Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Go visit Mar-a-Lago and complain (Score 1) 484

I meant they didn't profit personally while in office

But they did, while Hillary was Senator and Secretary of State. But you've turned a blind eye.

Not everyone who plays the game but says they'll try to end the game in office is lying.

Hillary lied and played the game as Secretary of State, but you turned a blind eye.

but she said she'd try to get rid of the PACs I don't see any reason to doubt her.

Thanks for the laugh.

When the playing field is slanted it's not discrimination to give a hand.

Sorry, I'm not interested in playing the Oppression Olympics.

Comment Re:Go visit Mar-a-Lago and complain (Score 1) 484

I'm not saying that Clinton was perfect, I'm saying she was a normal politician.

You claimed the Clintons didn't profit personally. You were astoundingly wrong about that and turned a blind eye when cited evidence was provided.

if anything she might be slightly better

More of your blind eye and double standards. The Clintons are near the top of corrupt politicians.

since she was trying to get rid of super PACs

Give me a break. The Clintons didn't give a shit about the corrupting influence of money in politics. They unabashedly played that game their whole career and profited immensely from it, both politically and personally.

really do think there was a subtext of sexism

What's sexist is playing the gender card.

Comment Re:Go visit Mar-a-Lago and complain (Score 1) 484

Sure they could have done it differently, but that doesn't seem fundamentally wrong.

Because you have double standards. They enriched themselves and their cronies and used charity as a cover to and you turn a blind eye.

don't know the full story of who was responsible for allowing those donations when she was Secretary of State.

And you again turn a blind eye.

A "power player" is not a government official

But a Senator and Secretary of State is, and there's no ethical difference if you're peddling influence while running to be an elected official. The Clintons became personally very rich while being politicians. You again turn a blind eye.

The difference is that Trump is currently President.

Yes, Crooked Hillary lost. I'm not defending Trump, either, by the way. I never expected him to drain the swamp when he brings it with him.

Comment Re:Go visit Mar-a-Lago and complain (Score 1) 484

The Clintons never personally profited from the Clinton Foundation

They used it as a slush fund to pay their cronies and assistants, including Bill Clinton Inc.

The cash stream from foreign entities, via speaking fees, had already stopped during the campaign and would not have resumed for her term.

Promises were also made and broken when she was given the Secretary of State position.

ay-for-access is a sin committed by all politicians, Clinton more than most but that's at least partially because of her profile. But pay-for-access is about pay to the campaign or the party, not the individual.

Oh, really? Strange how much money the Clintons made then peddling access then back when Hillary was still a power player. How much do you think she or Bill are getting for speaking fees now?

Comment Re:Professional attention whore strikes again (Score 1) 904

If the police get to decide the crime being committed, and the police are biased, and the police are the ones who ultimately write the reports that were evaluated for the study, how would the study detect that bias?

Ask the author of the study. He addresses this when he says, "Relatedly, even police departments willing to supply data may contain police officers who present contextual factors at that time of an incident in a biased manner -- making it difficult to interpret regression coefficients in the standard way. 6 It is exceedingly difficult to know how prevalent this type of misreporting bias is (Schneider 1977). Accounting for contextual variables recorded by police officers who may have an incentive to distort the truth is problematic. Yet, whether or not we include controls does not alter the basic qualitative conclusions. And, to the extent that there are racial differences in underreporting of non-lethal use of force (and police are more likely to not report force used on blacks), our estimates may be a lower bound. Not reporting officer-involved shootings seems unlikely."

I'll be honest, I don't know how he comes to the bolded conclusion. I have not read the entirety or even most of the 63 page PDF. That said, I trust his statistical approach a lot more than political agitators trying to spin a narrative based on a few cases.

It really does not follow to come to a conclusion that police use excessive non-violent force against blacks, but not excessive violent force.

That's also covered in the paper: "We argue that the patterns in the data are consistent with a model in which police officers are utility maximizers, a fraction of which have a preference for discrimination, who incur relatively high expected costs of officer-involved shootings."

But then, consider: in the past few years we have been presented with videos of officers shooting unarmed blacks, in which the blacks would have been found at fault had it not been for the video evidence.

And you can find videos for non-blacks too. You just don't get national media coverage of them and riots in the streets.

At present, I don't see how anyone can say "Clearly, blacks are not being wrongly killed."

I never said that. Please don't strawman.

As for cops vs blacks and blacks vs blacks, I see no reason why we can't strive to improve both situations.

Narratives and motives matter. You can't respond rationally to a situation when false narratives are spun by leftist agitators that draw inspiration from cop-killing, communist terrorists, and a media that is unwilling to view the situation critically. That includes responding proportionally to situations. The tangible result of Black Lies Matter are assassinated cops, riots, and a rise in murder rates, along with a country more divided by race in a long time, despite any rational reason for that to be the case.

Comment Re:Well, duh! (Score 1) 141

The problem is that Facebook T&Cs, as well as granting Facebook an almost unlimited license to anything you upload also includes a clause that you agree to indemnify them against this kind of claim. So, while you might be able to take Facebook to court and win if they took a video your friend uploaded of you and sold it, they would then be able to turn around immediately and sue your friend for whatever amount the court awarded you.

Comment Re:I'll never understand (Score 1) 141

Presumably he read the bit of the Facebook T&Cs that says that you grant them a non-exclusive, sublicensable, transferable, commercial license to anything that you upload, and that you agree to indemnify them against any claims of copyright infringement. They are entirely at liberty to take anything that you upload and sell it and are not required to give you a cut (remember the Starbucks posters with pictures of people who had uploaded Facebook pictures from their shops?). The only surprising part is that Facebook didn't manage to get paid for this.

Comment Re:Professional attention whore strikes again (Score 1) 904

I guess you'd prefer the New York Times then: "But when it comes to the most lethal form of force -- police shootings -- the study finds no racial bias."

Not that I needed a study by a black Harvard professor or a report by the New York Times to tell me Black Lies Matter was bullshit. Ferguson "hands up, don't shoot" was a complete lie from the beginning (the "gentle giant" Michael Brown was a thug), and they draw inspiration from a cop-killing, Black power terrorist fugitive living in Cuba (you won't see the New York Times, the Washington Post, or CNN talk about that much, will you). Their rhetoric has led to riots, assaults, and dead cops.

And for what? A handful of controversial cases to spin a false narrative that there was an epidemic of police shooting blacks, while more blacks kill each other in Chicago alone than police do across the entire nation.

Comment Re:0.4 of a phone (Score 3, Interesting) 90

Gartner are vigorously trying to shove it up Apple's arse) is that the smartphone market is really the Android market.

That's not really true. From the report, the iOS market is around 22% of the size of the Android market. That's a much higher ratio than the size of the Mac market to the Windows market has ever been. Even that doesn't tell the whole story, because a large part of the Android market is very low-end phones, with razor-thin margins for the manufacturer and very few app sales. This is important to the sort of people reading this kind of report, because they care about what the return on investment will be from supporting a given platform. It doesn't matter that Android completely dominates in the poorer parts of Africa, India, and China to the extent that iOS is a rounding error, it matters what phones the people with money to spend on your product have.

Slashdot Top Deals

Consultants are mystical people who ask a company for a number and then give it back to them.

Working...