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 Re: Trump is worse (Score 1) 255

I have no desire for Ann Coulter to have any of my money, nor do I wish to hear about what she's thinking. She is a professional troll, I'm not going to let her sucker me into giving her my money.

As for what Trump likes to read, here are a few titles you might be interested in:

Those Ones, by Those Guys

This One, by CNN

No, Not That One, by CNN

That One, You Know, by That Guy-YouKnow

Comment Re:Nothing like a good old fashioned witch hunt. (Score 1) 90

Yeah it really sucks when you find out that someone investigating all of the murders in town notices that the bloody footprints keep leading to your door.

If he didn't want to go down for this then he shouldn't have done it. I probably have more respect for Brian Krebs than any other journalist, he's obviously not infallible but his investigations and articles are great pieces of work. After reading the article, it seems pretty unlikely that there is another person in that small group of people who are connected which is actually the author but somehow didn't get noticed by Krebs. Jha admitted that the author of the botnet is a sociopath, so he's at least self-aware, but I'm not going to shed any tears for him when the FBI comes calling again. His attacks have run into the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, and he's directly negatively impacting the lives of many other people. If you want to try to poke holes in any of Krebs' arguments then go ahead, but if you haven't even read his article then it's probably better to save your witch hunt cliche for a time when it applies.

Comment Re: Trump is worse (Score 1) 255

Now he's the whore politician that people can buy.

I admit, I'm looking forward to when America becomes great again, I'm so tired of this country being not great. Sad! Make sure to let me know when it happens, I don't want to miss it.

Presidents who read books are over-rated, I'm looking forward to someone running the country where the last book they read was assigned to them in school. I think we dynamite Mount Rushmore and just build a Trump statue in its place from the rubble.

Comment Re: Trump is worse (Score 1) 255

You're condemning Trump for what he might do.

Sorry, how is that partisan? Where did I say that I oppose him because he chose to run as a Republican? Where did I call out party affiliation? Trump is probably the most non-partisan president we've had in a while, I'm judging him based on the person that he has spent decades showing that he is. I'm judging him based on the fact that he will be recorded saying something one day, and the next day just flat out denying that he ever said that. He has no problem lying at all, to anyone about anything. I'm judging him for his lack of transparency, the only transparent thing about him is his desire for more wealth. I'm judging him because he hasn't even been sworn in yet and he's already backing out of campaign promises. I'm judging him because he values loyalty to himself over ability. I'm judging him because he doesn't even let a simple insult go by without launching a Twitter attack against whoever said it. I wouldn't be surprised if he created a Slashdot account just to call me a loser. Sad! Maybe he'll be the best pussy-grabbing president we've ever had, but the reality is that he is the most disliked president going into his inauguration in at least 40 years, and he's the most disliked candidate in the history of presidential polling. Yeah, maybe he just hasn't shown us who he actually is, but I tend to think that he has. You realize that he paid the Clintons several hundred thousand dollars to be at his wedding, right, doesn't that make your little red blood boil?

Comment Re: Bradley Manning needs a HOSTS file (Score 1) 368

Yes there is. It's not a right-left test, but there's a near-perfect match between gender and specific neurological features. In a higher than expected number by chance, people who think they are mentally female are female in structural and functional studies. Likewise, people who believe themselves male have a male brain.

I try not to get too annoyed at dogmatic statements, but unless I specifically defer, I have a comprehensive archive of published literature from high-standing sources. Don't rip on me unless you know either my interpretation is wrong (it happens) or you plan on publishing a peer-reviewed rebuttal on each particular of relevance.

The first of those has happened a few times. Let's see if you can bring it up into double digits. Feel free, but remember that you're dealing solely with article facts and my interpretation. Where I used other sources, pick any peer-reviewed paper that covers the same basic aspect of brain development concerned (i.e. neuron type is indicated by chemical transmitter, it is not hardwired into the genome. Doesn't matter if it is the one I used or not. Falsify it. Better yet, falsify it and get the scientist or magazine to retract it for further work.

Ok, you should now be at the point where you accept the data sets I used. That just leaves two options. If the seat of the mind is in the brain, then a female brain must have a female mind, regardless of Y chromosomes, appendages and birty certificate.

The only other option is to falsify that, to argue that the mind is independent of brain. If you choose this, please choose to announce it at a medical school outside the brain surgery department after a very taxing practical, shortly before exams. Contrary views are nothing to worry about.

Finally,You can just let the basis be, the chain of reasoning be, but then you have to accept the conclusion.

Let me know your preference.

