Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:I have seen some crazy responses here (Score 1) 764

Trump is a good negotiator because he spent most of his life fighting with unions and city government(s) to get what he wanted and make money. There is no way to have any success in that business - particularly in New York - without steely resolve to get what you want through whatever means are available.

I can excuse you, if you have never tried to do anything with unions and government, for perhaps believing this is easy.

Comment Re:I have seen some crazy responses here (Score 1) 764

*I* sound like an idiot? Perhaps. You sound like you're off your meds. "The world is not going to let..." oh please, conspiracy theories are great, aren't they?

Don't be retarded, people will continue to do what is in their economic interest. Trump will change what that means. The result cannot be determined at this time, because if you think you have a crystal ball, you really are nuts.

Comment Re:I have seen some crazy responses here (Score 1) 764

I think you strongly misread Trump's motivations and likely response to an act of Russian aggression. I don't think Putin misunderstands, though. He can see clearly through the NATO talk.

Remember that Trump knows how to negotiate, and most positions that he takes are intended to be bargained away while he achieves his real intention. We haven't seen an actual negotiator in office for a very long time, so we may expect our Presidents to be straight man dupes for foreign leaders. That doesn't have to be the case, though.

Trump wants to save the US effort, or get funds for defending Europe. He has no intention of dropping out of NATO or anything like that. I mean, I doubt I am spoiling things for him by saying this. I suspect Europe's leaders will find the risk too high to avoid doing business with him.

Comment I have seen some crazy responses here (Score 4, Interesting) 764

Putin allowed these to be released to poke Obama in the eye. No more, no less. The fact that they feed into a long standing story of dishonesty and fraud on the part of the Clintons is incidental. He saw maximum value to let them go right before the DNC, because he knows, like I do, that these e-mails aren't going to decide the election. It wasn't worth holding them until November, as they'd be ineffectual then with all the mud flying in the last couple of weeks.

They are, however, one of hundreds of data points that will decide this election.

He doesn't "support Trump" at all. He'd prefer a HRC in charge - less risk, but he doesn't believe he could turn a US election anyway with any of his tools available. Those who believe otherwise are conspiracy theorists.

Comment Re:Where did the money come from? (Score 2) 160

If it's not poorly defined then why can't people who are supposed to be professionals in preventing money laundering patently unable to explain it effectively?

Briefer: "Be on the lookout for money laundering!"
Me: "Ok, so what should we be on the lookout for?"
Briefer: "Suspicious transactions."
Me: "Suspicious how?"
Briefer: "Next slide!" ...

Comment Re:Where did the money come from? (Score 1, Insightful) 160

OK, but what made them illegal? I don't believe the government when they bring charges like this, because someone discovered ex post facto that something broke the law. When they say "3.5 billion money laundering scheme", I want to know what the original money came from and why the transaction was supposedly illegal. And we rarely get that information.

Inherently not trusting the government and the huge power such 'money laundering' accusations seem to have - no one ever seems to ask the question I am asking, and the article sure as hell doesn't say a damned thing about where the 3.5 billion came from - make me very suspicious.

Comment Where did the money come from? (Score 3, Insightful) 160

Money laundering is the most opaque concept ever. I used to be an officer at a bank (they made all of the network guys exempt bank officers) and had to go through repeated briefings on this, and no one could explain money laundering to my satisfaction. It appears to be "transactions the government doesn't like" rather than anything in particular.

Comment Re:Fishy case (Score 3, Informative) 115

OK, I know this business, and I can tell you that the contractors supporting the system are doing so with minimum personnel, so that can't be it. Maximum of 500 people involved in dev and support, and probably less. The system itself is not useful to a general purpose user. Let's assume 50,000 people ever touch it, that's probably a generous estimate. I imagine if we saw their usage data, it would be in the four figures, not six.

Slashdot Top Deals

"You must have an IQ of at least half a million." -- Popeye

Working...