Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Too busy watching movies (Score 1) 610

And thats condescending to Muslims how exactly
Because it was Muslims he was speaking of when he said this
The only third-hand issue is whether or not he's accurately passing along what Obama told him
Good to see the outrage is so fact based, potentially.

Wow, you are a bigot, aren't you

You are misusing the word bigot, a bigot is someone who is partial to their own group. You don't know what my "group" is. Coupled with you confusing the words racist and intolerant lets me know I am dealing with someone who is more concerned with hurling an insult to make themselves feel better, then with making sure their insult is actually applicable.
no president in NASA's history
Obama is not the president of NASA, he is the President of the United States Of America. Bush sent his pals into space for fun... as a boondoggle so they could live out Gene Rodenberry fantasies. I actually don't know whats worse.

If Obama announced that we had to send an uneducated Muslim into space as part of an important mission and then went through with it, would you be on here defending him? Claiming you saw the wisdom in as you call it "accommodating a wealthy and important ally" I'm sure no one would object to that. I'm sure as every Muslim watched the first Muslim head into space that there was no national pride involved, (the fact that he was unqualified indeed, makes it outreach)

What may have been said
"Muslim outreach is on of the top three priorities"
What you wrote
NASA's top priority is to work on the self esteem of a religion.

These are not the same thing, you put words in someones mouth and then crucify them for it. You Act as an apologist for Republican presidents doing the exact same thing, but refuse to tolerate it in a Dem. Thats why you are intolerant
you cannot have it both ways, what if we just cater to important allies instead who happen to be Muslim we are not mounting a religious mission? (you will note Sultan refused to wear NASA garb)

Comment Re:Too busy watching movies (Score 1) 610

Oh wait, let me get this straight, you wrote all this tripe without reading any of the links! Too rich!
So I guess you never looked up Reagans speech to NASA then either. Like the one where he says it will take something as vast as space to make us come together.... Apparently the difference here, which I think only you can see, is the them and us bit. So, jeopardizing a missions safety (don't forget challenger) by Adding a Muslim is selfless act which helps, but a third hand comment you have
from your post " (again, using the words that Obama's administrator said that Obama used)" means Obama is launching a different effort. I see a logical conclusion to telling NASA to make Muslims feel better about themselves as the whole prince sultan make work invent a job only he can do and send him to space thing... so I don't see the mission as being even a teeny tinsy bit different.
Every president does this you are trying to - for some reason that can only be partisan- describe business as usual as something different and wrong, and it just isn't the case.
Lastly, in showcasing your incredible vocabulary, you used two words (racist and intolerant) as synonyms, when they are not. I called you intolerant, not a racist. They are not the same insult. I don't know if you have the resume to be a racist, I am however, sure that you are intolerant.

Comment Re:Too busy watching movies (Score 1) 610

You realize of course that attempting to use the space program and NASA as an outreach to the Muslim world is a policy that started with Reagan, and has continued completely unabated until now, not one sitting president has done anything differently?

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/24268/sadly-obama-
not-1st-to-use-nasa-for-islamo-outreach-reagan-bush-were/

or

http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2010/07/07/obamas-new-priority-for-nasa-muslim-outreach/

or

Or how about when Bush put prince sultan in space?
They called him a "payload specialist" and reporters were not allowed to ask him any technical questions....
http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/198601/a.prince.in.space.htm
he did after all, have almost 114 hours of training... I'm sure that qualifies someone.

Or how ARABSAT - 1B got into space at all.

What you are doing, in your posts is picking on the current sitting president for doing the same thing that presidents have been using NASA to do since Reagan.
  Only got one part of your post right (the part about you being intolerant) so well done, it wasn't entirely composed of half truths.

Comment Re:Have you considered the possibility... (Score 1) 222

Ignore the man behind the curtain!!
Yes, the medium matters, observe.
If I steal your car, you cannot drive, you have no access to the can in that it is no longer in your possession. I will be charged with theft. If I steal your wallet you will have no access to the things that were in your wallet, they are not in your physical control.
All of the documents you are referring to are still available to the Army. nothing has gone missing. The medium we are talking about has new issues, of confidentiality and integrity, not availability which is the traditional concern with physical media. If I go to your house, take a picture and build an exact replica of your car, is it theft.
I am not saying there is no crime here, I am saying it wasn't what you claim it was, or by whom you claim committed it.
If we were comparing oranges to oranges then there wouldn't be PIPEDA or the DATA law, etc. They would all be covered under existing law. I challenge you to find any supporting documentation from any Legal or IT source that backs up your premise.
No comment on the Pentagon papers huh... didn't think so. My prediction is that the US will never charge Assange, and the NYT (who you refuse to comment on) will never be charge with anything and your outrage will just be so many angry uninformed rants...

