Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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

Comment Re:liar (Score 1) 515

Just because lying to the American public and destroying government records without oversight is legal doesn't mean that doing it won't come with a shitload of consequences, not the least of which is you don't get to be the president.

It doesn't have to be criminal to be dishonest, immoral, deceitful, reprehensible, and unconscionable. This is the pitfall of lawyers practicing politics. They know exactly what they can get away with under the letter of the law. If they lack moral fiber they will push that line continually.

Comment Re:NIMBY in full effect (Score 0, Flamebait) 445

You disgusting ignorant pig.

You just asked "How many people were murdered for their organs?" and answered your question with "if its not a whole bunch I don't care and neither should anyone else."

Instead of blatantly declaring how uncaring and callous you are with other people's lives, why don't you just state plainly to this person you think he is a liar and that those stories are all false? If you are the totally self absorbed scumbag piece of shit you appear to be, it would be better cover. And if you're not a complete dickbag your directness won't have a chance to be taken as apologist propaganda for doctors who murder their patients for monetary gain.

Its really tough to confront how insanity and inanity look exactly alike in you humans.

Comment Re:NIMBY in full effect (Score 1) 445

There is a man on the runoff railway track and a family of 5 on the main track. A speeding train is heading toward the family of 5, which could be diverted if you pull a lever, though you will kill the man by himself on the runoff track.
What do you do?

There is a man in ICU. If you "declare him dead" his liver, heart, lungs, kidney(s), and other internal organs will save the lives of at least 5 people.
What do you do?

Comment Re:As if this is new (Score 1) 370

Rearrange the economy to one where ever increasing consumption of non-essentials is not the ultimate goal of every dollar earned and you have a good start.

Also, abolishing advertising. Also also, violently kill anyone that describes their tried and true product as New and Improved.

Comment Re:As if this is new (Score 1) 370

You would need to decouple the profit motive from automation for your idea to work, otherwise things won't get cheaper. You want to remove the profit motive from the means of production, sale, and distribution of goods and services? Introduce fascism. No, not the authoritarian idiocy that liberals throw around as a model of Nazi Germany. I mean the fascism of government and corporations amalgamating into a single entity. Only problem is that this is essentially what we have in the US now with an important distinction. The difference between fascism and corporatism is who is in control. So instead of a government controlling the corporations, like in fascism, we have the corporations controlling the government. This is corporatism.

Comment Re:As if this is new (Score 1) 370

This is why we need to act before it get to the point of rationing. A healthy and well armed contingent is much more formidable than a hungry mob.

You want redistribution of wealth? Lets start with the 1%. Their paid representatives and owned people say raising taxes on the 1% wouldn't make a difference, so I'm not talking about raising their taxes.

I'm suggesting we "redistribute" their entire estates.

Comment Re:Not news (Score 2) 219

What's more it bothers me that smart phones don't have removable batteries anymore. It's only a matter of time before they start collecting information about us even when they are supposedly "off". Snowden has already revealed that the NSA can fake you into thinking your phone is off.

I think that time has already passed. It freaks me out that we all have supercomputers symbiotically attached to our persons. Not only all of the data and information we pump though them which is subsequently analyzed and reverse-engineered, but also how that access fundamentally changes our social structures, the way we view the world, our own self importance; literally our whole lens of reality is distorted in proximity to these devices.

Unceasing surveillance, diabolical in depth, indiscriminate in breadth. Using your own words and actions against you, refining plans for complete stimulus/response control: a consumptive device allowing greater avenues to consumption and dedicated to finding ways to increase future consumption.

I have found it very helpful to envision my cell phone as the Eye of Sauron.

Comment Re:The 80s want their foreign policy back (Score 1) 404

The answer? They did hack the DNC email system, and many others. That is what they do. In fact, you can bet your last ruble they have been balls deep in tons of our elected official's email accounts, and for longer than you think.

