Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Whistle blower (Score 1) 508 508

Dear coward (do you see the irony?)

The difference between Snowden and those people? They didn't hide from their actions.

How can you hide from the people Snowden took on? How the fuck is he hidden? (Hint: he's in Russia - do you really think the US gov doesn't know exactly where). Go on, lug those goalposts - how about - he's outside their jurisdiction? Um, demonstrably that doesn't matter. What about - he's outside there reach. Again demonstrably not true. Keep trying.

Hint: you're barking up the wrong tree with "but it's different" - a result of trying too hard.

Comment Re:Whistle blower (Score 1) 508 508

How did the previous poster not acknowledge what Ms. Monaco said? Does one have to believe that the other person wasn't being disingenuous to acknowledge what they said?

No, it's a moot issue, and obvious to everyone but you.,

Fair is when the rabbit that sits down to talk with a fox is holding a shotgun.

Comment Re:Whistle blower (Score 1) 508 508

Rosa Parks technically illegal Susan B Anthony? technically illegal Martin Luther King, Jr? technically illegal

And all three of which went to prison for their technically illegal actions. Now I don't know if you missed this, or are intentionally ignoring this, but the point that Ms Monaco was making is that Edward Snowden did not.

Apples and apples - they were brave, and principled, no doubt about it. But not facing the same length of sentence (ask Manning about that), and neither of them risk execution. It's easy to say Snowden won't face execution, but if I was in his shoes I wouldn't get much comfort from your words.

It also overlooks the implications of having to spend a lifetime hiding in Russian. In Snowden's place I'd consider quietly offing myself rather than face a lifetime in prison, my reputation and my family dragged through the mud, or living in Russia. I highly doubt that Snowden knew where he was going to go for certain - but there's no doubting his conviction in his fate when you watch the video and follow his subsequent communications.

If Parks, Anthony, or King were here right now do you really think they'd be taking your side? Washington? Franklin?

Comment Re:Whistle blower (Score 1) 508 508

Who then gets to decide what "the consequences of his actions" is. What makes running away from people who have it in for him not a consequence of his actions?

Please post your full name and current address if you want any credibility when grandstanding about "consequences of actions".

Comment Re:Whistle blower (Score 1) 508 508

Dear coward

Snowden did risk a lot, but it seems like you're denigrating what those other people did. I mean martin luther king jr actually did die for his beliefs.

I don't read any disrespect in the earlier posts. I do in this. You're also a bit premature on the assessment of the total costs Snowden paid - the meter is still running.

Comment Re:Whistle blower (Score 1) 508 508

Great, you've connected Snowden to MLK in a comparison that says they both risked their lives for what they believed in, and a greater good. Of course, the fact remains that one risked being killed by his own government, and the other was killed by a psycho racist citizen.

Agreed on James Earl Ray (though I'm not 100% certain). Did Martin Luther King risk being killed by the government? That's definitely less than 100% certain. Is it a fair comparison? Yes - they're not apples and apples - but it's hard to find a suitable comparison (Nelson Mandela?) Especially seeing as MLK was a bit of a dodgy bastard - which doesn't reduce by any means the value of his legacy. MLK never knowingly faced a lifetime in hiding.

Comment Re:Whistle blower (Score 1) 508 508

The big difference with all of the above is he does not accept the consequences of his actions.

Bullshit. The video of his first contact with the press is freely available - he damn well does know exactly what the consequences are. Shift ground much?

Comment Re:Whistle blower (Score 1) 508 508

What Snowden did was technically illegal, but he was exposing previous illegal acts by the government, so he should be pardoned on that basis. Snowden has not been charged (yet) under the espionage act because the possibility of the death penalty would block his extradition from most European countries where he might seek asylum.

"He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers — not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime." That's just ridiculous. He would never see a public courtroom but would be tried in a secret "patriot act " court. I think the authoritarian regime is right here.

This is not the America I grew up in. This is disgraceful.

He also claims he tried to bring the illegalities to the attention of his superiors - so the best qualified legal opinions I've read probably hold true. He is a whistleblower. Whether a court of judges appointed by government uphold that is debatable.

We're all guessing about possible outcomes: much of what he took has yet to be released so we can't determine, or even reliably guess on the long-term impact (no doubt those that call the shots are wary of what would happen if he was killed - martyr status is not the least of their possible concerns a document dump probably is, very likely they don't know what he took); we can't reliably determine what the "government" will do - though I have no doubt some parts of the government would like him dead.

