×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

VA Supreme Court: Michael Mann Needn't Turn Over All His Email

Yakasha Re:All publicly funded research needs public relea (318 comments)

You are an idiot. There is a huge difference between science dealing with facts and politics which deals with policies. If you can't grasp that difference, it's entirely your problem, but I do suggest you keep your mouth shut in public to avoid looking like a total donkey.

However, the fact that you are obviously a donkey doesn't make your argument valid. HAND.

Yes. Why can nobody see the difference between science dealing with facts and politics that deal with policies when a political organization is using policy to retrieve scientific facts from a huge public institution...

Did I miss anything?

yesterday
top

How Nest and FitBit Might Spy On You For Cash

Yakasha Re:Nobody cares (91 comments)

Hah!

And then the post, as mysteriously as it arrived, vanished. Astroturfing expedition aborted? Its certainly much harder to imagine dirty pool is not involved now.

Whoah there partner.

Turn up the tinfoil and turn down your threshold. It was modded down.

yesterday
top

How Nest and FitBit Might Spy On You For Cash

Yakasha Re:Nobody cares (91 comments)

Who are you?

Who ARE you?

yesterday
top

How Nest and FitBit Might Spy On You For Cash

Yakasha Yes, I care (91 comments)

Got a FitBit for christmas.

Now its in the trash.
Pen & paper don't spy on me anymore when I record my workouts & food.
The pencils though... Haven't figured out how to stop them yet...

yesterday
top

Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

Yakasha Re:Militia, then vs now (1574 comments)

No I don't think its like that at all. And please don't compare violating gun ownership rights to genocide.

2 days ago
top

Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

Yakasha Re:Militia, then vs now (1574 comments)

lol ok. Glad you thought that through.

2 days ago
top

Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

Yakasha Re:Militia, then vs now (1574 comments)

The fact that they required letters of marque should be sufficient evidence.

The fact that they owned the ships, instead of building them after receiving the letters, should indicate otherwise.

2 days ago
top

Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

Yakasha Re:Militia, then vs now (1574 comments)

I'd say that his revision would have the direct effect of creating a more-effective police state, where the government need never fear The People.

The whole POINT of the 2nd Amendment was that government SHOULD fear The People.

It is one of the big reasons, ya.

2 days ago
top

Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

Yakasha Re:Militia, then vs now (1574 comments)

That is exactly how it was intended.

2 days ago
top

Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

Yakasha Re:Militia, then vs now (1574 comments)

Incidentally, I think the 1939 Miller decision is wrong. Whether or not guns have some other lawful use is entirely irrelevant to the 2nd Amendment. Tanks, APCs, and F-16s even are relevant to a militia in today's technological world.

At the time the constitution was penned there were already laws regulating artillery, canons and warships, so there is well established precedent that the 2nd amendment is referring to personal arms and not battery weapons.

With only 65 total ships in the Continental Navy, and over 2000 letters of marque issued to privateers, I doubt there was any meaningful bans on cannon or warship ownership at the time. So, please, prove me wrong by citing the law banning cannons that predates the 1934 NFA

2 days ago
top

Bill Gates Patents Detecting, Responding To "Glassholes"

Yakasha Re:The difference... (140 comments)

So your suggesting that Glass be made more covert?

No, I think you're covering up the real issue - people like the freedom to lie and/or forget.

The real issue is context. What you see me doing, is not what I'm doing. It is what you think I'm doing. If you record it, and then play it for somebody else, then what they see is not only not what I'm doing, it is not what you think I'm doing. You are not recording my thoughts & emotions, nor does your recording include my entire life history. So, I don't want you slandering me to Google, et. all, by telling them I'm doing something that I'm not. And I definitely don't want the context to be distorted even further by such a recording being interpreted and reinterpreted, edited, and then interpreted again, for as long as Google decides it should be available, which Glass makes far more likely by virtue of reducing the effort to do so.

I wonder, though, what people will do once science eventually finds a way to play back memory? Will your very eyes and ears be as offensive as Glass?

Because that's the only difference - the ability to play it back. Everything witnessed by the Glass device is being witnessed by the wearer as well. It isn't the OBSERVATION that's the problem, but the playback.

Horrible. You start by saying how unreliable brains are, then say the only difference between human memory and a recorded image is the ability to play it back.

Our memory, besides forgetting stuff, is also non-deterministic. Every memory is impacted by future memories and emotions on the subject. A memory of you happily going to the ice cream shop can, 30 years later, be a horrible journey of agony because your parents love your sister more than you. If we get the ability to play back memories (and we no doubt will eventually), it will be no more or less reliable than a verbal explanation in determining what really happened, and thus no less irritating to some people as Glass is today.

3 days ago
top

Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

Yakasha Re:The Canadian Exodus.... (1574 comments)

B) Crime is related to education. the better educated the general populace, the less violent crime there is. This has noting to do with firearms at all. We see this in countries regardless of gun laws.

