Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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

Comment Re:Feel The Bern (Score 1) 475

Are you seriously using an example of one poorly-run caucus as proof that the whole primary was rigged? I mean, I can use Tylenol to prove that all medicines are deadly poison, which is exactly as accurate.

I like Bernie, I really do. But it turns out that the easiest way to win a primary is to have more votes, which means you have to be more popular than your opponents. Polls for Bernie and voting results for Bernie were pretty close to each other, and both showed that he was never as popular as Hillary overall. He won a few small states, and lost more large states. With predictable results.

It's always more comforting to think "the person I like was cheated" rather than "the person I like lost"; just listen to the equally wrong "rigged against Trump" rhetoric now. But at some point you should stop believing every conspiracy theory and start thinking about the facts.

Comment Re:Does anybody ... (Score 1) 475

"People like Sanders" probably means "non-democrats who want the democratic nomination".

Look, I like Bernie. He's many things, most of them good. But one thing he isn't is a Democrat, and he'll be the first person to admit that. If a lutheran priest tried to become pope of the catholic church (really, "cardinals" and "superdelegates" aren't so different), it wouldn't matter how great a person that priest is, they'd face massive pushback from catholics.

So yeah, the democrat establishment didn't want him to be the democratic nominee, discussed this at length in private email, and may have (or may not have) tweaked some things to make it harder for him. That doesn't change the fact that he never had a chance, never got more votes than Clinton in larger states, never really challenged her. There is no evidence that the primary was rigged or that the DNC was particularly active or effective against Bernie. Saying otherwise is just like Trump's "rigged election" claims; it's sour grapes when your preferred candidate did not win, and it shows that you prefer vitriol over facts.

Comment Re:Clinton Foundation numbers (Score 2) 843

Yeah, I've noticed that rightwing pundits have recently (mostly after the debate) started a "fact-checkers are all evil and controlled by the liberals" campaign. I had hoped that people would recognize it for what it is, but I guess not. So no worries: you just go along believing what your Political Overlords want you to believe, without needing those pesky facts to get in the way.

I'm going to guess that you were very suspicious about Obama's country of birth and his role in Benghazi, until the 2014 elections made him a lame duck so your Political Overlords needed to shift focus.

So now you are suspicious about Hillary's truthfulness and her role in Benghazi. You probably don't remember when your priorities changed, but you can track it easily enough by looking at Fox's news story history.

You were insanely upset that Obama was growing the deficit (even though the deficit dropped every year he was in office), but no longer much care about it since Trump's proposals will do far worse to it. But now your vague suspicion about fact-checkers has blossomed into full blown distrust and hatred, right on cue.

Yay, propoganda works!

Comment Re:Clinton Foundation numbers (Score 1) 843

Any reputable fact checking organization (like Politifact) shows their work and their sources. I don't always agree with Politifact's overall rating, but they always explain their reasoning, and their facts are meticulously accurate. If the quoted person gets back to them with their sources, Politifact will update the article with the new information and change the rating based on the new information.

I've not seen any convincing evidence that reputable fact checking organizations have a liberal bias. I've seen several articles which cherry-pick to "prove" bias, but nothing by a thorough third-party.

So far this election cycle, Trump has several times denied saying things after he was recorded saying them (and those recordings were already widely available). When news organizations point this out, it is decried as proof of liberal bias. Stephen Colbert's well-known quote about bias comes to mind.

Comment Re:Clinton Foundation numbers (Score 5, Informative) 843

A really good nonprofit that is genuinely supporting a cause puts somewhere between 75% and 90% of its income into whatever cause it supports. The Clinton Foundation has a rather different record. For example, in 2015 the New York Post published numbers from 2013 showing that they foundation spend $9 million (out of a budget of $140 million) on charity,

You know that that is misleading to the point of lying, right? The Clinton Foundation doesn't give much money to other charities, true. Instead it runs it's own charitable programs, and percentage-wise spends less on payroll and administrative employee expenses than most charities. I don't know if the CF is a wonderful charity or not, but it is spending money better than other charities. It's been under constant scrutiny by anti-Clinton folks for years; if they were shielding assets for the Clintons it would have come out. Instead, people just repeat the same lies as you did

In a sense, it does lower the Clinton's taxes, in the way that donating to any charity reduces your taxes. It also means that that money is no longer theirs, which is why most people don't give 10% of their income to charity. But nobody has demonstrated that the Clintons are particularly using the CF money on themselves. Maybe they are and nobody has found the evidence (unlike with Trump's foundation). Or maybe you have evidence that the rest of the world doesn't?

