Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:At this point? Really? (Score 1) 76 76

I'm pretty sure that "Lawnchair" isn't a typical appellation given by right-wingers to President Obama. ( They typically go for things like "Obummer", "Binladen-lover", "Tyrant", "Dictator, and "Weak" - not that these make much sense.) It sounds like damn_registrars is mad that Obama hasn't done more, which equally senseless, given the dysfunction of Congress. But I count him as absolutely very left wing.

Comment Re:This Probably Won't Work... (Score 1) 153 153

Yes, they could potentially do this legally. Prosecutors quite often twist the law to try to make it cover things it does not. However, Twitter isn't some nearly unknown white-hat security hacker who just happens to know a few things, and can be quietly persecuted. Twitter is a service used by billions of people. And I promise you, "The U.S. government is trying to shut down Twitter because it refuses to turn over foreign data it isn't legally entitled to." is not a news story that will ever see the light of day - because that would move the uncaring populace (and hence, politicians) in ways that many other things would not.

Mark Twain has a good line about this effect: "Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel".

Comment Expert enough NOT to criticize everyone else (Score 1) 220 220

I'm a software architect, and after 30 years of experience and many (of those terrible evil) patents, I spend most of my time helping, suggesting, guiding, and giving options to other programmers. And I still learn things, every single day. Yes, even from the Indian kids.

Comment Re:No, they do not care (Score 1) 383 383

The real question, SuperKendall, is when your hilariously wrong prediction utterly fails to come true, or even better, is an amazingly good deal that helps settle the regiou will you admit that you were wrong and start voting for the Democrats who backed it? Or will you, in the face of the never-ending drumbeat of psychotic far-right ineptitude in the Middle East ("they will greet us as liberators"), just conveniently pretend it never happened, and go on to the next completely inane prediction, backed by a nearly clinically-paranoid world view?

Let me go out on a limb here, and predict that it will be the latter.

Comment Re:*sigh* (Score 4, Informative) 306 306

Huh? You can just forward classified material to non-secure servers outside of a classified network? I think not!

As Secretary of State she would have access to incredibly sensitive material.

A couple of things, that might set your mind at ease. According to reports:

  1. Ms. Clinton did not "forward" material to her private server. People were just emailing to her at her personal email address at "".
  2. Those emails she received considered to be official business, her staff forwarded to the State Department for their IT operators to save.
  3. She also produced a huge amount of documents to various Congressional Committees.
  4. None of these emails were classified. They appear to have been sent to her unencrypted
  5. Sensitive material never went through this email system.
  6. Apparently the State Department isn't very good at IT. They only recently were able to figure out how to even just save Secretary Kerry's email; his top staff using the address still do not have their email records saved. So by using, HRC likely was preserving more email than if she'd saved used an address.
  7. Personal emails (and presumably spam) was not sent on. But no law covers that anyway.

This is much akin to the media breathlessly discovering that Hillary Clinton also has a private phone number, which maybe official calls were received. Except that because this is "email", it's totally different somehow. (By which I mean, as she's the presumptive Democratic nominee, the nutcases and conspiracy loons are going to do their nutcase conspiracy theorizing, which Blogs and FOX will pick up - because it sells eyeballs.)

Comment Re:Yet another Ted Cruz bashing article ! (Score 5, Insightful) 416 416

In short, nothing in science proves the earth is older than 10,000 year old. In only proves that it could be older and doesn't need the creation explanation. Or in other words, you cannot disprove that a supernatural being supernaturally created things with the appearance of a natural beginning simply for our understanding.

You fundamentally fail to understand science, "sumdumass". No hypothesis is ever proven right in science. It simply offers testable hypotheses that would falsify it, and then when such discoveries are made, survives the new information unchanged. When a hypothesis survives enough of these attempts, scientists will call it a theory, and start to believe it to be true.

The problem with the "God planted the dinosaur bones (and the light of the universe, and stratification in sediments, radioactive dating, and the tens of thousands of interlocking details that show us how long the earth has been around, etc., etc., etc.)" idea, is that it offers no falsifiable predictions. There is literally no fact that an adherent to one of these belief systems would accept as proof it is incorrect. All of these ideas stem from magical thinking, and so, in the immortal words of Wolfgang Pauli, they're not only not right, they're "not even wrong".

That is not science. And it is absurd to pretend as such.

(Alas, your attitude is quite common among the religious right and a tiny sprinkling of the kook left, which is a big reason why politics is doing such a disservice to science.)

Comment Re:Last straw? (Score 4, Insightful) 533 533

Probably not. His head is too far up Mohammed's ass to see the real world.

