Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



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

Submission + - Wasserman Schultz won't Speak at Dem Convention After Wikileaks Revelations (cnn.com)

HughPickens.com writes: CNN reports that the head of the Democratic National Committee will not speak at the party's convention next week, a decision reached by party officials Saturday after emails surfaced that raised questions about the committee's impartiality during the Democratic primary. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, whose stewardship of the DNC has been under fire through most of the presidential primary process, will not have a major speaking role in an effort "to keep the peace" in the party, a Democrat familiar with the decision said. The revelation comes following the release of nearly 20,000 emails. One email appears to show DNC staffers asking how they can reference Bernie Sanders' faith to weaken him in the eyes of Southern voters. Another seems to depict an attorney advising the committee on how to defend Hillary Clinton against an accusation by the Sanders campaign of not living up to a joint fundraising agreement.

Comment Re:Always been doing it (Score 5, Interesting) 106

So since you are hearing ads (and I'm assuming you a relatively young anonymous coward) you would rather hear irrelevant ads shilling restless leg syndrome aids VS cheap flights to cancun?

Can't speak for the AC, but if I can't avoid corporate mind control (a.k.a. advertising) entirely I'd like it to be as mistargeted as possible. Facebook sometimes seems to think I'm in Sri Lanka or Laos and sends me ads I can't read, that's perfect.

Comment 100% chance of bullshit (Score 4, Informative) 140

This "study" doesn't even appear to make any comparison to the loss of life and property from reduced electrical power output from taking these nuclear power plants off line or any comparison to the loss of life and property from producing the electricity from sources other than nuclear power. The reason they do not do this is obvious to anyone that has seen the death rates to energy produced for the energy sources in common use.

Nuclear power is the safest energy source we have available to us.

This is a bunch of fear mongering which serves only to make future deployment of nuclear power more expensive and therefore cause more deaths. Again, nuclear power is the safest form of energy we have and therefore anyone that opposes nuclear power is lobbying for more people to die.

Here's another thing, when it comes to our "carbon footprint" there is nothing that produces more energy with less carbon in the air than nuclear power except hydro. We've run out of rivers to dam up so if we want to even maintain the energy output we have now and not increase our carbon footprint then we need to build more nuclear power plants. If global warming is going to kill us all, and even assuming this "study" has even a grain of truth to it, then the answer is more nuclear power.

Anyone that claims man made global warming is a problem and opposes nuclear power is either completely ignorant or completely stupid.

Comment Re: XBox 1: jumped shark, shark ate it (Score 1) 108

Bullshit, eh? Do you remember MechAssault? One of the most popular games for the XBox. Online community, many-person gaming via the XBox live servers, worked very well without anything even remotely resembling this kind of hurry-up-and-wait nonsense. Even downloads of new terrain and/or game types (which you chose to do) weren't much of a challenge. The Live interface was much easier to use, too. It was mostly about gaming, not about trying to turn the machine into some kind of Rube Goldberg nightmare.

Next, why should I want to leave a multiplayer game disconnected from the network?

Your position is either that I shouldn't be able to multiplayer-game, or that it's justified that if I do, Microsoft puts a huge time and convenience penalty on the experience, or that there is no significant inconvenience. I don't buy any of those arguments.

Sorry, I've seen the many-hours of no-gaming downside. It's real. It sucks. Not interested.

And hey, did you know MechAssault and MechAssault II both still work offline? I mean, hell, if I have to stay offline in order to keep Microsoft from ruining my day, I might as well do it with one of the most awesome games they ever produced. :)

Comment XBox 1: jumped shark, shark ate it (Score 4, Insightful) 108

No. I've seen the XBox one in action. Hours for updates, insert game, hours more for updates... it's a terrible system.

Sticking with the older gear. Because you can actually play a game when you stick a disk in.

The console makers have completely lost sight of the customer.

Comment Re:Probably Trump (Score 1) 180

Tell me, why do you want to encourage the election participation of people who are too irresponsible to come up with $35* every five years? Is it because your platform sells well with people who can't think past tomorrow?

I'm a conservative, so encouraging poor people to vote actually hurts my party goals.

The problem is that I'm also a staunch defender of rights, and I feel that everyone should be allowed to vote as a right, and not some based on some arbitrary cutoff of responsibility.

[...] but go ahead and keep making the case that it's absolutely vital that people too stupid to get an ID every 5 years should be encouraged to vote.

To quote Malcom Reynolds: "who will speak for these people?"

They can speak for themselves. I stated above I'm fine funding programs that pay for the expenses associated with getting ID's.
If you're against voter ID you're pro-fraud. End of story. You can make any excuse you like (and toss in some claims about being conservative, too).
I see no reason to believe anyone who is making the same arguments as the administration, what with it's star liars Gruber, Rhodes, and the chosen successor Clinton.

Comment Re:Probably Trump (Score 0) 180

Getting an ID costs money in the US, so requiring an ID puts more strain on the poor than the working class.

The annual fee for a drivers license is around $35, a state-issued ID is around $30, and a passport costs $100.

When you're poor, that $35 could pay for 7 meals frugally made.

Social security cards are given out and replaced at no charge, but aren't generally accepted as an ID because they lack pictures.

Tell me, why do you want to encourage the election participation of people who are too irresponsible to come up with $35* every five years? Is it because your platform sells well with people who can't think past tomorrow?

I'm kidding, of course. We all know you're actually interested in promoting electoral fraud, and covering for that fraud with any available argument. Some studies have shown that minority voter participation actually goes up with ID laws- maybe they have more faith that their vote means something- but go ahead and keep making the case that it's absolutely vital that people too stupid to get an ID every 5 years should be encouraged to vote.

*I'd actually be fine funding programs to help people obtain proper ID in order to negate this line of thinking.

Comment Re:Probably Trump (Score 4, Insightful) 180

"There's a ton of voter fraud in the US, and the only reason it stays anywhere near fair is because the winner wins by more than the margin of fraud."

Which makes me wonder why a political party would work so hard to commit fraud. Are they so afraid that the people are so opposed to what they stand for that they cannot win by compromise? The art of compromise is an entrenched aspect of our political system. One might argue that every law ever passed is due to the art of compromise.

Let's assume that these people do get the people they want in office by fraud. Do they expect this to continue indefinitely? In a less connected world it may have been possible to win with fraud by small margins and get away with it. Now we have polling with considerable accuracy. People can communicate with an ease and speed that has been unheard of before.

For such fraud to go unnoticed it must be at such a small margin that it can be explained away by a margin of error. If that margin is that small then would not the energy expended on fraud be better spent on making their case to the people? Or, compromising on small matters that people vote on so that larger matters can go their way?

"Voter restrictions of various stripe tend to affect poor and minorities more than other groups. Those groups typically vote Democratic."

Everything in life affects the poor and minorities disproportionately. That's effectively the definition of what it means to be poor and/or a minority. That does not mean we should make elections in a way that they are open to fraud. I believe that it makes a case to make elections as fair as possible. If the poor and minorities want to make sure that their vote counts then they should want to know that their vote counts just as much as any other vote.

What party they vote for should be irrelevant.

Slashdot Top Deals

Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are.

Working...