Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Polls on the front page of Slashdot? Is the world coming to an end?! Nope; read more about it. ×

Comment: Re:Stucturing (Score 2) 367

by Shakrai (#49832681) Attached to: Why Is It a Crime For Dennis Hastert To Evade Government Scrutiny?

Then he should have told the FBI the truth when they asked what the money was for. Or simply said, "I choose not to give a statement." Lying to the Feds is beyond fucking stupid. That's their "gotcha" card and it baffles me that so many seemingly intelligent people fall into such an easily avoidable trap.

There's a right to remain silent. I suggest using it....

Comment: Re: Parents should be liable (Score 5, Informative) 190

by Jason Levine (#49831389) Attached to: Diphtheria Returns To Spain For Lack of Vaccination

As the parent of a child with autism, the "vaccines cause autism" crowd triply annoys me.

1. They take funding that should go to diagnosis/treatment and send it to Yet Another Study that will yet again show no link. (Or worse: Advocating "treatments" that are a baby step shy of torture.)

2. They fear monger autism such that you'd think your child would be better off dead than autistic. I know plenty of parents of kids on the spectrum. Some with pretty severe issues. None would rather their kids were dead.

3. They make it hard to support autism societies because you need to first weed out the ones dedicated to "proving" an autism-vaccine link.

The sooner these people accept that autism and vaccines have no link, the better for everyone.

Comment: Re:Put some content in your damn game (Score 1) 108

by Immerman (#49830957) Attached to: Valve Introduces Steam Refunds In Advance of Summer Sale

So, because you prefer an epic gaming experience, all other gaming forms should be ignored? Granted, if a game has less than two hours of gameplay, AND little replay value, I'll probably be disappointed, but not everyone is in it for the replay. Hell, a lot of the short games cost less than renting (much less going to) a movie, and considering the amount of drek coming out of Hollywood the odds are good that the game will offer more value for your money.

Comment: Re:People still use that? (Score 1) 130

by Andy Dodd (#49829769) Attached to: nmap Maintainer Warns He Doesn't Control nmap SourceForge Mirror

That's the disappointing thing - when a trusted name gets acquired by shady people, and those shady people milk the name for all it is worth.

I haven't been going to SF nearly as much lately, something just seemed "off" - now I'm glad I almost never go there.

It reminds me of what happened to a fairly popular hosting site for Android development projects, dev-host. d-h used to be a pretty good service, but sometime in the last year, they started replacing downloads with malware/adware.

Comment: Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale (Score 1) 259

by ScentCone (#49829231) Attached to: Professional Russian Trolling Exposed

you have given complete credence to Bush's lies over the wars

Which lies? His trusting (just like, say, Clinton did) what the CIA told him about the status of WMDs in Iraq? As in, the same CIA that you are now saying we should trust as the source of the initial sloppy talking points, re: the consulate attack in Libya? Or are you referring to lies about whether or not Saddam was blocking inspections, shooting at patrolling aircraft, continuing to traffic in weapons he said he wouldn't, continuing to kill large numbers of Kurds and others not in his tribe, defraud the UN and skim billions of aid money, and so on? Oh, right, those things were very real, weren't they? Just like Saddam's UN-observed mountains of VX gas, some of which he used to slaughter thousands of people. Yeah, yeah, just lies, I know.

I can't go far enough ... I can only imagine ... I can be certain

Uh huh. OK. Did you learn this rhetorical strategy in debate club?

Pretend all you want, you don't know what happened in Libya, much less why it happened.

Let's see ... you're willing to tell everyone else what happened (by selectively quoting part of a report, while deliberately ignoring the parts you don't like) based on a legislative report, but you're not willing to even address the fact that multiple intelligence and defense officials were on the record describing the well armed and organized nature of the consulate attack while the administration's flacks were still going to the press with the phony video protest theater. You're backing them, here. So, you've concluded that the hours-long assault with motors and machine guns was in fact an ad hoc gathering of protestors? No? You're saying I don't know what happened, but you're saying you do, even though people on the ground there describe events completely at odds with the phony video protest story that even the administration eventually had to admit was not what happened.

You are only making a big deal out of it because of your opposition to this particular faction.

Right. I find that this particular faction's deliberate lying about the event in order to influence an election was reprehensible. You're OK with it, since you like the administration.

You decry the actor and not the act, very typical of you people.

The two can't be separated. The actor (Obama) committed the act: deliberate misrepresentation, for weeks, knowing full well his people were lying about what happened. All in a vain attempt to avoid being challenged on their fictional campaign narrative about Terrorists On The Run, what with an election on the calendar, where he was making that fable a central feature of his stump speeches (you know, along with ISIS being the "JV team," etc).

