Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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

NYC Loses Appeal To Ban Large Sugary Drinks

jeIlomizer Re:Praise the Courts (532 comments)

We have legislated "arbitrary" cutoff dates whenever there is a need: age of majority, age of consent, term limits, statute of limitation, and many others, not the least controversial of which is legal abortion.

If you claim to be pro-choice but then support arbitrary cut off dates, then you're just a hypocrite. You're not really pro-choice at all.

Of course, I suppose you could take the position that none of these "arbitrary cutoff dates" should be imposed, which would imply that 5th graders should be allowed to drive on our freeways while lighting up a pack of smokes purchased from the corner bodega.

Yeah, I'm really tired of the "for the children" nonsense. You could also allow babies to vote and they'd probably make more informed decisions than most adults.

You have also failed to argue why your line in the sand for abortion is less arbitrary than some other one, e.g. moment of conception, which is where many (not including me, BTW) believe that pregnancy involves more than just "her body".

My view is no less arbitrary than the view that abortion should be banned outright, but it's less arbitrary than 'pro-choice except after X weeks.'

While I agree that pro-choice means "the right to choose and exercise control over their own bodies", the choice of abortion directly impacts another body, a fetus (or even earlier developmental stages for ardent pro-life proponents). Thus, we have the current set of "arbitrary cutoff dates" for legal abortion in various jurisdictions.

That does not follow.

So, why is yours any better than Rick Santorum's or blue9steel's?

Because mine allows women to have freedom over their own bodies.

about three weeks ago
top

NYC Loses Appeal To Ban Large Sugary Drinks

jeIlomizer Re:Praise the Courts (532 comments)

So, no, self-defense is not recognized as "a general right to choose that overrides someone else's right to life".

Nonsense. Even if I modify my statement a bit, pretty much any state allows you to defend yourself and kill the aggressor if you have no choice. There's no need to be uselessly pedantic. "Under these specific conditions, you have a general right to choose to override someone else's right to life." It makes little difference.

Furthermore, AIUI, where self-defense statutes in the US allow application of lethal force, that is no equivalent to abortion.

How about reading my post again, you dumb shit? "This is simply another case where I think it's justified, though it isn't really self-defense (as if I need to point that out)." I pointed it out, and you still didn't fucking read it! I never equated abortion to self-defense to begin with.

about three weeks ago
top

Privacy Oversight Board Gives NSA Surveillance a Pass

jeIlomizer Re:Not surprised (170 comments)

Oh, good. That means we're in full agreement, then.

about three weeks ago
top

Privacy Oversight Board Gives NSA Surveillance a Pass

jeIlomizer Re:Not surprised (170 comments)

It's not insane to consider free speech a fundamental right, and to say that judges can't just modify the constitution with invisible ink.

about three weeks ago
top

NSA Considers Linux Journal Readers, Tor (And Linux?) Users "Extremists"

jeIlomizer Re:Actually they're saying they are going to watch (361 comments)

But neither should they need to do that to watch someone.

So they should just be able to watch people for absolutely no reason at all, no warrants required?

about a month ago
top

NSA Considers Linux Journal Readers, Tor (And Linux?) Users "Extremists"

jeIlomizer Re:Well, of course (361 comments)

See, a rational person would have looked at what's going and concluded that the NSA's position is "of course you're more likely to be an extremist" rather than "of course you must be an extremist".

Which is also a bullshit position. Actually, a rational thinker's position would be, "They're just using this as another excuse to violate the constitution and people's fundamental liberties."

about a month ago
top

NSA Considers Linux Journal Readers, Tor (And Linux?) Users "Extremists"

jeIlomizer Re:Underlying cause? (361 comments)

It was well documented after the fall of the Soviet Union that there was a powerful network of communist infiltrators within the US government, and that Sen. McCarthy was right, though he had a horrible clumsy way of acting in reaction to it.

Clumsy? People's fundamental liberties were violated. No matter how 'safe' that makes us, that's more criminal than clumsy.

The Rosenbergs deserved to die, they were guilty.

I don't see how the former follows from the latter, because I don't believe in government thugs executing people to begin with.

about a month ago
top

NSA Considers Linux Journal Readers, Tor (And Linux?) Users "Extremists"

jeIlomizer Re:Not a big surprise (361 comments)

I don't see where RMS is crazy at all.

about a month ago
top

Austrian Tor Exit Node Operator Found Guilty As an Accomplice

jeIlomizer Re:No you're analogies are what is idotic... (255 comments)

Why are there so many authoritarian morons defending this garbage? Am I even on Slashdot, a site supposedly for nerds, anymore?

about a month ago
top

Austrian Tor Exit Node Operator Found Guilty As an Accomplice

jeIlomizer Re:Very bad car analogy (255 comments)

He then took no action whatsoever to ensure that he wasn't assisting criminal activity.