According to the Wikipedia article on the subject, as of "15 January 2015, it was reported that over 16,000 airstrikes had been carried out by the Coalition". Please note that this coalition consists of both a backbone of U.S. military power, and surrounding Islam-majority states like Jordan, which the Obama administration has coaxed into the war.

Let me repeat that, in case you appear to misread it. 16,000 airstrikes

I'm not exactly sure how anyone can say we're not "stopping them". Indeed, about the only thing they can really do at this point is make snuff videos of idiots who wander into the region.

But go back to watching your wall-to-wall CPAC coverage and FOX lies. That seems to be what you prefer. No actual facts seem likely to persuade you.

Comment Re:This shifts the weakness in Google's rankings (Score 1) 375 375

from gameability (in short, SPAM) to politics. Rather than punish above-board or non-predatory websites, it will punish both subversive and innovative thought that runs well ahead of social consensus. Sure, it will also eliminate willful misinformation, but it turns Google into an inherently conservative, rather than socially innovative, force.

Can't say I think it's better. Probably not any worse, but certainly not panacea.

You seem to be confusing "opinion" with "fact". Presumably "subversive" and "innovative" thought is simply giving a different take on established fact, as opposed to actually pulling "facts" out of one's ass - which is the way many websites work these days.

I can't help but think this is a good thing, because my opinion is the same as Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

Comment Re:YES (Score 2) 375 375

Google sole arbiter of truth. Just what I need an MIC/advertisement company will define what is and isnt truth for me.

I trust google over random Anonymous Cowards pulling "facts" out of their ass, especially in political discussions. But, you can always choose to not use google. There are other search engines, you know.

Comment Re:"Obama pledged to end the controversial program (Score 2) 87 87

Senator and Candidate Obama railed against "warrantless wiretapping" and pledged he'd end such activities were he elected.

"Wiretapping" - Definition: Listening to the actual conversation being made, not looking up who called who and when, which has always been subject to judicial subpoenas without the need for a warrant. Hell, in that old 1995 movie "Clueless", Alicia Silverstone's character is shown helping her lawyer dad go through call sheets of who called who in a civil lawsuit. This sort of stuff always has been so common that it was put in a rom-com.

Here's the thing. Law is very much like coding. The specifics matter.

Comment Isn't slashdot's reaction interesting... (Score -1, Flamebait) 65 65

Post something about the NSA spying, and the article attracts screaming spittle-flecked screeds declaring it THE WORST EVER!! NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI!!!1!!!1!.

Something about France's SIGINT services doing the exact same thing? A bunch of "surrender" jokes.

This proves that all the whining about the NSA has little to do with actual worries (as if anyone in the government actually cares about their porn viewing habits), and more to do with overwrought anti-Americanism.

Comment Re:Consider the denominator (Score 0) 136 136

Possible, but on the optimistic side. As I said, if there is anything wrong with the requested fee, it is too low.

You are clearly confusing the "new" Slashdot's uninformed and not particularly bright libertarian-esque hivemind with things it doesn't like: facts and cogent analysis. May god have mercy on your soul.

Comment Re:What I want to know is? (Score -1, Troll) 69 69

Speak for yourself, fascist!

Snowden did nothing whatsoever to "damage" the USA; the NSA did all the damage itself. Snowden is a hero, period.

That said, the government should not "grant clemency" to Snowden because doing so still implies that he did something wrong and the government is merely being "merciful." Instead, what the government should do is exonerate Snowden and go after the real criminals, i.e., the treasonous fuckwads at the NSA.

A few notes on the vote whoring:

  • All in all, coming out vociferously in favor of the echo chamber of the site you're posting to was a good start
  • Simply love the use of the word "fascist" right off the bat, love the understated Godwin
  • The quotes around "damage", as if the word is somehow unknown, or being used in a inappropriate context, is a nice "touch"
  • That your entire statement is an argument by assertion is also a big plus
  • The use of the words "treasonous fuckwads", simply screams insightful commentary

It hits every bullet point, so all in all, I'm sue you'll get that covered +5 from the lovers of slashtrash. We all know this site is turning into Reddit, where a well-sourced nuanced explanation that certain issues are not entirely black and white, will get half a dozen downvotes... a the same time "Dat Ass Though" comments will get +3415. Maybe you should try that next.

Carry on trooper. You assertion that America's signal intelligence organization should be criminally prosecuted for doing what Congress explicitly authorizes, directs, and pays it to do, is precious beyond words. I'm also sure you think that the United States is the only nation on the planet with such an operation.

Never ask two questions in a business letter. The reply will discuss the one you are least interested, and say nothing about the other.