Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:No Problem Here (Score 4, Insightful) 270

The main issue I have is, No matter how much money is siphoned from the Western Economies (up to and including everything along with shutting down the economies) and provided to other nations, the UN or what ever scientific or world body.

First of all, nobody is "siphoning money" from the U.S. and shutting down its economy to give the spoilers to some filthy foreigners. That's something you made up after being overexposed to someone's fearmongering.

What we do for the next 30-40 years is going to determine the Earth's ultimate temperature for at least 10,000 years. History is closely watching what we're doing right now, and it's watching from farther in the future than you might be realizing. Long after WWII is a footnote of history like the Napoleonic or Punic Wars, the apathetic idiocy on this subject being expressed by the fools alive today- the few who saw it coming, had a chance to do something about it, and did nothing about it for bullshit reasons (like who might be "siphoning money")- will be analyzed for literally tens of thousands of years by all of those affected who will regard the few generations of people alive today as the most despicable generations in all of human existence.

Comment Re:Wait for the conspiracy (Score 1, Troll) 284

there's no evidence the Russian government had anything to do with it. There's only circumstantial evidence the attacks even came from Russian soil.

So there's no evidence, and there's circumstantial evidence. Whatever that means.

I can only surmise the media is pretending like it's a set-in-stone fact is because it helps the Democrats politically to be seen as the victims of foreign aggression and distracts from the embarrassing content of the leaks.

Your logic is basically this:

  • The Democrats are saying X is true.
  • If X is true then it would benefit the Democrats.
  • Therefore we can "surmise" X is false.

Since the media reporting this falsely, you "surmised"... that's proof I guess...

Trump has made it clear that he perceives NATO as some sort of protection racket

Isn't it, though?

No. It's a treaty, ratified by Congress (which means that abrogating it would be unconstitutional), that says if one member gets attacked, it will be treated as an attack on all of them and all will cooperate in a counterattack. The United States spends the largest amount on NATO only because it has unilaterally made it its own prerogative to spend more than half its budget on defense. If "we spend too much on NATO", then we can just cut our military spending. Telling Estonia "oh well, if Russia attacks you, you're on your own because you didn't pay up" not only encourages Russia to attack, it unravels any obligations other countries might have to help us if we get attacked (as they did in the Iraq War).

As far as nukes, Trump says he "isn't going to take cards off the table", whatever that means.

Of course not. I would never vote for someone who says they would categorically never use nukes, because that defeats the purpose of nukes as a deterrent if you've already sworn never to use them.

Do you think the nuke card should be taken off the table? Why?

If we "swear never to use them", which has been our position for the past 60 years, it's still pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that we will use them if someone launches a nuclear attack on us. There's a big difference between the card being on the table, and announcing to everyone that you've got this awesome nuke card that you might use under some new unpredictable circumstances. That just emboldens your enemies and frightens your friends.

Comment Re:Wait for the conspiracy (Score 1) 284

Are you suggesting Assange is misleading people with this hint because he's actually in league with the Russians?

(Are you clutching your pearls?) Sure he is. He has a lot to lose if she's elected (he's holed up in an embassy that he can't leave unless Trump wins) and he's the guy who runs Wikileaks. Whoever hacks the DNC- Russians or otherwise- is naturally going to go to him.

Is there anyone outside the DNC you don't think is on Putin's payroll?

Nobody is on Putin's "payroll". I don't see why anyone finds the idea that Russian black-hat hackers might be involved in this surprising- Russia is full of them, if you've noticed. (Who else would do it? You guys? I don't think so.) There's no complicity going on in Trump's side of this. There's nothing Trump is hiding. Everyone can read his tweets. Everyone can hear what he says. He's not encouraging Putin in secret, he does it out loud for everyone to see. Cooperation between Putin and Assange is perfectly consistent with both their own motives and with Trump's public statements.

Franky I don't see why it really matters whether Russia was involved in the hack at all. Even if it's true, I don't think it unearths anything that wasn't completely obvious to begin with.

Comment Re:Wait for the conspiracy (Score 2) 284

However, I don't know how they've determined that. The only analysis I've seen was from the private security firm hired by the DNC to investigate after the attack.

There are several reasons why you'd only hear from the DNC itself and not the U.S. government. From the New York Times:

The assessment by the intelligence community of Russian involvement in the D.N.C. hacking, which largely echoes the findings of private cybersecurity firms that have examined the electronic fingerprints left by the intruders, leaves President Obama and his national security aides with a difficult diplomatic and political decision: whether to publicly accuse the government of President Vladimir V. Putin of engineering the hacking.

Such a public accusation could result in a further deterioration of the already icy relationship between Washington and Moscow, at a moment when the administration is trying to reach an accord with Mr. Putin on a cease-fire in Syria and on other issues. It could also doom any effort to reach some kind of agreement about acceptable behavior in cyberspace, of the kind the United States has been discussing with China.

What the media's running with: Trump is a secret agent taking orders from Putin who personally haxx0red the DNC and if you don't elect Hillary Clinton then Trump is going to take orders from Putin and invade Europe and/or nuke everyone.

The general consensus seems to be that the Russians consider him a useful idiot, not a "secret agent". He obviously isn't going to take orders from Putin, and Putin won't need to give him any. Trump has made it clear that he perceives NATO as some sort of protection racket that he might abandon like a failing casino. (As far as nukes, Trump says he "isn't going to take cards off the table", whatever that means.)

Comment Re:Wait for the conspiracy (Score 3, Insightful) 284

Also, Assange has been hinting that the leak came from a DNC staffer, and not a hack at all.

Assange has had an extensive relationship with the Russian government. He's even hosted a television show on a Russian state-owned network. And he's made it quite clear that he wants her to lose.

The only people who benefit from the "Russian involvement" narrative is the DNC themselves.

And therefore it can't be true? What kind of logic is that?

Comment Re:Wait for the conspiracy (Score 1) 284

Who cares who did it. Look at the content of the e-mails. They show that the level of corruption, pay-to-play, lies, and other criminal behavior etc are immense.

Have you even looked at those emails? I wasted a few hours looking for good stuff and all I found was a snotty attitude toward Sanders.

Today I am much more willing to believe the 70+ people that have gone missing or died "mysterious" deaths days our hours before being scheduled to testify against Mrs. Clinton are not a coincidence.

I think you forgot to take your Risperdal last night.

Comment Re:Wait for the conspiracy (Score 1) 284

It seems sloppy that the little hints left behind would've been left behind in the first place.

Putin has nothing to lose if Russian involvement becomes known- it's obvious that Trump's supporters won't care anyway, since they clap and cheer whenever Trump says nice things about Putin and Russia.

He also doesn't seem to mind leaving his fingerprints on things. Ten years ago Alexander Litvinenko was a former member of the KGB who fled Russia after becoming a dissident and claiming that Putin's rise to power was a coup d'etat. He met at a hotel with some KGB agents in London who claimed to have information about a murdered Russian journalist. Shortly afterward he fell violently ill and had to be hospitalized. It turned out that his tea had been spiked with polonium 210. Now who the hell in the world could possibly have polonium available to poison people with? ("Who me? Nyet!")

Slashdot Top Deals

Real Users hate Real Programmers.