Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:The perfect summary of the case: (Score 1) 340

I hope you realize your mindset is what caused the most recent (and ongoing) recession - "the sub-prime mortgage credits" granted to people, who were clearly classified as a high-risk group that would cause severe losses on the average due to failure to pay them - but since they happened to be covered by anti-discrimination laws, the credits had to be granted anyway.

That's when political correctness trumps plain business sense and plain scum can get privleged treatment simply based on their skin color.

The blacks, instead of trying to force more acceptance through laws, should first get to cleaning up their own backyard and simply reduce the reasons that acceptance is so hard to come by: glorification of violence and crime, the "I deserve, you owe me" attitudes, poor ethics, and above all ostracization of these of their society, who grew successful through honest means and education.

Unfortunately, all these anti-social behaviors are ingrained as their "culture" and defended fiercely; they form a self-destructive society and then they resist if the destruction of their society spills out and is fought back.

And these, who broke out of the trap, suffer mistrust and discrimination simply because they are still suspect to be "wolves in sheep skins". And the prevalent belief that they are unable to fail on their own - that all their failures are a result of discrimination - really doesn't help things.

Imagine a situation: There are two black girls that join the college. One studies, works hard and passes all the exams just fine; not brilliantly but well on par with other good students. The other doesn't. She hangs out with the low-life, she choose the life of parties and drinking. When exam time comes, she fails along with fellow white party animals, but unlike them, she submits a complaint that she was discriminated against, and threatens the school with lawsuit. The school yields and grants her the diploma.

The two show up for a job interview. They have the same diplomas. The employer knows about their skill only basing on their diplomas (needs an expert in a field he's a layman in) and has a good clue about practices of extortion of such diplomas. He may choose either of them, or a white graduate who didn't have the leverage of discrimination lawsuit. He has a good business sense, and picks the low-risk white. ...and in this equation the black girl, who worked hard, gets the shortest end of the stick. But who's at fault here? The employer, who puts good business above political correctness? Or maybe these, who allowed the situation where the party animal was able to extort her diploma? Her friends, who gave her the advice "Party on, you're black, you're safe."? Government, that created a law prone to abuse, and as result deterrent to its intended purpose? Her family and surroundings, which reinforced the "they owe me, and it's always their fault" mindset instead of giving her firm work ethics?

It's the "few rotten apples" problem, except the rotten apples are quite numerous and any attempt to "un-rot" them is touted an assault on the black culture.

Comment: Re:Not terrorism ? (Score 1) 279

by ScentCone (#49376987) Attached to: Attempted Breach of NSA HQ Checkpoint; One Shot Dead

Who said they were using violence?

Failing to stop your multi-thousand-pound vehicle as you drive at a military checkpoint is telegraphing violent intent. At least, that's how the guards have to treat it. Driving a suicide car bomb at/through checkpoints is a well established tactic, and has produced a no-compromises protocol in response. When you give off all the signs of violent intent, there's really no way to just let them carry on and decide later if they were a threat. It's not video game with a retry button the guards can push after they've been blown to pieces.

Comment: Re:Not terrorism ? (Score 1) 279

by ScentCone (#49376979) Attached to: Attempted Breach of NSA HQ Checkpoint; One Shot Dead

I took it to mean that the perps were white. If they were brown then it would have been a terrorist case.

No, you're getting your media memes all wrong. If they were brown, it would have been, by default and without any need for further analysis, another case of police brutality blah blah blah. Please get your coverage spin in sync with contemporary standards. There are people who make a living off of faux racial outrage, and if you don't help their hype, they're going to have to find other work.

Comment: Re:maybe because it's a quote (Score 1) 279

by ScentCone (#49376963) Attached to: Attempted Breach of NSA HQ Checkpoint; One Shot Dead

Example: "It needs fixed" vs. "It seems fixed"

A poor choice of things to compare.

"It needs to be fixed" can read like "It needs to be changed from its current state to a new state, in which is has been fixed." What it needs is something that, once done, will put the act of fixing it in the past tense. "It needs some fixing, so that it will then be fixed." If you're going with the shorter "It needs to be fixed," the "to be" needs to be there if you're going to used that future-sense changed state of "fixed." Or, one should just use: "It needs fixing," where "fixing," a gerund, acts like any other noun that would serve as the object of the sentence.

