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 ×

Comment Russia, DNC, and NATO (Score 1) 149

I rifled through the emails eagerly looking for stuff, but I was disappointed- I couldn't find anything except suspicious use of pronouns (we/us vs they/them). It was all fluffing up of bland talking points. These clowns couldn't rig an election if their life depended on it.

And I also said that they shouldn't be claiming their emails are hacked by Russians, after all we've been hearing about hacked emails for the past year. They may be telling the truth, but making the argument at all is bad optics.

But then I hear this from Trump yesterday, clarifying his previous statements on NATO, which makes the Russian involvement seem more suspicious:

NATO. They ask me about NATO. Right? You saw that the other day, Meet the Press.

"Well, I hear you want to give up NATO..." I don't want to give up NATO. I like... NATO's fine. But they gotta pay. They gotta pay.

So we have all of these countries, and they're not paying. They're not paying. And we're protecting them.

And the question is: "If such-and-such a country were attacked, are you willing to start World War 3?" Because that's essentially what's happening. They don't pay.

They say, "Well, we have a treaty!" So they have these articles: "Donald Trump wants to give up NATO." No no no. I don't want to give up anything. I want them to pay.

We're a country. It's not 40 years ago, 50 years ago. And now, most people in this audience don't even know, that we're protecting Japan, China, we're protecting Germany! Nothing but money.

We're protecting Saudi Arabia. If we weren't around, Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia wouldn't be around for two weeks. We protect Saudi Arabia. They don't pay us what that should be paying. We're losing everything. Folks, we lose on everything.

We protect South Korea. We have 28,000 soldiers on the line, against the maniac on the right. We have 28,000 soldiers against North Korea, separated. Pretty dangerous stuff, considering he's got a million-person army. Pretty dangerous stuff.

So we're doing all this, and yet they're paying us a fraction of what it is.

I saw it with Japan. And by the way, I think it's fine- but they've got to pay us. We don't have the money. They gotta pay us. And they will pay us if the right person asks. If the right person asks. They will. They will.

Do you have any idea the difference that makes for our country if we get countries to take care of us the way they should.

We had a general recently, because we've been doing this, and he said, "Mr. Trump doesn't understand that Japan is paying almost 50 percent of the cost of what we do for them." And I said, why not 100 percent? Why? Tell me why. Tell me why.

Folks, we're run by incompetent people and it's going to end. And it's going to end soon. Because people aren't taking it anymore.

Now, when I talk about we're going to protect Japan, which is great, now, you always have to be prepared to walk. And I said, in one of the articles, they said, "Now what would happen if they didn't pay." I said, âoeWe have to walk."

Hillary Clinton said, "He wants to walk from Japan!" Now, see, what she did, she makes it impossible to negotiate. She's not a negotiator. She's a fool. She's a fool. No, she's a fool.

Because when you tell Japan- very smart people, great people, I have many friends there- but when you say you're not prepared to walk, you'll never walk? So she said, "How dare he say that! We will never walk!"

Then they're never going to pay us. We may have to walk! Folks, we may have to walk.

But- the same thing with Germany. We're spending a fortune in Germany. Same thing with Saudi Arabia. Let me tell you. Saudi Arabia? So we'll say this: "Folks, you gotta pay us. You gotta pay us. Sorry."

They're gonna say no. Bye-bye! Within two days, they're calling back, "Get back over here, we'll pay you whatever the hell you want."

OK? One hundred percent.

But when we have a fool- when we have a fool- an absolute fool like Hillary Clinton, saying, "we will never abandon, we will never leave"- they're not going to pay. And we don't have the money to take care of every nation in the world.

We don't have the money. And the same thing with the NATO nations, and they'll pay and they'll all pay probably- and if they don't pay, you walk! And that's OK, too. That's the way it works, folks. That's the way it works.

WTF is going on here? Is this a prid quo pro?

Comment Re:If you think Twitter is bad... (Score 1) 76

Well, all this IT tech has done is forced the user to come up with a new password and WRITE IT DOWN ON ANOTHER POST-IT. He may think he is being clever, but what he has done is ensure that they will just do it again because it's a new password.

What he should do is come up with a method by which they can create a secure password and write down the hint to remember it, and distribute that process to everyone. In other words, TEACH them how to do good passwords.

1. Think of a very memorable event in your life.
2. Come up with a password based on that event.
3. Make it follow convention. (e.g. capitals, letters, length, etc)
4. Make it able to be changed easily without changing the event.

