Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:What a mess (Score 1) 446

All those investigations, no indictments, virtually no evidence. Either she is a criminal mastermind who makes Lex Luthor seem like an incompetent dunce, or her political enemies investigate her because gullible rubes will believe that investigations PROVE that she is guilty.

Fortunately, betting that the public are gullible rubes is a very safe bet, as this election has shown.

Please don't be a gullible rube.

Comment Re:What a mess (Score 1) 446

You're over thinking this. Trump likely doesn't believe in anything he has said. As far as I can tell, he only believes that he needs more money and more respect. He won't re-write the constitution because it would take too much effort and wouldn't make him money. I have no idea what he would do, but you cannot guess based on his previous words.

"send American soldiers to die because some foreign leader insulted him" seems pretty spot on, though.

Comment Re:Anything incriminating? (Score 3, Insightful) 446

Think wider.

The Democratic National Committee is an organization of and for the Democratic Party (aka, the voters), and should be neutral until the party members have selected their candidate. I think a lot of Sanders supporters are going to be disgusted to see how "their" party plotted and schemed to defeat their candidate


There were two major candidates. One is a lifelong democrat who is part of the biggest fundraising team in the democratic party's history, who has regularly campaigned for and helped democratic candidates, and who has pushed democratic policies (and helped set democratic policies) their entire political career. The other is an independent who just recently declared themself a democrat for the express purpose of winning this primary and "leading a revolution" in the democratic party, who is not known for helping or fundraising for democrats and who has policies which are similar to but still rather different than the democratic party's policies.

Look, I like Bernie and I respect Bernie's goals, but his goal was to take over and explode the democratic party. Why do you think the current democratic party leaders would be neutral about this? That's insane. Of course they dislike him and fear him and did not want him to win; from their point of view, that is the only rational behavior.

Note also, you say "until the party members have selected their candidate". Bernie wants more open primaries because many of his supporters are independants, not democrats. I don't know if open primaries are good or bad, but when you have open primaries you no longer have "the party members" selecting a candidate, you have anyone who decides to vote in that party's primary selecting. That may be good or it may be bad, but it ain't the same thing.

Comment Re:Clarification (Score 1) 173

Yeah, that's what I mean. Nobody can seem to find a case where someone who mishandled classified material but did not leak it ended up in jail. The closest recent case seems to be Petraeus, who actively gave/leaked classified material to a journalist. In fact, Comey even said: "In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: [various things]. We do not see those things here."

I do agree that Hillary is treated very differently than anyone else. For anyone else, people would see the recommendations and say "oh well, I thought her actions were more serious, and I'm unhappy with the result, but I guess it's closed; I assume the FBI is more of an expert on the law than I am." For Hillary, I expect at least 4 more years of hearings, select committees, accusations, insinuations, leaks, conspiracy theories, and all the rest of the circus. And little evidence of crimes and no convictions, either because she is a criminal mastermind who makes Lex Luthor seem like an idiot, or because she is, well, kinda an asshole but innocent of serious crimes.

I know I won't convince you or anyone else. Once we "know" something, we won't let new evidence change what we believe. But I'm still saddened. There are so many valid reasons to hate Hillary, but most folks fixate on the invalid ones.

Comment Re:When? (Score 1) 173

Hmmm. We likely can find the bases via Google Maps. Also, any place without Pokemon Go players could be a secret base, but it also could be a forest with no people, a lake, a toxic waste dump, a poor farming community without electricity, or maybe just a location without cell service (the US seems to have a few of those). This would be one of the most useless and ineffective ways of finding secret bases that I could possibly come up with.

Comment Re:Clarification (Score 1) 173

The US military also has strict rules that are bent and broken regularly in regards to wireless devices. One IA officer I knew actually yelled at me for leaving my cell phone at home, "How am I going to get in touch with you? Go get it!" when I was trying to think security and follow the rules.

Can't be. I've been told that every single person who breaks any of the government's security policies is immediately punished, unless they are named Hillary which just proves that she blackmailed the FBI. People regularly break the rules and don't get punished? Unpossible!

Sorry, had to say that. Yeah, I never worked for the government (military or otherwise) but since every other human I know would ignore rules which were inconvenient and hard-to-enforce, seems like military folks would do so too. Contractors, OTOH, I know well, and they'll ignore any rules, even those which are helpful and easy-to-enforce.

