Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



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

Comment Re:response (Score 1) 173

Yes, running Linux is still the best option, for most Windows users.

Obviously if you are required to use software that only runs on Windows --perhaps you are a photographer who has to submit his finals in Photoshop format-- then you are stuck in the Microsoft microbiome. Too bad.

But most Windows users are not being coerced into that submissive role; they could switch to something like an Ubuntu LTS and be happy --and more productive at lower long term cost-- than if they continue to pay to be a commodity in an obsolete and slowly failing marketeers' world.

Comment Re:Let me google that for you (Score 1) 164

Cost to get a government appointment

https://www.google.com/search?...

Cushy ambassadorships go to prominent donors (or their kids). Fishy though far from a "price list", and it's also a standard practice for every administration. It's unfortunate but hardly a revelation, especially since I remember this stuff from 2009.

Comment Re:I for one thank them (Score 1) 164

If they are behind the release of the fact Obama used a pseudonym to email hillary, despite the fact he denied having any knowledge of her private email. That's good to know too.

This I have not heard of.

It was part of a Friday document dump... you weren't supposed to hear about it: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

The POTUS using a pseudonym to communicate via email is hardly a scandal, more of an extra layer of security in case someone does get their hands on classified emails (and possibly a way to make finding records more difficult).

And without knowing his email setup it doesn't prove that he knew her actual email address, only that someone in the White House IT Dept knew it and configured his client to handle it.

Comment Re:I for one thank them (Score 1) 164

If they are behind the leaks of the DNC emails that showed Sanders was never going to be allowed to run that's something every registered Democrat had a right to know.

Are you thinking of a different batch of emails?

I saw some emails suggesting that the DNC really preferred Clinton (duh) but didn't really do anything pro-Clinton other than try to influence some reporters on stories that also involved the DNC.

If they are behind the release of the fact Obama used a pseudonym to email hillary, despite the fact he denied having any knowledge of her private email. That's good to know too.

This I have not heard of.

Then there is the price list for all the government posts that were handed out.

Yeah... I follow this stuff pretty closely and I don't even know what fact you're trying to twist.

Comment Re:What's wrong with this? (Score 1, Insightful) 164

"Meanwhile, U.S. intelligence officials are reportedly investigating whether Donald Trump's foreign policy adviser "opened up private communications with senior Russian officials -- including talks about the possible lifting of economic sanctions if the Republican nominee becomes president."

WTF? There's no reason for the 'intelligence officials' to get involved with this, it's perfectly legal behaviour for a candidate. That it is being sprayed about is a measure of desperation of some people to stop Trump. Whilst I have sympathy with their purpose, their behaviour is deeply wrong.

And if the talks included a quid pro quo about Russia disrupting the US election to help Trump win?

Hell, even if they didn't include include subtle mentions of Russia manipulating the elections what other reason would Trump's campaign have to secretly talk to Russia during the campaign? If Trump wins the election he's got 2 months to set up his transition, certainly that's more than enough time to have discussions with Russia as the President elect.

Secretly telling a rival power, who is already accused of disrupting the elections, that you're going to be their best friend is really damn suspicious.

Comment Re:Verge and Vox (Score 4, Interesting) 74

"We're confident that there wasn't any material impact on our journalism from these issues

Daily Kos (aka Vox) was always a blog, it has nothing to do with journalism.

I'm not sure why you talked about Daily Kos except for the fact that they're both left online news resources.

They're completely different outfits.

As for Vox, I've been reading it a decent amount and I'd consider them journalism. They're not investigative journalism, they don't send reporters digging through old court records to dig up scandals, but it's still journalism.

They mostly do analysis, interviews, and long-form essays. It definitely comes with a wonkish highly progressive centre-left viewpoint (ie, they're big Clinton fans), but it's a valuable resource for understanding the world.

There are slightly bloggy aspects as well, but I don't think that's a bad thing (as you imply). The weakness in traditional journalism is it gets myopic by focusing on what just happened and losing the larger context. Vox's objective seems to be tracking issues long term while adding context and analysis.

Comment Re:Anti-Hillary is not Pro-Trump (Score 1) 827

They're backing Hillary for two reasons.

First, they assume her lifetime spent as an political class insider means that she is highly competent, so even if she's making dumb policy, they assume it is great, but beyond their understanding.

She has a reputation in Washington as a policy wonk, and has strong academic and professional credentials prior to becoming a first lady.

That she's competent shouldn't be a partisan question.

I'll readily acknowledge that Ted Cruz is highly competent, though as a president I think he'd be almost as awful as Donald Trump.

Second, they're really uncomfortable around white men. Hillary is consistent in her rhetoric and governance, that she opposes white male participation in society.