So why focus on the 2nd Amendment, demonizing the NRA & their arguments, and restricting private gun ownership then? Stevens wants to talk about the "intelligent debate", while obviously ignoring this kind of argument. The anti-gun crowd is effectively saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill people; but we're going to get rid of guns because that will stop people from killing people", and calling it "intelligent debate".

3 days ago
top

Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

Yakasha Re:Militia, then vs now (1574 comments)

to pretend that the Founders meant anything other than general gun ownership is revisionism of the most extreme kind.

Absolutely. I think his misinterpretation (I won't get into whether or not I think its intentional) can be summed up in just a couple quotes from the article:

(and duty) to keep and bear arms when serving in a state militia.

First, here (emphasis mine). He has the 2nd amendment backwards. He is claiming a militia is a required piece of the Amendment. It isn't. A well-regulated militia is the goal of the amendment, and it accomplishes that by making sure the People, who would compose the militia should it be needed, have the weapons and experience using them.

But that (my) definition isn't even on his radar:

Constitutional provisions that curtail the legislative power to govern in this area unquestionably do more harm than good.

Granted he is talking specifically about Sandyhook styled shootings, but to say "unquestionably"? I question it. I think Sandyhook is an acceptable risk when it comes to gun ownership. Additionally, removing guns in this day & age is just wiping somebody's nose and claiming you cured their flu. McVeigh & Nichols filled a truck with gasoline and fertilizer. 9/11 used box-cutters & a plane. Technology improvements don't only make cell phones cheaper & more useful than the pony express, it also means explosives and other weapons (3-d printers anybody?) are cheaper & more useful than bows & arrows. So if you want to actually stop mass killings, then go after mass killings. Fund mental health research & treatment, balance wealth inequality, accept that public assistance is required in a world where technology is raising the education bar higher than most people can reach and that when public assistance is as laughable as it is today... the have-nots are going to be restless.

Incidentally, I think the 1939 Miller decision is wrong. Whether or not guns have some other lawful use is entirely irrelevant to the 2nd Amendment. Tanks, APCs, and F-16s even are relevant to a militia in today's technological world. Especially if you consider some of the original arguments behind the 2nd amendment: tyrannical governments abusing the people with the military, so you "outlaw" a standing army and rely on The People forming a militia for self-defense until a regular army can be formed. Requiring "some other lawful purpose" is putting an additional restriction, or infringement, on the right to own guns and preventing a militia from behind formed. And since it is easy enough to simply declare there is no other lawful purpose for any gun (Police fill the defense role, beef industry fills the hunting role, so, done), such logic invalidates the entire amendment. (Specifically to sawed-off shotguns, there is a place for them with today's style of house-to-house close-quarters fighting where unskilled shooters need to hit whatever baddy is directly in front of them without penetrating walls or the people behind them; there is even more of a reason as better guns are outlawed/restricted/demonized, thus severely limiting people's chances of learning to hit the broad side of a barn).

Continuing

Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands.

Whereas I say no, they remind you that you're begging the question by simply assuming the debate has already moved on to "how to get guns out of the hands of mass-killers". Like I said above, people owning guns is not the problem. Revolutions don't happen just because people have guns. Mass killings don't happen just because people have guns. You don't have the flu just because your nose is runny (I like that analogy, so I'm using it again). Private gun ownership IS so important that it is protected by the Constitution, else it wouldn't have been mentioned, but, again, that is not the only argument for private gun ownership.

But lets talk about the "intelligent debate". I'll start by bringing up Fort Hood, the Washington Navy Yard, Christopher Dorner, Charles Whitman, and Franklin Regional High School (already touched on McVeigh) before I even ask: How does restricting gun ownership to a "well regulated milita" stop mass killings?

Of course the answer is: It doesn't. I'm sure Stevens would agree there, so I'll go into the followup question: What science based evidence do you have the says gun restrictions not only have a significant impact, but more of an impact than pursuing other avenues of violence reduction, such as mental health research & treatment, population density reduction, education, and/or resource equality; while at the same time assuring government abuse of its citizens can't or won't happen?

3 days ago
top

IRS Can Now Seize Your Tax Refund To Pay a Relative's Debt

Yakasha Re:Over 18 (630 comments)

Yes, you can overtly accept debt when accepting assets, but you cannot take on stealth debt by accepting assets that appear to be free and clear when the estate is closed. That is a blatant violation of due process.

Some debts, such as social security over-payments, do survive the death of the original recipient in certain situations. This link describes some of those situations.

Furthermore, as you describe it "appear to be free and clear" is absolute bubkis. Acting in good faith may protect you from criminal prosecution, but does not transfer property free & clear just because you thought it was. Shit, just ask somebody that got kicked out of their "free & clear" inherited house once an old loan popped up (fyi: title companies are not responsible in such situations, even if they cleared the title).

If the IRS failed to give reasonable notice to the estate of the intention to attach a lien on assets, the debts are gone. They are creditors. Creditors who do not act in a timely manner when an estate is closing or a corporation is being liquidated are simply SoL.