Comment Re:Yeah, be a man! (Score 1) 508 508

Totally different circumstances, but you already know that, you are just grasping at straws. OBL's death was a military action on foreign soil that resulted in the death of a non US citizen who was a known combatant. He died in a war.

I've said before that if this administration wanted Snowden dead, he'd already be dead. I'm arguing that they don't want or need him to die for what ever reason and my evidence of that is simply that he's alive. So I seriously doubt that if he turned himself in they would skip the trial and just kill him. Too many people would be looking, it wouldn't be legal, and I contend there would be nothing to gain.

Seriously, he was just a two bit system administrator who took data off the systems he managed, he wasn't some high level operative but some dude in the basement changing out backup tapes and resetting lost passwords. He didn't do that for very long either. He doesn't really know anything beyond the documents he took....

So much wrong and stupid in one post. Not that I'm surprised, it's /. What are you 12? Educated by Fox? Clearly not even a reader - or you'd have read what I wrote (perhaps your lips got sore). Certainly not a fact checker - have you heard of the internet?

Comment Re:Yes. (Score 1) 124 124

It doesn't matter. What are you going to say, some random stranger on an internet forum explained things to you the right way, and suddenly you changed how you think about nuclear power? That's never, ever gonna happen. It's a deeply-seated belief, and you'll never give it up, because to do that you'd have to re-examine your entire self. Anti-nuclearism is a religion, plain and simple. It doesn't matter how many citations from Wikipedia I throw in, you'll never, ever change your mind. Hell, if you actually did, you'd be socially ostracized by friends you've had for decades. You might even get fired if you work at an NGO or somesuch.

Speaks volumes of you says nothing of me. I used to be staunchly anti-nuclear. I doubt I'm a corner case.

Your logic is demonstrably false - otherwise everyone who was brainwashed into religion as a child would never change their views. They do - but I guess that's something else you'll ignore while you tell yourself you're a critical thinker (hint: you're just critical).

Comment Re:We keep history to learn (Score 1) 184 184

I'm 19, and I have to say this is incredibly moronic. Granted, I've posted tons of embarrassing stuff when I was younger, but that's part of growing up. I learned not do that again and moved on. Just because you said something stupid once doesn't mean people get to remove archived internet events for you. I'm so sick of my worthless pussy generation, always being "triggered" or having their feelings hurt because they're not the center of attention. I mean holy fuck, most of us are in our late teens and early 20s. Grow the fuck up. .

Agreed. Just goes to show wisdom isn't soley the result of age (it sure isn't an automatic result)

I'm a lot older. I did and thought a lot of things things in the past that I'm not proud of. Wiping out the evidence doesn't change the fact they happened. Embarrassment is awareness of that. I learned from the embarrassment - that I am privately proud of

If people want to judge me by past history - that's their right (if they're over 30 they deserve the opinions they hold), it doesn't mean it's right, or it's a reliable indicator of how I act and think now. All it says is that their opinions say nothing about me and speak volumes about them. If someone thinks others can't learn from their mistakes they're people I wouldn't trust to run a bath. Not that there isn't people who've never fucked up - just that I have more respect for people that have, and have learnt from it than I have for those that have never been tested.

Where do we stop when we define "embarrassing"? If the internet had been around then should I demand pictures of me wearing "V-knee" jeans, or flares, and platform shoes be deleted? If that was the case I'd be embarrassed at the shallowness behind it. There's always going to be people who think I'm a dickhead, or "uncool". Trying to change that is like pissing in the wind and trying to stay dry.

Maybe people who judge us are right, maybe they're wrong - IMO the important question is "who's opinion do I make myself a prisoner of"?. Thanks for the offer [insert name here] but I'll pick my own peers.

When it comes to employers, or clients, or partners and friends it's not substantially different. e.g. should my employer's/client's opinion of the past contents or existence of my Fffacebook/Google+/MySpace page bother me? Yes. It allows me to determine whether my investment of time is a waste. If they want to see lots of Ffffacebook ffffriends in my profile I doubt they're likely to be in business for very long, pay me a fair share of my earnings, or recognise my potential. Friends are no different (the John West principle - the friends you get are limited by the friends you don't reject).

Partners? They'll figure you out after a while (if they can't it doesn't say much about what makes you happy), good luck sleeping well if there's a big difference between who you are and who you pretend to be. If you think it's worth bullshitting for a short term gain you may have made a poor investment decision (and wish you could edit out that history later).

