Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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

Comment Re:Immigration policy is not hate speech (Score 1) 1045

I suppose you could get together with some of your neighbors and set up some sort of collective arrangement where everybody agrees on rules for appropriate behaviour and collectively uses force to make sure that outsiders do not violate these agreements, but that that point you've basically reinvented government.

No, at that point what you have is one possible service provider in a potentially competitive market - as opposed to the monopoly system we have now.

Comment Re: Dangerous (Score 1) 299

Don't forget that "trust" is also not binary.

You can trust some people with some things, but not with others: eg. I can trust my dog not to steal my car, but I can't trust him not to eat the piece of chicken I left on the table.

And then also, you can trust people to varying degrees: eg. in terms of violence, I trust that my brother will not kill me, but I don't trust that he won't punch me in arm just for the hell of it.

People say "Oh, you have to trust someone!" To which I reply, "To do what?"

Comment Re:Total Coincidence (Score 1) 350

You have a weird model of investigations where someone needs to prove things before actually investigating. It may indeed prove that nothing can be found here. But the only way to know that is to actually examine facts. Declaring that there's nothing to be found without even looking just makes you look biased.

Anyhow, it's not as if we haven't seen pedos in places of power before. Here's a big list:

I'm not going to claim anyone is guilty of anything without proof. However, anyone who starts yelling and screaming for people to stop looking is just going to make themselves look more suspicious. You don't normally get well-connected media types to all jump on a story like this...

Comment Re:The litmus test (Score 1) 120

Also, what about CNN interviewing its own cameraman?

Or editing what people said to convey the opposite message?

Are these all accidents?

Anyhow, my point would be to look at the actual facts in a story (if any) and totally filter out the opinion and predictions. The source of facts doesn't matter, what really matters is whether they're verifiable or not. Trying to rebut facts with opinions doesn't work. It just makes that person look dumb. This does require more actual thinking, though.

Comment Re:I'd be more interested in locating real news... (Score 1) 350

You mean the ones that are today on Slashdot as more fake news that the WaPo got hit by? :) Where the project listed "partners" that had never even heard of it? The clickbait sites that nobody actually seems to have believed?

Comment Re:The litmus test (Score 1) 120

You assume, without evidence, that people actually believe clickbait. No, what people actually believe is when people present evidence. When they do real investigations, which have all but stopped for budgetary reasons.

And no, this wasn't an understandable wrong opinion. That was horribly, badly wrong by someone who should have known better. Given that it tended to cover up CNN's own misdeeds, I'm not having an easy time writing that off as a mere mistake. As someone else put it, "false exculpatory statements are used for what?"

Comment Re:What about that anti-Muslim video? (Score 1) 350

Ironically, thanks to the leaks we eventually found that they did have a report claiming that. Mind you--the report was later proven wrong--but they did have such a report.

Also the amount of crap they stored in Gmail that shouldn't have been makes me wonder just how long before Google takes over due to bad opsec.

Comment Re:Total Coincidence (Score 0) 350

Those articles barely touch what's been found and "debunk" claims people aren't making.

You can look here for an actual investigation, rather than an NYT or Snopes article that covers one or two items, ignoring the fact that the random images were on the owner's Instagram (now only existing in archives, imagine that).

Now I'm not going to say that he's a pedophile--that hasn't been proven and you won't find many people seriously claiming that. But there's a lot of damned suspicious stuff and people are still investigating.

You left off Wikipedia. Unless it's been edited since then (which is possible) it had barely any mention of it either. Infogalactic has the real info now. And is the Twitter replacement.

Comment I'd be more interested in locating real news.... (Score 1) 350

Care to explain which emails were fake? Because the last time someone did that they got educated in DKIM hashes, learned that yes, the DKIM hashes cover the body of the message, learned that there were actually multiple signatures on some of them, learned that the relevant keys were not revoked (and can still be found in DNS... as well as my post history, just in case), and essentially all the arguments were proven false thanks to the non-repudiation that DKIM offers.

Or maybe you relied on when CNN lied to us to tell us it was illegal to read wikileaks, helping to hide how they rigged the debate?

Or you think it takes state-level intelligence to hack Podesta when he fell for a stupid spear phishing scam claiming some random IP allegedly in the Ukraine had hacked in and followed the link to reset his Gmail password? Which is doubly-odd because Google never said anything about Russian hackers targetting anyone and they do actually warn targets about state-sponsored attacks whenever possible (usually this is China, though).

Comment Re:Immigration policy is not hate speech (Score 1) 1045

No, under anarchy, you have the right to defend yourself; you just don't have the right to force other people to pay for your defense. So, for example, if you believe you need to go to war against brown people in the Middle East to defend yourself, you could; you just couldn't force everybody who disagrees to support you financially and give their children up for a draft.

Comment Re:The litmus test (Score 2) 120

So when CNN has a lawyer employed by them tell us false statements about the law, what does that count as?

Chris Cuomo on CNN -

An explanation of how badly wrong he is:

Chris' bio on Wikipedia showing he's a licensed attorney:

Also, we have a motive in that they rigged the debates with the DNC in DKIM-validated emails signed by both Hillary's mailserver and Google's with signatures that cover the body and body hash.

Slashdot Top Deals

The decision doesn't have to be logical; it was unanimous.