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. ×

Comment Re:What about DeVry? (Score 1) 420

This has been my experience. I graduated from DeVry with a degree with a similar GPA. I enrolled in 2005 right about the time the deregulation of the student loan industry occurred. I don't remember hearing anything bad about private colleges or how bad student loans were. I was out of high school and I didn't expect to go to college in the first place.

After some work experience it never became a topic of conversation for any prospective job. No one cared about where I got a piece of paper. What was a concern was whether I could do the job and fit in with the company. That first job was probably luck but it was the reason I haven't had issues with finding a job.

Fast forward and I have taken various other courses at public universities and my wife is currently getting her B.S. in Biology from a state university. She tells me her experiences which mimicked mine; it is hit or miss on the teacher and class. Some are great. Some are awful.

This isn't an apology to those institutions. It is the experience I have had with private colleges and state universities.

Comment Re:Hmm... (Score 2) 465

"slander and inciting harassment" is now free speech?

You should have made the argument that being put on a ban list is not "slander or inciting harassment". You didn't. Instead you tried argue that taking proper legal actions to protect the reputation of oneself is the same as using the law to suppress ideas.

Did I get that right? What part of slander or libel should be legal in your eyes?

Here is an example: "XXongo is a child rapist." A statement that can and has ruined lives with just the accusation. If you take legal action to protect your reputation you are now using the legal system to suppress my freedom of speech because you didn't like what I said.

You didn't think your post through, did you?

Comment Re:Free Speech Must Be Stopped!!! (Score 4, Insightful) 465

Sure, those websites/companies can ban comments/commenters that are racist or w/e but then they don't "have a culture of free speech" like TFA is saying.

Kind of hard to say "we have a culture of free speech and love free expression so much except when we don't like what you say." with a straight face.

Just like the government, there are acceptable limitations that could be put in placed (doxxing, threats, etc) but that is not what we are talking about, are we.

Comment Re:Gary Johnson it is, then (Score 1) 644

A bad time for a protest vote? Is there an election when important matters aren't decided on? Of all the disenfranchised or angry voters out there, how many didn't protest vote to make sure the right lizard gets in? How many elections did they do this? When is the right election? Sorry, that sounds like a very weak excuse for someone that doesn't have conviction to stand up for their principles.

Your contention would extend to Clinton as well. IMO, Trump > Clinton. If only for the fact that he is an unknown.

He got his nominations from conservative groups. Not "extremely far right wing conservatives". Unless you're a bleeding heart this was expected from any GOP candidate. Would you expect something different from Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, or any other GOP candidate if nominated? Cruz maybe because he is that "extremely far right wing".

Comment Re:Gary Johnson it is, then (Score 1) 644

lol, oh the cowards. What accusations? What is my nature? How am I inauthentic for having a different opinion?

This conversation started because I defended my position for supporting Ron Paul the libertarian and Sanders the socialist. Not because I am a libertarian or a socialist or a libertarian socialist (top kek) but because I was giving a vote for honesty and integrity and support for 3rd party positions because I don't like a duopoly of power. Yeah, I am such a terrible human being.

Comment Re:Gary Johnson it is, then (Score 1) 644

not everyone supports a mainstream candidate out of pure partisanship, some actually think they're the best option.

Sure. I disagree. I think when you are given two bad choices people will rationalize why their lizard is better but of course there is the exception. To be honest, I don't think all the doom and gloom we hear on either side will come to fruition if their lizard isn't elected. Like I have said before, we have had bad presidents before, one more will not be the end of the world. Go figure, I am an optimist.

Comment Re:Gary Johnson it is, then (Score 1) 644

Only superficially. Their worries about Obama were based in fantasy, my Trump fears are well justified by his comments and behaviour.

lol, right, Your reason for partisanship is TOTALLY different than the other partisans.

Clinton messed up with her emails, big friggin deal.

Well glad we have two sets of laws for us common plebs. Her Majesty Clinton can do no wrong.

, but she's not even in the same ballpark as concerns about Trump

What laws did Trump break?

Comment Re:Gary Johnson it is, then (Score 1) 644

So then you don't think Sanders is "hypocritical, dishonest, or paid-off".

To quote myself: "Definitely lost my support and respect. This endorsement makes Sanders come across as a hypocrite, liar, paid off, or all the above."

How is me not pretending to have a crystal ball a weasel word? What non-weasely word would you prefer?

Because all you need to do is add the word "not" and the meaning does not change. Clinton could have horrific consequences. Or Clinton could not have horrific consequences. It is the same meaningless diatribe whose meaning does not change.

Outside of very specific circumstances in a national US election voting 3rd party is effectively a half-vote for each party.

Care to back that up? Because last I checked one vote = 1 vote.

potential cost to exercising your principle in this way

And? There is potential for anything. There is a cost in blood for the rights we enjoy. How does it feel to argue against principles? I feel pity for you.