"It seems fixed," on the other hand, is a completely different construction. There is no assertion of the need for an action (like needing TO BE fixed). It's an observation about its current state (it's in the state of already having been fixed). The "seems" casts mild doubt on the quality of the assertion, but that's just modifying the word "fixed" in this case, which is acting as an adjective (the thing is fast, the thing is light weight, the thing is expensive, the thing is fixed). Think of saying, "It looks blue." Normal usage is rarely, "It looks to be blue," any more than it is, "It seems to be fixed." You could replace "seems" with "feels," knowing that you'd also be far more likely to say, "It's no longer wobbly. It feels fixed," than you would "It feels to be fixed."

So, are you one of those grammatical hypocrites

No, it seems I'm not.

Inquiring minds want to know.

No, an inquiring mind would have thought it through before trotting that one out.

Comment: More BS blaming 'the system' for bad parenting (Score 2, Interesting) 190

by johnlcallaway (#49375869) Attached to: Poverty May Affect the Growth of Children's Brains

In theory, anyone can scrimp and save and work hard and get ahead. I've done it .. without a college education and growing up in a from a family barely getting by, I've managed to improve my income starting as a minimum wage bike repair worker, working two years as an office clerk, and 35 years later clear over $130K/year. I did it because I'm smart, reasonably personable, and have a strong work ethic that makes it easy for me to do just about any job my company asks for, yet strong enough to go look elsewhere when the time is right.

So .. should stupid people have the same opportunity that I have had?? How about lazy people??? How about liars and thieves???

So what type of opportunity are they talking about?? My son and daughter took two different paths through life, she took the college/marriage/house/kid route and she and her husband, who just got his doctorate, are doing much better than I was at 30 years young.

On the other hand, my son took a more laid back, artsy, 'no working for the man' route. While fiscally, he is far worse off than I was at 32, he has traveled the entire United States, has friends in probably every state, does what he wants, doesn't pay taxes, and yet makes enough money to not live off the state. He is 100% debt free. He lives on what he makes, and occasionally dumpster dives for food and materials. Yet .. it's what he has chosen to do. Because he feels we throw away far too much stuff, buy way too much stuff, and spend too much of our lives doing work we don't like.

The things they both have in common is they are both very smart, have good work ethics, and both know the importance of living within their means. I'm sure my son would qualify as someone below the poverty line. Yet he has never gotten food stamps in his entire life and has never asked me for money. Except that one time he broke his glasses jumping off a freight train in Kansas City.

He also is far more in touch with the nutritional value of food and makes good choices when he can than I am. He's pretty darn healthy for someone that doesn't have a regular job. Yet also knows how to pour concrete, build a boat, restring a fiddle bow, and a dozen other things. He has become a modern jack-of-all-trades than can make a few bucks in just about any town, any time he wants to.

So is opportunity just getting what you want?? Or is it having a specific income level??

'Equal opportunity' is a phrase that means nothing, and is constantly overused by those willing to take things from other people and give to others under the guise of 'doing good'. Or as an excuse to control people's behaviors or, in this case, probably their children.

What a great excuse, taking children away from people simply because they are poor. What will the progressive's think of next ....

Comment: Re:I'm all for abolishing the IRS (Score 1) 269

by jcr (#49374655) Attached to: Sign Up At Before Crooks Do It For You

I'm trying to come up with a good argument that taxing production is more easily made progressive than taxing consumption, but now I'm not sure that's right.

That's because it isn't right. If someone's spending a million bucks a year, they get taxed on a million bucks a year. If they're earning a million bucks a year and living like a monk, then the funds they've earned aren't out there competing with yours for goods and services. A miser is an ideal neighbor.


Comment: Re:News for nerds (Score 2) 279

by ScentCone (#49372877) Attached to: Attempted Breach of NSA HQ Checkpoint; One Shot Dead

But why didn't the FBI's country-wide license plate trackers not catch them?

Hint: not everything you see on NCIS or CSI:Wherever actually works like it dos on TV.

Or is that only to trace their movements after they do something bad?

It can definitely help to be able follow the trail after someone does something especially awful - sometimes bad guys actually have accomplices.

But more to the point in this case: reports are that the vehicle they used was stolen, along with its license plates.

Comment: Re:*sigh* (Score 1) 289

by ScentCone (#49371907) Attached to: Iowa's Governor Terry Branstad Thinks He Doesn't Use E-mail

Sending to the Senate and Congress would ALSO likely qualify, since they are Federal systems.

No, that doesn't cut it. Each agency/department has its own archiving systems, especially those that deal (as State does) with sensitive and frequently compartmentalized information. That's why FOIA requests go to the agency and to "the government." And of course that still doesn't have anything to do with all of her correspondence with other governments and other parties.

