Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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

Comment Re:Serious question (Score 1) 161

Obviously, you wouldn't, but I provided an example to show that AdBlock does not block all of those. Like I said, I have 4 different ways to block content and all of them are blocking certain pieces. I don't know if all of them are injected via Javascript, but it would be trivial for OP to install Ghostery and determine whether or not it found anything to block.

Comment Re:Serious question (Score 4, Informative) 161

I've considered installing Ghostery but I'm not sure what it would bring to the table.

Tracking, privacy, etc. All of those third party domains that have a tracking pixel or some other thing to track you across web sites. If you install Ghostery and configure it you'll see that it has sections for Advertising, Analytics, Beacons, Privacy, and Widgets (Facebook, Twitter, etc). It's blocking over 2,000 items for me. Right now I've got a recent version of Opera with the built-in ad blocking turned on, plus Ghostery, AdBlock, and Privacy Badger, and even here on Slashdot all of them are blocking something (Ghostery 7 items, AdBlock 5, Privacy Badger 2, and Opera is still natively blocking 10 items).

Comment Re:The basest, vilest (Score 1) 1004

How about selling 20% of the nations Uranium reserves for 1 million dollars in speaking fees. Is that treason?

Selling to whom? An enemy of the United States? If so, then that might qualify. If the buyer is not an enemy of the United States, then no.

How about not controlling the borders of the United States and allowing a foreign army to invade the USA selling drugs, raping it's citizens, and spreading disease. Is that treason?

Which nation's armed forces are you referring to? Are they an enemy of the United States? Is there an actual specific act of providing aid and/or comfort to them? If not, then no, that's not treason either. If the army of another nation simply invades our country then people are not automatically guilty of treason simply for not being able to keep them out. A soldier who is unable to repel an enemy advance, for example, is not guilty of treason. A soldier who aids an enemy advance is.

I do not believe any of these things would in your mind rise to the level of treason.

Well, the Constitution is pretty clear. You're welcome to start up a debate about terms like "enemy", "aid", and "comfort" if you'd like to, though.

However if we turn the tables, and said that a tribe of Algonquin indians did the exact same thing, except it was not South Americans spreading disease, drugs and crime, but white Europeans, you would say that was deffinately treason, and that whatever Chief decided not to fight those evil whites was indeed guilty of a crime.

Does this tribe of Algonquin indians have a legally-binding document which specifically and narrowly defines the crime of treason, or is this just an exercise in mental masturbation?

I would also say that if it was the Bush family tradin with the Nazi in WWII you would say it was treason

If the United States was at war with Nazi Germany and a US citizen was engaged in trade with them for profit (and thereby aiding the Nazis), then yes, I believe that would be treason. If that occurred before we declared war, then no, that would not be treason at that point. Are you beginning to understand the distinction or do you want to ask a few more hypotheticals?

Seriously, this isn't difficult. Treason is specifically defined, and it's not a long definition. I'm not trying to suggest that anyone is not guilty of committing a crime, I'm trying to suggest that Hillary is not guilty of treason, specifically. I'm sure there is a long list of crimes which she is in fact guilty of, but I don't think that treason is one of them.

Comment Re:"What Difference Does It Make?!?!?!" (Score 1) 692

He's running as a Democrat, and deserves the support of the party as outlined in their rules. If they don't want to follow their own rules then they shouldn't have them, or they should not have accepted him as a candidate. Instead they simply ignore their own rules. Which actually is not a huge surprise.

But, I agree, Bernie and the Democrats do not belong together. For example, I support Bernie, but I don't support the Democratic party or their nominee. In fact, by many accounts, fewer than half of Americans feel that one of the two major parties represents them. That would suggest that no more than 25% of Americans are in fact Democrats. Like every other political party, they are a minority. Hopefully the people who vote for them figure out that the party doesn't represent them and the Democrats can go the way of the Whigs. I'm hopeful that people will decide to look elsewhere for someone who represents them once Hillary gets into office and predictably does an about-face on all of the things that she claimed to support in order to get the gullible to vote for her.

Comment Re:You were modded to +5? (Score 1) 1004

I hope that you're able to detect the sarcasm in my post. Regardless, when the information in question is classified, and therefore access to it is restricted by law, what really is the substantive difference between releasing it to a journalist for publication and putting it on a server that wasn't adequately protected? In both cases it's going to get out there (assuming, of course, that the server's existence is known). In both cases there was a failure to secure and protect the classified information. It could be argued that in only one of those cases was the information deliberately released. The person that I was replying to was trying to suggest that in the case that it was deliberately released, it is a non-issue (i.e., willful and intentional disclosure of classified information is a non-issue), and that in the case that incompetence was involved and an attempt was made to secure the information, which failed, and resulted in its possible disclosure, that this was a major problem. I'm suggesting that both of them are major problems, that neither of them is a non-issue, and that trying to politicize this crap by suggesting that one party is blameless and the other is not is a stupid argument.