And if Trump wins because of your decision I believe that makes you accountable.

And? Trump > Clinton. Accountable in what way? Do I need to pay reparations to your feelings? Does that mean you are accountable for Clinton when she uses her known poor judgement?

Don't imagine I'm some hyper-partisan,

could have fooled me.

Sanders was unknown.

Too bad democrats rejected him. He was more appealing across the aisle as opposed to "doing what is necessary" for the good of The Party.

Trump is unknown only in the sense of how many of his terrible ideas and habits he'll bring to office.

And there is nothing wrong with the status-quo. Right? Actually, you don't know what ideas and habits he will bring if elected. That is the whole point. He is a complete unknown with no political history. All you can do is say "look at what he said on twitter, that's bad.". Clinton is different, you know exactly what you are getting and forgive me if I don't like poor judgment with "should have known better" excuses in a Machiavellian twist.

The only possible "good" outcome I can see is that the political system will unite against him and basically have a reformation of some kind. But that's a bit like drinking sewer water to give yourself an awesome immune system.

"a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."

Comment Re:Gary Johnson it is, then (Score 1) 644

Clinton rarely tells outright porkies.

Is that because Clinton is honest or because she is better at telling half truths? I wouldn't give Clinton the credit of "being more trustworthy" than Trump simply because she is a good wordsmith.

really obvious he hasn't got a proper plan for being president

And? The whole point is that he is a wrench in the political worlds cogs. We know Clinton will be Obama 2.0 business as usual nothing changed except stronger ties for corporate and government relationships.

He seems to think he can just wing it with "common sense" or something, but most topics are more complex than that.

Yea, he is trying to walk that line of populist that uses regular peoples everyday language. He is unscripted and people make many gaffes while unscripted. It's the whole package of "not a politician reading from a teleprompter" he is trying to appeal to. Not saying he is good at it but that is what he seems to try to do.

but most topics are more complex than that.

Of course, and nuance is the death of simple conversation. He wants to keep it simple because that is what populists do.

Comment Re:Gary Johnson it is, then (Score 1) 644

lol, you sound like a right-wing partisan hack I have had similar conversations about in previous elections. Congrats, I guess.

I think Trump would be a lame duck for 4 years.

What damage could he possibly do?

The same damage as the one who "should have known better" and was "extremely careless". But I got an Idea, lets promote someone who makes poor judgement decisions, lies about that judgement, and brushes off criticism of that judgement as a right-wing conspiracy. You are comparing shit with shit. Not a compelling position to be on.

Comment Re:Gary Johnson it is, then (Score 0) 644

He's not hypocritical, Sanders has been very consistent that Hillary is vastly better than Trump and they share a lot of important policy objectives.

Similarly it's not dishonest.

I guess it depends on why someone would initially support Sanders in the first place doesn't it? If you disagree with a lot of Sanders positions then it doesn't matter what platform position Clinton adopts. I disagree with Sanders on many things including "vastly better than Trump". Shit is shit regardless of the nuttiness. Only one piece of shit has an unknown to it.

it's a claim that both candidates are more-or-less equally bad so you can't in good conscience pick either.

There are many different reasons for protest vote everyone can have a different one.

But whatever you think of Clinton (I actually think she's be great) Trump is VASTLY worse and could have horrific consequences if he got in.

It is pretty obvious you think she's great. I don't. I don't think Trump is "vastly worse". "could" is a weasel word. There can always be horrific consequences.

You don't get the excuse of ignorance that your protest vote doesn't matter

WTF? I am the one arguing that a protest vote is not a "half-vote" for Trump, like you. I am not trying to undermine someones vote of principle with scare mongering defeatism. I am literally arguing for more opinions in the body politic by advocating for a 3rd party vote to try and break the duopoly we see with R/D. And you want to say I don't get an excuse of ignorance? You can keep your partisanship bullshit and I will keep my principled vote.

That was your protest vote, not only did everyone hear but you actually changed both the party platform and Clinton's platform. That's a pretty damn effective protest.

Don't patronize me. The election isn't over and no ones vote has been counted. I don't care about pandering to get votes. I disagreed with a lot of Sanders platform so why would I care if Clinton adopt them?

Now it's time to do what's necessary and not play Russian roulette with a Trump presidency because Hillary offends your sensibilities.

What is necessary? For the good of The Party, right? I find it pretty funny you say "offends your sensibilities". Maybe all that moral signaling and faux outrage we see from the left has finally caught up to itself. Nothing more offended than the Left.

As far as the "Russian roulette", we have had bad presidents before and survived. We will have another bad president in the future and survive. Trump brings unknown. If that's what makes you afraid then fine but don't be patronizing or disingenuous just because you are a partisan apologist afraid of something different.

Slashdot Top Deals

Of course there's no reason for it, it's just our policy.