Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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

Comment Re: News for Nazis (Score 1) 1303

I think less of people like you because you watched an adult mock a disabled person in front of a crowd and still supported him.

I don't believe you.

Then I have a bridge to sell you because the fact he was mocking the disability is really, really, really obvious.

Just because you like Trump doesn't mean you need to defend every obvious lie he makes.

Comment Re:Not impulsive at all (Score 1) 1303

It amazes me that people continue to believe Trump is impulsive. There's nothing impulsive about anything Trump does; it's all extremely calculated. If I didn't know better I was say the press were in collusion to spread that myth in order to make people underestimate Trump, but as usual Occam's razor applies and the press are just full of idiots.

And you think this because he won, likely due to a very poorly timed announcement from the FBI, against the second most unpopular candidate in history while still losing the popular vote by 3 million.

And now he's going into office with by far the lowest inauguration approval rating in history and a transition that's massively behind schedule because he purged his first transition team (not to mention his first two campaign managers).

If that's all calculated I'd hate to see him screw up.

Comment Re:Just a few weeks from being sworn back out. (Score 1) 1303

For those that don't know what that is, here is the entirety of the text of that clause

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

Trump is NOT in violation of this clause. And it is a hillarious claim coming from anyone that voted for Hillary, who would have been actually in violation of this clause, with the Clinton Foundation.

Whether Trump is in violation is debatable just because it's so hard to figure out what a proper violation would be.

But Hillary didn't accept gifts from foreign states, her foundation did (which did not personally profit her).

Also, I believe she said she would shut down the foundation (or at least drastically curtailed it) as every President who has significant outside interests has done, other than Trump.

If Trump wants to be President he has to sell his company. I'm sorry if he'll become slightly less rich as a result, if he wasn't prepared to do the job he shouldn't have run.

Comment Re:already exceeding expectations (Score 2) 1303

As a European (from Finland, and a Hitchensian socialist and anti-theist), I've felt the policies of secretary of state Clinton on my daily life, and am convinced she's a warmonger.

Clinton believes in using American power to improve the world. Her main difference between Obama on this count is that she was less sceptical of what the US could accomplish. I'm honestly not sure who was right. Libya isn't doing great, but they could have been Syria.

Her Iraq war vote isn't really evidence of anything other than the fact that she was a politician who knew which way the winds were blowing.

I haven't gotten that vibe from Trump. If anything, he won't meddle in middle eastern conflicts trying to change governments, and seems in good terms with the greatest nuclear power after the USA. So in terms of nuclear war, or regional wars, I think we'll be better off.

Again, I'm saying this as someone who's not a US citizen, nor do I share the American culture or history in any way. I'm looking out for the interests of my family and me, and am glad Hillary isn't president.

Then I don't think you've been paying attention very closely.

1) Trump was initially for all of these conflicts he now claims to have opposed.
2) Trump's base is traditionally very assertive of American power, they're not as interested in a humanitarian motivated intervention (Libya), but they'll enthusiastically go after anyone who challenges American power (Iraq or Iran).
3) Trump has been talking tough on Iran and talking about scrapping the deal that eased relations and halted their Nuclear weapons program.
4) Trump has noticeably weakened NATO commitments, regional actors like Russia are a lot more likely to try pushing into Eastern Europe as they did in Ukraine on the chance the US won't assist.
5) Trump is notoriously this skinned and retaliatory, how will he react if it's China or Russia instead of SNL?
6) Trump is very unpredictable and sees international relations as zero-sum, that's an easy way to create a lot of easily escalated conflicts.

Comment Re: News for Nazis (Score 1) 1303

No, I think Palestine should have taken the Two State solution offered by Israel a few years ago, but refused and went on a rampage over it.

The problem is, you think that Palestine wants a two state solution, and they don't. It has been offered, repeatedly, and they keep refusing.

And I wonder why you don't mention the Palestinians "Illegally" launching rockets into Israel. Or the time that Israel pulled its settlements out of Gaza, only to have them turned into rocket launching sites. I'm talking functioning industry and farms being walked away from and turning back into desert because ... Palestinians don't want anything the Jews had built.

Palestinians are functionally incapably of peace at this time.

How do you expect the Palestinians to be capable of peace while Israel is actively stealing land from ordinary Palestinians and giving it to Jewish Settlers?

Committing indefensible outrages against a population is an excellent way to turn that population to violence.

Israel is pursuing exactly the policy you'd expect they the leaders really wanted to kill the two-state solution with a bit of deniability.

Comment Re:If they're smart... (Score 3, Informative) 188

Yes...yes he is. And his opponent wasn't a boring public servant. She's a traitor, a habitual liar, incompetent, self-serving, and saggy-boobs deep in pay-for-play.

Think on that. We elected an IDIOT because he's better than the alternative. If he gets our soldiers killed or sells us out, it'll be because he's dumb and incompetent, not because he's sleazy and malicious.

At least with him, there's a chance.

No you elected an idiot because you are an idiot.

