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 Re:"Fact" Checkers (Score 3, Interesting) 415

Forbes has a pretty good article covering Politifact's issues related to their truthiness judging.

In 2008, Politifact rated as True Obama's claim that if you like your plan you can keep it. The Forbes article notes that the author of that truth-o-meter article didn't check with any health-care skeptics.

In 2009, Politifact changed their rating for the claim to 1/2 true.

In 2013, Politifact labeled it the "lie of the year."

Politifact's 2008 rating was "widely repeated by pro-Obama reporters and pundits, and had a meaningful impact on the outcome of the election."

So, was Politifact's wrong analysis of Obama's 2008 claims "fake news?"

Were they lying or just being too lazy.

When they judge Trump's claim that Obama was the founder of ISIS in the literal sense but don't rate Hillary's comment that Trump is a recruiting sergeant for ISIS at all, either literally or metaphorically, then yes, I'll claim that Politifact is lying or at least intentionally distorting the truth.

Facebook absolutely has the right to determine what gets posted on their site and people have the right to use their product or not. The government on the other hand has no business promoting censorship of anything, including fake news. Fake news isn't new and people have a personal responsibility to explore the "truthiness" of what they read, hear and see.

Comment Re:vote trump or lose your guns with just 911 (Score 1) 277

Already happened

Secretary Clinton thinks the Heller case was decided incorrectly and implied she would appoint justices to correct that mistake. The only question decided in Heller was whether the 2nd amendment protected the right to keep an operational handgun in the home for purposes of self-defense.

Comment Re:To be fair... (Score 1) 277

First, you can't ignore the preamble to the Bill of Rights which states that the bill of rights is a list restrictions on the government. The list of rights is not a grant of rights to individuals or an empowerment of any level of government. That's why you have language such as "shall not be infringed," or "shall pass no law."

There's a very good article that discuses the history of the 2nd amendment and why it's worded the way it is at English history is quite informative on the 2nd amendment and the definition of a militia because English history was the history of the founders of the country and the authors of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This document also goes over the 10 of 13 colonies that suggested wording related to the 2nd amendment regarding it as an individual right. None of the remaining three colonies provided any suggestion on the wording.

It's interesting that you choose 1876 as the start of your period to discuss the Supreme Court's opinion regarding the 2nd amendment. That promotes ignoring the 1875 United States v. Cruikshank ruling that specifically stated that the right to keep and bear arms would exist even without the 2nd amendment. They ruled in 1875 that the 2nd amendment was a prohibition on the government from infringing on that right. More specifically, that case also addressed individuals having that right infringed.

One of the reasons you may not see many cases regarding the 2nd amendment related to individuals is that gun control is a fairly modern mechanism designed to completely disarm the population. The law over turned in Heller wasn't passed until 1976. Can you point to another, earlier law that completely banned the ownership of handguns in the home that was challenged in court?

Comment Re:The real issue (Score 1) 195

They're not entirely contracts of adhesion in the way you seem to mean. While entry to the association is non-negotiable; accept the contract or don't live here, the members of the association have the ability to change the rules of their association whenever they collectively wish to do so.

Your example of a non-negotiable contract of adhesion seems to imply that the HOA is one side of a contractual relationship with which one can never negotiate. The reality is that it is an organization to which property members become members and, as members, can make changes to the rules of the association; or re-negotiate the contract. Some terms can be changed with simple majority votes, some changes with super majority votes and some with unanimous votes.

A contract of adhesion isn't necessarily bad and one whose terms can be changed by the members is certainly better than one that can't be negotiated or changed such as a shrink-wrap software license.

Comment Re:Because there's no advantage (Score 4, Informative) 206

I use an Apple watch and it's a lot more convenient. I double tap the button and wave it over the reader and I'm done.

Using my phone would also be easier - I'd remove it from my back pocket and double tap the home button and wave it over the reader.

For my credit card - I remove the wallet from my pocket, remove the credit card and then figure out if it's swipe or insert for the chip. If it's insert then I have to wait for the network to complete the transaction before removing the card and re-inserting it back into the wallet.

There's no PIN for me to enter for any of the transactions. Signing requirements vary depending on the size of the transaction, the merchant and the card type.

