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:"Tacit approval"? My nose! (Score 1) 185

Again your interpretation is contradicted by the first sentence of your source!

Read that again. Arranged the donation in 2014, this was started in 2013. I know, it's so out there...especially in context. Also re-read the first source, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt where you missed the important part.

Comment Re:"Tacit approval"? My nose! (Score 1) 185

Considering the stuff that's come out from leaked emails including stuff like Hillary knowingly ordering the destruction of data even after demands for the data under law? You can take the link as you want, it does have backlinks to all of the previous leaked emails, previous statements and so on. That means she/they was lying, ignored official requirements, or simply believe they're so big they can avoid prosecution. So that leaves us with: Either the FBI is incompetent, turned a blind eye, or someone was holding a sword over their head in recommending prosecution.

This isn't even touching the pay-for-play stuff including the 12m payment to the clinton foundation while she was still sec. of state for her to come speak to the king of morocco. Or the enlistment of journalists/columnists to attack political candidates using her talking points.

Comment Re: What's wrong with hate symbols? (Score 1) 379

Oh hey, I thought I was your favorite anti-democratic pro-fascist poster. I guess I'm only your second favorite now :(

Tell you what, I don't really have much time, so can you just make your usual claims about what I said then provide me with a long list of links, none of which actually contain anything relevant?

Well since I've never called you that, I'm sure you can cough up the links where I've labeled you that.

Sure, you want me to start with your anti-gamergate stuff, or the parts where you refuse to look at actual evidence of anti-gamergate people engaging in everything that you claim GG did. I mean you've got great company with this guy right here. Or do you want me to start with the stuff regarding twitter again that you refused to look at and ran away over?

Comment Re: What's wrong with hate symbols? (Score 2) 379

Oh boy! Everyone's favorite anti-democratic pro-fascist poster is back! I wonder if I can now count you as my own personal stalker.

Yes, expecting that people have different opinions and *not* attacking them is fascism for you. Good to see you're still so cowardly that in that same thread you haven't responded to anything else, while still claiming "I'm attacking people" when I show you the face of the modern left engaging in witch hunts. Perhaps you'd like another? Like this person who's also on the far-left, self-identifies as a SJW and openly advocating people and fire bombing business for having a different opinion.

Comment Re:Anita Sarkeesian: Destroyer of Shareholder Valu (Score 1) 313

Because a lot of people only like to hear what they want to hear. Twitter is a private company not a public service, there is no obligation to offer everyone a voice. Just like sports, religion, music, fashion or any other private venture, you create an ecosystem that you think customers want. You and I might think it's shit, but millions of others out there might think this sanitised version of Internet communication is great.

Correct partially. People enjoy listening to what they like to hear, however Twitter is a publicly traded company not private and is responsible to it's shareholders. Go listen to their last investors meeting, investors in general are livid with what the CEO has done to the company and brand.

Investors already know that the current CEO has significantly damaged the brand, possibly beyond repair. Some people though are in so deep that the only way to recover their buy in is for Twitter to sell to another company, but the CEO keeps fucking it up and the board doesn't seem to care. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if in 6mo that there's a shareholder revolt. So that goes all back to the original point, when you ban people because "reasons" it doesn't draw people in. Their number of active users continues to fluctuate between 288-315m but the number of new subscribers continues to fall through the floor. Which also reminds me of the shareholder lawsuit against them for purposefully misleading investors on future growth of users.

Comment Re:Gee (Score 1) 313

Ah OK, I see the problem now.

There's a gigantic stick up your ass, and you're so deep into it, that you don't even notice anymore.

Pretty modern hallmark of a regressive right there. Can't dispute anything, get's into a huff and stomps their feet instead of countering any point at all.

Comment Re:Games (Score 1) 59

Gaming has always been about the journey, the story helps. But that personal experience that gives you those warm feels is what has always made it. Ask any gamer the first time they stepped into the Fortress of Regrets and Deionarra shows up if they didn't feel something. Or their first play through of Mass Effect when you tell the fleet to come through. Even with older games there's going to be stuff you just remember and it's going to make you feel something.

But twitch? Cancer, the only service it provided was occasionally showing off new releases or people playing games before they were released in a review-like state. Now it's just camwhores and jackasses as far as the eye can see, they just put the nail into it when they decided to start arbitrarily banning games because it hurt some regressives feelings.

Comment So next year... (Score 5, Insightful) 212

So next year we'll be seeing the stats that piracy is increasing again since hollywood and so on decided that region locking was a really good idea. I know of quite a few people here in Canada who've simply cancelled their netflix subs, kept the VPN and now pirate everything like they did a few years ago.

Comment Re:Gee (Score 1) 313

I clarified one ridiculous strawman, I didn't ask for you to spam us with even more of them.

No, actually you didn't. You refuted nothing, countered nothing, and believe that my response was a quick and easy attack. If anything, your original comment was a strawman, since you took things that were contextually inaccurate, factually inaccurate, wrapped it into a nice bundle and made it into a statement as a means of attack without refuting the actual substance of the original.

You really seem like the type of person who just needs to calm down, take a deep breath, and look at how crazy you're acting.

Pointing out that there's a group of people that are directly impacting basic freedoms is crazy. Gotcha, that makes plenty of sense. You wanna go hit up the University of Toronto and soap-box that there are two genders for example? Remember we have free medical care here in Canada, with luck you won't be violently assaulted.

Obviously, some left-wing person has annoyed you at some point, or maybe several such persons. But you're conflating the actions of a very small group of people, to include everyone you disagree with.

Well I can agree largely with your last sentence, it's a very small group of people. So how is it that this very small group of people are having such a negative effect on society and culture at large? Or are you saying that said effects aren't negative or are you saying that their actions aren't having an effect on society. Such as their attacks on expression, speech, public and private opinion. That universities for example now aren't shying away from subjects that could "upset students" or outright ban people who have opinions to the contrary because of "security concerns." Or do those count as just minor inconveniences because they haven't effected you yet?

Slashdot Top Deals

"With molasses you catch flies, with vinegar you catch nobody." -- Baltimore City Councilman Dominic DiPietro