.

The security uncaring could run everything in the "native" phone session, just like any smartphone now.

The security conscious could run a phone VM which would would contain all their sensitive data. Access to the phone VM could have more complex authentication methods.

Comment Re:If we're following protocol (Score 1) 260

I think the media hasn't been all that fair to Trump. It strikes me that Trump is quoted without context and they take things he says so literally without reading between the lines or really reporting what he says in anything like the manner his audiences understand what he's saying.

To be fair to the media, Trump doesn't have a traditional ideology and I think the media struggle to report on him because they don't find any of the traditional ideological interfaces to connect with. And Trump says some pretty bizarre and stupid stuff, quite often.

Comment Re:how about 4A (Score 1) 236

Exactly. Unless you have my name on your warrant and have a reasonable suspicion backing that warrant, you can do a cursory safety check and then go fuck yourself. I'm not doing anything wrong and I live in a country where I don't have to prove that. And for what it's worth, every police officer I've counted as a friend hates this kind of fascist crap.

Comment Re:If we're following protocol (Score 1) 260

I think they already do and I think the major media outlets have been soft-pedaling leaked Clinton campaign documents. They've been reporting on them but it sure feels like selective and soft reporting designed to minimize perceptual damage to Clinton.

If they took leaked emails related to Clinton and really ran with them, it could conceivably damage her campaign, so they aren't.

Personally, I think they underestimate just what Clinton backers will tolerate and are miscalculating by soft-peddling the information, because in the long run it destroys their credibility. If they would really light her up it wouldn't make Trump look any better AND the media would regain some of their credibility.

Comment Re:No they won't. (Score 1) 296

There's two problems. One is the arbitrary labeling of gun control measures as "common sense", two is that gun control advocates never bring anything to the table -- it's their "common sense" gun control policies only, they refuse to compromise anything to get what they want. They are willing to give NOTHING in return.

I always wonder what would happen if both sides would bargain freely on the topic what either side would give away in exchange for some kind of restriction.

Would gun control advocates agree to exempting suppressors from the NFA in exchange for closing the "gun show" loophole? A carry permit valid nationwide in exchange for deeper background checks? Re-opening the machine gun registry in exchange for a national registry of all guns?

Slashdot Top Deals

I'm still waiting for the advent of the computer science groupie.