So, sorting on convenience and time spent for the various options: watch, phone, credit card.

Comment Re:FB should did it (Score 1) 447


Had she been alone in that apartment you might be correct. There was a five year old child in that apartment.

Let's go with your proposal to wait it out. She then decides there's no other way out other than to kill herself and she doesn't want her child to live in her interpretation of a screwed up world so she kills the child before offing herself.

Wouldn't you be asking why the cops didn't forcibly enter that apartment and prevent her from kill her child?

Comment Re: FB should did it (Score 1) 447

I'm not sure why you think a knife isn't a lethal threat.

Knife attack training video

I agree that just because someone has a knife doesn't mean they're a threat, just as someone having a gun isn't necessarily a threat just because of the gun. Someone on their feet behaving in a threatening manner with a knife is most certainly a lethal threat, though.

Comment Re:Fuck ALL those assholes! (Score 1) 660

It wasn't just the Democrats that tried to prevent people on the "lists" from being able to buy firearms. Cornyn also introduced a bill preventing anyone on the list, or had been on the list within the past 5 years, from buying a firearm. His bill satisfied the NRA and the ACLU's concerns by requiring the government to prove to a judge within 72 hours why the person should be permanently barred from purchasing. Harry Reid didn't like that the bill was supported by the NRA and Joe Manchin didn't like the due-process requirement. It, too, failed on a party line vote.

There were 4 gun-control measures brought for a vote, 2 by the Democrats and 2 by the Republicans; all failed along party lines.

"Not all Democrats are for a complete ban on guns..." While this statement is true, there are enough Democrats in positions of leadership that want to ban some sets of guns that, taken in aggregate, represents pretty much a ban on the most useful and popular guns. "Australian-style gun control," popular with both Clinton and Obama, is a ban on semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. "Assault weapon" bans are a ban on the most popular rifle in the country.

By the way, there's significantly less regulation on operating a vehicle than in operating a firearm (treat guns like cars). There's also a lot more paperwork involved in buying a firearm than in getting a hunting license, at least for the states in which I hunt.

Comment Re:The FBI getting in front of Criticism (Score 1) 404

We're seeing the differences between two hard-set protocols.

Before Columbine, the standard protocol for an active shooter was to wait for force to arrive and organize before storming the building. After realizing how that protocol led to more deaths they changed the protocol to immediately enter and engage the active shooter.

In Orlando the police confirmed that they went from an active shooter to a hostage situation and changed the engagement protocol.

The protocol for dealing with hostage situations is still to wait until sufficient force has arrived along with a hostage negotiator. It wasn't until "negotiations" failed in Orlando that the SWAT team moved in.

The surgeons at the trauma center said more people could have been saved had they gotten to them sooner. I fear that a well-planned attack taking advantage of known protocols would be to injure as many people as possible, "take hostages" and then use other weapons to finish what was started; e.g., us a knife to kill any injured but still surviving victims.

I expect these protocols will be re-examined and would think that once an active shooter is engaged, no matter what happens in the mean-time, the immediate reaction will be to enter. The balance that needs to be struck relates to how much do you increase the danger to hostages and law enforcement by moving to an immediate action plan. They know that an immediate action plan is better for active shooters and, I suspect, they will discover the same for hostage situations.

Frankly, the target's protocol for dealing with this type of situation also has to change. We call the police the first responders but, in actuality, the victims were the first responders. This individual had already killed several when he ushered the hostages into a rest room. The people in that room had to have the mind set that they were already dead until something happened and they would be better off making that happen themselves rather than waiting for the cavalry.

Comment Re:Preservation rule question (Score 1) 371

They were required to print out paper to archive. However, from the report:

S/ES staff have provided numerous trainings for the Office of the Secretary on records preservation responsibilities and the requirement to print and file email records. However, S/ES staff told OIG that employees in the Office of the Secretary have printed and filed such emails only sporadically.

On the size of the Office of the Secretary, you need to include the support staff that are in some of the sub-sections. For example, the Chief of Staff isn't just a person but is an office. If the Chief of Staff has, for example, five assistants then you would need to include those people in the headcount of the Office of the Secretary.

Slashdot Top Deals

Coding is easy; All you do is sit staring at a terminal until the drops of blood form on your forehead.