Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Cannes Exists for Junkets (Score 1) 136

The Cannes Film Festival exists so people in the film industry can have a sponsored/tax deductible junket to the south of France. That's all.

Questions of "relevance" and "quality" are beside the point. Cannes will continue as long movie industry people can keep getting someone else to pick up the tab...

Comment Troll much? (Score 5, Insightful) 245

Getting a start on the clickbait lying right with the first sentence, I see:

"Work under capitalism is a brutal psychological gauntlet -- low pay, long hours, and little to no safety net."

Compared to what? And when? Lord knows no one under feudalism, mercantilism, socialism or communism ever worked "long hours for low pay."

Life in a state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. Capitalism, and the technological progress it helped engender, is the system that helped lift those out of the poverty that previously plagued all but a tiny hereditary elite since time immemorial until a period just two centuries ago.

If you want to see what life is like without capitalism, trying looking at Venezuela, where they're rioting because socialism can't provide enough food for them to eat.

But enough. This is just another example of Slashdot leftwing clickbait, because evidently covering actual News For Nerds is evidently too boring compared to launching yet another left vs. right flamewar.

Is msmash the designated leftwing agitprop admin now?

Comment False (Score 3, Informative) 671

The Panama Papers revealed extensive, documented financial ties between Putin and Clinton cronies:

Almost lost among the many revelations is the fact that Russia’s biggest bank uses The Podesta Group as its lobbyist in Washington, D.C. Though hardly a household name, this firm is well known inside the Beltway, not least because its CEO is Tony Podesta, one of the best-connected Democratic machers in the country. He founded the firm in 1998 with his brother John, formerly chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, then counselor to President Barack Obama, Mr. Podesta is the very definition of a Democratic insider. Outsiders engage the Podestas and their well-connected lobbying firm to improve their image and get access to Democratic bigwigs.

Which is exactly what Sberbank, Russia’s biggest financial institution, did this spring. As reported at the end of March, the Podesta Group registered with the U.S. Government as a lobbyist for Sberbank, as required by law, naming three Podesta Group staffers: Tony Podesta plus Stephen Rademaker and David Adams, the last two former assistant secretaries of state. It should be noted that Tony Podesta is a big-money bundler for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign while his brother John is the chairman of that campaign, the chief architect of her plans to take the White House this November.

Sberbank (Savings Bank in Russian) engaged the Podesta Group to help its public image—leading Moscow financial institutions not exactly being known for their propriety and wholesomeness—and specifically to help lift some of the pain of sanctions placed on Russia in the aftermath of the Kremlin’s aggression against Ukraine, which has caused real pain to the country’s hard-hit financial sector.

It’s hardly surprising that Sberbank sought the help of Democratic insiders like the Podesta Group to aid them in this difficult hour, since they clearly understand how American politics work. The question is why the Podesta Group took Sberbank’s money. That financial institution isn’t exactly hiding in the shadows—it’s the biggest bank in Russia, and its reputation leaves a lot to be desired. Nobody acquainted with Russian finance was surprised that Sberbank wound up in the Panama Papers.

And that is just one of the many documented financial ties between Podesta/Clinton and Putin's regime.

Comment Scott Adams disagrees (Score 2) 153

Scott Adams would like a word with you:

Kahan found that increased scientific literacy actually had a small negative effect: The conservative-leaning respondents who knew the most about science thought climate change posed the least risk. Scientific literacy, it seemed, increased polarization. In a later study, Kahan added a twist: He asked respondents what climate scientists believed. Respondents who knew more about science generally, regardless of political leaning, were better able to identify the scientific consensus—in other words, the polarization disappeared. Yet, when the same people were asked for their own opinions about climate change, the polarization returned. It showed that even when people understand the scientific consensus, they may not accept it.”

Notice how the author slips in his unsupported interpretation of the data: Greater knowledge about science causes more polarization.

Well, maybe. That’s a reasonable hypothesis, but it seems incomplete. Here’s another hypothesis that fits the same observed data: The people who know the most about science don’t think complex climate prediction models are credible science, and they are right.

In fact, there's more incentive to lie about climate science than cancer research: More immediate funding is at stake, more groupthink applies, it will be decades before others can prove you wrong, and unlike falsified cancer research, people won't die because you misdirected searcher.

And as for saying "the fraud was in the review process, not the work itself," that's like saying "Well, Anthony Weiner was only caught sexting. He never actually cheated." The odds that the fraud we've caught is the only fraud committed by those willing to commit fraud would seem pretty low...

Comment Then maybe Democrats should change policies (Score 1, Insightful) 341

Maybe if Democrats weren't relentlessly pushing for bigger government and SJW victimhood identity politics they could compete with Republicans.

But they chose a relentless drive for power and pushing the culture war over policies Americans actually want. Democrats deliberately pushed "blue dogs" out of the party so progressives could control it to-to-bottom. Democrats backed Bloomberg on civilian disarmament, backed Soros and Steyer on funding #BlackLivesmatter, insisted a man changing his name magically made him a woman, and then wonder why ordinary Americans no longer vote for them.

And really, where are Republicans stopping Democrats in such paradisaical deep blue enclaves like Chicago and Detroit?

Comment Closing Gitmo required no congressional approval (Score 1) 566

Obama still didn't do it. true, he should never have promised to do it, but the Guantanamo Bay detention facility was not created by congress, and therefore did not require congressional approval to close.

ObamaCare, by contrast, is a law passed by congress (albeit without a single Republican vote) and signed into law by the President. Repealing it will also require congressional approval.

The two promises are quite different as they relate to the constitutional scope of presidential authority.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in times of moral crisis, preserved their neutrality." -- Dante