Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Brazilian evangelicals are for cows. (Score 4, Funny) 243 243

Nonononono... Once again you've failed to localise properly. Try this:

Vocês todos são vacas. Vacas dizer mú. MÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ! MÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ! Múúúúú vacas MÚÚÚÚÚ! Múúúú dizer as vacas. VOCÊ VACAS!!

This instalment of I18n For Today's Active Troll presented as a public service of the Slashdot Network and this station.

Comment: Re:Hillary Clinton says: (Score 2) 266 266

She had a choice between (a) defending the client assigned to her and (b) incurring the wrath of the court for failing to obey its lawful order. (b) could have meant gaol time and/or disbarment.

Apparently you think its Ok for someone to keep their job/career at the cost of someone else getting raped.

You'd imply that Clinton's defence of her client caused the rape to occur? That's pretty silly.

Comment: Re: Hillary Clinton says: (Score 5, Informative) 266 266

I've decided to blow off the downmod I just gave you in order to explain something to you:

1. Clinton was appointed by the court to defend an accused rapist.

2. She asked to be excused from the case, presumably because she knew or at least strongly suspected the defendant had actually committed the offence.

3. The judge would not let her off the case.

ExecSummary: Hillary Clinton was *ordered* by the State to act to the best of her ability in the interest of the defendant. And this is exactly what she appears to have done. You may or may not like her or her politics, but in this case *she did the job which she was legally and ethically bound to perform*. If you cannot understand why she did so, then you've never any business ever voting in a US election or especially ever serving on a jury in a US criminal trial.

Always look over your shoulder because everyone is watching and plotting against you.