The main issue is they wouldn't leak the emails. Why would you kill the goose that laid the golden egg? Why would an intelligence agency, dedicated to gaining access to and collecting emails from sources just like these, compromise itself and tip off their mark? Why, oh why would someone with unfettered access to email accounts like these out themselves?

The obvious answer is, they wouldn't. There is no way that once they gained access to these email accounts they would leak the details. So, the other obvious answer is the account was so permeated with hackers that any number of penetrators could leak the documents. The Russians were probably well and truly pissed off once the leaks went public. It obviously made it difficult to access those accounts they had already penetrated because the owners were now spooked.

Any other answer is so questionable as to be considered an agenda and not a valid supposition. Prove me wrong?

Comment Re:Bigoted much? (Score 1) 404

You and the poster you are replying to have totally missed the boat.

When considering intelligence agencies, its not the methods used to penetrate that are predictable. What is predictable is that penetration will happen and that it will be maintained covertly for as long as possible, and that nothing that will reveal the intrusion will be perpetrated on purpose but the intelligence gathering agency.

So the question of whether or not these American resources were hacked is immaterial. They were, and long ago. Consider them to be pwnt, and that they have been for years. Quietly and surely, intelligence agencies from all over the world have been sticking their sticky fingers into our government official's emails. Like, DUH! What do you think they have these agencies for? And if some stupid spearphishing attack worked, how much easier was it for the Russian intelligence agencies to get in with their studied and practiced wiles?

What they do not do, because it would be stupid beyond measure and completely counterproductive to the aims and goals of intelligence gathering, is broadcast all over the place the information they have compromised. This would let the hackee know they have been owned. Which would be just about the stupidest thing an intelligence gathering agency could do, short of taking a rusty antique hand drill and making holes in their own genitalia

The question is not "did Russia hack us?" The question is "Since rational and intelligent people know Russia has already hacked these people (and many more) years and years ago, and has had constant access the whole time, and since they wouldn't want to compromise their access to this information, who also gained access and subsequently revealed that access by leaking the documents?"

Comment Re:Retaliatory measures based on no evidence. (Score 4, Interesting) 821

Secrecy. That is what I see. No proof. No inclusion of the US people. Just the same damn political positions that brought us innumerable lies and deceptions designed to manipulate and control the US electorate.

Put up or shut up. They need to come clean with the exact evidence they have. It's not their election, its ours. If our, the people mind you, if our election was compromised I want to know exactly how. What I don't want or need is my elected government officials telling me they know all the answers, I don't need to know them, and they will take care of everything. That was the same kind of thinking that led us to the Iraq war, the Vietnam war, and numerous other idiotic expenditures of American lives and uncounted billions of dollars.

That you point towards "politicians on both sides of the aisle" as "proof" is mystifying to me. Lets look at what "passes through both sides of the aisle", shall we? The aforementioned Iraq war. The DMCA. The Patriot Act. Is that sufficient, or should we go on?

Here's a hint. If both parties are in favor of it, they are probably putting you together. Show us the evidence and let the American people make the call. I'm quite tired of our elected officials telling us they know best while keeping us in the dark.

Comment Re:Galaxy spin (Score 1) 162

So you didn't read the link, or you didn't understand. Got it.

Observable matter in galaxies corresponds to spin rate when using near infrared to determine the observable matter in a galaxy. Not in just one galaxy, but in all 153 that were observed in this study.

Your earthworm analogy, a masterpiece of logic and pathos that will stand the test of ages, should be re-purposed to buttress a legitimate argument.

Comment Re: An Amazing Human (Score 1) 162

Damn right I want to know! I feel that there could be something groundbreaking in this line of inquiry, just waiting for us to figure it out. I get the feeling you do too.

Here is a link to something that should be considered. A bit disappointing in my opinion in one way, as it rules out many of the more exciting answers to the question of dark matter, but exciting in its own way. You may find this interesting: 153 galaxies with rotation speeds that can be inferred directly from their observable matter

Slashdot Top Deals

"The value of marriage is not that adults produce children, but that children produce adults." -- Peter De Vries