Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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

Comment Re:Total Coincidence (Score 1) 338

You have a weird model of investigations where someone needs to prove things before actually investigating. It may indeed prove that nothing can be found here. But the only way to know that is to actually examine facts. Declaring that there's nothing to be found without even looking just makes you look biased.

Anyhow, it's not as if we haven't seen pedos in places of power before. Here's a big list:

I'm not going to claim anyone is guilty of anything without proof. However, anyone who starts yelling and screaming for people to stop looking is just going to make themselves look more suspicious. You don't normally get well-connected media types to all jump on a story like this...

Comment Re:The litmus test (Score 1) 114

Also, what about CNN interviewing its own cameraman?

Or editing what people said to convey the opposite message?

Are these all accidents?

Anyhow, my point would be to look at the actual facts in a story (if any) and totally filter out the opinion and predictions. The source of facts doesn't matter, what really matters is whether they're verifiable or not. Trying to rebut facts with opinions doesn't work. It just makes that person look dumb. This does require more actual thinking, though.

Comment Re:I'd be more interested in locating real news... (Score 1) 338

You mean the ones that are today on Slashdot as more fake news that the WaPo got hit by? :) Where the project listed "partners" that had never even heard of it? The clickbait sites that nobody actually seems to have believed?

Comment Re:The litmus test (Score 1) 114

You assume, without evidence, that people actually believe clickbait. No, what people actually believe is when people present evidence. When they do real investigations, which have all but stopped for budgetary reasons.

And no, this wasn't an understandable wrong opinion. That was horribly, badly wrong by someone who should have known better. Given that it tended to cover up CNN's own misdeeds, I'm not having an easy time writing that off as a mere mistake. As someone else put it, "false exculpatory statements are used for what?"

Comment Re:What about that anti-Muslim video? (Score 1) 338

Ironically, thanks to the leaks we eventually found that they did have a report claiming that. Mind you--the report was later proven wrong--but they did have such a report.

Also the amount of crap they stored in Gmail that shouldn't have been makes me wonder just how long before Google takes over due to bad opsec.

Comment Re:Total Coincidence (Score 0) 338

Those articles barely touch what's been found and "debunk" claims people aren't making.

You can look here for an actual investigation, rather than an NYT or Snopes article that covers one or two items, ignoring the fact that the random images were on the owner's Instagram (now only existing in archives, imagine that).

Now I'm not going to say that he's a pedophile--that hasn't been proven and you won't find many people seriously claiming that. But there's a lot of damned suspicious stuff and people are still investigating.

You left off Wikipedia. Unless it's been edited since then (which is possible) it had barely any mention of it either. Infogalactic has the real info now. And is the Twitter replacement.

Comment I'd be more interested in locating real news.... (Score 1) 338

Care to explain which emails were fake? Because the last time someone did that they got educated in DKIM hashes, learned that yes, the DKIM hashes cover the body of the message, learned that there were actually multiple signatures on some of them, learned that the relevant keys were not revoked (and can still be found in DNS... as well as my post history, just in case), and essentially all the arguments were proven false thanks to the non-repudiation that DKIM offers.

Or maybe you relied on when CNN lied to us to tell us it was illegal to read wikileaks, helping to hide how they rigged the debate?

Or you think it takes state-level intelligence to hack Podesta when he fell for a stupid spear phishing scam claiming some random IP allegedly in the Ukraine had hacked in and followed the link to reset his Gmail password? Which is doubly-odd because Google never said anything about Russian hackers targetting anyone and they do actually warn targets about state-sponsored attacks whenever possible (usually this is China, though).

Submission + - How to View the SpaceX Falcon 9 Return to Flight at Vandenberg Air Force Base (

Bruce Perens writes: Silicon Valley folks should, sometime, take the opportunity to view a launch at Vandenberg Air Force Base. Lompoc is 4-5 hours from the Bay, 2.5 hours from LA if there's ever no traffic. An upcoming SpaceX launch is notable because it's their return to flight, months after their last attempt blew up on the pad during a pre-launch test. Read how to view the launch.

Comment Re: Less politics (Score 1) 110

Eich resigned because of external pressure on the Mozilla organization. I hear that one of the lobbying activities against him was when the dating site "OK Cupid" started informing Firefox users who accessed the site of Eich's activities and that they should download a browser made by people who don't nominate someone with gender discrimination issues to be their CEO. At the time, 8% of OK Cupid customers were there to arrange same-gender meetings.

They felt he was the public face of the company.

Russ Nelson published a piece on what he theorized was the economic motivation of Blacks to be lazy, and was booted off of the Open Source Initiative board. He wasn't thinking about how it would be perceived. A modified version of the piece is still online, but not the version that got him in trouble. In general, executives are seen as the public faces of their organizations even in the case of Nelson, who was not the chairman of the board, but was simply a member of the executive board. In Nelson's case, it wasn't that he made publicity appearances and press releases, it was that he was one of the people with the power to direct the company (and thus a more real face of the company than soneone who just does PR), and folks did not trust that someone who wrote what he did would behave as they would like in that position.

Comment Re:What's the big deal? (Score 2, Insightful) 234

Playboy departed the nude photo market due to the vast and unending supply of photos and video of all manner of naked people doing sexual things which one can access via the Internet.

However, one can make a case that a good deal of the past content of Playboy was about objectifying women and to some extent the publication still is about that.

It was a dumb decision. Several people just weren't thinking. They're embarrassed now. They learned, and won't do it again.

Comment Re: Less politics (Score 1) 110

It was only 1967 when the United States Supreme Court decided Loving v. Virginia, a miscegenation case. Preventing blacks and whites from marrying, as the State of Virginia (and many others) did with laws on its books until it was forced to remove them in 1967, is an issue of racism, nothing else. One doesn't have to be thin skinned to be disgusted by racism.

Why should I feel any different about gender discrminiation? Texas had a law on the book making homosexual relations illegal in 1998, and two men were arrested for it and similarly to Loving, helped to strike it down in the courts. Marriage discrimination is yet another legal wall erected by the prejudiced. Doesn't take a thin skin at all to oppose it and its supporters.

Comment Re: Less politics (Score 1) 110

Because you are an end-user and not an investor in these companies, you might actually think the public face of the companies is a logo or a trademark rather than a human being. Perhaps you think the public face of McDonalds is Ronald McDonald! Or that Sprint's used to be that actor who portrayed a technician. But this naiveté is not shared by the people who are the target audience for the public face that the CEO's appearances and quotations produce. AMD has people to handle the guy who once plugged one of their CPUs into a motherboard. The public face nurtured by the CEO is reserved for investors and business relationships, government, and corporate citizenship. These are all areas in which a decision made outside of the company can have great impact on the company. And so, if you go on the company site, you will see the CEO quoted in the press releases related to those items. At trade shows, you will see these CEOs as keynotes. I am heading for CES in January, where many CEOs you've never heard of who run large tech companies will be speaking, and there will be full halls of their eager target audiences.

Don't you think it might be self-centered to assume someone's not the public face of the company because you don't know who they are?

Slashdot Top Deals

"If truth is beauty, how come no one has their hair done in the library?" -- Lily Tomlin