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


Forgot your password?

Comment There's a difference (Score 0) 430

All past presidents have had bad things said about them.

I think there's a difference between saying bad things, and saying false things.

Do you think there's a difference? Should the MSM be allowed to print just any old thing they make up?

Also, I think there's a difference between saying bad things, and saying things that make someone fear for their life.

Do you think there's a difference? Should celebrities be allowed to say they want to kill someone, blow up their house, or kill them in effigy?

Comment And in the meantime... (Score -1, Flamebait) 389

...this so-called president is an idiot who is in waaaaaaaaaaaay over his head.

And in the meantime, over 500 VA employees were fired, demoted, or disciplined for incompetence.

...but sure, keep telling us about how outrageous his tweets are, how it's shameful that he has no sense of decorum.

Meanwhile, he's quietly getting his agenda passed.

Also of note, Mark Meadows has threatened to shut down the government unless Congress funds the border wall, and if that happens it will be the Democrat's fault!

Also also, Ronna McDaniel wants to delay or cancel the [legislature] August recess unless health care is fixed.

I am *SO* happy that people are outraged over his tweets!

He's so waaaaaaaaay over his head, what with all the winning and such!

Bwaaaah ha ha ha ha!

Comment Polish president calling MSM news fake (Score -1, Troll) 106

The president of Poland himself called out the incident as fake.

When the leader of a foreign country calls out your news services for fake news, you think maybe there is something to the claim?

Contrary to some surprising reports my wife did shake hands with Mrs. and Mr. Trump @POTUS after a great visit. Let's FIGHT FAKE NEWS.

        — Andrzej Duda (@AndrzejDuda) July 6, 2017

Comment And a ton of others (Score 2, Informative) 106

If he's bringing up fake news that basically means two things: Trump & Brexit.

And pizzagate and golden showers and Russian hacking and many, many others too numerous to list.

There's a metric buttload of less important fake news flowing around the MSM nowadays.

Just today a number of MSM outlets(*) report that Polish first lady Agata Kornhauser-Duda snubbed President Donald Trump by refusing to shake his hand during his visit to Poland on Thursday.

Of course, this is trivially debunked by simply looking at the images of the meet.

At this point I'm not even sure why they do it; I mean... is it really effective to falsely report something in an attempt to tear down Trump? Does false reporting advance them towards some goal?

Far right news outlets are calling out all the MSM fakeness, and because of this the integrity of the far right outlets has been steadily rising. That's starting to take a toll on the believability of the MSM.

Are they really going to continue this process of "just making shit up and printing it" until people simply don't believe them any more?

I would think that's a path to disaster, but then again I don't work at a newspaper. Maybe it's all part of some elaborate plan.

(*) WaPo, HuffPo, and Daily Express, among many others

Comment Sounds good, doesn't work (Score 2) 73

throw your weight behind the 2018 mid terms. Make it clear that they'll be blood at the polls when NN gets struck down.

That is one of those plans that "sounds good, doesn't work".

1) NN is a minor issue that will be lost among much larger issues such as immigration, the economy, and health care.

2) The left, and I'm not saying this as a cheap insult, is in shambles with no obvious path to recovery and lots of potential paths to complete disaster. (Example: legislature is considering investigating Podesta's ties to Russia.)

3) The left has no one showing any sign of leadership today, which will come up in 2018 when we examine the past performances of whoever the party chooses to run. (Also true of the 2020 presidential election.)

The only positive thing I can see about the Democratic party today is the plan to choose their political positions by referendum.

The referendum thing could work, it could generate a solid foundation of positions that the people could support, but it's being presented and run in a low-class manner, and apparently the proposals won't be curated to weed out immature political emotion-baiting.

The 2018 elections will be largely in full swing a year from now, and all of Nancy Pelosi's incoherent ramblings, all of Chuck Schumer's self-victimizing, all of CNN's arrogance (and loss of viewers), and every stupid thing the left does between now and then will be put on display for the entire country to see.