So at this point I'm kinda assuming you're making deliberately bad arguments.

Putting stupid motivations in other people's minds really makes me feel secure in my intellectual superiority.

On the contrary I was sincerely trying to give Trump supporters non-stupid motivations.

Comment Re:Anti-Hillary is not Pro-Trump (Score 2) 827

Beware of being led by emotions. They seldom lead to good decisions. To reason alone must be one's first master.

Scott Adams, who you might know as the Dilbert creator, has been saying for a while that humans make decisions on emotions and facts don't matter much or any. In fact, he argues that appealing to reason and laying out facts is actually counterproductive when faced with an opponent who appeals to emotions. I am beginning to wonder with some concern that he might be right.

I read him for a while (before I found him too frustrating).

When it comes to politics I believe people are rarely selecting based on individual policy, rather they're selecting candidates who they trust to make good decisions.

Recent studies have shown that if you take someone who holds a wrong belief or opinion and you can prove with evidence that the opinion is wrong, most people will actually double down and cling more stubbornly to the wrong belief.

I think those studies are misinterpreted. In the short term people double down, that is rational behaviour because they're not able to properly evaluate those arguments on the fly. It's in the long term that they start coming to trust the new evidence.

This is part of why Trump appeals to so many people. A lot of what he is says is very simple emotional arguments. Hillary has been trying to get off the facts in her speech and get more emotional as a result of this. Don't be surprised if the first debate has very little in the way of concrete ideas and a whole lot of name calling directed at the other person. People will complain that it lacks substance, but it may just be that humans in general are pretty stupid and we're just getting what we deserve with a bunch of name calling because we ignore the substance when we're given it.

They're backing Trump for two reasons.

First they assume his money means he is highly competent, so even if he's making dumb policy statements they assume he'll make great policy if he puts his mind to it.

Second they're really uncomfortable with the growing diversity of the US, Trump's only consistent policy direction is to start reversing that growing diversity, those are decisions they trust Trump to make.

Comment Re:Trump is right on this, as on many things (Score 1) 522

You're literally making the argument that Trump can't be racist because he has black friends.

Forget Trump for a second. Can someone, seriously, explain to me why this isn't a valid argument? I keep seeing this exact line being trotted out to shoot down claims of not being racist.

If you're racist, and antagonistic to another race, then how the fuck do you manage to make friends of that race? I would think that having friends of that race is in fact valid evidence against claims of racism.

Not trolling, I seriously do not understand this line of thinking. Can someone please present a rational argument to support this, or should we just accept handwave dismissals of contradictory evidence?

Suppose I believe black people are by nature stupid, lazy, and violent. That would make me a racist.

Then one day I get a black co-worker, and over the course of a few weeks I discover this black person is brilliant, hard-working, and gentle, and we become good friends.

I'm still a racist.

I haven't changed my beliefs, I still believe the average black person is stupid, lazy, and violent. I just think my one black friend an exception to the rule.

Comment Re:Real evidence is plan (Score 1) 522

Hillarie's many instances of deeply held racism are easy/ to find if you search just a little.

Not really.

Of that list of 11 items, 1 is racist (if it happened, 40 years ago), 2 is racist, though somewhat of a legitimate mistake in the middle of a bad crime wave, and she repented.

The rest are bombed jokes or comments where they're trying really hard to erase the context and nuance.

Trump on the other hand his blasting his dog whistle like a bull-horn.

Of course I don't know if Trump is racist or just exploiting racism for political gain, but it's racism.

Since you appear to be too stupid to understand my comment (which is of course to be expected from someone only able to play the race card in place of real argument), it's not that he has black friends and supporters (though that in itself is an indicator)

There are 10's of millions of black people in the US, I'm sure David Duke could find black supporters if he wanted them.

- it's that in actions taken over a long period at times when he was not running for office, he did not act against people based on color (or indeed gender). Real people are judged by actions, not just words or the words especially of others that hate them.

And it's only a very extreme racist who won't have friends of an ethnicity at all, modern racism is found in the form of stereotypes, different standards for other groups, and singling out or judging groups based on ethnicity.

If you are also so stupid as to equate the federal government investigating the actions of a company with the actions of using a nuclear arsenal against another nation;

I'm seriously unsure what the hell you're talking about.

if indeed you are that stupid who can be blamed but yourself, possibly your parents?

I'm seriously amused you followed up a weird random sentence with this.

But you've had long enough to correct any misapprehensions they might have fed you, so your delusions are of your own peculiar brand, or more likely fed to you by the rich eco-chamber that is the modern liberal press and parroting supporters.

