Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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

Comment Re:Like the cookie law? (Score 1) 36

I'm pretty sure you already said yes when you signed up for gmail. But I'm sure there will be a new one-time banner, which says "if you select no, then since you no longer agree to our terms of service we'll freeze your account." Which seems reasonable.

Or you can pay Google $5/month/user for Google Apps account which lets you have email without ads. Which also seems reasonable.

Comment Re:Fascinating to watch (Score 5, Insightful) 403

I never knew about Breitbart news until this election, and after following them for the last 3 months I think they're probably the best example of actual news reporting on the net. The site is right-wing slanted, but the actual reporting appears to be high quality and accurate.

You should avoid the obvious trollery; you almost had me for a second there.

Comment Re:Terrified of Crimina Corruption in the Whitehou (Score 2) 733

I seem to recall Petraeus giving the information to his mistress, a journalist? While Hillary used the information (she kinda needed it for her job, after all) she did not give classified information to unauthorized folks. Kinda not the same thing at all.

Also, the Petraeus case involved in some other crap (stalking, harassing, lying to investigators, etc); I suspect that the mishandling classified information charge was a plea-bargain to avoid more stuff.

Interesting: while reading about that case, I see that the investigators knew they had a big case but did not announce anything for a few months because it was too close to the election of 2012. What a difference four years makes.

Comment Re:No constitutional crisis at all. (Score 1) 733

Didn't even send them to anyone.

Did you read the article you posted? It said he took them "to show his family" and that he destroyed all of the evidence during the investigation so that they could not prove anything either way. So... we don't know if he sent them to anyone, but he clearly destroyed evidence. I suspect that that was the main reason for his conviction.

In Comey's July statement he clearly said that Hillary had not destroyed evidence during the investigation.

Also, some research shows that picture in the sub were far more extensive than a few selfies; "Saucier methodically documented the entire propulsion system of the nuclear submarine, including the design of its nuclear compartment and its nuclear reactor." Amazing how a few facts can change something, eh?

Comment Re:Proudly on the road to gridlock (Score 1) 733

I always thought that a libertarian paradise was a place with no government or a very limited (powerless) government. There are many places around the world like that, yet for some reason libertarians want to stay in the US with a powerful and very-invasive (though often paralyzed) government. I wonder why that is.

I don't know what a government under Trump would look like. Nor does anyone else, since Trump has said so many contradictory things. It might be just fine... but that seems rather unlikely.

Comment Re:Terrified of Crimina Corruption in the Whitehou (Score 4, Insightful) 733

I've never been convicted of any crime. Therefore, by your logic, I'm a more powerful criminal than Al Capone?

I think that you believe that Hillary has not been convicted because she's bought all of the investigations. But among her opponents are very powerful Republican politicians. Not just one or two, but all of them. Some of her opponents are also billionaires. She and Bill are certainly not poor, but they cannot play in the same leagues as the Koch Bros and Sheldon Adelson (and supposedly Mr Trump). Maybe add the Russian intelligence agencies to that list of enemies. And her opponents have been coming after her for decades, and have so far proved that Bill gets blowjobs and Hillary is not competent at email security. Rather underwhelming.

Look, Hillary and Bill are powerful people, and they have some rich friends, but nobody is that invulnerable. Al Capone just had a few government agents who had to work within the rules against him; Hillary has half of the most powerful people in the USA (and many outside of the USA) gunning for her. If she was guilty, there would be proof. Instead, all we get is Wikileaks about, um, black magic or something equally moronic.

Comment Re:Could be a grinder presidency (Score 1) 733

That seems unlikely, since you usually need to, you know, actually commit a major crime before being impeached, and as far as EVERY SINGLE INVESTIGATION into Hillary has shown, she hasn't.

Though, they impeached her husband for a consensual blow job, so never mind. Four more years of pointless investigations into the Clintons. I had enough of that two decades ago.

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.

Slashdot Top Deals

A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming is not worth knowing.