Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:*sigh*... (Score 1) 358

Be charitable Interpret the arguments of others in good faith, do not seek to disagree. When we do disagree, try to understand why.

Translation: judge a person on their social status first, and if they outrank you in developer status or connections, keep your mouth shut, no matter how bad the bug. (And yes, it will become this way.)

Care to explain how you drew that conclusion? I'm not seeing it.

See, that's me following this part of the CoC. A response that doesn't follow it would be something like this, "Sorry, but you're simply wrong. You're turning something that has nothing to do with status, and making it about status. Your turning something that is focused on making conversations more effective and claiming it, instead, will end conversations. You're asking us to accept your belief of what will happen as if it were fact."

The initial response gives you an opportunity to explain something that I feel you didn't adequately explain. The latter shuts you down, or, starts an argument.

I haven't read the whole CoC (since I'm not a Go developer, there's really no point), but I think this little bit that I quoted should be something we all do, not just in online discussions, but also face to face.

Comment Re:And emits 700,000 lbs of CO2 to announce it ... (Score 1) 413


Read what I wrote, emphasis added

I doubt your math, but it doesn't really matter.

I still doubt the math. It's clearly back of the envelope. The fuel burned by a 747 is not constant, as the link provided makes clear. See Atmosfair Airline Index for 117 page PDF that describes how challenging it is to describe how much CO2 is released by an airplane. Also, the distance is wrong, since the jet certainly didn't follow a straight line

However, one more time, the math doesn't matter. It gets lost in the decimal points when compared to CO2 emissions from coal.

I didn't create a straw man. The clear implication was that the President was being a hypocrite. Putting the CO2 released by his trip in context of his plan makes it clear that's a silly argument. Adding in that the President wasn't saying all CO2 emissions must stop makes it even clearer.

Comment Re:And emits 700,000 lbs of CO2 to announce it ... (Score 2) 413

I doubt your math, but it doesn't really matter. For every megawatt of power generated by a coal plant, on average, 2,249 lbs carbon dioxide are generated. In 2013, there were 1,581,115 megawatt hours of electricity generated by coal. That's 3,555,927,635 pounds.

Even so, you're saying, he's a hypocrite, right? Wrong.

The President isn't saying "Shut down everything that emits carbon dioxide". He's saying that it's time to decrease our carbon dioxide emissions. No hypocrisy, and even with your numbers, a drop in the bucket for emissions.

Comment Re:What a deal! (Score 2) 413

Surely you mean Presidents Truman and Eisenhower, right? I mean, after all, it was the CIA during their administrations that overthrew the democratically elected government in Iran that is more responsible for the situation in the Middle East then anything else. See CIA-assisted coup overthrows government of Iran.

Or perhaps you mean the European leaders who, after WWI, created countries that never existed in the Middle East?

I think putting blame on President Carter is a bit misplaced. While President Carter called on the Shah to stop torturing people and to release political prisoners, the US continued to strongly supported the Shah. Social changes in Iran were too large and too rapid, though, to quell without even more horrendous human rights violations than the Shah was already committing. In reality, there was not way to keep the status quo in Iran. We supported the Shah far too long, against our own stated human rights beliefs and against our own best foreign policy judgements. President Nixon, though, believed that Iran, ruled by the Shah, was vital to American interests in the area, so, that's what we got.

Comment Re:Oh Great! More Central Planning! Just what we n (Score 2) 413

There is no way WE (the USA) could really do anything about carbon emissions, unless you just want people to needlessly die and the USA be remanded back to third world status.

It's comments like this that really get my goat. There are options between doing nothing and becoming a third world country. The President's plan wouldn't make us a third world country and it will decrease our carbon emissions.

Oh, BTW, closing coal powered plans will actually reduce deaths in the US; and, you know what, it's already happening! See Death and Disease from Power Plants. The numbers of deaths attributable to pollution from power plants has gone down significantly in the last 15 years.

Comment Re:Likely misdemeanor mishandling of classified in (Score 1) 434

What a ridiculous analogy!

In your comparison the police were looking for "documents" so destroying "documents" would be wrong.

In the case of Ms. Clinton, a certain subset of a certain kind of document were requested. None of those were destroyed.

To be close to a valid analogy, the fire in the house would be fed by firewood. That wood could be turned into paper, which could then be a document, which ... no, it's just too ridiculous.

Comment Re:Likely misdemeanor mishandling of classified in (Score 1) 434

No, I thought you had walked away from this. My last comment was Saturday, you waited 4 days to respond. Then after 1 day you accuse me of something? That's nonsense.

Again, you are confusing what the State Department has released and what Ms. Clinton turned over. We have no idea if there is a real gap.

The statutes you quote don't say what you think they say.

Section 3105 is about process. Did she make items 1, 2, and 3 known to her department? Yes, memos of that have been quoted in a vain attempt to prove she broke her own policies.

Section 3301 defines email as an official record. She knew that, that's why she turned them over.

Section 3302 is about duties of the Archivist and has nothing to do with Ms. Clinton.

Section 3303 is about the department providing information of what the department is maintaining to the archivist. Again, not relevant in this instance.

You still have come close to backing up your claim. Let me quote you again, just in case you forgot:

when you are under investigation, rules get stricter, and nothing should be deleted until checked out.

Comment Re:Likely misdemeanor mishandling of classified in (Score 1) 434

Of course the PR is bad. People are trying to damage her politically.

We're not talking about a Congressional investigation into the death of a US ambassador at all. We already know everything there is to know about what happened in Benghazi. Multiple commissions have all come to the same conclusions. This is a political sideshow, one that's driven by the GOP, one that's designed to last as long as possible. The longer it lasts, the more possible political damage it can do.

If I was a fan of the GOP I'd be pissed. They should be governing, not playing politics.

Comment Re:What bothers me (Score 1) 434

I thought it was obvious what you said that was demonstrably wrong, but I'll quote you.

Well, that and the word (or actions) of Sidney Blumenthal who turned over work emails which she didn't.

We don't know if she turned over the emails or not. All we know is that the State Department hasn't provided all of them to the Congressional committee.

Your whole line of argument about the strictness of the law and smoking gun completely misses the point. You said something that wasn't true. Not only isn't there a smoking gun, but contrary to your claim, "There is already ample evidence suggesting of mishandling of classified information.", there isn't evidence of any wrongdoing. There's a lot of allegations like yours, but that's all.

Comment Re:Likely misdemeanor mishandling of classified in (Score 1) 434

No, I'm asking you to prove a claim. You wrote,

when you are under investigation, rules get stricter, and nothing should be deleted until checked out.

in response to my statement that she performed within the law.

I asked if you were sure, and you said you were. So prove it. Government document retention is governed by statute. If the policy changes when being asked to testify by a Congressional committee, I'd like to read that.

Government statute includes guidelines as to what needs to be retained. Employees decide based on those guidelines what to retain and what not to retain.

The DoJ isn't involved. There is no criminal case. Congress doesn't have the right to decide what you can do with personal documents.

Comment Re:Yep, keep searching (Score 1) 434

As I said, this is going to be the new Birth Certificate.

I suspect you're right. The GOP extremists keep claiming, "We've got her now!" and then nothing comes of it. The majority of Americans are already tired of it. Soon, they'll stick their fingers in the ears anytime anyone mentions it because they think only a kook would still care.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberrys!" -- Monty Python and the Holy Grail