Pity that - I'm all for having the parties compete with each other for effective leadership ideas.

Net Neutrality will get another article or two on Slashdot, nerds will feel a brief sense of outrage at the click-bait headline.

And then we'll move on to something else.

Comment Action, versus rules? (Score 2, Insightful) 73

Any chance these companies could get together and, you know, come up with a plan to fix the problem?

How about suggesting a law that congress could pass that would implement net neutrality?

It could be a model of common-sense legislation. It could be vetted by legal teams of several big companies, and distil the knowledge and understanding of a highly technical subject from experts in the field.

It could avoid the underlying problems of the current net-neutrality law, the aspects that got it canned in the first place.

EVEN IF you believe there will be partisan opposition, Democrats could keep the legislation available in case they re-win control of government. It could be a plank in the liberal position for the times to come, something the public could get behind and use as an [albeit minor] rallying point for the party.

Or is it more effective to just publicly come out in opposition of things?

Comment You're probably right (Score 1) 16

Because, it's OK to hit a racist.
The fact that you think this is a controversial opinion says a lot more about you than anything else.

You're probably right.

I've always thought we had freedom of speech, and that you can't just assault someone for saying things.

Or more clearly, that speaking your mind is not illegal, but assaulting someone *is* illegal.

This used to be the norm, and I firmly believe that "it's OK to hit a racist" is controversial (weakly stated), and completely wrong (more strongly and correctly stated).

I am astonished that anyone else in this country, let alone a blog full of smart, educated, and informed readers, would think that such a position is not controversial, nor even wonder at others for doing so.

As if protection under the law for free speech is a quaint notion that died out years ago.

Submission + - Who is the bully now? CNN finds and threatens a Trump-supporter with doxing (dailycaller.com)

mi writes: Shortly after expressing "outrage" over Trump "encouraging violence" against reporters with a mocking video CNN has tracked down the creator of the clip and threatened to deanonymize him.

Because the man took down his other "offensive" posts, the threat is on hold...

The network is, of course, denying accusations of blackmail.

Submission + - CNN critic who posted on Reddit may have been threated with revealing identity (theintercept.com) 16

evolutionary writes: CNN appears to be giving veiled threats at a Reddit user who posted critical comments about the media giant. After an apology was given by the Reddit user (possibly under fear upon discovering CNN had his identity) CNN stated "CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change."

Comment Kind, compassionate idiots (Score -1, Troll) 405

A government of the idiots, by the idiots and for the idiots

A quite sorry, demeaning & undignified depiction of the generous people of the USA.

For this, you should be ashamed of yourself.

The US is the first to lend aid in disasters around the world. We send our aircraft carriers to desalinate water and pass it out for free, and supply power to the hospitals while the local population recovers.

And when the crisis is over we send our aircraft carriers home, without conquering those nations.

We helped Europe deal with Nazi Germany, then poured billions of dollars into efforts at rebuilding the continent. We forgave billions of dollars of that debt, and continue to shoulder more of the bill for ongoing security than other countries (NATO).

We defeated Japan, occupied the country for a short time, rebuilt their infrastructure, and left them largely with their dignity intact. Japan is not a slave nation to the US, nor another US territory, nor do we laugh and deride them for losing.

The US is the worlds policemen, the country everyone looks to stop genocides and gas warfare and tyrants.

We have innumerable private charities that spend money all over the world to help pull people out of poverty and oppression. One past president has just about finished eliminating Guinea worm worldwide.

We have a ton of problems and endlessly debate them in the public eye, but that is by design. We're loud, insulting, and sometimes ignorant and insensitive.

Saying that we're all idiots is fine, that's your right.

But note that we idiots still help out when disasters happen worldwide, and when the disaster is over we come home without conquering anyone.

We're idiots, but compassionate and generous.

Comment Your kids won't get jobs (Score -1, Troll) 298

75% of the US population and GDP lay in urban areas

Best recognize. And the rest of you just sit your civil war memorial protecting oxycontin using bring back our coal jobs Toby Keith listening asses down.