I wasn't aware that this should be a problem in any truly free country. I also wasn't aware that you can just magically detect if they're breaking the law without invasive monitoring, or even with invasive monitoring. You authoritarians are truly pieces of trash who despise the very essence of freedom.

about a month ago
top

Austrian Tor Exit Node Operator Found Guilty As an Accomplice

jeIlomizer Re:Exactly this. (255 comments)

Whether or not it should actually constitute a crime is a larger a more complex question

It's not complex at all. The answer is simply, "No."

about a month ago
top

Austrian Tor Exit Node Operator Found Guilty As an Accomplice

jeIlomizer Re:No, it's not the same as selling cars at all. (255 comments)

You're a worthless authoritarian scumbag. The mere fact that abuse is possible or even common doesn't mean a technology should be suppressed. Services that allow you to gain some degree of anonymity with no questions asked are very important, regardless of how they might be misused. I'd rather allow many 'Bad People' to go free than arrest someone who provides such a service. Anyone who says otherwise should, again, move to North Korea.

about a month ago
top

Austrian Tor Exit Node Operator Found Guilty As an Accomplice

jeIlomizer Re:It's accomplices all the way down! (255 comments)

The judge made the assumption that anyone who wants to be untraceable to law enforcement must be a criminal, which is actually not such a huge stretch.

"Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is an argument that completely ignores the millions of government abuses throughout history and pretends that the government is full of perfect angels who could never do any wrong or make any mistakes. And I assure you that desiring privacy--a basic human need--does not mean one is doing anything wrong.

about a month ago
top

Privacy Oversight Board Gives NSA Surveillance a Pass

jeIlomizer Re: 191 page report (170 comments)

So saying "Aha! A right was violated, abolish the entire agency!!" is not the answer.

At this point, it definitely is.

about a month ago
top

Privacy Oversight Board Gives NSA Surveillance a Pass

jeIlomizer Re:Not surprised (170 comments)

(a more strident First Amendment supporter can't be found)

You are wrong.

about a month ago
top

Judge Frees "Cannibal Cop" Who Shared His Fantasies Online

jeIlomizer Re:Though crime is here! (185 comments)

can you *prove* I'm not just going to change my mind and just grill up some really good burgers instead?

I suppose not. You're off the hook, hopefully.

4) Even regarding things in the past, there's generally no such thing as proof of who committed a crime. If I watch a guy shoot somebody, make a citizen's arrest until the cops get there, and they take him away... can I truly confirm that the person sitting handcuffed across the courtroom from me two weeks later is the same person I watched kill another person?

It always baffles me when I use a word like "proof" and people like you feel the need to be 'smart' and go off ranting about how you can't truly prove much of anything, as if I'm not already aware of that. Substitute the lone word "proof" for "beyond a reasonable doubt" or something. Was that so hard?

True proof is impossible.

While we're fucking around, can you prove that?

about a month ago
top

Judge Frees "Cannibal Cop" Who Shared His Fantasies Online

jeIlomizer Re:Bought tools to fantasize? (185 comments)

I don't think so. Again, prove he was about to take action and you're good. I don't care if you think something is unlikely.

about a month ago
top

Judge Frees "Cannibal Cop" Who Shared His Fantasies Online

jeIlomizer Re:Though crime is here! (185 comments)

Then it would probably a good idea to make sure *no one* goes to jail for such things.

about a month ago
top

Privacy Oversight Board Gives NSA Surveillance a Pass

jeIlomizer Re:Not surprised (170 comments)

Those freedom-hating scumbags include most of the contributors to the text of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights

You do realize, of course, that there was slavery in those days? The founders had some good ideas, but I don't look to them as some sort of freedom gods.

I do not care. List off as many judges as you want, and I'll say they're just ignoring what the constitution says.

(Incidentally, as a textual literalist, Black also believed there was no right to privacy in the Constitution, because the text doesn't explicitly state one).

Privacy exists because of the limitations we place on the government. It exists in practice, and the constitution need not explicitly state it exists. Remember, the constitution only allows the government to do what it says it can. It doesn't work like, "It doesn't say people have a right to X, so they don't." It works like, "It doesn't say the government can do X, so they can't." The latter is what gives us privacy in practice.

If your world view is "there's everyone who thinks like me, and scumbags who hate freedom" I'm not sure there exists a prescription to eliminate that particular kind of myopia.

I'm not sure of that either. The problem is, people only pretend to want to live in 'the land of the free.'

about a month ago

Submissions

jeIlomizer hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

jeIlomizer 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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...