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: Umm (Score 1) 388

Lol. Some people. You're getting pretty boring.

Once again, and for the last time, I was replying to a person who made a claim about Sweden in general. He/she did not reference "Sweden last night" in this part of the thread. You introduced "Sweden last night" even though it makes no sense in this particular part of the conversation. You are clearly introducing it to try and redirect away or lessen the importance of some facts about Sweden.

Just so you're not confused, here is the parent post "He never said terror attack. Sweden has been in non stop mass rape and grenade attacks for years, riots almost every day. But Sweden is just fine, right?". I addressed the middle sentence where some general claims that cover long periods of times are made. This is the conversation that is now being had. The topic has moved away from "Sweden last night" into other territory. Conversations tend to do this, its time for you to get used to it.

You are off topic. There are three claims being made. They are either true or not. It doesn't matter who is president of the USA and whether they know Sweden even exists or not. There are three claims before you. You can prove them true or not.

Comment Re: Umm (Score 1) 388

It's better if you read the thread thoroughly before you reply to me. If you don't know how the reply nesting works, please learn. It's annoying but not that hard.

An Anonymous Coward above made three allegations, that Sweden has been in "non stop mass rape and grenade attacks for years, riots almost every day".

I provided a link to test one of these three allegations. I never made any claims.

Comment Re: Just another mindless attack (Score 1) 505

The article talks of a senator making an allegation. By American law it is untrue until they prove it otherwise.

None of us know how many phones he has. He might have any arbitrary number of phones. Unless someone has proof about the exact amount of phones he has any talk about it is useless conjecture.

It sickens me to see so many people talk about an allegation as if the defendant is guilty until proven innocent (proven in court or a senate hearing committee or some other official method - not by public opinion).

Comment Re:Sour grapes (Score 1) 1430

There are a sources saying that this is the purpose of the EC. I have no reason to doubt them.

As far as my reading goes, the EC was designed with the current situation in mind. In that they can ignore BOTH the popular vote AND/OR the winning EC vote in favour of choosing who they think is the person best for the role.

I didn't suggest the EC should be forced to obey the will of the people (either popular or EC vote). I was pointing out that they can ignore the popular vote. It's part of their mandate. So there is as much merit in arguing that they should pick Stein as that they should pick Hillary or Trump.

Is it broken? To many people it's not broken. But almost everyone would agree it's not ideal. Name a system that is. There are levels of change that one can talk about. You could leave it as is. Tweak it. Massively overhaul it. Or even replace it.

My opinion is that a two-party preferred system similar to Australia's would better represent the people. It wipes out the EC in favour of direct election of representatives and senators with every vote counting. I'm unsure whether following the lead on compulsory voting is the right way, but it sure does seal the deal on what the people wanted.

But that's my opinion and it's not what America has now. Right now they've got the EC, and like it or leave it, unless they can convince a whole bunch of Republican EC delegates to vote a non-Republican ticket, they should save their breath.

Comment Re:Sour grapes (Score 1) 1430

So really you meant to say:

"We should start the process of changing the constitution now".

One could readily interpret your original statement as others already have.

The popular vote system based on first over the line is not representative of the most popular candidate. This is solved with a preferential voting system.

Case in hand, if you'd used preferential voting, where would the 4,429,019 votes for Johnson, 1,403,558 to Stein, 559,853 to McMullin, and 1,282,470 other votes spill over to? There are enough votes here to change the results either way.

Comment Re:Watch the USA (Score 1) 266

Just to be super clear here, Hillary Clinton did not "win the popular vote". She didn't win it because there was no competition around the popular vote measure.

The competition wasn't about the most votes in total across the nation. The competition was about winning the most electoral college votes. That is the metric by which the winner was measured. The metric was announced several hundred years beforehand.

Complaining about losing the competition because you have some other totally unofficial metric by which the loser measured as better is the same as complaining about the results of a football match because the loser had more yards gained / ball control / ball passes / whatever.

Back on topic. I thought we were over this hurdle. Jobs are meant to be earned on merit.

Submission + - Feds Demand Everyone's Fingerprints To Open Phones (

ArtemaOne writes: Under the Fourth Amendment, Americans are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures, but according to one group of federal prosecutors, just being in the wrong house at the wrong time is cause enough to make every single person inside provide their fingerprints and unlock their phones.

Back in 2014, a Virginia Circuit Court ruled that while suspects cannot be forced to provide phone passcodes, biometric data like fingerprints doesn’t have the same constitutional protection. Since then, multiple law enforcement agencies have tried to force individual suspects to unlock their phones with their fingers, but none have claimed the sweeping authority found in a Justice Department memorandum recently uncovered by Forbes.

Submission + - SPAM: FBI agents dismayed by failure to charge Clinton

Okian Warrior writes: The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved claiming that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged.

“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute — it was a top-down decision,” said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by

Link to Original Source

Submission + - "Clinton Is Not the Tech Privacy Candidate. Not Your Privacy Anyway." (

Nova Express writes: The lengths Hillary Clinton has gone to in order to protect her own tech privacy are well documented. Protecting the tech privacy of ordinary American privacy? Not so much. "Amid the dump of hacked emails from Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta are bits and pieces of discussion that help indicate her mindset on citizen privacy and the use of encryption to protect data." When asked to come out for privacy, the Clinton campaign demurred. "When a top politician appears to take an uninvolved stance in a conflict between the executive branch and private citizens or companies, don't mistake it as neutrality. It's deference to authority. As a candidate running to be in charge of the executive branch, 'staying out of it' is really approval for the Department of Justice to push the issue to see what would happen."

Slashdot Top Deals

"Engineering meets art in the parking lot and things explode." -- Garry Peterson, about Survival Research Labs