Clinton had flaws, but none of the things you mentioned were among them (with the possible exception of your weirdly sexist comment about her breasts).

Comment Not worth the hassle at home (Score 2) 364

The problem is that 3D, when it's done well, is an enhancement to the experience, but not an essential part of it.

In the theatre they hand you a pair of 3D glasses when you come in, you sit down silently facing straight forward to watch the movie, and then you drop the glasses in the box on your way out. The 3D is worth while because it's really convenient to do.

But at home? You need to find the glasses when you want to watch 3D, then you need to move around to make sure the viewing angle is right, then you need to take the glasses on or off when you wander around to do something else, then at the end you need to find a place to store the glasses again.

The enhanced experience just isn't worth the hassle.

Comment Re:That's what we call a buying opportunity. (Score 1) 161

Wait for Trump to say something stupid that knocks a chunk of money off of a stock, wait a few hours for it to crash, buy low, and sell it after a week when the price rebounds. Once again, the ultra-wealthy with their high-frequency traders get richer, and normal people's retirement funds get poorer....

Unless that tweet turns into a punitive regulatory action, then you've just lost a chunk of your savings.

Assuming dumb mistakes on the part of professional investors is a very good way to lose money.

Comment Re:liar (Score 1) 540

How could you possibly interpret his statement like that? He supported the exposure of corruption when it was exposing corruption *with an even hand*. Once the exposure was applied only to one side of a partisan contest, it became insupportable.

Why bother making such ridiculous strawman statements? It's obviously not what the OP thinks. I doubt it's even what you think. It won't convince more than a handful of readers. What was the point?

Wait, what? If you don't expose all corruption then don't expose any? All this hand-waving about even-handedness is just an end-run around the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that WL had any evidence of corruption on Trumps part.

Besides, the media didn't treat the elections with an even hand, so why do you expect anyone else to?

Would Trump be in power without Wikileaks? Very unlikely.

Is a Trump administration more corrupt than a Clinton one would have been? Very likely.

How can this be? Exposing corruption from both sides is fighting corruption. But exposing corruption from only one side, particularly the less corrupt side, empowers the corrupt.

It's actually one of the favourite tactics of repressive governments, the corrupt regime gets dirt on the less corrupt opposition and uses it to discredit them. Putin used it in Russia to cripple the oligarchs who opposed him, and Hoover used it the US to fight the civil rights movement.

There was always a risk that Wikileaks could be unwittingly manipulated this way, the reason I'm so disgusted with Assange is he's been manipulated wittingly.

Comment Re:What Clinton did (Score 2) 540

Lying under oath to Congress IS illegal, and she did it.

So did Trump's nominee for Secretary of State.

I won't bother going through the rest of your items, but almost every single one is either false or something that's been done by high profile member of the incoming administration.

If you want to throw Clinton in jail you're going to run into some serious issues of double standards.

Comment Re:Strange Logic (Score 2) 270

You are, of course, correct, but still, he's showing leniency to a criminal and letting a hero continue to be on the hook.

Manning stood trial and served an unusually harsh punishment due to her transgender condition. And while her leaks were politically damaging (and did put the lives of sources in danger) she didn't impair the functioning of the security apparatus.

Snowden fled the country and took up residence with two rival powers. His leaks also exposed a lot of the NSA's surveillance apparatus and really set back their ability to gather legitimate intelligence (while of course exposing a lot of wrong-doing).

I'm personally ambiguous on both, they both exposed a lot of wrong-doing, but at the same time caused a lot of collateral damage. Either way I can understand why someone can be in favour of commuting Manning's sentence while continuing to pursue the capture of Snowden.

Comment Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score 4, Insightful) 792

I'm not sure how I feel about this. If it was my estimation that the two political parties were more interested in what is best for America, rather than just winning their ideological war, this would hold more weight for me.

Snowdon seems the logical "other pardon". Not sure I'd like that to happen. Would prefer a trial where he would be allowed to make his case. Manning wasn't afforded that opportunity either.

Neither case is at the instigation of a foreign government. So the issues need to be gone through in an open court so the country can understand the issues. And legally decide whether a crime was committed, or these were justified acts done by patriots.

I wouldn't be shocked if Trump pardoned Snowden, it would make Russia look good by justifying their harbouring of Snowden and it's just the sort of PR splash/distraction that Trump loves.

Not sure about Assange though, Trump's lovefest with Wikileaks will come to a very quick end if they ever dump something that he wants hidden. In fact, aiding the election of someone who's campaigned on the vilification of the press may be one of the more short-sighted things that Assange has done.

Comment Re:There are Pros and Cons (Score 1) 52

The one issue with an edit button is I find it really common to edit a FB post within 5 minutes of making it. Either because I noticed a typo, I decided to change my wording or tone, or I forgot that enter == submit.

But afterwards when a lot of people have read and even replied to it... I think edits should be labelled. Otherwise you just end up confusing people who clearly remember "a" but are now seeing "b".

Slashdot Top Deals

Machines have less problems. I'd like to be a machine. -- Andy Warhol