Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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

Comment Re:Cui Bono? (Score 2, Insightful) 125

They demonstrate subterfuge, lying

The emails we've all be pawing through for the last several weeks (not just Podesta's, obviously - Clinton's own, as released by the FBI and State in as absolutely slow a manner as they can muster, when those should have been FOIA-able records the day she left office) demonstrate that she was lying under oath before congress. The bulk of the emails, yes, simply show that she and her team lie regularly to their supporters and the voters, on almost every matter before them. But what matters is her fictions surrounding her provisioning and use of her home server to do official business, and her destruction of records after being subpoenaed for them by congress.

I don't really care about the rest of it. That the (now) head of the DNC was just caught red-handed providing Clinton with a verbatim debate question in advance of the event (and, of course, now lying about that) or a hundred other little behind-the-scenes bits of tawdriness and sleaze is indeed just typical politics. But lying before congress, destroying federal records, and playing fast and loose with classified material (in a way that would prevent anyone else from ever holding a federal job again, and possibly landing them in prison) actually matters.

Comment Re:Cui Bono? (Score 0, Flamebait) 125

So your take on all of those thousands of emails, including the ones that further demonstrate the lying and corruption of the Clinton machine, are ... what, fake? Are you aware of explicit, credible denials about, say, the accuracy of those Podesta emails (in, say, the form of Podesta or his correspondents releasing alternate versions of them) ... that nobody else knows about? No? Didn't think so.

Comment Re: Equal amounts? (Score 1) 306

Barring that, I think pushing Johnson or Stein into double digits would be fantastic.

Why? Getting them in to double digits is guaranteeing that Clinton will be in power and will shape the Supreme Court for next 20-30 years. Her loathsomeness extends to her ideology, not just her corrupt ways of working people and making herself wealthy at the public trough. She's anti-liberty. Trump can be a tool, socially, but we know which direction is SCOTUS nominees will lean: towards contstructionism, not tyrannical liberal activism a la Clinton. Having a hissy fit and voting for the Libertarian or Green candidates is guaranteeing the Hillary Clinton will be our chief law enforcement officer for at least the next four years, and will seat justices that are as hostile as she is to the liberties protected by the constitution.

Comment Re:Equal amounts? (Score 1) 306

How about not sensationalising everything they publish?

They publish non-sensational stuff all the time. But written evidence reinforcing our long understanding of Hillary Clinton's parade of corruption is rather sensational here in the weeks right before millions of people who know she's a corrupt liar none the less make her the chief law enforcement officer of the country. You don't think things related to that deserve some attention?

The "stuff they're leaking" is ABOUT politics. It's the DNC (a political entity) and her campaign (a political entity) making back room deals with the media, among others, to spin for her in her quest for power. How can leaks that are entirely about a politician's conduct and the behavior of her supporting minions in their pursuit of the White House be anything BUT political in nature?

Comment Re: Great! (Score 1) 260

We agree on the rights that we agree to protect. Then when someone decides they don't care about that agreement, we agree on what to do about that person if they act in violation of our agreement. If someone outside of our agreement decides they don't care how we operate as a society, and looks to destroy it (or parts of it) for the lulz or for territorial acquisition etc., then we agree on when and to what degree we do something about it.

You're "that's cute" bit of phony condescension shows you to be just another whiner who likes to pretend we can't decide on and enforce the protection of such things because your notion of what you're entitled to is at odds with everyone else's. Just to help your cause, you're complaining about other people's greed, to fake insulating yourself from anyone else's criticism that you're too lazy to get involved in the defense of the rights we recognize. So, just another anonymously craven, lazy whiner troll who thinks that calling other people cute gets them off the hook for their own intellectual cowardice. Carry on! Just remember you're not kidding anyone.

Comment Re:AI -- FAR more hype than substance (Score 1) 203

Filtering out extraneous data and acting on the environment is something all living things can do but computers are horrible at.

Unless computers have been trained to do exactly that. We're (genetically) trained to do so through natural selection. Things like software controlled radios are trained to do the exact same thing through careful programming in comparatively short time, rather than across millions of years of trial and error.

Comment Re: Great! (Score 1) 260

Yeah, Dyn is just a bunch of clueless amateurs. If only they'd asked you how to mitigate a colossal DDoS flood. You'd tell them: security! Because ... the problem with a publicly exposed service that doesn't work if it's not publicly exposed, is that it doesn't have good enough security to keep the public traffic out. Gotcha.

Comment Re: Great! (Score 1) 260

Brave words in defense of a social media platform ...

I'm not defending Twitter, I'm defending YOUR right, and mine, to be free of script kiddies trashing things just because they can. And I was replying to a user here who was cheering on a DDoS attack and hoping it permanently destroyed something he doesn't like. I didn't see that user, or you, proposing or providing an alternative that unicorns its way past your standards.

So, you don't like SV's social media systems. What have you got designed that will work better? Be specific.

Comment Re:AI -- FAR more hype than substance (Score 2) 203

But the things you listed aren't features of intelligence, they're bugs in our brains (or simply, things that natural selection de-emphasized out of comparative irrelevance in your basic cave man survival scenario).

If those short term memories were more reliably committed to long-term, or there was no real distinction between those things, would that really be a disqualifyier for intelligence?

Comment Re: Great! (Score 2) 260

You can't conceive of an individual or gradiated reaction

So what is your "gradiated" take on whether or not malicious script kiddies should burn down Twitter's DNS provider? Personally, I think that's a black and white issue. I responded to someone who was cheering on the script kiddies doing the damage. You, with your advanced and clearly superior intellect and sense of nuance, obviously think it's kind of OK that the script kiddies wreck things like that. Can you elaborate please? Be sure to use simple words to describe the part where launching a DDoS like that is a good thing, so that us simpletons can keep up with your anonymous, cowardly self as you teach us more about our irrelevance. Or will explaining the ethical merits of the DDoS attack on Dyn fail to provide you with a proper venue for your pretentious faux condescension? I'd hate for you to have to just simply get to the point - that might hurt your tender, advanced, nuanced feelings.

Slashdot Top Deals

It's later than you think, the joint Russian-American space mission has already begun.