Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



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

Comment I don't think that's what he did. (Score 1) 957

So you don't think the Republican candidate for the Presidency of the US inviting a foreign power, one that is at the best of times in a rather tense relationship with the United States, to hack into US systems just to gain dirt on the other party's nominee is reasonable?

It's obvious to a native speaker of English (who isn't astroturfing the Democrats' talking points) that Trump was NOT inviting the Russians to initiate a new crack on his opponent's servers.

He was ribbing his opponents, and keeping their lax security (and their "The Russians are aiding him!" attempt at distraction) in the public eye, by pointing out that the Russians probably ALREADY have the emails that Clinton's people "can't find", and inviting them to dig them out of their own archives and provide them to investigators and/or the press.

People claiming he is inviting new espionage don't just look foolish. They also play into his hands, by keeping the issue in the face of prospective voters.

But feel free to continue. B-)

Comment Re:Why not? (Score 1) 957

In context, with Trump denying the DNC hack was Russia trying to help Trump out, yes, this one can be seen as a very obvious joke. Just because he frequently makes horrific statements doesn't mean he doesn't occasionally also make jokes.

I don't think he's ever claimed that the wall comment was a joke. I don't think he ever will.


    • <quote> <dl> <dt>.<dd>..
      <br/>
      </dl></quote>

      .

Comment Re:Why not? (Score 0) 957

He was making a f---ing joke. He has brushed off the notion that Russia was doing the hacking in the first place. He made the comment at a press conference intending to ridicule the concept, not via a semi-secret text message to Vladimir Putin.

I'm no Trumpist, I mean, I'm going to vote for Hillary Clinton in November and you have NO IDEA how little I want to do that, but I'm in Florida, so my vote may make a difference between Trump or Clinton, and Trump really is THAT BAD. But, in this one instance, the collective left and political establishment has lost their minds, and apparently their sense of humor.

Comment Re:From where does the FAA get power to regulate i (Score 1) 44

Having a patchwork assembly of differing state and local regulations and restrictions to follow while in the air would absolutely affect interstate commerce. There's really no good rational argument against that.

Yet we have just such a patchwork assembly of differing state and local regulations and restriction to follow while on the roads: Speed limits and rules for setting them, turn restrictions, stop and yield sign placement, various rules of the road and its amenities (turn-on-red, where - if at all - U-turns are legal, lane-change frequency restrictions, lane restrictions on trucks (and no-truck routes), passing on the right, maximum durations at rest stops and activity there (such as sleeping or cooking over a fire), and a host of other rules - not to mention their enforcement) all vary from state to state.

It's dependent on each state's government(s) to pass the individual regulations. Yes, there's a lot of standardization, and following federal rules. But the federal rules are followed voluntarily when it's in a state's interest, enforced as a condition of federal funding for construction and maintenance of roads bearing US or Interstate route designations, or encouraged by federal blackmail composed of the withholding of the state's share of funds gathered by the federal gasoline taxes.

Any argument that flying at all is interstate commerce goes double for driving - where long-haul trucks, passenger cars, and even bicycles and pedestrians share common roads. So why does the Federal government have to blackmail the states into legislating their way for regional and local roads, yet can claim it has the right to totally control flight, not just of interstate traffic and/or at interstate altitudes or in the glidepaths around federally-funded airports, but of battery-powered gadgets, with range far to limited to reach a state border from most parts of a state, lighter than the average dog, and all the way down to the grass in your back yard?

Comment Re:From where does the FAA get power to regulate i (Score 1) 44

Where does the FAA claim it gets the power to regulate drones which are only engaged in INTRA-state commerce and flying too low to interfere with interstate air traffic? Seems to me that's the state's job

From 49USC app 1301 - the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 ...

No, no, no. Not what I meant.

From where in the Constitution, in the face of the 10th Amendment and Norton v. Shelby County 118 U.S. 425 (1886), does the Federal Government's Congress claim to get the power to delegate to such an executive branch agency?

Comment From where does the FAA get power to regulate it? (Score 1) 44

I'm curious:

Where does the FAA claim it gets the power to regulate drones which are only engaged in INTRA-state commerce and flying too low to interfere with interstate air traffic? Seems to me that's the state's job.

(Similarly with the FCC and radio signals that are too weak to be decoded outside the state of origin or substantially interfere with reasonable interstate services. Sure "radio goes on forever". But so does sound - with the same inverse-square law and similar interference characteristics - and we get along just fine without federal regulation of speech and bullhorns.)

Comment Re:Working with? [Re:well well well] (Score 1) 767

You just tiptoed up to a point that I think is most interesting.

Why would we assume the Russians would do this to support Trump, instead of the candidate who is a self proclaimed socialist, on the eve of his last logistical chance of getting the nomination, who was the one who was directly hurt by the exposed actions?

Now I might have my reasons but to take this question one step further, why would Hillary or the DNC assume this was to help Trump and not Bernie?

Comment Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse (Score 1) 767

I believe "editing" in this context meant "Deciding what emails to publish", not "Changing the content of the published emails", so the DNC releasing the originals wouldn't help.

Wikileaks have made it clear they haven't altered the content of the emails, and the fact real phone numbers and blameless people's names appear in the emails would seem to confirm that (If it turned out they were altered, but Wikileaks left in people's phone numbers, that'd be a spectacular PR own-goal on WL's behalf.)


    • .

      . .

Comment Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse (Score 1) 767

WikiLeaks has shown great interest in anti-US material, and comparatively very little interest in anything that disparages Russia

I agree with much of what you say but this line is just silly. We all know that Putin's Russia is a corrupt, barely democratic regime with a autocratic strongman in charge (an ex-KGB boss no less.)

Leaking evidence that they're terrible would be a waste of time.

Also add to this that Assange is Wikileaks, and Assange has spent the last few years holed up on an embassy in an environment which would be stressful and intimidating even for someone not considered persona-non-Grata by some of the most powerful countries in the world. It's not hard to believe he'd be far more interested in the machinations of a political party whose leadership currently holds the Presidency of the country most likely to lock him in a dungeon for the rest of his life, than memos at a poisoned tip umbrella company owned by Vladimir Putin.

Slashdot Top Deals

System checkpoint complete.

Working...