You're making 2 very flawed assumptions here (with your entire post actually):
1. That the Federal Government follows the same laws as a private entity in this or any other matter
2. That the law follows common sense.

Neither are true.

4 days ago
top

IRS Can Now Seize Your Tax Refund To Pay a Relative's Debt

Yakasha Re:Over 18 (630 comments)

Reading back through the thread, it looks like most everyone is thinking the same thing but disagreeing because of different terminology. The key misunderstanding in this thread relates to the situation where the liabilities are equal to, or larger than, the assets and the heirs-to-be want some of the assets.

You and Cyberax are calling the situation "inheriting debt", whereas I think it's more realistically described as accruing new debt in exchange for certain assets otherwise owed to the creditors. If you choose not to accrue this new debt to retain the estate's collateral, there's no way the estate's debt would pass on to you. The debt belongs solely to the estate and can't be inherited.

Ya. Whatever the terminology is, it seems people understand things. So, close enough. :)

4 days ago
top

IRS Can Now Seize Your Tax Refund To Pay a Relative's Debt

Yakasha Re:Over 18 (630 comments)

The estate is the remaining assets and liabilities of the deceased. Once assets are inherited, they no longer belong to the deceased's estate (as the estate, a legal construct, ceases to exist once liabilities are settled and assets are transferred).

You're missing a key logic point there (or misstating your point). If there are debts, any debts except federally secured student loans, the estate is responsible for paying them off. You only inherit stuff once all debts are paid. Therefore, if you've inherited anything, it is only because all debts were satisfied: either paid, forgiven, or assumed by the inheritor.

Belmolis has it nearly correct. The last sentence fragment ", but they never inherit any debt." is the only misleading portion. Inheritors can and do inherit debt, but only when they choose to (mortgage on a house, loan on a car, or, as Cyberax pointed out, any other debt to avoid sentimental items from being auctioned to pay said debt).

4 days ago
top

Jenny McCarthy: "I Am Not Anti-Vaccine'"

Yakasha I don't have all the answers... (586 comments)

But I might have one.

Plait wondered:

Also, botulinum is the single most lethal toxin known to humans. Yet McCarthy has enthusiastically praised injecting this toxin into her face. How can anyone possibly say that and also say vaccines have dangerous levels of toxins in them with a straight face?

Partial facial paralysis. Duh.

5 days ago
top

Photo Web Site Offers a Wall of Shame For Image Thieves

Yakasha Re: Webster's (126 comments)

When you are trying to make a buck off of other people's work, and book clients on work you are misrepresenting, there is a serious problem.

I don't need copyright, fraud, or theft explained to me, thanks. Nor does any explanation of why "action x, y, & z is bad" justify vigilantism.

Now I'm curious why a demonstrated ignorance of history with the likes of "Why is vigilantism bad?" is considered "insightful", but a clear historical precedence based answer is "overrated"? Probably too many moderators so its too easy for topics to be hijacked by "+1 agree" mods. Don't know. Would be interesting research.

5 days ago
top

Photo Web Site Offers a Wall of Shame For Image Thieves

Yakasha Re:Webster's (126 comments)

Considering the plethora of "Original source unknown" descriptions

Plethora? Eight out of fifty-two is a plethora? We have different meanings for that word, I guess.

There are more than 52 image pairings if you bothered to actually look over the site. I'm not only talking about Brett & Jizelle. But since you're talking about that post exclusively, I'm sure you saw the update

Update 04/09/2013

Updated a few original sources that I had as unknown.

Regardless of when the original was found, they still don't indicate how or if they've identified the actual copyright owners or how the offending site got a hold of them.

I'm not doubting Brett & Jizelle being douche-bags. I think the evidence presented is rather compelling and their canned, expected response of blaming the nameless, faceless, "already gone so there is no point in pursuing it" ex-employee only serves to seal the deal. I think that much of the time, vigilantes like this are doing a public service. However I also think the negatives of being wrong outweigh any possible benefit of their actions because safer, lawful, working measures are already in place to deal with this kind of situation.

The vigilante debate is quite old. You asked how its a problem, the answer is well known.

about a week ago
top

Photo Web Site Offers a Wall of Shame For Image Thieves

Yakasha Re:Webster's (126 comments)

So, how is it bad? Just like any other form of vigilantism, it's not, until they get it wrong. Then some honest photographer or artist gets to live with the stigma, and reduced business, from being labeled a thief.

If they're innocent, then they can prove they bought copyright, or were tricked. Problem solved.

Right. And I'm sure every accused criminal that was later exonerated suffered no ill-effects. They've never failed to get a job due somebody seeing the original, but not the fix.

You'll have to bring something new to the 1000 year old "Is vigilantism a good thing" debate if you want to continue.

about a week ago

Submissions

Yakasha hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

Yakasha has no journal entries.

Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...