Comment Re:Why Wasn't Karl Rove Imprisoned As Well? (Score 1) 409

You're correct, that's why they used that server for non-governmental emails.

So why did they use that server for governmental emails? And why, when they were being investigated, did they announce that they "lost" 22 million of the emails on that server? (These facts were mentioned in the article that you claimed the GP didn't read. I recommend reading more than just the intro next time.)

The Bush administration did the same thing as Clinton did. It's just as terrible in either case. The main difference is that the people who are convinced that this act makes Hillary evil are also convinced (like you) that Bush's actions were no big deal.

As for me, well, it means that I'm quite sure I would never hire Hillary to be a CSO.

Comment Re:No updates = no purchase (Score 1) 168

So buy a Nexus. Or an iPhone, if you'd prefer more-polished-less-flexibility.

I don't really understand people who complain that Samsung/Lenovo/LG/whoever don't provide security updates. You're right, and it's terrible, but it's always been that way so you knew it before you bought your last phone. But you still chose to buy one that would never get regular updates rather than one that would.

Comment Re:3rd party candidate time! (Score 1) 271

Not if they ever wanted to be elected again. Not after spending multiple decades convincing their followers that the Clintons are evil, despite (mostly) failing to find evidence of this.

It will be the same as the republican convention. The stop-trump movement will be "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".

Comment Re:Too secure for insecure? (Score 1) 569

Bush did the same thing? Then where's the evidence? Here's the problem. You're just wrong here. Bush+ didn't use a private email server

Dear god. Are you telling me you know that Hillary is evil because of her email shenanigans, but don't know about the Bush email controversy? And also could not google "bush email" and see the first link?

This is what I'm talking about. Both Bush and Hillary screwed up their email handling. Rational people are unhappy about both and complain about both. Partisan idiots wail about one of them but give the other a pass. Or don't even know about the earlier one, which takes some effort since it is often brought up in comparison to the current one, except on news sites aimed at partisan idiots.

Citizens look at all the evidence. Partisan idiots parrot their favorite news site. Please be more of a citizen; we need more. A lot more.

Comment Re:Free space wiping controversial? (Score 1) 569

I haven't seen any evidence that the wiping was done during the email investigation; do you have a citation that says otherwise?

And Slashdot posted this a bit after it hit the mainstream news. The fact that you think that the timing was a plot by Slashdot implies that you are less interested in facts than in political conspiracy theories. When you look around and complain about all of the political mudslinging, now you can think "hey, I'm causing all that! Cool!"

Comment Re:Too secure for insecure? (Score 0, Flamebait) 569

You're building a strawman; you made a fake argument designed to be easily knocked down. The actual argument being made is: If you complain that Clinton used a non-governmental email server, but you did not complain that Bush+ did the same thing (and "lost" a lot more email), then you are not concerned about the potential email-server crime; you're just a whining partisan idiot.

A similar situation: The tea party folks were incredibly upset that Obama ran a big deficit. You wouldn't know it to listen to them now, but for many years the deficit was the most important thing in the political world and proof that Obama was trying to destroy the USA.

But the deficit under Obama shrunk every year, while the deficit under Bush Junior grew every year. Yet the tea party folks never made a peep of complaint when Bush grew the deficit.

So the most likely explanation is that the tea party folks never really cared about the deficit; they are just whining partisan idiots.

There are of course partisan idiots on all sides of the political spectrum, but the republicans seem the only ones who let the partisan idiots set their policy and talking points. Odd way to run a railroad.

Comment Re:"free" * (Score 1) 990

Sure, but so what? Yes, we all know TANSTAAFL, but we also all know that charging at work is just a minor workplace perk. Pedants shouting TANSTAAFL!!!! are just trying to derail the conversation without all that pesky "adding meaning" or "thinking".

I'm guessing that as EVs become more common, we'll get a lot more parking lots with first a few, then 20%, then 50%, then 100% of spaces with EV plugs. It will add a bit of cost to the parking lot but not much (once it happens at scale), and it will usually be included in the cost of the parking. Some places will meter it, but I'm guessing that even then it will cost far less than the equivalent in gas, and it will be far more convenient than finding a gas station once a week or so.

Slashdot Top Deals

One good reason why computers can do more work than people is that they never have to stop and answer the phone.