Comment Re:Google Tax (Score 1) 39

What if Microsoft released an update that blocks $your_company website from being accessed at the OS level (no matter what browser you use) and instead redirects them to the same service offered by Microsoft - how many people would dump Windows (after all, there are alternatives) just to be able to access your website?

You mean like how whenever you click on an address in an iOS app, you always get Apple Maps, and there is no way to get Google Maps by default? Unlike Android, where once you have multiple maps apps, clicking on an address will ask you which app to use (this time and/or make the default)?

Note, I agree that one of government's purposes is to limit the damage that a monopolistic company can cause. I'm just having trouble seeing both Android's monopoly status and what they're doing to abuse it.

Comment Re:Webster (Score 1) 39

Since a company with a monopoly in one market doesn't have to worry about competition there they can raise prices to get extra resources.

I think that you are saying that Google is charging too much for Android to get dominance in another market? The second question, of course, is "which market"?

Now, the way the word monopoly is used in legal cases it typically isn't required to have 100% of the market. 70% is more than enough to be called a monopoly.

It varies, and I don't know how EU has ruled, but 70% is still kinda low. I seem to recall that the claim was the Google is using Android to gain dominance in the "Android app market". Why this isn't the "Cell phone app market" is a question that only those regulators can answer.

Comment Re:Homosexuals (Score 0) 407

On the one hand, I don't know if that means "he hates homosexuals" or "he likes or doesn't care about or disagrees with homosexuals, but he'll happily oppress a minority to gain support from a bigoted majority".

On the other hand, I don't think that that changes how you should feel about him or treat him, since I think that the second trait is worse than the first trait. I mean, if Christians actually become a tiny minority with little political power (unlikely this century, I know), then would he happily turn against them?

Remember, the separation of church and state isn't there to oppress the religious; it is there to protect them. A government which allows oppression against homosexuals can also allow oppression against the religious.

Comment Re:Bleah! (Score 1) 407

All this means you have a bunch of people who want to tax 65% or 85% of the rich people's money (with no plan on how that's going to help, or what to do about everyone else)

Who with any credibility has suggested this? Bernie Sanders, whose proposals were a bit crazy but did have some support, wanted 52% on $10M+ incomes. I didn't read the rest of your manifesto because if you cannot contruct reasonable strawmen then the rest of your numbers are likely equally bad.

Comment Re:Nice previously researched spin in the "article (Score 4, Insightful) 407

Indeed. The Republican Party Platform, as of now, wants government to:
    * Regulate the porn industry and control what you're allowed to see.
    * Regulate who you can marry.
    * Regulate what operations your doctor can do on you (especially if you are a woman).
    * Regulate what bathroom you can use.
    * Spend more and more on the military.
    * Pay for it all by cutting taxes, mostly on the wealthy.

Not what I would call small government.

But they want to be sure that fewer people have health care, so they have that going for them, which is nice.

Comment Re:Nice previously researched spin in the "article (Score 1) 407

The relevant question is, what is more harmful to the nation, second hand smoke or back handed big government disguised in do-gooder healthcare rhetoric.

And he was right.

As someone who has seen what smoking does, and remembers the tobacco companies lying under oath about the ill effects of smoking, I'm happy with big government smacking those guys down. Also, I'm happy that my health insurance payments are a lot lower because there are fewer tobacco-caused issues they have to pay for for others on my plan.

Government's role is to keep the big companies honest. It's not perfect, but it does a better job than anything else would. Our job is to keep government honest. We suck at this, because we elect people based on what they say, not what they do. We love people who lie to us about what we want to be true. I'm not sure how to fix this, though.

Comment Re:Meh (Score 1) 407

Unless you're president Kennedy. Or president Nixon. Or unless the VP needs to cast a deciding vote on some very serious matter before the Senate (you do know that's part of the job, right?).

Yeah, both Clinton and Trump are on the old side for first-term presidential candidates. I don't think either one has any major health problems, but I think that only Reagan was older, and there is evidence that his Alzheimers manifested long before he left office.

You're right that VP picks rarely seem to be a positive, but in certain cases they can be a big negative.

Slashdot Top Deals

A man is known by the company he organizes. -- Ambrose Bierce