Comment Re:Have you considered the possibility... (Score 1) 222

As always you don't fail to disappoint. You debunk my stats (even the money?), while providing nothing to debunk them with. I call bullshit on your entire post. Please provide references. While I realize that proving an opinion like your can be a daunting task for anyone, thats what the big kids do. Also, the Red cross as an agenda pushing site? You are a delight ! Those fuckers at the Red Cross!! Nobody trusts them! Historically The Red CRoss have been way more untrustworthy than the US military I would DEFINITELY believe the army's numbers over the Crosses!
Here is a link to some info about the Red Cross so perhaps you may consider learning about the folks who you just trashed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_cross
I won't even deal with you where you imply that any act covering the printing press covers the internet, its simply to ridiculous to dignify with a forml response

3 people have been charged, not just Manning.

Lsstly. here is a lik to where Daniel Ellsberg compares the penatgon papers to wikileaks
http://www.ellsberg.net/
Here is a link to where the NYT compares the pentagon papers to Wikileaks
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/world/24london.html
http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=625023
Here is a transcript of an interview with the attoney general in which... you guessed it!
http://www.npr.org/2010/11/30/131687812/wikileaks-a-reminder-of-the-pentagon-papers
And In case you didn't know the AG is kinda a high ranking civil servant.

So, now that I have provided evidence that ALL (not some) of the people involved have said its a solid comparison... its seems as though the absence of both facts and research have in way impeded you from forming strong opinions. Well played.

I await your responses to my previous questions

Comment Re:WH says DDOS is not a crime (Score 0) 120

As always, the absence of facts has certainly not stopped you from forming a strong opinion.

http://www.osce.org/publications/odihr/2007/03/23835_823_en.pdf

Both the State, and the individual have obligations in this matter.
Secondly, someone exercising freedom of Assembly is not always a protester, but of course, this would involve seeing someone else's point of view

Comment Re:Have you considered the possibility... (Score 1) 222

Sigh.... as always you have focused on the minutae in order to feel better about your cognative dissonance regarding the whole.

http://www.brussellstribunal.org/pdf/lancet111006.pdf
A million afgan deaths and rising

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Add another 100 000 and rising for Iraq.

divide by 3000 (deaths in 9/11)

yah, wait, i just did the math, I was wrong in my previous post. Now you do the math and figure out by how much

http://costofwar.com/
We also spend our childrens future while doing this.Well over 5 million dollars per enemy combatant death.

The red cross estimates that we kill 10 civilans for every combatant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio
The last time Israel went to war they killed 30 combatants for every civilian....

I hope these citations help/ Now please. Who has been charged? DId an act written in 1917 and never updated cover the internet do you think? How is this any different from the pentagon papers? Why are you not outraged about the NYT? Maybe because they would love to go beat the Feds in court again so they are trying to pick a fight they might be able to win. I also still await the reference to you claiming some nonsense about me thinking secrets are never needed. You certainly cherry pick when it comes to responses!

Comment Re:Have you considered the possibility... (Score 1) 222

I think the part where we betrayed our allies was when we stole from them, (Hillary Clinton and Condeleeza rice asking to steal our allies credit card numbers) and back stabbed them, you seem to think its when they found out. Nothing quaint about loyalty, that shit is timeless, too bad for America our officials don't subscribe to that. You don't get it. Everyones outraged that they got caught!They make a case that "everyone else" does it and they should be able to do it, and lie about it with impunity. Wikileaks exposed betrayal, of allies and of trust, but those betrayals had already occurred.

As for the first amendment: it isn't a magic sheild against espionage. You're welcome to report on the fact that something was stolen, and even to characterize the nature of the theft. That's reporting. Completely protected. Providing the content of classified documents to hostiles who'd love to have them? Working with the person who steals them in order to arrange for storage of those documents and the means to convey them? Not protected.

  -- Looks like you still haven't read the 1st Amendment. And I was kind enough to post a link and everything, well... you can lead a horse to water...
I am just aglow with your interpretation of the 1st amendment, lets find one from a Supreme court justice to juxtapose against it
Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.
Justice Black, discussing how he voted in the Pentagon paper case.
It seems as though, as before, an unrestrained press exposing government deceit. Assange is telling the people the Emperor has no clothes on, and they always hate it when you do that.

"Dealing" with hostile foreign states, diplomatically, is not the same as helping someone in posession of stolen government documents find a way to best spin their publication. You know the difference, and you're trolling on this subject. The only dealing with Assange on this topic is going to be as it relates to prosecutorial wheeling and dealing.

