Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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

Comment Re: Can we see this evidence? (Score 1) 491

> You've got yourself befuddled as to what this conversation is about.

I do not. You are arguing with me because I showed you that your argument has problems that leads to this kind of pointless discourse you are having with the OP. You're trying to win a pissing match with ANYONE who challenges what you are saying OR what your point is, where you aren't quite smart enough to understand what the issues are. Good luck.

Comment Re: Can we see this evidence? (Score 1) 491

> Innocence is a legal concept, not a moral one.

You are incorrect. Please understand that US law is not the arbiter of morality. It's known to be flawed, which should give you the proper perspective.

> Basically, you are suggested HRC should negotiate with the Trump supporters so that they stop saying that she is...

You are incorrect. I did not.

> In other words, your argument is with the OP who suggested that HRC be tried via the ballot box

I am not making an argument. I am trying to clarify that your reasoning is flawed without asserting correctness of conclusion. The "ballot box" (which ostensibly is in regards to POTUS) only results in one political change, in context. This does not mean it only indicates one outcome occurred. Correct yourself by not using the OPs weasel words and concepts, that leave a great deal to interpretation.

> if that is what you prefer.


Comment Re: Can we see this evidence? (Score 1) 491

> Can't have it both ways.

Of course you can. That's reality. You make compromises on priorities in a representative political structure.

People are going to vote for her despite what they believe and some another way because of what they believe. This has absolutely nothing to do with "innocence" (which is a moral concept).

Comment Re:If it's like Politifake, expect far left bias. (Score 4, Insightful) 367

I guess you are in the camp of "both are establishment", which makes no sense to me. They both have money and are elitist, but that's not the issue in a principate. This may literally be one of the last times (in anyone reading's lifetime) that the political arena will result in a choice between a self-appointed egoist (who basically scammed his way via celebrity) and a multinational political favorite for POTUS. This will poison that contest forever, either through his failure to win or his failure as a president.

Comment Re:BASIC by any other name (Score 4, Informative) 370

> Line numbers

That's a benefit. Understanding and being able to reference the order of execution explicitly and the cost of changes, is a huge lesson that it enforces accidentally.
Talk about Poke and Peek, then we're getting into the problems with (apple) BASIC.

> Nothing about BASIC makes it more suited to beginners than many other languages out there, including but not limited to Python

Lack of features makes it more suited to beginners. Less things to need to understand or use for additional complexity.
Algebra is taught before Calculus, necessarily. Humans learn with blocks before bridges.

Comment Re:Desperate Donald, there's no point... (Score 1) 500

> I honestly doubt Trump gives a shit about slashdot, so you'd have to explain better how it's relevant in any context.

Just because you don't understand the context, doesn't mean the debate doesn't exist. As is obvious from the content, it has nothing to do with Trump so that's a non sequitur or a disingenuous derail attempt. Quibbling about the type of trolling is not productive anyway. That's statistically, the use of AC on /. - At least between us, there's some accountability, unlike the ACs that pepper this thread.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Conversion, fastidious Goddess, loves blood better than brick, and feasts most subtly on the human will." -- Virginia Woolf, "Mrs. Dalloway"