Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Wrong Title (Score 1) 496

No, I don't mean a tenured position, I mean the temporary position as a program director that she was fired from. It was a temporary position, and while it took a year to get her out, the wheels began to turn in November of 2013, only 3 months after she started. Which is clearly documented in the article.

Comment: Re:Wrong Title (Score 0) 496

She was a member of two different organizations (Womenâ(TM)s Committee Against Genocide and New Movement in Solidarity with Puerto Rican Independence) that were associated with the organization that committed the violent acts, the May 19 Communist Organization (M19CO).

She says she didn't know in advance that the violent acts were going to occur, but when she saw them in the news, she knew they were committed by the M19CO, and that the association between the M19CO organization and her own organizations existed.

She says she was casually acquainted with two of the convicted murderers, Judith Clark and Kuwasi Balagoon, who were members of the M19CO, and she maintained a relationship with Kuwasi Balagoon with letters and an in person visit, until he died.

Knowing these facts, they don't want to trust her with the position of program director. It was a new assignment, she only had a temporary job. They didn't take away the job she'd been doing for years because of what they found. The whole point of a temporary position is that no promises are made that it's going to last, so any expectations of permanence she had were her own mistake.

The more autistic among us will play rules lawyer games and insist that, technically, she didn't tell any lies, and given the benefit of the doubt on every occasion, you can't prove that she's not as pure as the driven snow. But they miss the point. The point is, the woman is a radical. Nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but you don't put radicals at the helm of the bureaucracy.

Comment: Re:legal loopholes? (Score 1) 184

by ShieldW0lf (#47866801) Attached to: Device Boots Drones, Google Glass Off Wi-Fi

So, the Cyborg Unplug is made by Julian Oliver. Because, PRIVACY!

Clicking through to his personal site, we're greeted with another one of his creations... the Transparency Grenade. Because, TRANSPARENCY!

http://julianoliver.com/output...

So, what happens if I throw a Transparency Grenade into a restaurant with a Cyborg Unplug running? Do they destroy each other?

HYPOCRISY!!

Comment: Re: The real crime here (Score 1) 465

by ShieldW0lf (#47766921) Attached to: 33 Months In Prison For Recording a Movie In a Theater

No, just lying in bed, working from home at my highly paid job, wondering when it was that slashdot got so lame. Used to be people came back with facts. Or counter arguments. Or opinions of their own. Or experiences of their own.

But it's been reduced to the point where the only opposition I ever get to my statements is from idiots who try to paint me as something I'm not and attack that. It's sad. You're sad.

I'm everything I ever said that I was. My life is stranger than fiction most of the time anyway, I have no need to lie to get people excited.

Comment: Re:Corporate "laws" (Score 1) 158

by ShieldW0lf (#47766801) Attached to: A Horrifying Interactive Map of Global Internet Censorship

I agree... there should be a color for this. In between "Free" and "Partly free"; there should be a "Technically Free but de-facto censored" category

Why are you so afraid to call a spade a spade? The USA is NOT a free country. They censor people, they incarcerate more of their population than any other country, they make debt slaves of the people that remain... they are NOT FREE, and they're using war to spread their NOT FREEDOM everywhere they can because they hate OUR freedom.

Comment: Re:say it again (Score 1) 239

by Alsee (#47744635) Attached to: Latest Wikipedia Uproar Over 'Superprotection'

No "fact checking" will ever be allowed on many subjects, such as "Auschwitz", where even total myths are allowed to remain as though they were "facts". References are only made to other myth-supporting documents to support the articles. Anything that fails to support the myth is deleted.

You will instantly and consistently get shut down on Wikipedia.

The reason for that is that you are a Truth Crusader. It doesn't matter if you are Right or Wrong. Wikipedia shuts down Truth Crusaders on EITHER sides of any issue by simply declaring that Wikipedia is not a place to debate, or resolve, matters of Truth. Wikipedia pages are not filled with "Truth", Wikipedia content accurately reflects the content of "Verifiable Reliable Sources". If "Reliable Sources" consistently state something which happens to be false then Wikipedia is going to ACCURATELY report that that is what Reliable Sources say.

(Some might comment on the contradiction of "Reliable Sources" which contain false information. The world is an imperfect place, and no one can expect perfection in anything. The definition of "Reliable Source" is a set of criteria that establish a broad class of sources as reasonably reliable in general, independent of the fallibility of any particular source on a particular thing. So yes, a Reliable Source can be wrong, and Wikipedia will accurately reflect that wrong information up until the point when other Reliable Sources correct that information.)

If you want to wage a Truth Crusade exposing the "myths about Auschwitz", then Wikipedia is not the place to do it. Wikipedia does not and will not lead on that subject, nor will it lead on any other subject. Wikipedia follows. Wikipedia follows Reliable Sources. If and when you convince Reliable Sources to expose myths about Auschwitz, Wikipedia will gladly update to accurately report what those Reliable Sources say.

-

Comment: Re:make credibility a metric (Score 1) 239

by Alsee (#47744335) Attached to: Latest Wikipedia Uproar Over 'Superprotection'

Make credibility a visible metric assignable by the deletionists or anyone else. Articles don't need to be deleted for lack of credibility. It works the same here on SlashDot with scores. Give users the choice of seeing only highly-credible articles if they want.

That sounded like an interesting idea.... for about 30 seconds.
Then I realized that it wouldn't solve anything, it wouldn't improve anything. It would just make things worse. Much worse. People would just start waging war over credibility. When it comes to notability, simple, you dig up three reliable sources on a subject and BAM, YOU WIN! Fight over. Inviting fights over credibility would be a never ending flamefest disaster.

-

Slowly and surely the unix crept up on the Nintendo user ...

Working...