I will refer you to all of the Mob informants that we have allowed to commit murder, actual 1st degree murder who we "cut a deal" with and then provide a life of leisure for in the WPP. The fact, however, that you actually seem to believe that the gov't chose moral high ground instead of trying to save the lives of Americans who they previously claimed were in imminent danger. It seems a little harsh to those Americans doesn't it? "We were going to help you but we needed to prove a point on the internet"

"Assange stole" etc.

You've obviously missed my immmediate follow up where I said that was a c/p typo, and corrected to the word "published." Though, indeed, we may find that Assange's arrangements with Manning make him quite the accomplice, in the traditional sense.

- I concede this point

Could you also please provide concrete details of persons harmed

Can you please name the persons harmed when a drunk driver races down the highway at 100mph? Or is it totally cool to commit that crime, and only uncool if you actually run into somebody? Regardless, Assange - in only the first 220 documents out of 250,000 - has deliberately identified an Iranian ex-pat industrialist, with sympathies towards and support for the opposition inside Iran (where his family lives), as the source of intel about Iran's international industrial sources. I'm sure you think that the Mullahs would never allow harm to come to anyone who opposes their regime (other than the occasional family arrests, shootings, hangings, and that sort of thing, on political grounds), but that sort of reckless divulging of sensitive info - just so that Assange can keep milkiing that press coverage he so hungers for - is complete asshattery.

-This last bit bravely shows a misunderstanding of both law and rhetoric.
Uhmmmm- If a drunk driver kills someone then yes, I can identify them. If they drive drunk and don't kill anyone then they are charged with something different. Because the crime is different, although when the only tool you ever use is a hammer, soon everything starts looking like a nail right? Aside from that having nothing to do with my question and your only actual response being an Iranian of dubious loyalty who may or may not have been harmed, you still haven't answered my question.

THEY are supposed to work for US, not the other way around

Yup. And as they're working for me, doing things like law enforcement, diplomacy, counter-espionage, transporting nuclear materials, running combat operations, administering witness protection programs, and so many other things, I fully expect that some of what they do, in my employ, must involve non-public information. I don't want Mexican drug cartels to know the home addresses of ICE agents' children. I don't want North Korea to have the encryption keys protecting communications we share with South Korea. In their capacity as my employees, some local, state, and federal agencies need to be able to do some things that aren't Googleable. You know this, but choose to characterize all covert activities as lies. That you can't grasp the contextual differences, or are too trollish to admit to them, makes this a pretty silly conversation indeed.

I certainly would never classify all covert activities as lies, this accusation, as with so much of what you write, is completely baseless and untrue. Please provide a reference.

Add lastly, No, the horror of war is certainly not clear. I feel bad that you think it is. America causes a 9/11 every day in Afghanistan. Thats how many civilians we kill. Even now I am impressed with how the media is in the governments pocket, helping to steer the conversation away from the contents of the cables and onto the distributor. WHere is your outrage at the editor of the NYT? They link to all Wikileaks.ALL.OF.THEM. The feds took them to court over stuff like this in the 70's and lost. Oh no, this conversation is has been engineered... these aren't the droids you are looking for

Do you know what the greatest deterrent to war is? The fact thats its so terrible

Really? You think that the horror of war isn't clear? That tens of thousands of military people talking to friends, family, journalists, film makers, etc., aren't clearly enough explaining what it's like to face close urban conflict, or to have to deal with jihaddis holding school kids as human shields? We are absolutely saturated with information about how horrible such conflicts are. You know that. We all do. That has nothing to do with Manning being a grandstanding drama queen, or with Assange cravenly exploiting him for brownie points with his groupies.

Comment Re:Have you considered the possibility... (Score 1) 222

I wondered if you would trot out section 793 of the Espionage Act, an overly broad statute from 1917!
I can see why you sympathize with the govt, you have something in common, neither of you can be bothered to read the constitution, observe.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?item=1011_SCT_tracker
Here is a link to cases involving the 1st amendment I would like to specifically direct you to the United States vs The New York Times (403 U.S. 713)
Oh, and I'm sorry, I clearly asked for several items from you in my previous post. Did you need more time? I will await your no doubt brilliant reply.
I must ask though, how exactly does it feel to be on the side of lying. Of sophistry, of half truths and innuendo? I am not being glib, what on earth could possess a man to defend a govt lying to its people. THEY are supposed to work for US, not the other way around. Having read everything that wikileaks has published, the real crime is that they keep lying about how the war is going, the material and physical cost. Do you know what the greatest deterrent to war is? The fact thats its so terrible..... but we don't get that do we?

