Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:So Hillary's account got deleted? (Score 3, Insightful) 201

As a moderate conservative and former Republican,

That sounds like a shibboleth...

I put the blame on the RNC nomination process — or lack thereof.

Specifically what part of the non-process did you find broken? What should the process/party have done to prevent Trump (or any other candidate)?

They had the responsibility to ensure that they fielded qualified candidates for the nomination.

Except they are sort of limited to who throws their hat into the ring... and unlike the Democrats, worked to not play favorites and let the candidates & their supporters duke it out.

Trump is neither a conservative nor a Republican, and, until a few short years ago, a Clinton Democrat. :/

A Bill Clinton Democrat maybe, but thanks to the wonderful DNC nomination process, they ended up with the worst possible candidate. Of course, I contend that it was actually the election of Obama which moved the Overton window enough to make a Trump run & presidency possible.

Comment Re:FAKE NEWS! (Score 0) 529

I don't know very many people claiming the Russians altered the vote,

Then why bring it up?

and I think most people are aware the POTUS isn't selected by popular vote.


The claim is that the Russians used a selective information/disinformation release campaign to undermine support for Clinton.

Often using the term 'election hacking', which is odd, because absent ballots/vote counts being changed, the only thing 'hacked' were private emails, not the actual election.

Would such a campaign have been acceptable if only US nationals were involved? What if it was a corporation in the form of a news agency engaging in similar tactics for their preferred candidate?

Oh right, the anger exists only because it was an op done against the left's candidate who lost, everything done to their non-preferred candidate(s) was alright.

And the US isn't the only country where this kind of these kinds of activities have been seen,

It's as if... some people may take a vested interest in the the political races and may try to influence the outcome, even in other countries.

Member that one time, when Obama & crew were working against Netanyahu's re-election bid? I member.

so why it's so damned unbelievable in the US is beyond me.

Except for the total lack of hard evidence that it was the Russians. Remember, intelligence agencies saying they think the Russians did it, or that Russia would probably prefer one outcome vs another isn't proof, only reasoned conjecture.

But at any rate, there seems to be this conflation between "interfering in the election" and "tampering with ballots" used by Trump defenders,

Says the person who brought up altered votes.

the reason being the former has some people in fairly high places stating it happened,

Aren't these the same people/positions who said WMDs in Iraq was a sure thing?

whereas the latter is indeed a left-wing conspiracy theory that no one takes seriously.

Yet you bring such things up.

Comment Re:FAKE NEWS! (Score 1) 529



Waiting a few more days to due proper vetting on the new information

How do you want them to do 'proper vetting' without conducting a search? A search which required a warrant no less? Had the news of the warrant leaked to congress without them being informed of the change of status, then yes, legal jeopardy.

Comment Re:FAKE NEWS! (Score 0) 529

What the hell does any of this have to do with the fact that the Director of the FBI has confirmed that they are investigating links between Russia and the Trump campaign?

Re-read what I was replying to.

Nobody is contesting that Trump won.

Really? I still see/hear plenty mentioning the popular vote & Russians.

Hell, no one is really contesting that Clinton wasn't a horrible candidate who ran a bad campaign (her own husband has said as much).

Must be nice in your circles, or did you miss 'the resistance'?

But again, that has fuck all to do with what is happening right now.

Re-read what I was replying to.

It seems you're the one with the badly over-aged talking points.

Re-read what I was replying to.

Comment Re:FAKE NEWS! (Score 0, Troll) 529

I know that many on the left still haven't come to terms with how/why they actually lost... but you really need to update your talking points.

By not informing congress, he would be risking perjury charges for failing to disclose the new information based on his previous testimony.

But why let facts get in the way of a comforting (but false) narrative?

Comment Re: Cost (Score 2) 266

Good luck with that.

Recently I had a lengthy international trip which I was dreading, so much so that I read our travel policy word for word to see what options there might be for me, a man of 6'5". The policy allows purchasing only the cheapest coach/cattle seats... Even fot executives.

In the end, it was easier for me to spend $2000 of my own money for a second seat so I would have sufficient leg room (economy plus doesnt do it, and still less than a business class ticket).

Usually I drive, everywhere because of the love I have fot my knees and hatred of thr airlines, but for this trip driving 6500 miles over thr ocean simply wasn't an option, thankfully me dropping the $2k was, though an expensive one.

I can see such a law being far easier to pass than getting every company out there to have a more sensible travel policy with regards to their employees who have so.e height to them.

Comment Re:Star Wars ? (Score 1) 542

I think the fact that it has the same characters from the Episode 6 who have aged and developed during the intervening time means this is not a remake.

That's why it's often called a 'soft reboot', vs the 'hard reboot' that was the abomination that was Ghostbusters (2016).

RIP Ghostcorps... tehehehe.

Comment Re: Rank reputable sources (Score 1) 183

If you read the IPCC summary, it labels every prediction with how confident the IPCC is in it, so it sure isn't climate scientists.

You are, of course, assuming there's nothing political going on with the IPCC recommendations in the first place and all the conclusions are honestly driven by nothing more than altruistic desires for the betterment of the human race. Pardon me if I have slightly more skepticism about the UN's motives given their manifestly anti-Western, anti-capitalist, pro-globalist stance. Add to that the prevailing "I don't need to explain it to you because you're too stupid to understand" mantra and what seems "settled science" to you seems anything but for those of us who are actually have to sacrifice for whatever the UN IPCC decides we have to do to satisfy them.

Comment Re: Rank reputable sources (Score 1) 183

I'm assuming nothing. I'm saying I've not seen any major studies whatsoever addressing the actual impact of the subject beyond "climate change BAD!' Climate has changed since the planet first developed an atmosphere to have climate. It will continue to change at its whim until we develop technology capable of utterly controlling it at our whim. Mankind has always adapted. We will adapt to this. The questions that remain are (a) are we capable of affecting the climate in any meaningful way in the first place and (b) is the cost of attempting to pin the climate to the 20th-century norm higher, lower, or equal to the cost of adapting? If the answer to (a) is "no" then it necessarily negates the second question since our only practical option is adaptation.

Slashdot Top Deals

Your mode of life will be changed to ASCII.