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

 



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

Comment Re:Security expert? (Score 1) 292

Watch the video, asswipe.

Well, asswipe (my apologies, I meant to say asshole, because you get insecure when somebody misidentifies you) the point for most people is that by locking their cars, they can somewhat secure the possessions inside from a run of the mill thief, essentially treating it like a mobile locker. For a transport companies, they don't store personal items in their vehicles, so there's little point to locking them.

I realize that you want to ban things like having anonymous speech on the internet and lockable doors on cars, houses, and bedrooms, because you believe that the government should totally own you, but not everybody thinks that way.

Comment Re:Security expert? (Score 0) 292

Careful. BarbaraHudson will accuse you of victim blaming, then go off on a tangent about how anonymous speech should be illegal because anonymously saying something that somebody else disagrees with should never be acceptable, and then talk about how you should be subject to Canadian law (regardless of where you live) and go to jail and pay them money for making statements like this. It happens all the time; BarbaraHudson is highly narcissistic.

Comment Re: Treason ain't what it used to be (Score 1) 794

Oh right... so the right to bear arms only applies to Americans ? Oh sorry, i forgot, WHITE Americans. Anybody else has a gun - their fair game to kill. ...

Yes, they are called bodyguards. The mere presence of a weapon does not make somebody an enemy combatant. The Geneva convention is supposed to mean you ONLY shoot at other soldiers.

Again, that's the crack talking.

Geneva Convention is quite specific that enemy soldiers are supposed to bear a uniform or other insignia to indicate that they are a legitimate target, among other things. Since the opposition forces there didn't follow any Geneva rules, then Geneva just flat out didn't apply as per its own rules. However generally accepted rules of engagement against enemy combatants certainly applied in this case -- they were in an area that was only hours ago inhabited by people who were firing upon US soldiers, and they were carrying weapons. That was all that was required to justify lethal force by any existing legal standard. There is no requirement for them to open fire.

And in fact, neither Al-Qaeda, ISIS/ISIL/Daesh, nor any other terrorist group meet any internationally accepted legal definition of being soldiers.

That said, you haven't made a single correct statement yet. Just stop already, you're fucking stupid.

Comment Re: Treason ain't what it used to be (Score 1) 794

Manning leaked a lot more than one video. One of the others, for example show US soldiers murdering an Al Jazeera journalist and laughing about it. Other leaks by her revealed the torture happening in Abu Ghraib which put an end to that travesty.

I have to ask; what kind of crack are you on?

The reason I ask is because Abu Ghraib was exposed in 2004, and Manning didn't even enlist until 3 years afterwards. Furthermore, you're going to have to be specific about the soldiers supposedly laughing as they murder somebody because I'm looking at a list of Manning's leaks and nothing like this is mentioned among them.

Even if you think that "that" video has visible weapons (which somehow nobody else can see - and kind of disputed considering we know from other evidence they were ambulance workers) that doesn't mean there wasn't a public interest in the many other atrocities she revealed. Or are you denying those as well ? Was Abu Ghraib just harmless fun by horny girl soldiers who liked any excuse for showing their genitals to strangers ?

It's documented that they were in fact carrying weapons. Furthermore, Assange himself even admitted to editing the video in order to manipulate the public:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tec...

What Assange is up to is more prosaic. He hit the big time with his video entitled "Collateral Murder" that used footage, shot from a US helicopter, of the killing of alleged insurgents and two Iraqi employees of Reuters, to accuse the American military of a war crime.

Oddly enough, it was Stephen Colbert, ostensibly a comedian, who skewered him. "There are armed men in the group. They did find a rocket-propelled grenade among the group. The Reuters photographers who were regrettably killed were not identified as photographers.

"And you have edited this tape, and you have given it a title called 'Collateral Murder'. That's not leaking. That's a pure editorial." Assange admitted that he was seeking to manipulate and create "maximum political impact".

In other words, you're full of shit.

Comment Re: Pardon Manning and Snowden (Score 1) 382

Awww, butt-hurt much? I've been white-hat trolling slashdot for 15 years (which you would know if you bothered to look up my account under my birth name - I never hide), and a piece of crap like you isn't going to get one over me.

Well because you had surgery to remove all your organs except for just one, then you're just an asshole, and therefore don't have a gender. That's a fact no matter how much you argue otherwise I'm afraid. And I did skim over one of your posts after the fact and noticed that you advocate banning anonymous speech, which means you're also a wannabe dictator. Go move to china or something; they agree with you there. And, the only reason you'd be against anonymous speech is if you get butt-hurt often because of it. After all, your butt is all that remains to be hurt.

Your purpose in life is to serve as target practice so that when I encounter jerks like you in real life, I already know all their arguments, and the proper counter-arguments.

Right, and that must be why you haven't, at any point, offered any kind of counterargument to any point I made, except for a straw man of poor craftsmanship. In fact, this is typical narcissism right here. You're like an IRL version of Eric Cartman: Your ego just won't let you see anything that might hurt it.

A troll who's too stupid to realize he's being trolled just isn't fun any more.

Riiiight...Actually you aren't very good at this. You aren't a troll, you're a goat. Or rather, just a former dictator goat's anus. Have a bleating nice day.

Comment Re: Wow (Score 1) 41

That might be beneficial to your liver, but likely won't have a big impact on heart health. Even if it did, it would only be good advice for a younger age to mitigate (but not prevent) the possibility of heart disease when you're 60 or older. It certainly won't do you any favors if you have any congenital heart diseases.

Comment Re: Positive feedback? (Score 1) 307

Maybe, as that change has been attributable to an increase in dietary iodine. However it's also said that human intelligence is analogous to the tail feathers on a peacock, and since arranged marriages stopped being a thing in the west ever since world war 2, and faster/more affordable travel allows for a much broader mate selection, it's possible that we're inadvertently subjecting ourselves to selective selection instead of the more arbitrary selection we had before. This would also help explain the higher autism rates, which nobody has been able to pinpoint a cause for (and no, it's not vaccines.)

Comment Re: Offer, Not Bring (Score 2) 94

Apple also only publishes to its own platform, basically pretendin that only theirs exists, so they have at least some excuse. But, I'm curious why Microsoft does this and yet if somebody else wanted to install their services on a Windows lock screen, Microsoft would have none of that.

It's probably a good thing that both consumers and developers are eschewing Microsoft's UWP and mobile platforms to the point that even Microsoft is starting to do the same.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/...

http://m.windowscentral.com/mi...

Comment Re:liar (Score 0) 553

We are not defending the man. We are defending the fundamental principle of free expression. Assange is not being persecuted because he "raped" anyone, but because he said things that powerful people didn't like.

If this was true, the UK had just as much reason to want him as the US, and the later would have applied stiffer legal pressure than Sweden so that they could get him first.

Slashdot Top Deals

But it does move! -- Galileo Galilei

Working...