Comment Who will think of the children? (Score 1) 184 184

It's all about the kids, right?

Oh wait - I think I took a cynicism tablet instead of the happy pill this morning. Bloody Abbott has been messing with the public health system again. He used to be funny until he pushed Costello out of the limelight.

Comment Re:self-serving list (Score 1) 109 109

"you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink (want a bet?)"

Short of violence and/or other behavior that most would consider animal abuse? Go figure that normal people exclude that as a valid solution to the 'problem'.

The limitations of your experience define the frame. Most animals like salt - but feel free to call PETA if I put a tiny dab inside a horse's lip.
If that horse has colic I will be cruel in order to get that horse to drink. The crueltry is relative. If you did think that unreasonably cruel to do to a horse with colic then you'd be deserving of a horse whipping.

"doesn't have the horse sense to stay out of the rain" (clearly never owned horses, they will seek shelter from rain -[...]"
Careful you don't hurt your back lugging those goal posts around.

"Horse sense" is a synonym for "good sense" or "sound judgment".

The implication is that horses WILL stay out of the rain, and otherwise exhibit good sense.

[golf clap] Such a wit(ling).
...means exactly or nearly the same". In your desperate bounds from bank to bank you pass over the obvious. WILL != do. So the "implication" - is wrong. Hint: a little rain won't hurt you (cold will).
The point I tried to make earlier, which you ignored, is that common sense is not common - because it's counter intuitive. Your reaction reinforces that.
It'd be simpler, and more accurate, to just say "they don't possess the intelligence to act in their own best interest" don't you think? (of course that may raise the question of why "they" feel the need to use a more obscure choice of words)

You mis-understood the proverb completely; and it means the opposite of what you think.

I don't think so (you'll ruin you eyes squinting like that). Context is the point. Is it context that eludes you? Or just the meaning of "a thread" and the ability to follow it's tangents?

"you'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" (try that with a fly trap).

Fine you win one, sort of... if you get to pick the species of fly in question.

If you think it's about scoring points you're doing two things wrong. I don't see it as winning points. I take it personally - if I test my opinion and find I'm wrong I consider that a win. No prizes for foolish pride. In this case I've won nothing. On the other-hand, maybe you could. Just a thought - it won't kill you.
And no, "I" don't get to pick the species of fly, that needs to be defined by the person trotting out the proverb like it is some valuable piece of wisdom instead of frontier gibberish passed off as a precept.

Yes certain species of fruit flies are attracted to the scent of vinegar. Other species not so much.

With the obvious exception of blow flies, horse flies, march flies, house flies, little house flies, cluster flies, meat flies, and most other flies found around homes and farms. I qualified my statement - fly traps. I never managed to catch any with honey (other insects, yes) if there was other traps nearby with vinegar. The second best mixture proved to be sugar and vinegar (better than just sugar).

That's not a unique finding. How hard is it to check, especially compared to a knee-jerk defence of what you've always assumed to be true but never tested?

It's demonstrably more truthful to say "you catch more flies with shit than with honey". The interesting question would be why do so many people trot out such proverbs like that which aren't self-supporting? The answer is often that the proverb is self-serving. They wish to make a proverb a precept. The devil is a gentleman whose speech is honeyed. The truth is not pretty and those that find it challenges their over-investment in a emotional belief resort to an ad-hominem argument, red herring, strawmen, or convoluted interpretations and appeals to authority in lieu of a valid argument.

Comment Re: Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock (Score 0) 256 256

It was a good post until you wrote "boxen". After that, my filter turned the rest of the words into "blah blah I'm an idiot". Please don't do that again.

The good news is your critical thinking badge is in the mail.

The bad news is you don't qualify for a consolation prize in the "not taking yourself too seriously" competition. But that's news you should be used to by now.

Ironically, given the MOD, the wisdom of Theophrastus is all greek to you, never-the-less I thankyou for your pointless contribution.

Comment Re:Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hosts (Score 2) 256 256


Fuck off APK. Once was enough of your damaged posts, beyond that it's just shilling for shit.

Why don't you go home and spend some quality time with Sex Conker, be the cow in his life.

If we wanted a brain dead multi-megabyte host file we'd make it ourselves - certainly wouldn't download one of yours everyday.

Now if only I had a filter for APK without having to browse at above 0 and miss some of the good posts....

A large number of installed systems work by fiat. That is, they work by being declared to work. -- Anatol Holt