Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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

Comment Re:No one likes (Score 1) 614

Both sides have started stupid wars. The question is, why does the other party, after denouncing them, not get the f*ck out?

Nope, that's not the question. The question is (a) Why did the Republicans start a war in Iraq on false pretenses and kill a million Iraqis? Who benefited? Did Trump himself benefit? (b) Why does Trump claim that he did not support the war at the time when we have recordings of him saying that he did? Was he lying then, or now? (c) Why are the Republicans trying to blame someone else for the butchery that they committed?

Killing a few thousand with a tactical nuke to wipe out a threat is peanuts in comparison.

Trump used the words 'Trident' and 'submarine'. The Trident is an ICBM. It is not a tactical nuke. He (Trump) readily assented to the estimate that millions would be killed. See the link I posted.

Or better yet, just get the hell out of the middle east. Get out of the middle east, and let them kill each other off.

In which case, I don't get why you are voting for Trump. He is a 'boots on the ground' guy. He says he plans to send in troops - again. Unless he is lying?

Comment Re:oh, yes (Score 4, Insightful) 173

Why does everyone keep saying Russia works with Trump? I have yet to see anything along those lines other than a couple of comments from Trump about Putin.

I suspect the payment of 12.7M by Russia to Trumps Campaign Manager Paul Manaforte and the subsequent removal of the arming of the Ukraine from the RNC platform might have something to do with it.

Comment Re:So basically... (Score 1) 614

Right - so no court or jury, and no charges were laid.

She was accused of a crime. The OP said "she is a criminal". What is that ripping sound I hear?

They just have the clout to not get arrested like the rest of us.

Yes yes. It's all a big conspiracy - presumably the knights templar and the masons are involved as well.

Comment Re:So basically... (Score 1) 614

Hillary is objectively a criminal.

Pretty sure the US Bill of Rights says that a court of law is required to make that judgement, not a 2 bit shitposter on ./

Same sort of court of law that found Trump guilty.

. I'd literally rather have a monkey as POTUS than Hillary.

A monkey would make a better (less offensive) president than Trump. Less, err, unpredictable: and no monkey has ever expressed an intent to kill millions. Nor are monkeys as sleazy - no monkey has ever settled a sexual harassment suit out of court, afaik.

So: you go ahead and vote for the monkey.

Comment Re:No one likes (Score 3, Insightful) 614

Not the best choice? Neither candidate is trustworthy, but Trump hasn't gotten a good portion of the world mired in failed countries at war.

Trump heads the political party that started those wars, and he is their elected candidate. He supported those wars.

His plan at the moment is to kill millions of innocent people with trident missiles fired from submarines in the persian gulf.

Unless he is lying?

Comment Re:So basically... (Score 0) 614

Seeing as the person he is running against said tens of millions of US citizens are deplorable, irredeemable, racists.

Stop lying.

What she actually said was:“you could put Trump’s supporters in two big baskets. They’re what I call the deplorables. The racists and the haters and the people who are drawn because they think he can somehow restore an America that no longer exists.”

And that is: ... true. A proportion of Trumps supporters do support him for exactly that reason. She is telling it like it is.

Apparently Trumps supporters don't like people telling it like it is when the telling doesn't match with their own internal fantasies.

Comment Re:So basically... (Score 2, Informative) 614

Trump changes position more often than I change my shirt. And I never let my shirt get the stink on. He will frequently lie about his previous positions, e.g his recent claim that he was against the Iraq war is a lie. "Correct the Record" refers to exactly that. When Trump lies, call it out it immediately. Shitposting is lying to disrupt the discourse. Correcting the record, is the exact opposite.

I'm not an American, so I won't be voting for either, but it does seem that (a) most of the stories about Hillary, if not all of them, are just shitposts by whiners who can't speak intelligently to problems with her policy direction, and (b) Trump has no clue how to lead a country, and no idea about what to do in complex policy issue like Syria, to the extent that he says whatever comes to mind at the time and he has no regard for whether the things he says are true and accurate, or not.

Just my impression.

Comment Re:But not Trump's Taxes? (Score 2) 122

What would be the point?

If they aren't embarrassed by the things Trump says and does, and by the fact that they had no-one, not one person, in the ranks of the party that they thought was better qualified to lead the party and the country then Donald Trump, they surely wouldn't be embarrassed by the release of schedules or private emails.

How can the private things be MORE embarrassing then the dirty laundry of Donald's mouth? That just boggles the mind.

Every few days we hear of another republican disowning him and his bizzarro worldview. What could be said that's more embarrassing?

Comment Re:Stick a fork in.... (Score 1) 610

So, are there references for when Obama said that being unpredictable was good in a n unclear stand off?

Is there a quote form Mitt Romney saying that Japan and South Korea should develop nuclear weapons?

Is there a quote from Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, or indeed any of the other Republican candidates, saying the it's inevitable that Saudi Arabia gets nuclear weapons and nothing can be done about it?

Comment Re:Stick a fork in.... (Score 1) 610

Well, there's worse things than breaking the law.