Example: My dog Daisy died in 1998
password: DaisyRIPxx98

Now when you have to change it in the future, you could "increment" the xx to yy, then zz, etc.
Or you could increment the 98 to 99, 100, etc. Or better yet both.

So next password is DaisyRIPyy99, then DaisyRIPzz00, then DaisyRIPaa01, ......
The user can write down a hint "puppy c3" in plain sight, and without knowing the scheme, nobody would ever be able to guess it. (in this case, DaisyRIPcc03)

Comment Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse (Score 1) 757

You seem to miss that HRC is not the DNC. Why would the DNC having poor network security have anything to do with Clinton, or reflect on her at all? Because they're both from the same political party? What?

I agree that HRC != DNC (...sort of...) but that level of nuance is useless for damage control since the average voter will equate the two.

Comment Re:the real question: legal basis of secrecy (Score 1) 179

So, while customers don't necessarily "have a constitutional right to know if the government has searched or seized their property", the government certainly has no constitutional right to prohibit companies from telling customers anything they want.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause

If you grant that the government has a legitimate national security interest in keeping the inquiries quiet, the courts will rule that the Necessary and Proper Clause authorizes the gag orders.

Comment Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton? (Score 2) 757

The man was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, he bought some buildings and his overall investments were no better than if he had randomly bought and sold them. He didn't beat the market in some way that isn't obvious due to "timing".

Worse, actually. If he'd put the money into an S&P 500 index fund he'd be much wealthier today.

Comment Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse (Score 4, Insightful) 757

The problem here is that anyone from Russia was able to read those emails at all.

I'm sure the Trump campaign is sloppy with email security as well. But nothing he writes (e.g. love letters to neo-Nazis) would surprise anyone at this point. The fact that HRC is already known for exercising poor network security has already compromised her campaign, and reminding people that "Russians love Trump and that's why they released my messages that they were able to access" is not a smart defense. (Neither is immediately hiring DWS upon her firing from the DNC and announcing that she "will continue to serve as a surrogate for my campaign nationally". The tone deafness here is astounding.)

Yes, the DNC email server contained no classified information. But don't keep reminding people that anyone in the world can read your email.

Comment yawn. (Score 2, Insightful) 757

Who'd'a thought the DNC would favor a centrist party insider over a left-leaning outsider? (The Bernie camp has been complaining about this since day one.)

Who'd'a thought the internet is full of hax0rs that break into any and every system they can and proclaim that they've done something earthshaking?

Who'd'a thought Assuange would try to spin it as something to do with the Hillary server scandal?

Who'd'a thought a campaign manager would have made an outrageous claim?

Who'd'a thought the opposing campaign manager would make a vacuous counter-claim?

Who'd'a thought Slashdot would run with such a nothing-burger story when there are actually interesting things going on in the world?

I take my subject back - a yawn overrates the whole thing.

Comment Re:over-simplification of economy (Score 1) 504

Nonsense. Economics is the study of how people exchange goods and services.

Yes, but apparently a 'successful' economy is one which is always growing...

Sure it is. But the AC assumes that growth inevitably means increasing consumption of natural resources. It can mean that, but that actually only works in a context where the natural resources in question are abundant. Once they become scarce (perhaps artificially), then growth comes from finding ways to use resources more efficiently.

A successful economy is one which is improving the standard of living of the people in it. There is no reason why that process cannot be endless... though the definition of what constitutes improvement absolutely will change over time.

Comment Re:Question (Score 2) 504

So unlike what Marxist said central planning actually works best to quickly grow backwards, agrarian even, economies rather than improving advanced economies.

That actually makes perfect sense if you study Marx's core economic theory, the labor theory of value. In that view, all production is about organization of labor, with some attention to the sources of raw materials. There is no discussion at all of the role of innovation, or information, and the theory is focused on a world in stasis, in which the materials, processes and outputs are all well-known, and unchanging.

But progress comes from the creation of new ideas, ways to make new goods, or make old goods with less labor or less, or different, raw materials. An economy organized on communist principles has few mechanisms for encouraging innovation. The Soviet Union made a big deal of identifying and nurturing smart people and giving them the resources to invent new science and technology, but that is perhaps the least important part of the innovation that moves an economy forward. Not that new science and technology isn't hugely important, but the aggregate impact of millions upon millions of small improvements in processes and business models is larger, especially on the general standard of living. So, the Soviet Union was able to stay in shouting distance, more or less, of the United States in terms of technological progress... but was unable to keep the grocery store shelves stocked. That is in the inevitable result of a system that doesn't incentivize and reward small-scale innovation.

Slashdot Top Deals

Garbage In -- Gospel Out.

Working...