We got this.

Well, let's just see where your liberal policies have gotten us, shall we?

I was just now reading an article on immigration, which lists 6 quick facts(*) from the immigration report Trump asked for.

This was information largely hidden by the Obama administration, and Trump made it public.

From that report:

.) The US gets one new immigrant for every four Americans who are born.
.) The US gets one temporary foreign worker for every five new (turns 18 and enters the workforce) American workers.
.) 50 percent of foreign temporary workers are white-collar professionals (about 35,000 per month, of 70,000 incoming per month)
.) Trump won by getting 80,000 more votes than Hillary in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. The 264,533 new [immigrants who became citizen] voters in the first six months is basically three times the number of 2016 voters who gave Trump his victory. New citizen immigrants are changing the political landscape of the country.

Note that this information was basically hidden by Obama: no one knew what was happening, and no one knows how long it was went on (and we probably never will).

To put this simply: When your two kids turn 18 and are trying to get jobs, there is also one immigrant competing for those same jobs.

And it's white collar jobs as well as low-level ones.

So tell me - how will that GDP work out for you, when you're out of a job?

(*) There will be the inevitable idiot claiming that Breitbart isn't a credible source. You may note that the idiot doesn't discredit the story, or the information from the story, or (heavens!) the *source* of the information on which the story is based. Take that as you may.

Comment Probably an actual genius (Score 2) 272

Genius is a strong word, by which I mean an incorrect one. But it is a clever strategy, which he stumbled upon quite conveniently. If he were the first big personality to discover Twitter, that would have been one thing. This is another thing.

Genius is probably accurate.

No one knows with any certainty, but there were studies during the election about who was smarter. Trump came out somewhere North of 150 in estimated intelligence, as did Hillary Clinton. Both candidates were rated at roughly the same level based on their achievements, scholarship, and writing ability (Trump has a Bachelor of Science).

Calling him any sort of stupid is belied by the fact that he is a self-made billionaire, successful reality TV star, and the current president of the US. On top of that he has a strong family, raised good kids, and has a smart and lovely wife.

...any one of which is rather difficult to do if you're not smart.

Mensa generally accepts an IQ of 140 as genius level, so it seems that both Donald *and* Hillary are well above the genius level.

Comment Yep - it's a theory (Score 3, Interesting) 272

Does not sound like much of a study. More like a bit of a theory.

Yep. Researchers find a trend in the data, then rationalize an explanation and present it as "theory".

I'll propose an alternate explanation for the data.

People are tired of being told what to think, the outlets have been telling people what to think in the strongest possible terms, and as a result the strength of the words has declined.

Calling someone a liar, fascist, racist, islamophobe, Hitler, Cthulhu, and everything else was so completely over the top(*) that many people simply got used to the terms, thinking that exaggeration was the new normal they applied an internal reverse bias to compensate.

The term "sad" is mild, so when you encounter it you might think the person saying it *isn't* exaggerating, and may be choosing their words carefully. It's the difference between someone saying "I'm uncomfortable" versus "I'm too hot!". Literally, the 2nd phrase implies required action, which isn't usually true (that the action is required), and is taken as exaggeration. The 1st phrase sounds more accurate and reasonable, and gives the impression of truthfulness.

So when Trump says something is "sad", it's in lieu of calling something bad, nasty, stupid, or unconscionable. It comes off as more nuanced, non-exaggerated, and more trustworthy.

That's my theory, and it also fits the data.

Can someone propose a test to distinguish between the two theories?

(*) If you don't think that the recent media coverage was over the top, consider Breitbart's enormous jump in readership in recent months, [Democrat minority leader] Nancy Pelosi is desperately trying to shore up support, and CNN is now literally synonymous with the term "fake news". That doesn't happen overnight, nor from isolated events, nor does it happen for no good reason.

Slashdot Top Deals

They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- Carl Sagan