He probably has broken the law - the other day I heard him spruiking his business interests at a media event supposedly for him to renounce his previous claims about Obama and his place of birth - in my country there are laws to prevent conflicts of interest, which it seems there aren't in the US otherwise he would certainly have broken those laws. And there are ongoing investigations into his business connections which, if the allegations are true, would dwarf Clintons wrongdoings.

But regardless, there are worse things than breaking the law. His attitudes on nuclear prolifieration, in particular, his suggestion that South Korea and Japan ought to acquire nuclear weapons, his attitude that nothing can or should be done to ensure that Wahabbists (like ISIS) do not acquire nuclear weapons. His refusal to rule out detonating nuclear weapons in Europe, His claim that being unpredictable is a good approach in a nuclear standoff.

There was talk amongst Republicans that Trump might be suffering from a mental illness. He appears to genuinely believe he is qualified to lead a country. I'm not a fan of Hillary by any means. But she doesn't seem to be doing or planning or saying anything that would materially damage or embarrass the United States, if she were elected. Trump seems to embarrass and denigrate the country every time he opens his mouth.

Comment Re:Scares people from future evidence (Score 3, Insightful) 526

I remember a decade and a half ago there were scandals where false Global Warming data had been spread around.

It happened more recently than that of course. Not so long ago (last year), on this site I had a guy claiming that there was no warming and pasted a link to a data site ( to prove it. Of course his link was carefully constructed to exclude regions where the warming signal was more obvious - in other words, he concealed the truth. Which did make me think how (or if) he actually believed there was no warming if he went to that much trouble to conceal the warming signal?

I disagree though, that this ought to make me distrust the science. Yep, there's lots of liars out there. Plenty of the top level operatives (e.g. Judith Currie, Anthony Watts) are sponsored by PR companies to spread "a difference version of the truth" (in other words, lies) but how does that actually impugn the science of climate at all? It sounds counterintuitive to me, that the existence of bodies who are paid to disguise the facts actually means the facts themselves are in doubt.

Comment Re:Not Slytherin eh? (Score 1) 117

I expect there are bad eggs in each house.

That's a reasonable assumption. The hat seems to choose based on fairly arbitrarily set criteria (it's a hat, after all, and not that smart). Unfortunately old Godric might have been a noble fellow, but he obviously didn't see that every character type has it's strengths and weaknesses:

1. "Boldness" = tendency towards callousness and bullying (G)

2. "Loyalty" = low self esteem (H)

3. "Wits" = Arrogance, aloofness,lack of empathy (R)

4. "Ambition" = Egomania

If each person had been placed with others who would balance out those weaknesses, they would all have been better off. I recall that someone in the book said something to that extent toward the end: 800 years too late, IMO.

Comment Re:Not Slytherin eh? (Score 1) 117

Of course the books are written from a Gryffindor perspective which tends to frown upon the ambition and rule-bendiness of the Slytherins and downplay the fact that the Gryffindors like to bully people e.g. secretly poison people for the laffs, or lock a guy in a cupboard for 6 months or so. Hilarious - I wonder how his parent's felt?

Comment Re:One way ticket? (Score 1) 224

So you are not interested. That is you. It might be boring to you, but it has a lot of real estate to explore in the search for exobiology and experimentation to try adapting earth based organisms.

It has about 4 sq metres of real estate to explore. More, if you are motivated to dig more. And slime and mould will grow find on Mars: mystery solved. Feel to watch that mould grow to you hearts content.

I could keep myself quite interested.

Sure. Recline the seat. Return the seat to the upright position. Recline the seat. Return the seat to the upright position. Recline the seat. Return the seat to the upright position. Recline the seat. Return the seat to the upright position. Recline the seat. Return the seat to the upright position. Recline the seat. Return the seat to the upright position. For six months. And then do the same on Mars.

No accounting for what it takes to amuse some people.

As for being bored on the trip, you do realize that at one time it took two months to make it from Spain to the New World. That was with limited provisions and a much larger crew with far less entertainment options.

What new world are you referring to?

Making the trip is possible in 150 days. Preventing getting bored requires a mirror of Netflix, Hulu, Wikipedia and people that are no so prone to attention deficit as you.

Right, so you plan is to watch Netflix for six months on the way to Mars, then watch Netflix for 6 months while you are there (plus the occasional digging and unblocking. And then, what? Watch Netflix for six months on the way back?

That's just great. Except from my perspective, we could achieve the same ends without you ever leaving your house. So the is NO WAY that we are going to pay for your little cheeto's fueled excursion. You want to commute to Mars and back watching Netflix for the duration? That's fine, but you can pay for it.

We are not all so broken.

You want spend six months nauseated in a tin can watching Netflix, then six months cowering underground watching Netflix, and then six months in the vomit can again, watching Netflix. Because to you, this represents an animated diversion from your ordinary life.

I have no conception of how boring and tedious your life must be.

Slashdot Top Deals

When it is not necessary to make a decision, it is necessary not to make a decision.