Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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

Comment Re:Snowden also did something illegal (Score 2) 350

Which brings up another question. If HRC had used two email accounts, and Podesta or others of her confidantes outside of the government had communicated with her on the private one - not subject to FOIA requests - would that have been fine?

Because that's what I think she used the private email server for. Like she said, anything sent to her from inside the State Department was archived there and available for FOIA requests. But private stuff with personal acquaintances - even if potentially related to her work at State - was not (yes, there are gray areas). I'm sure her haters would not like that - and wouldn't accept her explanations in any case, but given that she could've accomplished what she wanted by carrying two devices, I'm inclined to believe her 'convenience' argument. Sure, she was trying to shield stuff from FOIA - but is that illegal if it's not official stuff?

If the 'two account' solution was legal, then she's guilty of stupidity, hubris - or both. But in any case, the 'classified documents' argument is mostly a red herring. Technically illegal - though without being properly marked (or even classified yet), another gray area). Still, if they'd been sent to or from her State Department account, nobody would've (or should've) batted an eye.

She shot herself in the foot by trivializing the issue and saying she was worried about Chelsea's wedding plans. She should've been honest and said, "I talk with and solicit advice from a large range of trusted friends outside of the Government, and I want them to be able to speak frankly". That was Cheney's defense in refusing to release minutes of his energy commission - which was official government business. Those minutes from those pre-9/11 sessions might well contain discussions of deposing Saddam Hussein from Iraq to get their oil back on the market, but apparently we the public don't have the right to know that...

Comment Re:The data economy. (Score 2) 153

Well, there *is* a difference between selling targeted ads based on the users' data vs selling the data - which Google still does not do. But I'll grant you this, the imperative of a public company is to keep the stock price growing - profit is almost beside the point, except as reflected in the stock price. That means that Google needs to constantly find new sources of revenue. I wish they'd get serious about building up their cloud hosting business and their corporate hosted application business. I doubt that their new Pixel hardware business is going to be a huge revenue generator.

In essence, Google needs a new business model to complement their old one. Otherwise, they've gone as far as they can with targeted advertising, and while I still don't think they're selling my info, I'd still prefer it to be stored anonymously than explicitly tied to my personal account - if only because of the threat of a data breach.

Comment Re: flip flops (Score 1) 523

Ahhh. The non-swing state loophole. You're right about that, of course, but I'm addressing those Johnson/Stein supporters that don't do nuance. Even Ralph Nader came around in 2000 to saying that his supporters in swing states probably shouldn't vote for him. But it was too little, too late. And besides, I'd make the point that hyperbolically calling the two parties 'Coke and Pepsi' is just another example of the false equivalence disease that's affecting our political discourse.

Third parties can make whatever points they want - but if they really care about moving the needle in the right direction on issues they stand for, then muddying the waters with false equivalences hurts more than it helps. There's got to be a better way to make 3rd parties viable than to repeatedly serve as spoilers. Like doing the hard work of concentrating on down-ballot positions - and then changing the electoral laws state-by-state.

Comment Re: Is this real life? (Score 1) 523

Why would he do that? Ummmm... So fewer innocent people go to prison and we're owned by slightly less evil corporations?

The 'lesser of two evils' is still less evil, dammit. And nobody's asking Nader to thank anybody. Just to admit that his 3rd party tactics aren't working, and in fact, are counterproductive. That's not to say he's wrong about the 2 party system - it's just saying he's doing a lousy job of fixing it - and losing stature in the process.

Comment Re: Is this real life? (Score 1) 523

Nice observation in hindsight. You're right that in California, you're probably safe 'voting your conscience', but don't assume the swing states will be the typical ones this time.

I personally think Nader's sales pitch "The two major parties are Coke and Pepsi", while grounded in some truth, was a gross simplification that helped bring us 8 years of war, climate change denial, worsening income inequality and Citizens United - which only made the 3rd party scenario less likely to succeed in the future. If he had any integrity, he'd admit that - instead of insisting that Al Gore losing deep red Tennessee as a Democrat somehow leaves Nader blameless. There's no shame in acknowledging his spoiler role while maintaining his critique of the system. In fact, admitting his mistakes might actually help formulate a more effective strategy. But he's too full of himself to put changing the system in a constructive way above his own ego.

And if Adams is serious that 'being equally slimed with sex scandals' - even if actually equally - is the reason he can't vote for Clinton or Trump, well then he's basically an embarrassed Trump supporter - who's overlooking a lot worse than what Trump said on a bus in 2005.

Comment Re:flip flops (Score 0) 523


A President Johnson administration might bring with it some operational risks, and policy risks, but at least he won't slime you by association and turn you into some sort of cheerleader for sex abuse in the way you would if you voted for the Clintons or Trump.

Cute, but since a President Johnson administration is a statistically effective impossibility, this statement is all but meaningless. We're going to get Clinton or Trump, and if Scott Adams doesn't want to get his widdle feet dirty, well isn't he virtuous. He's also abdicating his responsibility to make a meaningful choice between the two truly available choices.

