Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Tradeoffs (Score 1) 500

I love the lying moron alert at the start of a moronic lie :) MEPs are democratically elected but have no power to put forward a motion for debate or to enact a law. They are simply there to enact a theatre of democracy. The people of Europe do not get to vote for the EC. All those in power get their positions behind closed doors. They are not answerable to the people. The famously corrupt entity decides who will get what post in secret meetings and the power stays away from the electorate. Why not just have a simple easy to understand elected government? Why not let the elected MEPs put forward motions? Why not let the elected MEPs take votes on policy and enact policy? Why have policy made by someone else? The system is deliberately obfuscated to maintain the corruption that it is famous for. If that ended the EU would stand a chance of survival but the current structure is unworkable.

Comment Re:Death Knell for Britain Clear (Score 1) 500

If the EU were democratic the people the people of the UK would not have voted to leave. Any form of democracy would have been enough to swing the vote by several percent and it would have only taken a 3% swing to change the outcome. Currently Germany is running the EU for its own benefit and the people of many EU countries do not like that. There will be many more exits in the future. Holland only just avoided it but in their next election Wilder may make further gains and win.

Comment Re:Death Knell for Britain Clear (Score 1) 500

Scotland does not have the right to another referendum nor is there any reason to believe that the majority of Scottish people would be stupid enough to vote for an isolated Scotland. Most of my family and friends are fed up with the battle rant of the SNP. If Scotland does decide to commit suicide, the UK would continue and benefit from its freedoms while Scotland would be alone and end up having to go cap in hand to the UK begging for help with everything. Do you think the UK people would feel any obligation to help Scotland? Wales is not even going to consider any such move and I doubt that Northern Ireland would reunify now. There are people that talk about such things just as there are people that talk about Texas returning to Mexico or and independent California. The UK, with or without Scotland, is not short of countries that wish to enact new trade pacts. The EU rules forbid such discussions until after the UK leaves but there have been several approaches made. Most EU countries rely heavily on UK financial services and want that to continue and are therefore demanding that those in power stop trying to punish the UK for choosing to leave. I do worry about the SNP destroying Scotland but the UK does not. If Nicola Sturgeon manages to make herself President she will quickly discover what it is like to be the most hated person in Europe. There is no way that she can deliver on her promises without the UK.

Comment Re:Tradeoffs (Score 1) 500

The UK banks and insurance services are not going to leave London as their business is global. One of the main reasons for many top businesses wanting to leave the EU is precisely because they do not want the EU to tell them what to do so although some European offices may move into Europe many more will arrive. Europe needs them and it would be suicidal for the EU to make it harder for its members to trade with them. The children at the top of the EU are throwing their toys out of their pram and want to hurt the UK for not playing with them any more but EU businesses do far too much trade through the UK and do not want to stop making money. About 20% of German trade is dependant on the UK and German businesses do not want to lose that. All other member states have similar needs. The children want to cut off their noses but EU businesses want a mutually beneficial agreement that enables business to continue as smoothly as possible. Right now the children are still screaming very loudly but this is a 2 year process and in 2 years the children will be having their afternoon nap.

Comment Re:Tradeoffs (Score 1) 500

How will they be less powerful when they have their own voice rather than being an impotent vassal state of the new German empire? Britain is not the 5th largest economy, it is an insignificant part of the 5th largest economy that is run by and for Germany. By becoming indepent they will therefore gain power. Initially they will obviously decline as they build up new agreements and inevitably become stronger. Most people wish to live in a democracy but the EU is not a democracy. It has a parliament in which the members do not have to power to start a debate or enact policy, they are just a theatre to look like democracy but they have no democratic powers. The undemocratic EU has now given itself the power to enact laws in member states. Staying within the EU would be the death knell. Look at what has been imposed on Greece, Portugal etc. A poverty without hope. No way out of austerity. 2 billion Euros a month to service a debt burden imposed on countries that do not make 2 billion Euros a month. The EU is collapsing and remaining within it would cause disaster, endless austerity to fund the German business growth.

Comment Re:Tradeoffs (Score 1) 500

Populist, not populous.

I made 2 points. One is that the meanings of some political terms have very little relation to the root word to which they would seem to be tied. The other is that "populism" is a political philosophy not just created by gathering together a group of popular issues, but by gathering together a group of popular leftist political issues.

Historically, the ideas and political bent of the Populist Party can be traced through time and remain relatively steady as a populist ideology. By understanding the historical Populist Party, some understanding can be gained of the ideological direction of modern populists.