Comment Re: Trump is worse (Score 1) 255

Why do I care if Trump gets a deal for his scottish golf course? How is that wrong for me?

Depends what he offers them in exchange, doesn't it? Do you want higher taxes so that part of your tax money goes to Scotland to pay them so that Trump can have a bigger golf course? That's a pretty innocuous example, but it's pretty trivial to think up a litany of ways where Trump could use our money to advance his own personal interests. Or maybe he'll offer something instead of our money, maybe he'll draw back our military or any number of things. The point is that the president's loyalty should be to the country first, not his own interests. Trump has shown throughout his life that his image and his wealth are his first priority. I have no doubt that he would write himself a check for several billion dollars from the US treasury if he thought he could get away with it. He still hasn't released his tax returns, and he's still going to own his companies. That's not exactly starting out on the right foot.

Didn't the Clintons get about $100M richer through "public service?"

The majority of politicians do. Look at Mitch McConnell for a fantastic example. I personally think that anyone elected to a public office should be prohibited from investing in the stock market while they are in office, among other restrictions. Public service should be just that, it should not be a path to private enrichment. Like you mentioned, the founders envisioned a country where people would emerge from the private sector for public service, and after their service ends they return to the private sector. We have gotten away with that with the number of career politicians we have who go into politics and then look for ways to get rich through that system. Donald Trump is an extreme edge case of that problem. He's the unique (to us) person who has been chasing wealth, not political power, his entire life, and then decides to grab as much power as he can. We can argue about his motivations for doing that, but I don't think it's ridiculous to assume that one of his primary motivations is to use his political power to make himself even more wealthy, even if he does so at the expense of the country. I think that's a problem. He's chased wealth and the image of success his entire life, not political power. I don't think he's going to limit himself to expanding a golf course in Scotland when he has the entire US military at his command. Someone with the necessary motivation could make tens of billions of dollars for themselves personally through the power of the presidency, and I think that Trump has that motivation. I'm worried about what he's willing to sell in order to get that wealth. I'm worried that will include things that we will have a very difficult time trying to get back. All of this is specifically what that clause in the Constitution is supposed to prohibit. Him handing his companies to his kids does not satisfy that clause. Him promising to donate profits to the treasury is not worth the air he uses to profess it, this is a man who has not released tax returns or any level of transparency into his business relationships yet he wants to promise everyone that internal ethics reviews only and his own definition of what constitutes a profit, in addition to his assurance that he really did donate all of them to the treasury (pinky swear), absolves him of his duty to the Constitution. I'm not exactly willing to give him a huge benefit of the doubt about this. If you are, then you are a much more trusting person than I am, if "trusting" is the right word to describe that quality.

Trump is the only one even trying to avoid conflicts of interest with regards to personal profit in office.

No he's not. He's trying to avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest. If he actually wanted to avoid conflicts he would divest to a blind trust like many presidents before him have done.

you give zero credit to the one guy who even so much as pays lip service to not profiting off his office.

I give zero credit to the guy who only pays lip service and doesn't take even the most basic opportunities to be transparent about where his money comes from. I enthusiastically supported Bernie Sanders for the exact same reason why I oppose Clinton and now Trump too. From day 1 of his campaign Bernie was talking about the problem of money in politics. I am not a single-issue voter, but if I was that would be my issue, and Bernie was on it from day 1. So excuse me if I'm not going to turn around and offer to suck Trump's dick because he said that he's going to let his kids run his business that he still owns while he's president and has his daughter's husband as his official advisor. I don't see any solutions to the things which I think are major problems, all I see are new problems that we've never had to deal with before from a president.

Which tells me you don't actually give a shit about any of that, you just hate Trump and are looking for a way to undermine him.

Wow, yeah, look at how shrewd you are. You're so great at reading people. Can you tell how sarcastic I'm being right now or do you want me to spell that out for you?

If Hillary had got in you wouldn't give two shits about the Saudis and Qatar giving her Foundation millions of dollars to overthrow Assad so they can have their pipeline.

Oh, I wouldn't? Well, then why didn't I vote for her you fucking genius? You know so much about me, so tell me why I would rather get kicked in the balls than cast a vote for Hillary. Really, I want to hear what you fucking think about me, because I respect your opinion so goddamn much. There's not enough partisan bullshit going on in this country, let's hear some more from you. Make sure you read my signature, because it's about you.

Comment Re: Trump is worse (Score 1) 255

Trump has pledged no new foreign investments during his 8 years in office. Trump has also pledged to donate all foreign profits to the US Treasury.