You're comparing one president (and the majority of the democratic legislators, including the liberal front runner in the current cycle) who read, processed, and repeated what the intelligence community concluded about Iraq, to the current president who had his people continue to lie after being told that what they were selling was - as was known and officially conveyed to the White House almost immediately - wholly incorrect. Pure fiction. But, you're sticking with the liars on this one, because you like them. At least admit it.

Comment: Re:Meet the New Act (Score 3, Insightful) 266

by Immerman (#49827277) Attached to: Senate Passes USA Freedom Act

Or any of the many instant-runoff or proportional representation methods. Unfortunately, as hard as the established parties will fight against limits on their wealthy gravy-train, I suspect they'll fight *much* harder against any fundamental changes to the election system they've currently captured. And considering that it would take a constitutional amendment to change the rules, I'd say it' a non-starter until we've managed to take back a measure of control over both congress and the state legislatures.

Comment: Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale (Score 1) 259

by ScentCone (#49827263) Attached to: Professional Russian Trolling Exposed

The CIA disagrees, and the opinion of the CIA at the time is demonstrated by what they actually included in their summary talking points bulletin.

No, the CIA reported on outside-the-embassy protests elsewhere, and made some conjecture along those lines in the hours immediately following the event. They (and the FBI, and DoD) briefed the White House (and thus State) on the reality of the event (a planned, organized event run by well armed, hardened militants) not even 24 hours later. But for days and weeks afterwards, the administration continued to try to sell the "It's all because of this vile video, see..." fairy tale. Why? Because that deliberate lie was a better fit with the campaign's "the terrorist are on the run" narrative. It really isn't any more complicated than that.

Comment: Re:DHS was never about Homeland Security (Score 1) 336

If they only detect 5% of them, then sure, why not?

And you really think that whatever number that other 95% is, it will go down if someone willing to kill himself on a commercial airliner in order to destroy it on approach over a large city no longer has to even wonder if he'll have his bomb found while boarding? If you're going to troll, at least do it in a way that makes it look like you at least take yourself seriously.

Comment: Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale (Score 1) 259

by ScentCone (#49827239) Attached to: Professional Russian Trolling Exposed
Feel free to pop into any of thousands of posts and show me where someone with whom I'm more philosophically aligned has sent someone out to do a stint of serial lying on a matter of plainly obvious fact (a la launching Susan Rice at the weekend talk shows, or Hillary repeating the same stuff days after she's been briefed on details that explicitly illustrate the exact opposite) - upon which I excused/approved. Specifics, please.

But in your imagination, I have? THAT'S how you make it more comfortable, somehow, to process the pre-election BS we're talking about, coming out of the current administration? "I don't like you, so I suspect you'd approve of other people I don't like lying, and saying so while using phrases like 'statistical certainty' is, no matter how lame, the best thing I can think of to try to distract from the administration's campaign of deliberate, purposeful lying on the topic at hand." THAT'S your argument? Very nice.

Comment: Re:A Nuclear power plant on your legs (Score 1) 173

Umm, what? Spam's irrelevant to the conversation, and USB charges at a predefined voltage, so there's no "electrical firehose", just a standard-"pressure" hose that you must negotiate power-rights with before drawing more than the minimum power guaranteed by the specs.

I couldn't find details about the 20V charging mode, so I suppose if it's a negotiated thing rather than a separate set of power pins, then there's some chance that a cheap no-name USB "high power" charger might deliver 20V constantly, likely burning out any 5V hardware plugged into it. But then that's always the risk with ultra-cheap chargers, isn't it? Even with older USB specs that should never exceed 5V.

Comment: Re:Meet the New Act (Score 4, Insightful) 266

by Immerman (#49826837) Attached to: Senate Passes USA Freedom Act

>Now tell me again why is it that we don't need a third party in this country ?

Because so long as we have first-past-the-post voting rules, game theory tends to render third parties irrelevant. Example: the several "third" parties that currently *do* exist in the US, but rarely if ever win elections.

So lets support Bernie Sander with money and time, probably the best chance we've got at weakening the strangle-hold the wealthy have on this country.

Comment: Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale (Score 1) 259

by ScentCone (#49825949) Attached to: Professional Russian Trolling Exposed

You're just being partisan.

You're right. Sending out Susan Rice to lie to reporters in an attempt to spin a completely preventable horror show at the consulate so as to prevent it from further tainting an upcoming election ... that's party-neutral. It's pointing out the lies that's partisan, right? Yeah.

Those who claim the dead never return to life haven't ever been around here at quitting time.