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

 



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

Comment Re:They didn't tolerate intolerance (Score 1) 637

> Yes, but democracy doesn't mean that you have a right not to be criticized, shunned, fired, boycotted, and abused in any other lawful manner for your speech.

Actually, your own state laws define such a right, at least for being fired. Surprised to see you champion abuse in there, though. I mean, you do realize that some woman is being abused just for being this guy's GF, right? I find it interesting that's not in conflict with your values, given that you've yet to condemn that in any way. Anyhow, I hope you remember all that some day when the shoe is on the other foot. FWIW, campaigns to abuse anyone who doesn't share your beliefs rarely end well.

I don't like any lies, though, Trump's or Hillary's (or anyone else's). I'm not deluded enough to believe either of them.

Comment Re:We had electorial fraud during the DNC primarie (Score 3, Informative) 531

I love how people hide stuff like this at -1 because they don't want to hear it...

The fraud was related to evading campaign finance laws, not Bernie: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-leak-clinton-team-deflected-state-cash-concerns-226191

What they did to Bernie wasn't fraud, at least not in the legal sense, just a slap in the face to those in the dem voter base who thought their party's candidate would be determined by a fair and democratic process. Of course the DNC, as a private entity, is free to hand-pick their candidate and skip the entire primary process - as they used to long ago - but decades of at least the illusion of democracy has led people to expect something vastly different.

Comment It's the WaPo again... (Score 5, Informative) 531

The Washington Post has a bit of bias in this, so take it with a grain of salt. When will the Washington Post start investigating themselves for holding illicit fundraisers with the DNC? Or is it Russia's fault they did this? Those damned Russians, how dare they expose our corruption!

Source: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2699

Re: WaPo Party

  From:kaplanj@dnc.org
  To: RangappaA@dnc.org
  Date: 2015-09-22 13:29
  Subject: Re: WaPo Party

  Great - we were never going to list since the lawyers told us we cannot do it.

  We are waiting

  Jordan Kaplan
  National Finance Director
  Democratic National Committee
  (202) 488-5002 (o) | (312) 339-0224 (c)
  kaplanj@dnc.org

  > On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:25 AM, Rangappa, Anu wrote:
  >
  > They aren't going to give us a price per ticket and do not want their party to be listed in any package we are selling to donors. If we let them know we have donors in town who will be at the debate, we can add them to the list for the party.

Comment Re:What about perjury? (Score 2) 77

Yes, but it doesn't help much. Here's why.

Suppose for a moment that I own the copyright to Mickey Mouse and I issue a takedown for Itchy & Scratchy, claiming it infringes upon Mickey Mouse. That's bogus... but all I had to swear under penalty of perjury is that I either own or represent the people who actually own Mickey Mouse. The fact that the other work is simply not infringing doesn't even enter into it. Conversely, if I falsely claim to own a copyright and use that as the basis of a takedown request, for example by claiming to own or represent the owners of Mickey Mouse, then I have committed perjury.

So yeah, the law doesn't have much in the way of penalties for people who file utterly bogus takedown requests. In theory, if you drag them to court, they might get in trouble with a judge for lacking a good faith belief in the merits of their request, but you're most likely not going to get very much out of this so it really isn't worth it and it doesn't get punished like it should.

This isn't the first or the last bogus request to be filed. They're sending piles of nonsense out every day and we only notice the hilariously bad ones.

Comment Unsettlng relationship between the media and DNC? (Score 3, Interesting) 271

When will they explore the unsettling relationship between the media and the DNC? Or is it normal to hold clandestine fundraisers that their own lawyers forbid?

Source: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2699

Re: WaPo Party

From:kaplanj@dnc.org
To: RangappaA@dnc.org
Date: 2015-09-22 13:29
Subject: Re: WaPo Party

Great - we were never going to list since the lawyers told us we cannot do it.

We are waiting

Jordan Kaplan
National Finance Director
Democratic National Committee
(202) 488-5002 (o) | (312) 339-0224 (c)
kaplanj@dnc.org

> On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:25 AM, Rangappa, Anu wrote:
>
> They aren't going to give us a price per ticket and do not want their party to be listed in any package we are selling to donors. If we let them know we have donors in town who will be at the debate, we can add them to the list for the party.

Comment Re: Hello Wine (Score 2) 585

I've done native code on Windows in industrial safety and automation. You'd think that's an oxymoron, but it can be made sufficiently robust.

I've dealt with bugs in Microsoft's SDKs, and dealt with multiple generations of drawing APIs. Played WoW and other games on WINE on Gentoo. Watched the incessant scrolling of FIXMEs on the console.

I'd love it if I could get paid to hack on WINE...

Comment Re:But she wasn't indicted (Score 1) 117

And you can't really trust the news to expose things. People like the Washington Post were too busy holding illicit fundraisers with the DNC.

But you don't have to take my word for it.

Source: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2699

Re: WaPo Party

From:kaplanj@dnc.org
To: RangappaA@dnc.org
Date: 2015-09-22 13:29
Subject: Re: WaPo Party

Great - we were never going to list since the lawyers told us we cannot do it.

We are waiting

Jordan Kaplan
National Finance Director
Democratic National Committee
(202) 488-5002 (o) | (312) 339-0224 (c)
kaplanj@dnc.org

> On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:25 AM, Rangappa, Anu wrote:
>
> They aren't going to give us a price per ticket and do not want their party to be listed in any package we are selling to donors. If we let them know we have donors in town who will be at the debate, we can add them to the list for the party.

Comment Dangerously wrong. Stay bad orders, don't ignore! (Score 4, Informative) 242

This is wrong. Dangerously wrong.

If a judge gives a bad order that will hurt you, you file for a stay of that order pending appeal. Ignoring the order leads to punishment, as happened here! The Supreme Court has limited jurisdiction, they are simply going to ignore almost all of the petitions for a writ of certiorari sent to them. And it you will still get punished for just ignoring the order even if you were right! You can't just wait for orders from a higher court to comply. If the judge refuses to stay their order while you appeal it, you have to comply. Period. If they were wrong, well, you'll have to convince the courts of that on appeal. You don't get to just ignore everyone but the Supreme Court because you don't like an adverse ruling, it simply does not and hasn't ever worked that way.

I can't believe people modded this up, because it displays utter ignorance of legal process. Seriously, at least a few of you should have read Groklaw. You can go back and find that even SCO knew better than to flat-out ignore a court order like that. You can find many times where they asked for stays, plenty of times where they sent surreplies and dug in their heels at every opportunity to avoid complying, but not so much where they simply ignored the order.

So let that sink in for a moment: Gawker sunk below SCO's level here.

I tend to blame the client here, because I have to believe anyone could have made it through law school if they were giving advice that bad. If not, they're free to explore a legal malpractice claim against their own lawyers. Because what they did is so mind-bendingly stupid that you have to be willfully ignorant of legal process to think it makes any kind of sense that you can ignore anyone lower than the Supreme Court.

Slashdot Top Deals

The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.

Working...