Comment Re:No, you said I had no other arguments (Score 1) 126

You came in here talking shit about me & my program, so I CRUSHED YOU ON THAT MUCH + the fact YOU CANNOT SHOW YOU'VE DONE BETTER YOURSELF for giving users more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity online (but I can & have using what they already NATIVELY have that does more for less)... apk

In other words, the same tired argument you always try to trot out. Face it man, you're a spammer and if people don't want to use your software then they have alternatives. It's really that simple. No one deserves to be hounded and trolled by you for not wanting to use software that they see advertised in spam. And I didn't talk shit about your program, or you for that matter, I only pointed out that you were a spammer and that people don't need to use software published by spammers. Those are factual statements, not shit talking. I've already covered all of this, you keep going in circles, I have no desire to continue repeating myself. I'm sure you'll just continue to troll my other comments and continue to declare victory in your 1-player game (again, specifically and exactly what I predicted), but I have no desire to continue a discussion that only goes in circles.

Comment Re:I'm on topic w/ my solution that works (Score 1) 126

You're off topic

No I'm not, I responded to a suggestion that someone should use your program with a series of alternatives. Then I predicted that you were going to show up and start trolling. Then you showed up and started trolling. And here we are.

You know all about trolling. Maybe you should go troll the other comments I'm posting and then talk about how you're on topic, not a troll, and not a spammer. Because when you're jacking off some 4 year old kid while yelling that you're not a child molester it totally makes sense.

Wait, what's that? You're claiming victory again? In a game that only you're playing? What are we up to now, have you proven me right 12 times in one thread? I've lost count.

Let's make it one more time, APK. Keep digging that hole, you're not done yet.

Comment Re:Who cares..?? (Score 2) 692

The way the system is designed in the US it strongly favours a bi-party state.

At this point it's actually self-perpetuating. The Democratic and Republican parties created the Commission on Presidential Debates, and the billionaire Perot has been the only non-member of the two parties to appear in a prime-time televised debate. The Ds and Rs enforce their agenda by blacklisting any media outlet that shows a debate featuring a candidate from any other party, and the parties have enough contacts in the media which they are in bed with that threats of political boycotts of those media outlets also mean that they can stop media outlets from even reporting on other candidates. The leaked DNC emails show some of that collusion, DWS was on the phone with the head of MSNBC after one of their on-air personalities dared to suggest that DWS should step down as the chair for favoring Clinton. The parties are in bed with the media, and all together they effectively block any other party from gaining any significant following.

You can see it here too, there are plenty of people who are very happy to tell people that voting for another party is a waste of a vote (it's not), or it helps one of the major parties (it only helps the party you vote for), etc. That's the stranglehold that needs to be broken. This election is so far the most likely that I've seen for the general public to ask questions like why aren't Gary Johnson or Jill Stein allowed in the televised debates. The answer will naturally be some arbitrary thing like "they haven't reached X% of support, therefore they aren't included", even though it's obviously circular reasoning (they haven't reached the support because they aren't included). Gary Johnson is on the ballot in all 50 states, clearly it's possible for him to reach the 270 electoral votes necessary to win, so why would they shut him out? So that you only hear their own voices. Jill Stein is on the ballot in 23 states but it looks like she probably also has access to 270 electoral votes, or she's really close. Both parties should be part of the debates, and let the 50% or more of Americans who don't identify as either a Democrat or Republican decide who best represents them.

Comment Re:The basest, vilest (Score 4, Informative) 1004

it was a well known secret.

That's a weird definition of "secret".

Anyway, a relevant part of the description about what happened with Valerie Plame. I've bolded the part that is pertinent to this discussion.

A week after Wilson's op-ed was published, Novak published a column which mentioned claims from "two senior administration officials" that Plame had been the one to suggest sending her husband. Novak had learned of Plame's employment, which was classified information, from State Department official Richard Armitage. David Corn and others suggested that Armitage and other officials had leaked the information as political retribution for Wilson's article.

The ONLY people offended by her "outing" were people who hate Cheney.

The only people who were offended that a journalist was given classified information were people who already hated Cheney, got it. How about the people "offended" at Hillary's handling of classified information? Am I allowed to be "offended" at that even if I didn't already hate Hillary Clinton, or are the only people who care about that issue people who already hated her?

Hate him all you want, just don't do it for this, it is a non-issue.

Giving classified information to a reporter is a non-issue. Well, then giving classified information to another nation would also be a non-issue, right? I mean, if the reporter publishes that classified information then it's not like the distribution of it can be controlled, it's going to get to any country that cares to pay attention, right? So if Hillary left her email server wide open, for example, and another nation went in and got that information, it's really a non-issue because that's essentially the same thing as officials in the presidential administration just giving the classified information to a journalist and encouraging them to publish it. In other words, it's a non-issue.

I also find it simply amazing that this is a huge deal to certain people, while at the same time, those same people are voting Clinton, who has done much much worse.

You really find it amazing that partisan idiots would find one person's disclosure of classified information to be a big deal, but then claim that another person's disclosure of classified information is a non-issue? That seriously amazes you? Have you looked in a mirror?

What about those of us who think that what Clinton and Cheney each did are both a big deal? Are you amazed at us also?

Comment Re:The basest, vilest (Score 4, Informative) 1004

Do you mean like having secret government emails on a home server?

That's not treason.

Like knowingly allowing soldiers and an Ambassador to die in Benghazi and then blaming it all on a Youtube video?

That also is not treason.

Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution. You strike me as the kind of person who gives a shit about the Constitution, did you skip the part where it defines treason or did you just not understand it? James Madison even spelled out why they defined treason - to stop partisan idiots from accusing each other of treason when it was never committed.

As treason may be committed against the United States the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it: but as new tangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free governments, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the Convention has with great judgment opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger by inserting a Constitutional definition of the crime.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do. -- Jerome Klapka Jerome