With any luck, perhaps time you may be able to think for yourself once more, rather than simply vomited what is fed to you by your masters.

I'll let you have the last word, as the delusional people will chatter on so and I am busy with real work and life.

Ok thanks for that!

Comment Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... (Score 5, Insightful) 522

but don't you want to let in 600,000 more refugees?

what's another 60,000 jihadis? Nothing bad will happen letting them in

60,000? Were you planning to set up a recruiting booth inside a Daesh training camp? Daesh might not even have 60,000 fighters world-wide.

Let in 600,000 refugees and you might get a handful who turn jihadi.

You'll get another handful who commit murder, some others who steal cars, start businesses, become political pundits, stand up comics, teachers, professors, drug addicts, you'll even get a few Trump supporters!

It's 600,000 people, you're likely to get a bit of everything, good and bad.

And frankly lets be honest, you don't actually give a crap about terrorism.

Anyone who gives it a moments thought realizes the US already has a lot of Muslims, and the easiest way to get a bunch of Muslim terrorists in the US is to elect Trump and essentially declare Muslims to be the enemy.

So no, I don't think you're that stupid, I don't think you would have the same reaction if these were western European white Christians.

Rather it's about race and culture, the US with an additional 600K Arab Muslims is a smidgen less like the US as you envision it.

And if that's your true motivation then it's the argument we should be having.

Comment Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... (Score 1) 522

When it comes to free speech, I'd still rather them be in charge than just about anyone else.

You're assuming the US has a choice.

A lot of other countries don't particularly like the idea of the US being in charge of this global resources, and they are already preparing their own root DNS servers. It's not that hard, mirror the current root node and then start forking. Maybe do a bit of censorship, maybe make sure nothing resolves to google.com without a giant cheque.

International governance doesn't make the problem go away, censorship already exists to a degree, but it makes it politically easier to keep everyone on the same network.

Comment Re:Trump is right on this, as on many things (Score 2) 522

I don't agree with everything Trump wants to do It's pretty obvious to anyone that knows anything Trumps position is way better for the internet than turning it over to an international panel that can start censoring the hell out of it.

Trump is infamous for his proclivity for suing people and desire to use libel law against critics. If the Internet were governed by the US under a Trump administration I think you'd here a lot of grumbling from his administration about doing something about websites that are being unfair to Trump or the administration.

He's already threatened to use the power of the presidency to go after Amazon because Bezos owns the Washington Post and it's been mean to him.

Trump is far less racist than Hillary (just look at past Hillary remarks like arriving late because she was on "Colored People Time").

Wow, your evidence of Hillary's racism is a misremembered SNL sketch?

It wasn't even intentionally racist, it was supposed to be a joke about a politician inadvertently saying something racist (which they ironically did).

I thought Trumpites understood the good "Hillary is a racist" stuff is back in the mid-90s with all the super-predator stuff, you really need to catch up on your twitter.

Trump chose a black woman to win and work with on the Apprentice - sure it's a TV show but she did work for him and supports him, as do a number of prominent black celebrities.

You're literally making the argument that Trump can't be racist because he has black friends.

Trump also wanted to cooler evaluate NATO commitments before taking action,

He seemingly wants to extort allies into paying the US for protection, I say seemingly because he doesn't have coherent foreign policy.

and yet the media portrays him as a warmonger. Why?

Because he's generally really quick to call for military action and to call for major war crimes like stealing other countries natural resources, up until the military action turns out poorly. And then he hops in a time machine and goes back to change his mind.

Comment Re:Does anyone care what Trump thinks? (Score 1, Troll) 522

I feel the exact same way about Hillary.

Then I'm sorry to tell you your feelings are wrong.

You're free to prefer Trump for a variety of reasons of your choosing.

But to suggest he's more honest than Hillary? That's factually incorrect.

Clinton, even if you think she's lying about a few key things (like her knowledge of confidential emails, forgetting security warnings), her lies are only about key subjects, have a definite utility, and are relatively hard to disprove.

Trump on the other hand lies constantly about almost everything and lies about a lot of things that are trivially disproven. He lies about his charitable donations, lies about his past positions, lies about statements he made on tape, lies about reasons for not releasing his tax returns, he even lies about his hair!

If you want to support Trump, go ahead, there are lots of reasons you can offer and I'll probably disagree with almost all of them, but they could be your non-disprovable opinion.

But to suggest that Clinton is as remotely as dishonest, you might as well proclaim the world is flat, WWE is real, or Dane Cook is funny. These aren't mathematically verifiable facts (well not all of them), but they're about as close as you can get.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Trust me. I know what I'm doing." -- Sledge Hammer

Working...