Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re: Isn't this illegal? (Score 1) 326

And Presidents don't plan raids and other tactical operations. At most they get advised that a raid is planned and ready to be executed on their approval, but the planning is all much lower. Any failures in the planning are at the tactical unit level and maybe as high as JSOC but not above that.

Unfortunately (and sometimes fortunately), presidents do sometimes get involved at the tactical level.

Moreover, I agree with AC's "the buck stops over there" comment. Let's be honest, if Hillary was president during this raid the GOP would be holding hearings and accusing her of intentionally killing SEALs.

Comment Re:Don't care anymore (Score 1) 326

DTS, The alligators don't like it when you drain the swamp.

Trump is the swamp. More importantly, Trump never liked that term. His cabinet appointments indicate his primary concern is building a wall around the swamp and filling it with sewage. If he cared about draining the swamp, he would start with his own conflicts of interest and he would stop taking money from foreign governments in violation of the emoluments clause. If the GOP cared, they would be attacking him for this instead of lying for him.

I'm so tired of liberals that don't know what a fascist is. They're on the left, not the right...Never mind it's the Nationals SOCIALIST party.

That's because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. If you were capable of thinking about politics with nuance instead of "socialist is in the name so it must be left derp derp" broad strokes, you would understand that the National Socialist party had a platform of both extreme left and right policies, but most of their leftist campaign promises were empty. Most did not actually care about helping the working man. The primary focus was on nationalism. If you care to understand the term, I suggest you start on wikipedia.

A party platform that isn't a whole lot different than the Democratic party of today.

This is one of the scariest lies in modern times. First, you are playing the "I am rubber you are glue" game, hoping to completely neutralize the term and its meaning. The party of the neo-nazis is now calling extremely moderate left-wingers nazis constantly in an effort to numb everyone to the effects of being called a nazi.

Hitler may have been a vegetarian animal rights supporter, but he did not believe in the rights of homosexuals or minorities (strong features of Democratic policies), equal rights for all, ease of voting, etc. Only one major party in the US has the support of prominent neo-Nazis and KKK leaders: Trump's GOP.

The truly sad part is that your blind partisanship is leading you to support a man who spouts a populist message to gain support, but openly wants to subvert the judiciary and media, get rid of non-white non-Christian Americans, and control the world with his tiny little hands. He is even starting out with an unstable alliance with Russia for fuck's sake.

Comment Re:Meaningless (Score 1) 745

Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Crimea, Ukraine, Turkey... Yes, a stunning list of foreign policy victories by that crew in the last several Administrations! By all means let's keep that crew...

I am not saying they were perfect, but can we at least make sure everyone on the new crew knows where Crimea is?

...And not just because they served there under Putin.

Comment Re:Whoah there (Score 1) 22

But in saying it this way, you're attempting to imply you can provide evidence. And I am simply pointing out that there is no reason to even consider that this is a possibility. Don't tell me you will do it later, because that's irrelevant. It's no different than saying nothing at all, or even saying "I have no evidence" or "I cannot provide evidence." They are all exactly equivalent in the end, except that the other methods do not have the implication that you might actually provide the evidence, despite you not giving us a reason to believe that, so it smacks of dishonesty.

Just say nothing at all, unless you have something to contribute. You'll be better off.

Comment Re:It's the media's fault (Score 1) 22

If not for you, then it's not difficult for anybody.

I make no claims about what is not hard for others. I do assert that most people do not do it, regardless of how hard it is.

In this case blaming the media is just doing the democrats' dirty work ...

Yawn. I am uninterested of your characterizations. Either actually make an argument against what I wrote, or do not. So far, you have not.

We all have the same power to turn our backs. You're not that special.

You are not, in any way, arguing against what I wrote.

In theory humans can make the choice.

Of course they can. So? Again: this, in no way whatsoever, implies that the media is not to blame. It just means that we have the power to ignore their bad behavior. But it's still their bad behavior. They are still to blame for it. Obviously.

Comment Re:Whoah there (Score 1) 22

Incorrect. Page views and the like are cash money.

I meant -- obviously -- there is no journalistic or democratic reason to do it. Everything has a reason.

I don't know of any broadly reported unsourced attacks on Hillary Clinton.

Of course not, you don't read the NYT.

So you have no examples, then. Good to know.

Comment Re:Whoah there (Score 1) 22

I'm not talking about evidence, I'm talking about railgunner's assertion that it's "obvious".

I get that, but the main point is that there's no reason to report it in the first place, because there is no evidence ... regardless of how much you think it might be in line with his character to do it.

Besides, it worked so well on Clinton, can you blame anyone for adopting the tactic?

I don't know of any broadly reported unsourced attacks on Hillary Clinton. Can you give an example? The main attacks I know of on her were based on hacked documents that the DNC and others admitted were genuine; on a report by the FBI that no one called into question on the facts (though admittedly we couldn't verify some of those facts, such as that the information Clinton mishandled was actually classified); and so on.

Comment Re:It's the media's fault (Score 1) 22

The media has 'trained' us?


Is it really so hard to turn your back?

Not for me, no. I am one of the very few who actively dismisses any unsourced report.

Where is all this *personal responsibility* that you speak of?

Of course, it is our responsibility to ignore unsourced reports. But that doesn't mean the media isn't responsible for incessantly giving those unsourced reports to us ... obviously.

Comment Re:It's the media's fault (Score 1) 22

'Fake news' and the official narrative are frequently synonymous. Why is it the media's fault if people decide to believe them?

Did you not read my comment? I already answered this question: because it's the media that has trained us to believe assertions without evidence.

Comment It's the media's fault (Score 1) 22

The media regularly gives us stories without evidence, without substantiation, and asks us to believe those stories. Then -- I'm shocked! -- people end up believing stories without evidence or substantiation.

Only when we stop paying attention to source-less claims will we solve the problem of "fake news."

Comment Re:Schools are corporations too... (Score 1) 483

Representative Zoe Lofgren (from a district in Silicon Valley) is arguing that the university "is training software engineers at the same time they're outsourcing their own software engineers. What message are they sending their own students?"

Same message as the law schools: "We're happy to take your money. If you can't find a job after you graduate, tough shit. You should have thought carefully about your major's future potential before taking on $100K in student loans."

To be really clear, though, this is only UCSF, not the entire UC system. UCSF does not train software engineers--UCSF is a medical school. They only trains doctors, pharmacists, nurses, and dentists.

Comment Re: No, it's definitely a UFO (Score 1) 124

A great way to test somebody's intelligence is to ask them what they think about the terms "UFO" and "conspiracy theory".

That sounds more like a great way to test for empathy. I expect those on the autism spectrum to do far better on your test.

Highly intelligent people will know what UFO stands for, but also understand that the vast majority of the people use the term to refer to aliens. It isn't unreasonable to interpret "do you believe in UFOs?" as "do you believe in aliens?". I usually just try to clarify and ask which definition they are using, but when I'm lazy I'll just go the peanut gallery route.

Slashdot Top Deals

God doesn't play dice. -- Albert Einstein