Comment Re:Have you considered the possibility... (Score 1) 222

I'm sorry, what exactly is the ongoing crime you are referring to? I am quite simply unable to find the law being broken here... Could you also please back up your fanciful assumption by filling us in on the person charged. I can't quite seem to find that either....
I mean, aside from from the fact that the govt has "played ball" with some truly atrocious characters in the last 20 years in the name of keeping America safe..like Saddam, Iran, Saudi, Mugabe, etc.. they won't deal with Assange and wiki... right.. such a compelling argument you are making!
Could you also please provide concrete details of persons harmed, not airy fairy operatives..murmer murmer... diplomacy murmer murmer...
Lastly, in your last blurb you mistakenly write
"Assange stole" he stole nothing, no one has been convicted of theft. Assange has been charged with nothing,. I'm sure you and your ilk will find a way of stripping these last few right and freedoms from us, but till then you might like the taste of the kool aid but don't expect me to tell you it makes you sound smart.
 

Comment The best part (Score 1) 669

Is that with a straight face people are saying we have damaged democracy in Zimbabwe. Doesn't something have to be present to be damaged? Mugabe has been president since 1987 when he began to oversee the election process, using violence, ballot box stuffing and registering false voters. The international community refuses to acknowledge his last election its so bad. His country has 80% thats right, 80! unemployment. He seized all the farms from white people and says that that white people are the real enemy. He commonly blames the US and Britian for the atrocious state of affairs his country is in.
Reporters without Borders ranks Zim 151st out of 173 for freedom.
Here is a gem of a quote" Our votes must go together with our guns. After all, any vote we shall have, shall have been the product of the gun. The gun which produces the vote should remain its security - its guarantor. The people's votes and the people's guns are always inseparable twins." thats a quote from the last election
Oh wait here is another " This Hitler has only one objective: justice for his people, sovereignty for his people, recognition of the independence of his people and their rights over their resources. If that is Hitler, then let me be a Hitler tenfoldofficer" This was after the UN called his transgressions unpardonable, and called his years in power a reign of terror.
Oh, he also cancelled the last election for 2 yrs as a cost saving measure.This article is priceless. Priceless. If you buy it i have some land for you in Florida, its a real steal....
Too funny

Bwahahahahahaha - Wikileaks sure screwed democracy in Zim! It was like, so close too! Next we will say Wikileaks made Kim Jong Il an asshole! The US won't even let Mugabe travel to the US for refusing to let us monitor the last set of elections... T

Comment Re:P.E. is a joke. (Score 1) 18

Your post is at best intellectual fraud and at worst will actually harm people.
1) Your assertion that this is a problem for bio engineers and scientists implies that until then we do nothing. We simply sit on our hands and cheer on the people in this situation who have control. The scientists. In one fell swoop you turn an entire demographic into powerless victims
2) Point number 3 is brilliantly worded , by using the terms might be and partly at the same time they abdicate any responsibility for the contents of that article being complete horseshit.
3)At one point you compare fidgeting to actual organized sport.
4) Because you don't really exercise but aren't really obese doesn't mean you are healthy, not at all... so you have managed to achieve skinny and unfit. How novel for you. The benefits of exercise have been proven thousands of times in thousands of studies. As have the benefits of eating well, there is a more balanced brain chemistry, nicer skin tone, better memory, ad infinitum
5)To insinuate that parents forcing their children to eat a plate of food has caused the absolutely staggering rise in childhood obesity is akin to claiming that that leaving your freezer open will cure global warming.
6) Diet and exercise is not akin to bleeding with leeches, it is the start of a healthy lifestyle and just might save someones child's life. To counsel against it is the very heart of arrogance and indifference. It may not "save" a child's life but it sure might give them a life worth living.
7)At another point in this bomb you compare obesity and stomach ulcers, bravely showing a lack of understanding between both cause and effect and physiology.
8) During your post you repeatedly insinuate that a lack of obesity is an indication of health. It.Is.Not.

Comment Re:Have you considered the possibility... (Score 1) 222

I'm not sure if my favorite part of your post is where you a) Take transparency to an illogical/implausible extreme just to evoke a pithy emotional response... or b) Where you cleverly palm a card while stating that Julian Assange is personally responsible for this. Either way, lets back up for a sec
Poster, you should ignore this paragraph, it contains facts.
1. WikiLeaks tried to engage the govt in detailing what should or shouldn't be released, the govt refused.
documents.nytimes.com/letters-between-wikileaks-and-gov

Oh wait... kinda takes the sting out of your personal decision claim doesn't it?!
2. I'm sure you haven't but if you actually look at WL you can see that they have released less than 1% of what they received.
3. I can't believe you (actually I can) don't know the difference beween a) operational details b) strategic details c) diplomatic cables , but your parent post makes it clear you do not.

Quick, turn back to FOX and get your next opinion

Slashdot Top Deals

Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll invite himself over for dinner. - Calvin Keegan

Working...