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. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment How exactly does paying Gore help the situation? (Score 0) 107

> But one way or another, we will pay for it.

How exactly does paying Al Gore and his partner hundreds of millions of dollars help anyone other than Al Gore and his partner?

Let me answer that for you. When you let the famous face of the global warming movement run a huge scam, using global warming fears to make a law putting hundreds of millions of dollars in his pocket, it makes it look like the whole global warming thing is a scam. When you defend Gore's carbon credit scam / kickback arrangement, it shows that you are completely untrustworthy and people should disregard what you say.

What would have been good for the planet would have been for environmentalists to call Gore out on his scam immediately, showing that they value truth and honesty. Had liberals put Gore in prison, they would have some credibility when they talk about the dangers of global warming / climate change / the coming human-triggered ice age. Supporting and defending a scam like Gore's carbon credit exchange (he passed a law requiring companies to buy carbin credits from the exchange - which he owned) just makes you look like a scammer.

Comment More seriously, we pick a team & don't pay att (Score 3, Insightful) 107

I joked that politicians can do anything they want as long as they complain about big business while they do it.

The more serious explanation, I think, is that most Americans just pick a party or politician as their "team", then move on to other things. Most don't spend a lot of time, or have the inclination, to carefully watch what "their" politicians do after they are elected. Their attention span is just long enough to root for their favorite team/player, not enough to actually see what the politician is doing. So whoever originally decided they like Hillary, or Trump, or Gore, is unlikely to later hold them accountable for their actions. Once a majority of Americans "like" you, once they are rooting for you, you can do whatever you want with little consequences.

Comment Because he forced us to pay him millions (Score 1) 107

> How do your politicians, both left and right, so filthy rich?

In Gore's case, he wasn't filthy rich when he started. As a Senator, he sponsored a law forcing companies to buy something called "carbon credits" (pieces of paper) from another company called an "exchange". Guess who owned the exchange? Before that, he had hundreds of thousands of dollars, his carbon exchange made hundreds of millions by legally forcing people to buy his product.

You might ask how he got away with that. The key is, the whole time he whined about "big business" and polar bears. As long as a politician whines about big bad business people, they're allowed to do whatever they want.

Comment That would give government much more power (Score 1) 133

> citizens don't have rights that can be violated, government has (limited) powers that can be exercised.

That would give the government much, much more power the Constitution currently grants. A few examples:

The government was granted the power to tax.
- But may not violate citizens right to equal treatment, they can't tax hispanic people four times as high as asian people.

The government was granted the power to regulate interstate commerce.
- But may not violate your first amendment rights by prohibiting the sale of conservative magazines across state lines.

The government was granted the power to build roads.
- But may not violate your property rights by building a road through your house, unless they buy it from you at fair value.

The government was granted the power to have courts.
- But may not force you to testify against yourself.

I don't think you really want to do away with the fifth amendment (and the rest of the bill of rights), to say that just because the government has the power to operate courts, you know longer have the right against self-incrimination. I don't think you really believe that the power to regulate interstate commerce isn't limited by the right of free speech.

I think that rather than just saying "oops, I misunderstood", you're grasping to find some other explanation for your words, but you haven't thought through what that would mean.


Moving to a completely different topic now.
Suppose you went to a drive-through for breakfast, and you were the first customer when they first opened. They cook put your egg sandwich on the grill and cook it for the designated amount of time. Later, you get sick because the cook didn't realize the grill hadn't yet heated fully, it was only 290 degrees instead of 350. Would you agree the restaurant is liable for making you sick? (This isn't a trick question - a simple yes or no wpuld be fine.)

Suppose on another day, the cook sees it's you ordering, and he doesn't like you. He blows his nose on your sandwich and you get sick. Should the cook also be liable for his actions, as well as the restaurant?

Note that in the first instance, the cook made a mistake, an understandable mistake. In the second instance, it wasn't a mistake - everybody knows that blowing your nose somebody's sandwich is not okay.

Is there a perhaps difference, in terms of the blame put on the cook personally, if he does something that he and everyone else clearly know is wrong?

Comment Summary: Cop was mad, not stupid (Score 1) 133

Let me summarize what I just said, to perhaps make it more clear:

The judges had to decide if it was *possible* that the cops might have been stupid.

I don't think that's possible. I'm sure that the cops were mad, not stupid.

One judge thinks it's possible that the cops were stupid / poorly trained.

I'm not mad at the judge - it's not completely ridiculous to think that a cop might be stupid.

Comment I specifically said the opposite "wasn't hiding" (Score 1) 133

> Turner was not "hiding in the bushes across the street from a police station near Dallas", as you implied.

Let me quote myself for you, "he wasn't hiding in the bushes." Did you misread "wasn't" and think I said "was"?

Did you miss "here are two hypothetical examples"?

> Do you believe that the cops were in the right, arresting a man standing in plain sight

It's interesting that after that long angry rant, at the end you ask me what I think about it. Perhaps you realized that in no point in the post you angrily replied to did I state my opinion on the matter. I explained the law and the judges' differing opinions. I just read the ruling, I didn't write it.

