Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



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

Comment Re:Russia exposes political corruption in the US.. (Score 1) 821

Literally giving debate questions away to the detriment of Bernie.

Literally taking gifts from foreigners for access to the Secretary of State.

Literally saying that she lied to the public, but told the truth to the bankers.

Perhaps none of that rises to the label of "corruption" for you, but by most accounts, those actions are at least immoral if not illegal.

Comment Re:Russia exposes political corruption in the US.. (Score 1) 821

If the RNC internal documents show that they're giving away debate questions, or colluding against primary contestants to get their favored candidate in, or running corrupt charities to take foreign money in return for government failures, then I'm all for having them exposed, whether it is a Russian bear, a Nork kimchee, or even just a disgruntled insider.

Now, if the DNC internal docs had just shown say, motorcade schedules, and children's school addresses, or other sensitive information that didn't show corruption, Obama would have more of a leg to stand on. Instead, it looks like he's punishing the messenger to avoid the message.

Comment Russia exposes political corruption in the US... (Score 4, Insightful) 821

...and they now must be punished.

Is someone going to prosecute and sanction the DNC for stealing the election from Bernie? Or the Clinton Foundation for running a massive pay to play scheme?

Next time Voice of America points out corruption in some foreign election, should we expect to be sanctioned by that foreign nation?

And this is even if you believe that we have 100% proof that Putin leaked Podesta's and the DNC's emails.

Honestly, if Putin *did* do the crime, we should be thanking him for doing a job that the US mainstream media should've been doing.

Comment A massively different tune... (Score 1) 534

...than the "good old days". In the words of head CRU scientist Phil Jones:

I should warn you that some data we have we are not supposed to pass on to others. We can pass on the gridded data – which we do. Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it
-Phil Jones email Feb. 21, 2005

Maybe make all the data and code open source, for anyone to peruse, and you won't have to worry about it being "saved".

Of course, if you make it too open, maybe someone will find something wrong with your grid cell adjustments...

Comment Re: Obama has no right to do this (Score 1) 557

Two things:

1) I don't believe you are the same guy who started this conversation. They were much more interesting :)

2) I don't believe that you didn't read my posts. It's fairly obvious you read them but cannot find any rational argument against them :)

But hey, keep autoreplying without reading! :)

Comment Re: Obama has no right to do this (Score 1) 557

Funny, exactly how did you determine that the post didn't answer your question, without reading it?

ESP perhaps? :)

Keep your eyes closed, and stop reading, right now!

Because here's a secret. It's a super secret. And you should have your eyes closed now so you don't read it.

Okay, last spoiler alert!

a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a

You've missed much more than my explanation on your poorly expressed SJW rant :)

Comment Re: Obama has no right to do this (Score 1) 557

Perhaps I'm not expressing myself clearly - I gave you an exact answer on why you expressed yourself poorly.

But let's try again, since if it's possible for me to misunderstand you, it's possible for you to misunderstand me:

Your statement poorly expressed because it was ambiguous. There were three possible interpretations of your statement. I'll lay them out for you again:

1) I'm supposed to read your statement as sarcasm, since everyone knows that the actual modus operandi of SJWs is their desire not to control others, feeding into a need to appear as if they aren't;

2) I am supposed to read your statement as a "a pox on both their houses", where you find both the right-wing and SJWs morally equivalent.

3) I am supposed to read your statement as "I won't give the right-wing the benefit of the doubt, but I'll give SJWs the benefit of the doubt".

I interpreted it as #3.

Would you like to pick which interpretation you intended from my list of 3, or would you like to offer a fourth option I haven't covered?

Or, would you like to skip reading this post, and restate an ultimatum that has already been addressed? :)

Please, feel free, re-quote yourself. With bold letters, maybe :)

Comment Re: Obama has no right to do this (Score 1) 557

You expressed yourself poorly, and I could care less if you'd like to read my post or not :)

If you'd like to make yourself more clear, please choose, explicitly, one of the following options:

1) I'm supposed to read your statement as sarcasm, since everyone knows that the actual modus operandi of SJWs is their desire not to control others, feeding into a need to appear as if they aren't;

2) I am supposed to read your statement as a "a pox on both their houses", where you find both the right-wing and SJWs morally equivalent.

3) I am supposed to read your statement as "I won't give the right-wing the benefit of the doubt, but I'll give SJWs the benefit of the doubt".

Or, if you'd like, add an explicit fourth option that materially responds to the original critique I had of you, when I assumed you meant #3.

There's always an option :)

Comment Re: Obama has no right to do this (Score 1) 557

Okay, so three options:

1) I'm supposed to read your statement as sarcasm, since everyone knows that the actual modus operandi of SJWs is their desire not to control others, feeding into a need to appear as if they aren't?

2) Or, am I supposed to read your statement as a "a pox on both their houses", where you find both the right-wing and SJWs morally equivalent?

3) Or, am I supposed to read your statement as "I won't give the right-wing the benefit of the doubt, but I'll give SJWs the benefit of the doubt"?

I tended to imagine the third one as your intent - perhaps you were just unable to express yourself clearly. Oh, and apology accepted in advance :)

Honestly, I found it funny that you objected to the use of SJW as some sort of epithet - it seemed like an awfully SJW-esque sensitivity, contradicted by your non-SJW-esque willingness to continue a conversation with someone you disagree with :)

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Working...