Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



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

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) 689

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) 966

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) 966

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.

Comment Re:"What Difference Does It Make?!?!?!" (Score 1) 689

Is there any evidence whatsoever that Sanders would have gotten a statistically significant increase in votes from that demographic

You're aware that there are many votes that the Democratic party is losing by not nominating Sanders, right? There are actually several terms for those kinds of people. You're also aware that Sanders consistently beat Trump in previous polls, right?

Comment Re:You OMIT another feature hostsman lacks (Score 1) 126

Wow, stop dusting me please! I just almost got all of the dust off me, and look at this, you just toss all of this more on!

Listen, I'm not going to do a feature-by-feature comparison of other programs compared to yours. There are several reasons for that. The primary one is that I have never and will never use your software, so I don't know or care what features it has.

The entire point of bringing up other programs is to show that using software written by a spammer is not a requirement if you want something to manage your hosts file. And that is a statement of fact. Is it feature-for-feature equivalent? Of course not, why write the exact same piece of software? But you don't need to download and run a spammer's software if you want to manage your hosts file. That's my point, argue about your own features or accomplishments all you want, it doesn't change my point.

P.S.=> I don't spam

Yes, APK, you DO spam. You have a fantastic 20 or so year history of online posts where you are spamming. Are you spamming right here, right now? That doesn't matter, you're still a spammer. You still spam, whether you are doing it right now or not. You have spent considerable time earning the right to be called a spammer. Remember all of those Slashdot threads where you would post 40 ads in the same thread? Someone would down-mod one piece of spam, and you come along and post another, and then rejoice about how you're "defeating" the moderation system in order to get your spam seen. Remember that? That's called being a spammer, APK. It doesn't matter that the thread was about ad blocking, if you go in and post 40 ads then you are spamming. People who spam are called spammers. You are a spammer. Slashdot has actually written a series of filters specifically to stop your spam. I'm sure you're going to claim victory and gloat about trying to defeat those also, which is exactly how a spammer would react. It doesn't matter if you are doing it right this second or not, you're a spammer.

I'm sure you've heard the joke. It applies to you. You might not be spamming right now, but you ARE a spammer.

A backpacker is traveling through Ireland when it starts to rain. He decides to wait out the storm in a nearby pub. The only other person at the bar is an older man staring at his drink. After a few moments of silence the man turns to the backpacker and says in a thick Irish accent:
"You see this bar? I built this bar with my own bare hands. I cut down every tree and made the lumber myself. I toiled away through the wind and cold, but do they call me McGreggor the bar builder? No."
He continued "Do you see that stone wall out there? I built that wall with my own bare hands. I found every stone and placed them just right through the rain and the mud, but do they call me McGreggor the wall builder? No."
"Do ya see that pier out there on the lake? I built that pier with my own bare hands, driving each piling deep into ground so that it would last a lifetime. Do they call me McGreggor the pier builder? No."
"But ya fuck one goat.."

You trying to argue that you're not a spammer is like trying to argue that you're not a child molester because you only did it those 4 times! I'm not molesting a child right now, so I'm not a child molester! That's your logic.

Comment Re:Who cares..?? (Score 1) 689

I would suggest that we need more parties involved, and let people pick from a more broad array of choices. Let the Democrats do whatever they want, if they want to continue on as the slightly more liberal version of Republicans, I don't want to tell them they need to change. I'm not going to vote for them, but I don't think they need to change if that's what they want to be. The same kind of support that Bernie had could be used to energize the Green, Libertarian, Constitution, etc parties and elevate them to the level where the media is forced to cover them, like what happened with Bernie.

Comment Re:"What Difference Does It Make?!?!?!" (Score 1) 689

Hillary's and Bernie's stances are 99.9% identical

I'm sure you could find a particular point in time where that statement is almost true. Bernie has had the same stances for decades, so depending on what Hillary says she stands for today then that statement might be correct. It doesn't mean she'll stand for any of that stuff tomorrow of course (it all depends on where her money is coming from that day), but hey, a broken clock is right twice a day, right?

Anyway, it sounds like you didn't even read my comment. It's not all about policy, is it? It's about corruption too, isn't it?

Comment Re:Who cares..?? (Score 1) 689

Oh wow, is that what was missing? Not enough grassroots support for Bernie? That was the problem?

The ONLY support he had was grassroots. What he was lacking was the party support that they were contractually obligated to provide, the media coverage that those running the DNC didn't want him to have, and debates that would have exposed him to a larger audience and given him more a boost over Clinton.

In 2008 the Democrats had 26 debates. Clinton participated in all of them, Obama only missed one. Clinton, the "party favorite", lead Obama by 10 points at the start, 35% to 25%, and she would lead him by over 20 points eventually. But she lost her lead in February, and didn't get it back again. The party wasn't going to make the same mistake twice. In 2016 the DNC said that there were going to be 6 debates, because they don't want to threaten the impending coronation of Clinton, do they? Eventually a total of 9 were held, with Clinton and Sanders appearing in all of them. In the first debate support for Sanders was at 25% (sound familiar?), but Sanders didn't get above 40% before the debate schedule ended (in April; the last primaries happened in June).

But I'm sure that had nothing to do with it. I'm sure the problem was not that the DNC was actively working against Sanders and for Clinton, but just that Sanders didn't have enough grassroots support. Because if there's one thing this election showed, it's that Sanders had hardly any grassroots support.

But listen, I'm not trying to change the policies of any party. They can all nominate whoever they want, and I'm going to vote for the person that I think best represents me. If they want my vote, then they'll nominate someone who represents me. Clinton doesn't, and Trump doesn't, so neither of them have earned my vote (the Democrats could have made up a lot of ground there with a VP pick like Warren, but I guess it's better to pick some vanilla guy that no one outside of Virginia has heard of). It's really that simple. If polls of likability are any indication, then it's time to unseat both major parties from their positions and get another 1 or 2 parties into the mix. The 2 major parties don't even represent a majority of Americans, we need more choices. There are too many points of view to expect either major party to satisfy most people.

Comment Re:Logic (Score 1) 689

Look, I realize that you hate Hillary with the intensity of a thousand suns, but it turns out that many people like her.

Not as many as you think (in fact, not even a simple majority). A majority of people either "dislike" or "strongly" dislike both Trump and Clinton, they are the #1 and #2 most-disliked candidates in the history of presidential polling. Additionally, most of the people who responded saying that they were going to vote for each of them said that their reason for voting was as a vote against the other candidate. So not even a majority of their own voters are voting because they like them, they are voting because of how much they hate/fear the other candidate.

This is not what representative democracy should look like. Any partisan idiot claiming that anyone else MUST!!! vote a certain way in order to stop the other person, and thereby continuing the status quo, is part of the problem. We need 3 or 4 viable parties and candidates in any major election. The way to get there is not to continue down the same broken path playing the same smoke-and-mirrors game. The media isn't going to pay attention to anything that they aren't paid to pay attention to, but if smaller parties get electoral votes in this election cycle then hopefully things will start to change for the next one.

Comment Re:Who cares..?? (Score 1) 689

I agree that the DNC is corrupt and badly in need of change. This is not the way to do it.

Oh, ok. How do you suggest we start the revolution, then? Why not just tear down the whole thing and rebuild? Wouldn't that ultimately be cheaper and less painful than trying to kill each termite and replace each board individually?

Slashdot Top Deals

Help fight continental drift.

Working...