Let's ignore Blumenthal, since you have lots of patience still waiting for him to say that's not his correspondence with Clinton. He's only had a couple of years, so I'm sure he's still gathering his notes. Happily, he's apparently not nearly as clever as Clinton herself, and used an AOL mailbox while routinely sending her his intel memos. And AOL will have retained all of that, and is very responsive to subpoenas.

Thus, it just may be impossible to prove that Mrs. H "never sent a compliant copy of message X"

But the existence of a single piece of correspondence with her long-time aide/confidant Blumenthal or anyone else outside of State will show where she was violating the law. Why? Because two years worth of FOIA requests to State turned up no such emails. You're saying that maybe she CC'd them to unknown mailboxes at State in order to archive them. If so, multiple exhaustive FOIA requests would have turned up perhaps ONE email, yes? State's mail servers contain untold thousands of messages between staffers there and correspondents throughout the rest of the government and other third parties around the world. But not a single one tucked away as a CC or BCC from Clinton's home-based private server that shows sending or receiving such mail. State's IT people responded to FOIA requests saying there was no such data. They have her notes to staff, but nothing between her and third parties that she CC'd in the way you're suggesting. None.

Comment: Re:How about (Score 1) 174

How about getting a president that isn't so unpopular he needs protecting from anything and everything?

Because with some crazy people, the fact there even is a president is enough to want to kill him/her. Or the fact that the president is whoever is in that role on a given day when Crazy Person suddenly decides they've had enough of the fact that the US allows people to grow and cut down trees ... or allows women to go to school ... or allows anyone to own domestic animals ... or allows men to walk around without beards or not protect everyone from the Space Aliens, whatever.

Comment: Re:*sigh* (Score 1) 289

by ScentCone (#49369225) Attached to: Iowa's Governor Terry Branstad Thinks He Doesn't Use E-mail

Those rules only specified they be stored on gov't systems ... I've explained this already.

No, what you've done is continued to avoid the actual issue. Are you really suggesting that all of a secretary of state's sensitive and official communication is with her own staff? That she has no communication with people in the senate, the congress, with other federal agencies? That she has no communication with anyone in the White House (you know, where her boss works), and - as the country's top diplomat - no communication with other diplomats, heads of state, or foreign ministers? No communication with the people in other countries who then turned around and wrote huge checks to her family enterprise? Is that your assessment of how little she did in that role? Or are you really going to keep up the charade that all of her email was with, and only with, people who reported to her at State? If she sent a single email outside of those bounds, then your blanket assertion of her compliance is incorrect. So, do you really think not a single email was sent to her from outside of State? You're convinced that, for example, Blumenthal's emails are all fake? Be specific. He hasn't said the leaked mail was fake, but you seem to know something he doesn't.

There wasn't what?

Any mechanism in place to automatically mirror her correspondence with third parties. None.

No it's not. The debate is not about GENERAL party accuracy. My debate points don't depend on prior partisan accuracy.

So, you'd be all for what the current investigation proposed: handing her server over to completely neutral third party for forensic analysis, and review of her tens of thousands of hidden emails by the same archivists that already review the mixed-with-private emails of other government officials to decide what's relevant as public records? Sounds pretty satisfactory, doesn't it? Woops, too late, her lawyer says that she has deliberately destroyed all of those records with no chance for said archivists to review them, and that they will never let anyone else look at the server.

Until that happens, I'm not going to guess out of my ass.

Except in the ways you already have, which contradict things she's saying in public, you mean.

I originally asked for specific laws, not opinions about them.

The laws that matter? How about the Federal Records Act? It requires federal officials to proactively keep their public documents available for things like FOIA searches. She actively hid her records from such searches, and in fact multiple FOIA requests came and went both during and following her tenure that absolutely would have included correspondence to and from her - but came up dry because she had not provided the records, even after she left office. When a federal official deliberately keeps their records out of public scrutiny, it's a violation of the US Code (, a criminal offense.

You're probably going to contend that her violation of that law was magically un-done by her eventual coughing up of her cherry-picked hardcopies when she was hounded, years later, by investigators. No go. This isn't the Presidential Records Act, which provides for a "cooling off" period before those records are subject to FOIA. Her correspondence with people like Blumenthal, or with the entities in Saudi Arabia that handed her millions of dollars, are subject to immediate FOIA scrutiny. She took deliberate actions that made that impossible.

Real Users find the one combination of bizarre input values that shuts down the system for days.