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:Sigh (Score 5, Interesting) 341

by Shakrai (#47761971) Attached to: Comcast Tells Government That Its Data Caps Aren't Actually "Data Caps"

We ALL know how Politicians get bought and sold so let's cut the "total" bullshit here.

Yes, they do. But not all of them and certainly not in the manner that the GP presented. One needs to actually understand how the system works before one condemns it and/or proposes fixes for it. Incidentally, most of the people in politics hate the system as much as you do. You think they enjoy spending so much of their day begging people for money so they can fund their campaigns? The real world isn't House of Cards, most people actually enter public service for noble reasons, ranging from the mundane fixing of potholes to the desire to advance a social cause. The problem is two fold:

1) Campaign finance reform is inherently suspect because it's passed by people who have an incentive to make it harder for incumbents to lose elections. There's a reason why opponents frequently referred to McCain-Feingold as the "Incumbent Protection Act"

2) Meaningful campaign finance reform would require a Constitutional Amendment; the idea I most liked was the notion of precluding private donations but giving every American citizen X dollars to allocate as they see fit. It's an awesome idea but one that's utterly unconstitutional. Perhaps you should start building a network for this concept rather than spouting talking points about money going into Senators pockets?

Comment: Re:Correlation Does Not Imply Causation (Score 1) 281

by Shakrai (#47761921) Attached to: The Evolution of Diet

Having everybody live off a high protein diet is unsustainable. There are whole segments of American society that couldn't afford it, never mind the third world, and even if money was no object it would be completely unsustainable from an environmental standpoint.

It's cute though that you took what I was saying and morphed it into "cutting sugar is unsustainable"; all I did was condemn your silly paleo diet, not the notion of cutting sugar or making other healthy lifestyle choices. One can cut out soda (or even enjoy it in moderation) without adopting a made up diet that claims to be what our ancestors ate.

Of course, physical activity is even better. I eat whatever the hell I want. You can do that when you're averaging 30 miles a week of running. Pass the cheesecake, mmm'kay?

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score -1, Offtopic) 341

by Shakrai (#47761861) Attached to: Comcast Tells Government That Its Data Caps Aren't Actually "Data Caps"

Of course they will, while comcast is telling them this, they are stuffing wads of money in the senators pockets.

You know that talking point is total bullshit, right? What you describe would be a felony offense in the United States. Nor can corporations give money directly to campaigns. They can donate to PACs, which are a special animal in the American political system, but they can't donate directly to campaigns or candidates. When people tell you that "Big oil/telecom/Hollywood/whatever gave X dollars to Y candidate" they really mean that the employees of those industries gave X dollars to Y candidate. Work at a gas station and donate $20 to your State Assemblywoman? That's added to the total donation from "big oil" when her opponent needs a talking point.

I realize such intricacies don't make for good talking points but it would be extremely helpful if people would at least learn how the system works rather than spreading FUD that only serves to undermine the tenuous amount of faith we have left in our system.

Comment: Re:Correlation Does Not Imply Causation (Score 1) 281

by Shakrai (#47759107) Attached to: The Evolution of Diet

Try doing any cardio of moderate to heavy intensity (which you really ought to be doing, if you want to live a long life) without carbs. Your diet is a fad and an utterly unsustainable one (from an environmental standpoint) at that. If you really want to live like our ancestors did start having sex at 10 and forgo modern medicine. You'll be dead in your 20s and the carbon impact of your selfish lifestyle will cancel itself out.

Comment: Re:Correlation Does Not Imply Causation (Score 1) 281

by Shakrai (#47756217) Attached to: The Evolution of Diet

she says this while sat there drinking coffee

What's wrong with coffee?

If she doesn't change her lifestyle, i'm estimating she will be bedridden within 5 years and dead within 10, whereas if she put some effort in, she would have a chance of living a lot longer.

Except she won't be. And that's the problem. If they take their blood pressure and cholesterol meds they fucking live forever and just keep on eating. Meanwhile the rest of us get to subsidize their lifestyle choices because our healthcare system doesn't allow insurance underwriters to take lifestyle choices into account. The 40 year old sedentary fat ass pays the same as the 40 year old marathon runner.

Comment: Re:Correlation Does Not Imply Causation (Score 1) 281

by Shakrai (#47756171) Attached to: The Evolution of Diet

Yeah... and I have found something that works extraordinarily well at burning fat: sprinting. I do a 15 min jog and then 10 reps of 20s sprints/10s rest. Somehow, this basically just completely bypasses the normal laws of physics and starts telling your body to burn fat immediately

Fat metabolism doesn't work that way; your body can metabolize a finite amount of fat in a given time and when the muscles call upon more energy (as they invariably will if you're sprinting) the difference is going to come from glycogen. It does take a few minutes for the fat metabolism to get going -- this is one of the reasons why distance runners warm up and/or start slow in long runs -- though there are interesting studies that suggest caffeine can accelerate the process.

The reward of a thing well done is to have done it. -- Emerson

Working...