Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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

Comment Re:As much as I dislike Trump ... (Score 1) 407

And no, crimes of past president's are not irrelevant. They are very relevant since they show the hypocrisy of people who will excuse those crimes but suddenly become appalled when someone else does the exact same thing. If you didn't consider it a crime then you can't consider it a crime now.

The fact that Bush & Cheney did something does not excuse Clinton from doing something. This is called a tu quoque fallacy. In other words, not a valid argument. I say put them all on trial (Clinton, Bush & Cheney), and if they are convicted, throw them in prison. How do you respond to that?

Comment Re:Extradition? (Score 1) 72

Bush's "the constitution is just a damn piece of paper" playbook

Sidenote: I was trying to explain my beliefs on politics to my son earlier this week, and decided to look up this quote on the fly while I was telling him about it. I learned that there's no evidence Bush ever actually said this. Although he did certainly act like he felt that way.

I realize you're not necessarily asserting that Bush actually said it - but I thought you might be interested. It was interesting to me.

Comment Re:Minefield (Score 1) 535

He wants to ban all Muslims from entering the US. If that's not an "agenda that is against equality", then what is?

Indiscriminately bombing and burning hundreds of Islamic men, women, and children alive?

Oh, but we've already been at war with Eastasia, right?

That happened under Obama's watch, so no big deal. It will also be okay if Clinton does it, but not if racist Trump does it, because that would be racist!

Comment Re:Facts? We don't need no stinkin' facts (Score 1) 318

Hey, when any "news source" manages to contradict your own personal first hand experience the only rational reaction is to be VERY skeptical.

Did you even bother to check the links I provided before you decided to spout off a flamebait response? That was only one example, there are hundreds more out there. It seems like I questioned something that doesn't contradict your own personal first hand experience, so your "rational" reaction was to be VERY skeptical of what I wrote.

Comment Re:Sorry - whose car is this? (Score 1) 298

If it's good enough to drive at all, it's good enough to be put to use for the purpose I bought it. That purpose might well be a revenue-earning ride sharing thing. Sounds like they're looking for a rent cut from your own purchased car.

Oh, you own the car alright, but you license the self-driving software...

Comment Re:Facts? We don't need no stinkin' facts (Score 1) 318

Yes, it's so easy to just say "the fact checking site is biased"! Once you've said that, you don't even need to look at what it says: you can say it's wrong without even bothering to know what it said.

That seems a bit ironic that you would say that, as it seems you didn't bother to read the examples I posted. The two candidates said essentially the same thing, and Politi"fact"'s rationale was basically the same for both, but they gave different ratings.

Comment Re:Abusing Trump's compulsive behaviors (Score 1) 318

Of course the amazing thing is that Trump probably thinks the tweeting is helping his campaign. He doesn't even want to stop, though Hillary would be helping him greatly if this gimmick discouraged him from tweeting.

Trump is too narcissistic to change his ways. If he had toned it down a bit and stayed on message about the economy & national security instead of pursuing every petty comment made about him, ranging from gold-star families to beauty pageant contestants, he'd probably be in the lead right now. Heck, if the GOP had nominated Kasich, Paul or Rubio, this election would be lopsided in the other direction. Instead, they decided to go for the stooge who would make Hillary a shoo-in. Unless Trump wins, there's nothing that would convince me that the election was rigged by both of them...

Comment Late-Breaking News from the Council: WTF G'RANEE? (Score 2) 244

>K'Breel was deposed and executed after his repeated failures in repelling the Terran aggressor. We don't speak of him. All hail mighty G'Ranee, Supreme Leader for Life!

LATE-BREAKING NEWS FROM THE COUNCIL: VICTORY! The Council of Elders has confirmed the blueworlders' resumption of aggression upon our noble red sands. K'Breel, Speaker for the Council of Elders, addressed the planet thusly: OKAY. Okay, so I'm K'Breel (even though anyone on Slashdot can assume the mantle merely by declaring themselves Speaker for the Council), and I'm late, but I'm merely chronologically late, not as in the Late Second Adjunctant to the Council Formerly Known As G'Ranee.

But domestic politics is beneath us tonight -- just take a glance at the blue world beneath us for a look at how bad that can get -- and let us focus on what's important: over the past sol or so, our Planetary Defense Force has been so good at pre-emptively distracting the blueworlders with tasks like landing comets, grabbing their prospective mates by their genitals, low-planetary orbit missions, and just general tribal infighting that we haven't had to shoot down any robotic invaders in quite some time. But when the opportunity presents itself, we take advantage of it, and so, we did. Hence the trivial elimination of yet another putative invader from elsewhere. We'd do it every day, except that the blueworlders lack the gelsacular fortitude to send us more targets. Now as to gelsacular fortitude, on to Second Adjunctant G'Ranee...

When a junior reporter pointed out that the destroyed invader was merely a technology demonstrator built on the cheap to see if a landing was possible, and that the blueworlders' actual payload was safely in orbit, K'Breel had the reporter's gelsacs launched into orbit alongside those of G'Ranee for a closer look.

Comment Re:Too many paid shills vs organic posters (Score 1) 409

Ah yes, the old "always accuse your opponent of doing what you're doing." Correct the Record actually exists. Has FEC filings and everything. Show me the tiniest bit of evidence of paid Trump shills.

While we know that the DNC hired mobs to riot at Trump rallies, I highly doubt that either Clinton or Trump would bother to hire shills to post on /.

Comment Re: What's wrong with hate symbols? (Score 1) 377

And as always, freedom of speech and freedom of association does not imply freedom from consequences.

Absolutely not. I'd expect that anyone who discriminates on any basis should probably take a beating in lost sales, which is the natural remedy of the marketplace.

Slashdot Top Deals

Optimization hinders evolution.