Since you seem quite upset about the reasoning I explained, let's be clear about what that was first (the dissenting judge's reasoning, not mine):

The dissenting judge thinks that given the recent incidents of cops being shot at by snipers in the area, the cops might have *thought* it was okay to go talk to the guy. The dissenting judge (not me, I wasn't involved in this particular case) also thinks that after the guy asked to speak to a supervisor, the cops might have *thought* it was okay to handcuff him for five minutes while waiting for the supervisor to come over.

We don't know exactly how long he was handcuffed - long enough for the sargeant to come from across the street.

Here's what I think. I think they shouldn't have handcuffed the guy (and nobody says they should have). I think the cop probably knew better, and his "this is what happens" comment is evidence that he was acting out of anger. So I disagree with the judge who said the cop might have thought it was okay. On the other hand, I don't think it's ridiculous for the judge to *think* that a cop might *think* it was okay. That last sentence is double meta, so it may be unclear. I wonder if I can diagram it:

I think this:
        - the judge thinks
                  - that the cop *might have*
                              - mistakenly *thought* it was okay

Is wrong, but not ridiculous. There are three levels of mushiness there - the judge *thinks* (wrongly) that it is *possible*, not proven but possible, that a cop might *think* that was okay. No, it's not possible, but the judge isn't stupid for thinking that it's possible for a cop to be stupid.

Comment As a civilian too your employer would be liable (Score 1) 133

Actually the rule is similar for civilian employees. If, in the course of your job duties, you do something wrong and someone sues, it's generally your employer who is liable. The legal term is "respondeat superior", latin for "let the boss respond".

This is because it's the company who benefits from the work, and therefore should take the risks of work being done imperfectly. The present case applies this same principle to policing - the police department is liable for the actions of their employees.

If, while working at McDonald's, you intentionally stab someone, you'd personally be responsible because you clearly knew that was wrong. The law on that is "clearly established". Same for the cops.

Comment Not if they are mad about today. VIOLATED (Score 1) 133

Rights can be violated and rights can be infringed.

Suppose the last year the government put you in prison for saying "Obama sucks". This year, you're still in prison. Are your rights being violated this year?

I would say yes, as long as you're still in prison, your rights are still being violated. Agreed?

I would also say it's impossible to violate a non-existent right someone doesn't have. Agreed?

If your rights are being violated today, you must have rights today, rights that are being violated. If you have rights that are being violated, your rights weren't taken away; they were violated, not removed.

This may sound pedantic, but it's important. There are reasons the Constitution and the Declaration say that the government may not *infringe* your human rights, which you were born with. They don't say that the government should grant you rights, or shouldn't take them away. They say you're born with certain human rights, you die with those rights, and all the government can do is either infringe your rights or protect your rights.

This is important when the government purports to curtail or remove your human rights. If it was possible for the government to create or remove rights, we might disagree about which rights should be taken from whom. We might dislike having certain rights removed, get annoyed for a bit about having our rights taken away, then get over it - the government can take our rights if they choose too, so we'd just have to get over it. The founders took a different view - our human rights are a part of being human, they are permanent, and no government can ever remove them, only protect or violate them.

Possibly more importantly, any definition of "rights" which allows government to grant them turns rights into "privileges". It removes the essential nature of rights, as opposed to "privileges" or "license". Government-granted or removed rights are no right at all, merely a statement of "we'll let you do that, because we don't mind you doing that - for now. We'll let you know when it bugs us and you have to stop". That's not a right. A right is something I can do *even if* it annoys politicians.

Comment You just agreed with judge you're mad at (Score 1) 133

> the government should have to clearly establish that it has the powers that it is exercising.

That's what she said. Where "she" is the judge you're pissed off about. Basically this is what has happened:

Judge: 2 + 1 = 3
ooloorie: No, damn it! 2 + 1 is 3 you fucking idiot!

The key word in what you said is "the government". According to the dissent (and the majority also agrees on this point), the government violated the guy's rights. Maybe they didn't train the officers well enough or whatever, but anyway the city of Fort Worth is going to have to pay the guy. All the judges agree with you. They all agree the government is in the wrong (or may be, that wasn't in question at this hearing).

Where one judge disagrees with the others is on the topic of this ruling - what should be done about the individual cops involved. In many instances, two different courts make opposite rulings on some question*. The fifth district court says "these cops can do X in these circumstances", the sixth district says "cops can't do X in these similar circumstances". Then some cop does X in some other, similar circumstances. Judges don't even agree if what the cop did is okay or not. Should the *cop*, personally, be sued, or is the government who employs and trains the cop liable? That was the question in this case. The dissent said basically "cops aren't required to be smarter than judges. If it's unclear, sue the police department, not the individual cop."

"Clearly established" doesn't have anything to do with the *government*. "Clearly established" is the standard eaxh individual cop is *personally* held to - they don't have to understand the law better than judges do.

* The one other person here who actually read the ruling will note that in order to more clearly explain the -general idea- to ooloorie, I've intentionally given up precision. I realize that, but I'm trying to get ooloorie to understand what the purpose of the hearing was and why "clearly established" matters.

Comment This ruling wasn't about plaintiff's rights (Score 3, Insightful) 133

Apparently I didn't make my point clear enough:

This ruling wasn't about whether or not the guy had the right to film the cops. (Yeah the summary is misleading. Without looking back at it now, I'm going to guess it was by Beau "clickbait" HD).

> the government should have to clearly establish that it has been granted the powers that it is exercising. The reasoning of the court is abhorrent

You're contradicting yourself there because the dissent you're objecting to says that the government owes the guy money, because the government infringed his rights.

Furthermore, "the reasoning of the court", which you call "abhorrent" says that not only should he sue the government, but also the individual officers as well.

The really funny part is this - the dissent, which is what you actually don't like, I think, is based on the argument that sometimes court rulings can be hard to completely understand - a point you're proving well by completely misunderstanding the topic of this hearing.

Comment Can't sue cops *personally* for requesting ID (Score 5, Informative) 133

The hearing was about whether he should sue only the city of Fort Worth, or also sue the individual officers personally.

The law about that is the officer os personally liable for monetary damages only if *all* reasonable cops would know that what they did was unconstitutional, because there was clearly established law covering those specific actions in that particular circumstance. In all other cases, the offended party can sue the city or state that the cop works for.

A couple of examples:

A cop is interviewing a suspect. When the suspect just sits there, refusing to talk, the cop hits the suspect with a stick in an attempt to force a false confession. The officer would be personally liable because it's *clearly established* that such behavior is violates the suspect's Constitutional rights. No reasonable cop could think it's okay to hit the guy.

On the other hand:
Two weeks after a police station in Dallas is shot at, a guy is hiding in bushes across the street from a police station near Dallas. Cops approach to see what's going on. The guy is filming the police station (casing it?). Cops ask for ID. The guy asks to speak to a supervisor. The cops call their supervisor to come over, handcuffing the guy for five minutes until the supervisor arrives. Did they violate his Constitutional rights? Maybe. Does every reasonable officer *know* that what they did violates his civil rights? No, an officer might reasonably *think* it's okay to cuff the guy for five minutes. There's not *clearly established law* that in the situation described, they can't cuff him while awating the supervisor he requested. Therefore he can sue the city the cops work for, but can't sue the individual cops personally.

The second scenario above, in which a reasonable cop might mistakenly think cuffing him for a minute is okay, is patterned after the actual events in this case. In reality, he wasn't hiding in the bushes. I added that to make it a better example, an example of a scenario where a reasonable cop might be unsure of what they can and can't legally do.

Comment Judge Clement didn't say you can't film police (Score 5, Informative) 133

Judge Clement's dissenting opinion did not say that citizens aren't allowed to film the police.

This hearing was about whether he should just sue the city, or of he could also sue the individual officers personally, given the particular details of the events, and the particular circumstances at the time. The law on this question depends on those details.

Clement believes that the city is liable in this particular instance, not the individual officers personally.

There's no general principle at being decided in this case. Though it was mentioned that citizens generally have a right to film police in the conduct of their duties, that was settled law - as the the opinion mentioned, there is no circuit court split or anything on that question.

Comment Of course there are laws. BeauHD is full of shit (Score 1) 103

> As a European I am astounded that companies don't already have a requirement to keep personal data safe. It is something that I just expect to happen.

Of course there are laws. Several of them. This submission is just BeauHD spouting more utter bullshit.

Yesterday, the FCC decided that some of the hundreds of thousands of Title II regulations originally written to regulate the phone companies would apply differently to small ISPs. BeauHD claimed the order said "ISPs are now allowed to lie about their pricing!" Uh, no. The closest regulation to what he claimed is actually that small ISPs won't have to go through the same six-to-twelve month process of getting preapproval from FCC before they offer a new pricing plan. Wireline phone companies have to get any pricing options pre-approved ahead of time under Title II.

When BeauHD submits a summary saying "giant shark eats man alive", that means what actually happened is that a trout bit a guy's finger.

Comment In 1920s, before Elon Musk's dad was born. Psychic (Score 1) 135

>Dealers were upset at being cut out of the loop by Telsa (to the point of getting state legislatures to draft laws blocking Telsa's stores)

The laws prohibiting manufacturers from owning dealerships were passed in the 1920s-1950s. (Before Elon Musk's father, Errol Musk, was born, and 60 years before 18 year-old Elon first came to North America). I guess those dealers must have psychic! Also very concerned about their great-grandchildren, since everyone involved in passing those laws are dead now.

If you learn a bit about what happened before manufacturing and dealerships were split up, and why those laws were passed, you'll probably have some interesting things to say about it.


Comment So make some regulations about that (Score 1) 114

> This action isn't about what businesses have to read. It's about what information they have to disclose to their customers.

Well no, THIS action has little to do with what has to be disclosed to consumers. If you want some regulations about that, if you see small ISPs engaging in funny business about pricing, make some appropriate regulations. This action is about title II - regulations written for the big phone companies, many of them written for THE phone company, Bell, before it was broken up. They cover many things, but the common theme is that they have to get FCC approval before doing almost anything.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." -- The Wizard Of Oz