Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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

Comment Snopes and Fact Checking don't go together anymore (Score 2) 624

When you alter you contradict your own fact checking to include partisan interpretations and equivocation to bolster an agenda, you lose credibility.

Snopes is no longer a credible source for fact checking when they don't stick to facts as stated BY SNOPES. Now I have to suspect every analysis on editorializing. Snopes provides their own custom narrative on judgement re: - she did laugh, she did plea bargain him out, etc. Don't say false when it's true, but you are trying to meet your own overall conclusion. It really soured me. Yes, the story is basically false, but the fact checking there is factually incorrect. Her behavior isn't all that strange among defense attorneys.

That being said, the idea of "fake news" is tricky subject when real news can be spun so hard. Facts get blurred when put together in unexpected ways to form a new headline which is almost always to meet some agenda. On the other hand, a news story always starts with a perceived context, so which is more correct? The more factually correct or the more coherent narrative?

Comment Re:cost (Score 2, Interesting) 201

> every nuclear power plant you build is one of a kind

That's a United States problem. France uses a template. Bad policy tends to stick around, just like any statistical disaster...which leads me to my problem with nuclear power. It's set up and run by humans.

Yes you can generate power very cheaply for a few decades, but it ruins the site for a couple hundred years. Long term, it doesn't work out either. Now, if there is an accident (over what time period, how many will there be?) you end up contaminating more than just the site (fukishima, chernobyl).

Comment Re:Before you act like this is so nefarious... (Score 2) 469

> Neither should you

"should" is a word that indicates you might have lost the argument. Telling someone how to act "because", is not compelling.

The crux of the race was - and - still - is, about corruption. Jon Stewart's tale of his time in Washington really resounded with me.
Russia talking to the candidate they back (via wikileaks and probably other methods) is not surprising.

I don't see Russia controlling Trump's policies nor Russia rigging the election, but influencing indirectly was a result of existing
conditions Clinton caused. The Russians, if responsible for email hacks, simply gave more information to the US people.

I do believe that if Trump had been attacked in a similar way, we would have seen bad business dealing (he is not all that great
and certainly petulant) but being able to hide it is part of his charm and image. Clinton acting like she never does anything
wrong came off as more distasteful hubris, which marginalized his.

Understanding how we got the US election result, is part of dealing with the result.

Comment Re:WRONG! (Score 1) 1081

> Democracy is by DEFINITION mob rule

No, it is not. Democracy is participatory political action. If a family wants to decide on what color to paint a car, if 3 say red and 3 says blue, there is no ruling nor is there a mob. There wasn't even a decision.

The repetition of "mob rule" smacks of laziness and ignorance. Breaking it down...

"mob" is a convenient turn of phrase but is devoid of political meaning. The idea that a group of actors (mob) making a decision together requires a specific structure...most importantly, a relative political parity between actors and usually some rules for victory. The sentiment that it breaks down into herd mentality, is a possible condition under some niche cases. It is not the definition of democracy.

"rule", in the sense of dictating social programs (re: mob rule of the government) can be avoided, as I have mentioned. To clarify, the US democracy is the US people, in aggregate, have agreed to adhere to The US Constitution. Outside of that, you can have orthogonal democratic elections and still maintain policies in opposition to the current populist opinion (counter to the wishes of "the populist mob"). Democracy is not all-or-nothing, nor is it necessarily a singular lever for steering a government.

"the word is in the type of government" is not correct. The US Constitution mentions democracy as well as a republic, but is a unique type of government that was a republic of states, by design. It would probably come as a surprise, to you, that almost every existing government is rather unique (more or less).

You might enjoy Nomic.

Comment Re:WRONG! (Score 1) 1081

> Pure Democracy is rule by mob

That's simply not true. "Pure" being a weasel word to hide a ton of assumptions. There are many systems that are composed of positions elected by majority, which is not mob rule, because no single construct (for example the branches of the US or the division of the US Congress to start) is "ruling".

Comment Re:Wet paper bag (Score 1) 2837

There was no mistake (it would have to be hundreds of thousands of mistakes). A problem is that the US still has an electoral college. Hillary won the popular vote and that seems to be an issue the US should be trying to fix NOW.

Slashdot Top Deals

There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann