Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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

Comment Re:Joke ? (Score 1) 996

Taking your guns away once again, I assume?

I certainly don't like her or her party's posture on dismantling the second amendment, no, or her disregard for several of the others. But I was referring specifically for her contempt for the first amendment. That should bother you, too. It's especially funny, though, given how she collects her family's millions in cash.

couple thousand Syrian women and children fleeing

There's lots to talk about that's actually real - why would you just plain lie about something so transparently false? A "couple thousand?" Really? That's how you describe the millions of people who are displaced by the conflict in Syria? Did you actually think that nobody else is the slightest bit informed, and that trotting out such nonsense would somehow score you some rhetorical points with especially low-information idiots? What were you thinking, exactly? Fascinating.

your stupid war

You meant the war between Assad and his own citizens who tried to get rid of him? Or the war between groups like ISIS and those in Syria who don't want to live under orthodox Islam or die because they don't? Is that the war you're thinking of? Yes, it would be much less of a conflict if Obama and Clinton hadn't made it worse, but it's not "our" war that people are fleeing by the hundreds of thousands. It's ISIS's war, and Assad's muddled mess that now includes Russian involvement.

And if you're so obtuse that you can't wrap your head around the fact that the US's immigration problems include an essentially unprotected border across which thousands of illegals regularly flow, a train wreck of an H1-B system, and huge numbers of people abusing our visa system, then please don't bother talking about it, because you're being willfully ignorant and are thus unable to say anything constructive until you gather some information into your head.

As for "dictating where iPhones can be manufactured" - please. Are you really going to pretend you're so uninformed that you can't understand that his point is to illustrate how poorly we (as a country, under the current administration) are handling trade relationships that we're getting screwed by countries like China that abuse that relationship? You don't "dictate where iPhones can be manufactured," you put in trade, tax, and banking policies that make China's corrupt, poisonous, currency-manipulating, repressive, territory-grabbing circumstances less appealing to companies like Apple.

And your attempt to paint a nice, sweet picture of Clinton by trotting out an example of how state, local, and even federal government thirst for tax revenue makes for perverse incentives when it comes to eminent domain (which is asked for thousands of times a year by everyone from parking lot contractors to farmers to classic real estate developers) ... remarkable. Your deliberate, willful, faux ignorance about the corruption and lies that are part of your preferred candidate's entire career would be funny if the stakes weren't so high.

Comment Re:No, you said I had no other arguments (Score 1) 126

You came in here talking shit about me & my program, so I CRUSHED YOU ON THAT MUCH + the fact YOU CANNOT SHOW YOU'VE DONE BETTER YOURSELF for giving users more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity online (but I can & have using what they already NATIVELY have that does more for less)... apk

In other words, the same tired argument you always try to trot out. Face it man, you're a spammer and if people don't want to use your software then they have alternatives. It's really that simple. No one deserves to be hounded and trolled by you for not wanting to use software that they see advertised in spam. And I didn't talk shit about your program, or you for that matter, I only pointed out that you were a spammer and that people don't need to use software published by spammers. Those are factual statements, not shit talking. I've already covered all of this, you keep going in circles, I have no desire to continue repeating myself. I'm sure you'll just continue to troll my other comments and continue to declare victory in your 1-player game (again, specifically and exactly what I predicted), but I have no desire to continue a discussion that only goes in circles.

Comment Erroneous assumption (Score 1) 251

The assertion that "crimes aren't being solved because we can't hack suspects phones" is based on the unproven assumption that the suspects were stupid enough to leave information that could convict them on their phones in the first place. Until you actually access all the data on the phone, you don't know whether or not that is true, do you? For all the DA knows, all these people he wants to crack the phones of are innocent!

Comment Re:This is NOT a matter of trademark violation (Score 2) 242

Not necessarily. Take a look at the relevant portion of the Lantham Act. It would have to fit one of the provisions therein. It might make a false suggestion of affiliation, but it's arguable.

15 U.S.C. 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden

(a) Civil action

(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which

(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or

(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities,

shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.

Comment Re:I'm on topic w/ my solution that works (Score 1) 126

You're off topic

No I'm not, I responded to a suggestion that someone should use your program with a series of alternatives. Then I predicted that you were going to show up and start trolling. Then you showed up and started trolling. And here we are.

You know all about trolling. Maybe you should go troll the other comments I'm posting and then talk about how you're on topic, not a troll, and not a spammer. Because when you're jacking off some 4 year old kid while yelling that you're not a child molester it totally makes sense.

Wait, what's that? You're claiming victory again? In a game that only you're playing? What are we up to now, have you proven me right 12 times in one thread? I've lost count.

Let's make it one more time, APK. Keep digging that hole, you're not done yet.

Comment Re:Who cares..?? (Score 2) 691

The way the system is designed in the US it strongly favours a bi-party state.

At this point it's actually self-perpetuating. The Democratic and Republican parties created the Commission on Presidential Debates, and the billionaire Perot has been the only non-member of the two parties to appear in a prime-time televised debate. The Ds and Rs enforce their agenda by blacklisting any media outlet that shows a debate featuring a candidate from any other party, and the parties have enough contacts in the media which they are in bed with that threats of political boycotts of those media outlets also mean that they can stop media outlets from even reporting on other candidates. The leaked DNC emails show some of that collusion, DWS was on the phone with the head of MSNBC after one of their on-air personalities dared to suggest that DWS should step down as the chair for favoring Clinton. The parties are in bed with the media, and all together they effectively block any other party from gaining any significant following.

You can see it here too, there are plenty of people who are very happy to tell people that voting for another party is a waste of a vote (it's not), or it helps one of the major parties (it only helps the party you vote for), etc. That's the stranglehold that needs to be broken. This election is so far the most likely that I've seen for the general public to ask questions like why aren't Gary Johnson or Jill Stein allowed in the televised debates. The answer will naturally be some arbitrary thing like "they haven't reached X% of support, therefore they aren't included", even though it's obviously circular reasoning (they haven't reached the support because they aren't included). Gary Johnson is on the ballot in all 50 states, clearly it's possible for him to reach the 270 electoral votes necessary to win, so why would they shut him out? So that you only hear their own voices. Jill Stein is on the ballot in 23 states but it looks like she probably also has access to 270 electoral votes, or she's really close. Both parties should be part of the debates, and let the 50% or more of Americans who don't identify as either a Democrat or Republican decide who best represents them.

Comment Re:Joke ? (Score 2) 996

Should espionage and violation of national security for political gain ever be something joked about by a major party Presidential candidate?

So instead of the candidate who made an already-made-several-times-by-other-people joke, you prefer the candidate who looks you in the eye and knowingly, deliberately, repeatedly lies to you about her handling of matters related to espionage and national security? Why?

Comment This is NOT a matter of trademark violation (Score 1) 242

You violate a trademark if you mis-represent a good or service as that of the trademark holder. And it has to be in the same trademark category that they registered. Having a trademark does not grant ownership of a word, and does not prevent anyone else from using that word. Use of a trademark in reporting and normal discussion is not a violation.

Comment Re:Joke ? (Score 3, Insightful) 996

As opposed to waiting six months at a time for Clinton to even hold a press conference (it's been that long - that's how scared she is of her own supporting media) and then knowing, based on years of examples, that quite a bit of what she says are bald-faced lies? And, you're not scared of HER scary proposals? She's gleefully in favor of infringing on constitutionally protected rights, supports nationally self-destructive immigration policies, and wants to see the government involved in wildly more private sector activities, at both the business and personal level. She also "says a ton of things," but because it's done in that focus-group-tuned, calculating Clinton way, it's actually a lot more sinister.

Comment Re:The basest, vilest (Score 1) 996

That's pretty much my take on it as well. Yes, at some point even Hillary would have to admit that mistakes were made (by her), which may cast doubt on her judgement. But nothing she has done that we actually have any credible evidence of rises to the level of justifying time in a federal prison. Probably something closer to fines for mishandling of classified material. As far as Benghazi, I don't follow the logic of holding one person solely responsible for the safety of all State Department staff, and giving everyone else a complete pass. Could she have done better? Yes. Does this disqualify her to be president? No, no more than Trump's draft dodging disqualifies him to be president.

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (8) I'm on the committee and I *still* don't know what the hell #pragma is for.