Comment Re:Interesting (Score 1) 756

But the polls had him neck and neck because the press treated him as a serious candidate for way too long. They still don't really do a serious critique of his policay stances - largely because he's so short on specifics.

And in the case of Clinton, they pile on to every new nothing new to report here 'revelation' about her emails. And that stupid AP story about the Clinton Foundation. It all perpetuates the myth that there's no real difference between the parties and a crapshoot is as good as a reasoned choice. Sure, the parties are both beholden to special interests - and our corrupt campaign finance system is largely responsible for that. But which party has been for campaign finance reform consistently for decades - and which one seated 5 Supreme Court justices that thought 'money is speech' and 'corporations are people' should carry more weight than 'one person, one vote'?

Comment Re:What a crock (Score 3, Informative) 404

That '50% of people who met with Clinton' statistic is little more than a case of journalistic malpractice. It turns out to be 50% of a small subset of people she met with who happened to not be government representatives who would routinely come in contact with Clinton in the course of her duties as SOS. So what is a small set of 'questionable' meetings is represented as though it were 'half of everything Clinton did at State was connected with the foundation's donors'. And then fools like you quote it as 'maybe fake, but why would it be surprising'. Unimpeachable evidence, that...

And while I'm on the subject of that small set of meetings, none have turned up any quid-pro-quo. And you can bet that if it were there, it would have been reported on exhaustively - based on the fact that the 50% number itself, having been discredited, is still being reported on. The fact that all we ever here is this bogus '50% of meetings' figure all but guarantees that this is a non story. That doesn't stop Trump, Pence or any others of his surrogates from repeating it. Nor does it stop 'mainstream' journalists from distilling it down to 'there have been serious questions asked about the Clinton Foundation'.

It's all self-feeding bullshit. Kind of like Cheney feeding a bogus WMD story to Judith Miller at the NY Times and then quoting the resulting article to prove his point about WMD.

Comment Re: she will get very sick after winning if she is (Score 1) 380

Because voting for a third party won't have the metaphorical effect of stopping the train.

Clinton or Trump is going to be elected, whether or not you think the system by which that happens is corrupt. And calls to 'blow up the tracks' are about as likely to change that corrupt system as your vote is to get Johnson or Stein elected. That's why Bernie Sanders chose not to attempt to run as a 3rd party candidate - he's made the calculation that he can get more of his program enacted by helping elect Clinton than by 'making a statement about the corrupt system'. He's already made that statement in the primary season, and sabotaging the general election won't make that statement any stronger - it'll just make him ignorable as a a saboteur.

I would suggest that your feeling that your protest vote will stop the train - or even move the needle in that direction - is where the narcissism/nihilism lines start to get crossed...

Comment Re:Why is this here? (Score 2) 380

Judging from your signature, the only constitutional protection you're worried about is your right to shoot birds - which, by the way, nobody is advocating for taking away, no matter how much you whine that they are.

Well, the constitution covers a few other areas that Slashdotters might just care about. Like the preference of one-person-one-vote democracy over an interpretation of freedom of speech that considers The American Enterprise Institute as a charitable organization. And of course, while the SC doesn't design intellectual property law, it does get to be the referee of last resort in related disputes. So it's not out of the question to imagine the likes of Antonin Scalia weighing in on the patentability of API's, etc...

Comment Re: she will get very sick after winning if she is (Score 1) 380

What a load of crap.

A train is out of control on a track. You have access to a switch that could send it to one track with 2 people on it, or another with 5. Those are the choices my friend. You don't get to say, "I'd fix the brakes", or call Superman. Your vote for Johnson will have the affect of rolling dice to decide which track the train takes - which, I suppose if you really think there's no difference between Clinton or Trump on any issue you care about, is rational. But of course the thought that there's no difference is irrational in and of itself.

At best, your point is that we need a different system for electing Presidents - and possibly a large turnout for Johnson might inch that into being. I'd say there are better ways - like electing Johnson (or Sanders, or Stein, or Nader)-like candidates to Congress or State legislatures from districts where they stand a chance of winning. And then changing the election system through a process that can actually do it. Because Presidencies have long-term repercussions, so they're best not used to 'send a message' when there are other, better ways.

Comment Re: Why is this here? (Score 2) 380

Boy. In any other context, you'd probably be railing about 'defining rape down to the point of meaninglessness'. But if it's a Clinton...

The primary 'victims' of Hillary's supposed 'blaming the victim' were Gennifer Flowers, who conducted a consensual sexual relationship and then sold her story to the tabloids. And Monica Lewinsky, who basically flirted with a married man, fell in love, and they cried on the shoulder of Linda Tripp, who betrayed her royally. That Hillary chose to defend her husband rather than stand in feminist solidarity with these 'victims', is pretty understandable - in the light of the forces trying to undermine Bill, and yes, in the light of both of their ambitions.

Perhaps in another place or time, sexual infidelity would be a disqualifier. A pretty hypocritical one, but nontheless... But Trump? Really?

Slashdot Top Deals

Parkinson's Law: Work expands to fill the time alloted it.