Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Of course. (Score 1) 749

> Sen. Wyden believes the Director of National Intelligence (Clapper) gave a straight answer
I did not see that at all in the citation.
In the citation: I gave his office a chance to amend his answer,” Wyden said.
In the citation: Wyden doesn’t directly accuse Clapper of lying to or misleading senators, but suggests he should have been able to be more accurate.
I see that as a polite what of saying Clapper was straight out lying.

Comment Re:Of course. (Score 1) 749

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) asks Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper whether the National Security Agency collects “any type of data at all on millions of Americans.” Clapper responded, “No, sir”

Comment Re:Of course. (Score 1) 749

Snowden says he did "X". Snowden releases information that verifies he did "X". NSA head Alexander says "X" is not possible. Head of Intelligence Committee
Rogers says Snowden is lying. "X" is against the law. Snowden therefore broke the law. Snowden is a lawbreaker.

QED IFF Snowden is telling truth and Alexander and Rogers are lying.

Or i'm refering to a different "X". What is "X" and what / when did Snowden release info verifying?

Comment Re:Of course. (Score 3, Insightful) 749

>Snowden says he did "X". "X" is against the law. Snowden therefore broke the law. Snowden is a lawbreaker. QED.

Not quite. You may be able to say "Snowden says he did "X". "X" is against the law. Snowden therefore claims he broke the law. Snowden claims he is a lawbreaker." But there's no QED.

Snowden says he traveled faster than light. FTL is against the law. Snowden therefore broke the law. Snowden is a lawbreaker and can actually travel FTL. QED?

Comment Re:News? (Score 1) 307

Yes, it is a civic duty, and one we should be perform diligently by competent people. I've been called up three times in thirty years. My fellow jurors were a mix of too few competent people and others who thought they would be on television and other who just wanted to vote and go home. I was distressed to see how easily some could be led. In one case i swayed the jurors from the initial verdict of Guilty to Not Guilty, and then finally back to Guilty. One person made the decision, the other eleven just nodded and went along with it. Its was frightening. I wonder if we need to train jurors and keep the good ones, but then who gets to decide who's "good"?

Comment Re:Google is your friend. (Score 5, Insightful) 120

Are you recommending OpenGrade, then?

To you and the others who imply "You must be incompetent because you could have just Googled it..." I'm guessing the OP actually DID google it, and was hoping that slashdot might be more useful than a simple google search.

It's not hard to admit errors that are [only] cosmetically wrong. -- J.K. Galbraith