That's what he and his lawyers said anyway, during the press conference they held and subsequent memos. That press conference was in response to people suggesting he is in breach, so they at least felt strongly enough to counter those claims with a press conference and some vague promises to do the right thing when the time comes. He's not just outright saying it's not an issue, which is telling. And there is still discussion about whether his lawyers' arguments are even correct. Moreover, it does not matter who controls the company, what matters is that Trump still benefits from the company and can influence things like whether or not governments invest in it, he can lobby Scotland to allow his golf courses to expand, etc. He can use his office for his direct personal benefit. Things get even more cloudy when his son-in-law is his advisor as president even while his daughter is negotiating on behalf of the company. There is a whole web of ways this can go wrong for us (not for him, for us). If he wants to avoid this kind of thing then he turns his company over to a blind trust, not his kids. It's laughable to even consider that turning his businesses over to his kids absolves him of this. That's what a blind trust is for.

They've been saying foreigners staying at a Trump hotel are giving him emoluments, when no, that is a fee for service.

That's not the issue, or at least not the biggest issue. The biggest issue is the fact that various foreign state-owned corporations have invested in his various businesses. Imagine if those earlier plantation-owning presidents had an agreement where Britain owned part of the plantation, or even a controlling interest, and they had leverage to directly benefit or harm the president. That's the kind of relationship that should be avoided.

would never dream that business owners should have to sell off their businesses in order to serve as president.

A blind trust is not selling. It is someone else who is making investment decisions without any input from you, and without telling you what they are doing. You are trusting them to manage the assets in an intelligent way where they will increase in value, and once the term of office ends you get it back.

during his 8 years in office.

That's a little optimistic.

Comment Re: Trump is worse (Score 1) 255

You're telling me that a payment or investment from a state-owned corporation is not considered to be a payment from the government? Tell me, oh constitutional scholar, where did you get your information?

from people who don't understand the Constitution or the political system

Oh, I don't understand the Constitution. So if China says to Trump "if you support our claims in the South China Sea and Taiwan, we will invest $10 billion to build and develop several new Trump hotels in China", then not only are you saying that is OK, but you're also saying that the people who wrote the Constitution didn't have that kind of thing in mind when they wrote the clause. That's what you're trying to argue? And that, since I think that they did plan for things like that and that they did try to outlaw that so that a president's loyalty to the United States could not be bought, then I don't understand the Constitution.

Comment Re: Trump is worse (Score 1) 255

Where in that clause says anything about owning businesses and removing control over them?

"Owning businesses" is not the problem, and hopefully you know that and aren't just being a hyperbolic turd. The problem is that several state-owned corporations, the money from which is considered to be a payment from a foreign government according to the emoluments clause, have ownership or other interests in various Trump businesses or properties (including the hotel in Washington DC, just a few blocks from the White House - that's a Chinese corporation in that case). Even if his kids have a controlling interest that is not enough to free him from the clause, because he and his family are still benefiting from payments from foreign governments. So he can either remove all of their interests in his business, turn all of his businesses over to a truly blind trust (not his kids), or resign. Any of those will satisfy the emoluments clause. But there's a problem when he has his daughter sit in on his meeting with Prime Minister Abe from Japan while she's also in the middle of negotiating a deal with a Japanese corporation with ties to the government, where Trump himself will directly benefit from that deal. There's a major problem with situations like that, and you can either educate yourself or just be a hyperbolic partisan idiot and instead shout about things that Clinton is or may have done, as if any of their shit has anything at all to do with whether or not Trump is in violation of the Constitution as soon as he takes the oath.

Comment Re:Why not name him? (Score 1) 122

If you assume an ex-prisoner will commit crimes again, your prison system isn't working.

At least in the U.S., it's a good bet that a criminal will re-commit. This may be a sign that the prison system isn't working, but it doesn't change the fact that we have a recidivism rate of over 50% in the first year after release alone.

That said, if we don't give "rehabilitated" convicts the benefit of the doubt after "paying their debt," we're pretty much guaranteeing that they'll have to return to crime. Convicts do need the ability to escape their criminal past.

Comment Re: Trump is worse (Score 1) 255

"The Trump Administration" is going to last a few months. Trump will decide that, instead of comply with the emoluments clause, he would rather keep all of his business interests and then he'll resign to avoid impeachment while claiming some sort of victory over haters, losers, etc. Then we'll have The Pence Administration.

Slashdot Top Deals

"I'm not afraid of dying, I just don't want to be there when it happens." -- Woody Allen