Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Excellent! (Score 1) 98

So you deny saying this?

I'm not denying anything. Why should I? For that matter, why should I even reply to you, after you've harassed me off-topic in a thread which had absolutely nothing to do with either you, or this subject?

Learn to behave like a civilized human being, and maybe people would be more inclined to have a civil discussion with you.

But I've told you that before, many times, to no avail.

Comment Re:What else would you have them do? (Score 1) 551

Was any of that meant to convince me that a conversation with you would be in the least bit fruitful? I am no more inclined to engage with your crazy.

I didn't expect to convince you of anything. I did want to show other people what kind of person you are, and that I was right about you all along.

To put your lying-via-cherry-picked-out-of-contexting in context, as it were.

Thanks for so easily handing me the opportunity.

Comment Re:What else would you have them do? (Score 1) 551

You're citing a truther page? As I said, not interested in discussing your crazy.

I don't really give a damn what you call it. I cited a website which has been signed off by over 2400 professional architects and engineers as being factually accurate.

That *IS* the expert scientific consensus on the matter. You have now confirmed your hypocrisy, and demonstrated that you don't care what the evidence is: if you don't like it you just put a pejorative label on it and deny it.

I knew that before, because I've seen you do it many times. But it's nice to have such crystal clear confirmation.

And why do you feel it necessary to lie? You still haven't answered that question.

Strange, isn't it? 4 years ago someone else accused you of lying by "quote-mining" out of context. It is very clear that is exactly what you did. And there is no doubt it was you, because it's the same Blogger account and others referred to your account here on Slashdot by name.

Isn't it interesting that I pointed out exactly the same behavior here, long before I knew that page existed? I wonder. Is it just some bizarre coincidence? Or a pattern? Maybe we should ask others to vote on it.

Comment Re:What else would you have them do? (Score 1) 551

I hope that it's clear that I have no interest in carrying on a 'conversation' with a birther and truther. That way leads to madness.

Since I have made it abundantly clear, more than once, that I am not even remotely a "birther", and those you call "truthers" are on the side of overwhelming evidence and the professional consensus, I am curious to know what your real reason is. After all, I thought you supported expert consensus views.

Comment Re:Let's get real (Score 0) 240

In your eagerness to stop the fear mongering you badly understate North Korea's capability.

Proof is needed, not speculation. Understating according to who? The local populace? South Korea? Maybe.. but that is not because the DPRK has enough military power to win a war, it's because they have the potential to do a hell of a lot of damage to Seoul and a few other Norther areas if a war started. They lack air and naval power to win anything.

20 years ago guys like you declared the same things, that the North's economy and tyranny made scientific accomplishments like nukes and rockets impossible. Since then they've detonated nukes(plural) and launched satellites(plural again). I'm not sure where you've set the bar for 'meaningful' but the North has made succeeded in building nuclear weapons and launching rockets around the world.

Ahh, nothing like the old red herring line of shit. I did not state that scientific accomplishments were impossible, I said it was expensive and they could not afford it. Expensive in terms of both man power and money, and man power when you don't trust anyone is certainly a pretty huge hurdle to cross. Care to guess at how many scientists are killed annually in the DPRK? Percentage wise, it's higher than many other jobs because scientists tend to think and question more. Tyrannies have always had this problem with keeping scientific minds, read some history books.

The reality is that if Seoul wasn't housing 10million people within range of North Korean artillery, NATO probably would have removed the Kim dynasty generations ago.

Horse shit! The number 1 reason that people claim to ignore the DPRK is "China", not the geographical location in relation to South Korea.

You keep on spreading FUD though.. it works on the masses who don't question or contemplate what they get told.

Comment Re:Current use != Original intent w/proof (Score 1) 134

Seriously, you can't see the difference between a Police officer finding evidence at a crime scene, and a Police officer reading your personal emails to find something? Are you really trying to claim that the founders were so goddamn naive they believed that people in power are, and would always be altruistic?

There is a world of difference between a random search, and a warrant being issued due to evidence related to a crime. If you don't see the difference and are not just a troll, I hope your masters pay you well.

Comment Current use != Original intent w/proof (Score 1) 134

I have to point out the obvious, which is that there has been nearly 2 centuries of people pumping money into propaganda to convince people that the Constitution and Bill of Rights means what they want to mean, not what was intended originally. That people continue believing increasing levels of bullshit is not a surprise, incremental change is how things always happen. Propaganda and Sociology are not "new" sciences by any stretch of the imagination, but also not something normal people get taught about.

So read some history and figure out what was intended by the 5th, and you will find that it does not match the currently used "spun" definition. I'll give you an easy one, which history will verify repeatedly. If you need citation start at the Federalist papers, Biographies, and court documents from the US and England.

