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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss? (Score 5, Interesting) 155

I'm surprised Comcast hasnt gone after Netflix already.

They have, and been caught. The whole Net Neutrality thing was over this very concept. The example was that the location of the Peering nodes were deliberately not upgraded an thus Netflix traffic was impacted. Netflix went so far as to say that they would pay for all the equipment needed at all of the peering locations, and even install CDN points INSIDE Comcast's network to help prevent the congestion problems for Comcast's Netflix customers. Comcast said no thanks.

Comcast has a vested interest in both Broadcast and Cable TV, and Netflix has a direct impact on both. Comcast is not going to help Netflix even if Netflix does all the work.

However, since this is all being done on the Network side, it is hidden (obfuscated) to the customer. All they know is Netflix streaming "sucks" a lot of the time, while Comcast streaming almost never does. The customer doesn't see it as a Comcast problem, they see it as a Netflix Problem.

Comment Re:It won't matter what Comey says (Score 1) 299

I think you are confusing what is really happening here. I've seen all sorts of arguments about Hillary vs Donald and it almost always boils down to one basic argument.

1) Trump is worse than Clinton (Excusing bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior).

They mostly try to avoid her actual record, because quite frankly it SUCKS.Her four years as SoS are a complete disaster. Her stint as Senator is mostly resume lining material (no actual accomplishments), and that she won because she was Bill's wife isn't really that great either. Basically, she has no record of accomplishments. None. Which is why she is playing the "gotcha" game, and sitting there wondering why she isn't "50 points ahead". Well, when you run douchbad against asshole (I'll let you figure out which is which), it is clear that she shouldn't be "50 points" ahead, and why they are basically neck n neck.

If everyone who actually believes that NEITHER are good for America, actually voted for Gary Johnson (or Jill Stein), it would cause chaos in the election.

Comment Re:Two types of laws (Score 3, Insightful) 299

Which is why they go through a series of training meeting, of which Clinton doesn't recall attending, due to traumatic brain injury, but she is okay to be president.

Another "convenient" excuse. She either didn't attend the requisite training (a dereliction of duty, and evidence she isn't qualified to be President) or she did, and ignorance is no longer an excuse. Now, you might claim she is too stupid to understand (as Director of the FBI basically said), but then that doesn't look to good if you're running for President either.

The whole EMAIL thing is a tar pit for the Clinton's because she is either incompetent, or evil. There really is no other option. And as I have said before, (apologies to Arthur C. Clarke) "Any sufficient level of incompetence is indistinguishable from malice". So which is it, is she incompetent or evil?

Of all the things Clinton should have done, she did none of them. The argument "no proof" is utter bullshit, there is plenty of evidence, and proof is only a conclusion. If you see all the evidence, and can't conclude she is either stupid or evil, you're just being an obtuse party hack.

Comment Re:People deserve their government. (Score 2, Informative) 299

But if we're going to use these emails as part of a measuring stick as to who is more trustworthy, when we tally up all lie and half truths of our major candidates

If your best case for your candidate is that "they lie less than the other guy", and there are a huge long line of lies both candidates have, you're making the best case I have that you shouldn't vote for either one.

The newest revelation is the darling Hispanic Woman who says (no actual proof, which is what you're claiming for Clinton now) Trump said some "mean things" to her, was allegedly involved in a murder, and had relationships with drug dealers. A perfect fit for the Clinton Crime Family if you ask me.

AND if everything about the Clinton's is "ancient history" (as said by others) then why are they digging up what some Drug Cartel's Leaders old girlfriend has to say from 20+ years ago?

The double standards people use in defending Clinton is amazing.

Comment Re:Clinton is above the law (Score 5, Interesting) 299

Actually the deletion of email was enough "evidence" of guilt because legally it can be assumed that doing so is evidence of guilt. Gowdy made that case when confronting the FBI director. In fact, Gowdy pretty much proved that the FBI was complicit in the coverup by not prosecuting Clinton on the grounds that the FBI director actually gave.

But there is more, Clinton's Lawyer AND personal Aide (convenient dual role) Mills said in sworn testimony that she didn't know about the server until after it was destroyed, but they just found an email in which she ASKS about that same server, years before. She perjured herself. But nothing will come of it, because she is both a Clinton Aide and her Lawyer. The convenience of having Aides that are also Lawyers will now be fully realized, they will be pretty much untouchable, because you cannot untangle when she was being a Lawyer, and when she was being an Aide.

Comment Re:Clinton is above the law (Score 5, Insightful) 299

The whole system and a large part of the government is corrupt to the point where nothing will be done.

I'm sure that even most liberals would agree, but the solution liberals have is "more government" (and thus, more corruption), rather than reigning in the corruption we have now by limiting government actions. Liberty is messy. The greatest promotion of Fascism was "at least the trains run on time" (nice neat orderly).

Comment Re:Clinton is above the law (Score 5, Insightful) 299

Which is why people still use the "But Bobby's Mom lets him smoke" argument, little kids try on parents. The thing of it is, we are supposed to be adults and not persuaded by childish arguments.

Pointing to another person's wrong NEVER justifies the wrong you're doing. Justice is never going to be exact, so we should stop trying comparison justice, and let each case stand on its own merits. Anything less leads to lawless anarchy.

Comment Re:Can we just put her in now? (Score 1) 61

No president can save "us". But collectivism thinks the "us" we elect, can save the "us" we are. Because we (us) end up shirking any responsibilty we (us) have to save ourselves. And then, we wonder why 8 years of Clinton, 8 Years of Bush, 8 years of Obama and we're not "saved" yet (and quite possibly worse off than ever).

So, Boo me all you want, but my views are on my profile, and you can review them all you want. Hillary is just another in a long line of people promising things she cannot deliver. I have no doubt that Trump is doing the same. The ONLY person speaking of what they ACTUALLY can deliver, is Gary Johnson. But everyone is too busy arguing over who is worse, Hillary or Donald. And if that is the real debate, then we are doomed.

It is a tie, they are both the worst.

Comment Re:Can we just put her in now? (Score 1) 61

No worries there mate. I am one of those people who aren't voting for either of them. Call my vote wasted, and that is fine, I couldn't vote for McCain, Obama, or that Mormon guy. I couldn't vote for GWB, Kerry, or Gore. And so on back to about Reagan (when I was young and stupid) whom I voted for. But that was the last of the two party candidates I actually voted for.

People misunderstand my attacks on Hillary as being "Pro Trump", which only exposes their illogical binary logic, "If you not for me, you're against me" (A. Skywalker/Darth Vader). I was recently accused of "hate" towards Hillary, and I said that I didn't hate her, I had contempt for her. Hate is a different connotation than contempt, but some people can't figure out how words have different meanings. I have similar contempt for Trump, and I don't hate him either.

I reserve the word "hate" for people that I have a visceral dislike for, and they actually have to have done something pretty awful to me or my family or friends. Wanna know someone I "hate" (he's probably dead now, may he burn in hell) it is ...Brad Bishop (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradford_Bishop) I would quite literally kill that motherfucker if I ever see him. I would literally beat the crap of of that guy, and gut him, feed his own entrails to him, and say "Eat Shit and die asshole" ... THAT is hate.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Gotcha, you snot-necked weenies!" -- Post Bros. Comics