Comment Re:Lack of privacy (Score 1) 123

I keep hearing this, but I've never experienced such a scenario. If you don't run your server from an ISP's dynamic IP pool and don't run an open relay, you're extremely unlikely to be blocked by these services (as shitty and unaccountable as they are). If you go a step further and set up SPF, DKIM, and DMARC, it's even less likely for mail to be binned as spam.

Are you sure you're not just sending spam or running an open relay?

Either you have been very lucky or have not been paying attention. I don't sent spam. I don't run an open relay. I've had SPF for a decade. I added DKIM and DEMARC about a month ago. It hasn't made a difference. When self hosted on Sonic, I had to check every few months for RBL's who misclassified my static IP as dynamic. Less frequently, there were bone headed operations like Earthlink to deal with.

Since moving the server to a VPS, it's been far worse. It took about a month to get minor mismanaged RBL's to report clean. Then I found that AT&T was blocking me. That took several months, countless requests, multiple support forum posts to get any action. Dealing with Outlook.com delivery lead me to discover that Symantec somehow thought I was sending Snow Shoe spam. The automated removal page worked for about a day, then I would once again have "negative reputation". Through a forum post I found an email address for getting properly removed Symantec's list. That worked. Didn't fix Outlook delivery though.

I'm still fighting Microsoft. They have a removal page for hard IP blocks but they don't even acknowledge that I have a list that sends mail to Junk, though they clearly do

And these are just the ones I know about. There could be more but even they just silently junk incoming email, I wouldn't necessarily know. I should probably check Earthlink again.

Comment Re:So 60 Minutes... (Score 1) 183

As with anything, you break the law and it's up to the DA to decide if you are prosecuted, not everyone that commits a crime gets prosecuted. In this case the people involved did classic one party recordings that are illegal in California. How the public perceives that illegal action will likely determine if you are prosecuted or not. Considering the published recordings were doctored to make it look like people said things they didn't say that action probably increased the likelihood of them being prosecuted, in addition no finding of wrong doing on the part of PP obviously increased the likelihood because you lose the argument of public good.

These guys weren't journalists, they were political operatives lying to people so they could illegally recording conversations without the consent of the party in a 2-party state and then doctored the recordings to make them say things they didn't. That will get you prosecuted in almost every state that's a 2 party state. In addition the use of fake drivers licenses and lying about their names and stuff puts them up for false ID charge and a fraud prosecution.

I would be surprised if they didn't prosecute them given the conduct involved.

Comment Re:Shill much? (Score 1) 500

Joining the EU was a monumental (if Fabian) decision and was just about as irreversible as the decision to exit. Was the decision to join ever voted on? In every country?

Joining the EU has proven to be a stupid decision, if your values include safety, freedom, and financial health not damaged by rioting Greeks.

Comment Re:Tradeoffs (Score 2) 500

It would help if people who post on political subjects knew the meaning of the words they use in American English.

Socialism is public ownership or control of the basic means of production, distribution, and exchange, with the avowed aim of operating for use rather than profit, and of assuring to each member of society an equitable share of goods, services, and welfare benefits. (Funk and Wagnalls, emphasis added.) Socialism is not like, man, having a good society with a lot of social people having parties

Communism is (1) a social system characterized by the communal sharing of goods and services, and may further mean (2) a theory of social changed conceived by Marx, directed to the ideal of a classless society; as developed by Lenin and others it advocates seizure of power by a conspiratorial political party, maintenance of power during an interim period by stern suppression of internal opposition, centralized ownership of almost all productive property and the sharing of all the products of labor, and commitment to the ultimate goal of a world-wide communist state. (Funk and Wagnalls) Communism is not people sharing and living in communes.

Note that the primary difference between socialism and communism is that in communism the violent expansion is not hidden.

Populism has a narrow meaning, and refers to the members of the Populist (or People's) Party first active in the United States in the 1890s. The policies of the party included an income tax, government ownership of railroads, deliberate inflation of the money supply and free coinage of silver, all far left by the standards of the day. By extension, the word populist may be taken to mean a leftist political stance purporting to be advantageous to a (presumed very numerous) group in or below the lower-middle class. (Summarized from several dictionaries, emphasis added). Populism is not a set of political ideas chosen for their popularity alone.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Luke, I'm yer father, eh. Come over to the dark side, you hoser." -- Dave Thomas, "Strange Brew"

Working...