At the time of the Revolution, British soldiers were searching people's houses for things like diaries. If you had the wrong shit written in yours, you were executed and sometimes sent to a nice London jail. Vague writings were the best, because a person disliked could easily be charged with a crime based on their own words with invented outcomes. Speculative thought crimes like "he was thinking treason" were as common as false allegations, "see he was mad at the Smithers so killed that guy everyone thought was mauled by the bear". It was all about who disliked you and what dirt they could find on you (nothing new there). The limitations in the Constitution were intended to prevent the Government or an agent from searching your crap and using it to possibly invent a crime based on their findings. The part about "speech" is a newly formed pile of shit which people are gullible and ignorant enough to believe.

History will show you the "meaning" of all of the wording in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Contrary to bullshitter and con-artists statements, there is no ambiguity or accidental language in the documents. None, zero, zip, nada, nill, null, etc.. etc...

Comment Re:Let's get real (Score 1) 240

My point was to correct the possible perception you or anyone else has about "tiny" nukes being something the DPRK has, or would be able to use in any offensive capability. Your casual use of the technology has the potential of inflate the fear mongering, especially next statements about "nuclear or thermonuclear warheads" and lack of mention of "cost" for any of those things. The 3rd world economy of the DPRK, and tyrannical government, mean that they do not have the budge or manpower for any meaningful development of WMDs like nukes.

Comment Re:Let's get real (Score 2, Interesting) 240

I know next to nothing about nuclear or thermonuclear warheads other than that a modern thermonuclear warhead is pretty damn small. But I suspect that downsizing a bomb once you have one that works probably is not that big a deal. e.g. the US exploded its first nuclear weapon in July 1945. By 1953 the US was deploying a nuclear artillery system. I think it unlikely that the warhead for that was more than a few hundred kg. But what do I know?

That first sentence is honest, and ignorance is easily cured. "Modern" warheads owned by the US are not the same as "Modern" warheads owned by any other nation, especially the DPRK. The US spends, and has spent, massive amounts of money over a massive amount of time developing a nuclear weapons program.

Nuclear "artillery" is costly beyond belief, extremely limited in usability, only effective if there are other larger backers. It is the ultimate weapon of last resort when defending, but has almost zero use outside of that. Time to set up, maintenance of the munitions, handling of the munition, and protecting the munition are complex and costly activities. A tiny warhead mishandled or sabotaged in a base destroys the base and everyone in it.

The DPRK is once again being used for fear mongering. Fear mongering is the main reason why nobody has gone to war to end the regime. The US, UK, and everyone else in NATO loves the DPRK because "scare the populace to get what you want without revolt". China and Russia like them because the west military build up means they can justify their own investments in military power. The recent fear of the H-Bomb is just to convince people that the DPRK can now use small nukes (which it can't), and the fear mongering because of their current missiles, which are SCUD missiles, which can't even launch a tiny satellite... laughable.

Comment Re:File a Complaint (Score 1) 142

Yep. The option the poll didn't have was "Put me on your do-not-call list" then hang up.

You forgot the other one: "I'm on the Federal do-not call list. This call is illegal. Call again and it could cost you $2500."

That usually shuts them up. If they're American, anyway.

Comment Re:What else would you have them do? (Score 1) 551

You also think that Obama faked his birth certificate and that 911 was an inside job. I've learned not to put too much stock in what you think.

Pure libel. I never wrote either of those things. In fact, I straightened you out on BOTH of those issues, right here on Slashdot, just a short time ago. So there is absolutely no excuse for your libel. You knew, or should have known, those statements were false when you made them just now.

For the sake of others, not you, I will repeat what I told you earlier: I have no idea where Barack Obama was born. The document on the White House website IS an altered graphic, which anyone with good graphics skills can download and check for themselves. They hardly need to take my word for it. However, as I also clearly told you before, there could be a number of legitimate reasons for that.

Second, I did not claim 9/11 "was an inside job". That's a blatant lie. My only claim was that we were not told the whole truth about it. and there are more than 2400 professional architects and engineers who agree with me.

Neither I or they did claim or now claim it was "an inside job". That's a deliberate lie. I.e., libel.

Now I have some questions for YOU. Please do be a good boy and try to answer them honestly:

(A) Why did you respond to a perfectly civil comment with insults and deliberate lies?

(B) Why do you quote "Khayman80" so much? No "conspiracy theory" here, just an honest question. I am not claiming you are the same people, but they way you write and the way you behave are remarkably similar, and you even quote each other rather surprisingly consistently and often.

Submission + - Supreme Court Puts EPA Regulations On Hold (

Jane Q. Public writes: (I would have linked to the Wall Street Journal version but it's paywalled):

A divided Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to halt enforcement of President Obama's sweeping plan to address climate change until after legal challenges are resolved.

The surprising move is a blow to the administration and a victory for the coalition of 27 mostly Republican-led states and industry opponents that call the regulations "an unprecedented power grab."

By temporarily freezing the rule the high court's order signals that opponents have made a strong argument against the plan. A federal appeals court last month refused to put it on hold.

Slashdot Top Deals

We can found no scientific discipline, nor a healthy profession on the technical mistakes of the Department of Defense and IBM. -- Edsger Dijkstra