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

 



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

Comment Re:Now it begins (Score 1, Interesting) 1069

A guy who claims he knows more than all the generals.

Which, of course, explains why he's hired complete lap dogs like General "Mad Dog" Mattis. Mattis is well-known for his soft-spoken manner, desire to "go along to get along" and his political finesse. The troops hate him and his military record is a joke.

OK, there's only so much sarcasm I can spew before I choke. Point being, Trump is doing what any skilled executive does and that's surrounding himself with people who are damn good at what they do. Trump is shoring up his weak points by finding strong people. You may not like his picks but it's difficult to argue that each one of them aren't formidable in their own arena.

I don't think you're the least bit frightened of a bad President Trump. You're terrified he'll be a good President. You're scared he WON'T destroy civil liberties, round up gays, or wipe his ass with the Constitution. That'd be the ultimate terror attack on your ideology, wouldn't it? That his policies might be effective and actually good for the country, thus proving your ideas are, at best, not worthwhile.

Comment Re:America hates Hillary Clinton (Score 4, Insightful) 1069

Ah, yes. The new liberal mantra: If you didn't vote for Hillary, you're racist, misogynist, sexist, xenophobic...

Trust me, it's not new.

1. Take control of the language.
2. Redefine what your opponent does using inapplicable-yet-nasty-sounding terms.
3. Dismiss anyone who disagrees with your redefinition as part of the problem.
4. Use "new" language to cast your opponents as Hitler reborn.

Only problem is it didn't work this time. Liberals went full-bore mental on Trump and, as a result, he looked mild by comparison. Liberals and their water carriers looked like complete fucking idiots as a result. Trump's election has as much to do with their frothing zealotry as anything he might've said or done as a candidate. His election was quite simply a repudiation of all this ridiculous PC, safe-space, diaper-pin-wearing, everything-offends-me culture.

Comment Re:Privatization of the public square (Score 4, Insightful) 410

If Facebook Twitter, Reddit and other leftist dominated companies run all the communications mediums, how are those who disagree to compete in the arena of ideas?

There's not supposed to be competition in the arena of ideas, didn't you know that? It's supposed to be an infinite echo chamber where all the heads nod up and down at the same time in the same way and nobody ever says anything that challenges anyone's preconceived notions. Those that do must be exiled, ridiculed, and called racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, xenophobic, arachnophobic, hydrophobic, and anything else derogatory the echo chamber can come up with regardless of whether or not it actually applies. Such is the mentality of the left in political discourse.

This is nothing new with the left. Go back to the origins with Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, and so forth. Controlling thoughts and implementing groupthink has always been part and parcel of leftist ideology. It preys upon the typical desire to "fit in" and not be left out of a crowd. That's why every leftist government has always sought to ban certain types of speech -- either legally or extra-legally -- as part of its method for retaining power. The USSR did it to great effect for almost a century before it came crashing down. Today's "political correctness" is nothing more than the same ideology repackaged into something more aesthetically pleasing to the masses.

Comment Re:OH NOES! (Score 1) 410

So he trolled the trolls.

So basically you're saying what he did was fine because he did it against Trump and his "fifth column." So trashing free speech is fine with you so long as it's trashing free speech you don't like. The cognitive dissonance...it burns. Why do I get the feeling you'd be singing an entirely different tune if this was a conservative forum host that censored pro-Hillary or anti-Trump comments to align with conservative viewpoints?

There's a simple litmus test you must always apply when rendering judgement on things like this. If the positions were reversed would you still feel the same? If the answer is "no" then you're not being objective enough to have a valid opinion on the subject.

Comment Bot vs. bot (Score 2) 62

Since the bulk of the Comcast reps on the other end of the line are doing little more than entering the customer's comments and choosing from a list of pre-made responses, this truly is a bot vs. bot conversation. I've designed and built call centers for companies like American Express. The humans in the call centers are glorified text-to-speech engines with almost no knowledge or expertise on what they're discussing. They follow scripts and don't know how to deviate very far from their loops.

Comment Re:Also too early to spend trillions of dollars (Score 2) 201

The administration sold it on lies and misinformation, and a lot of people bought it.

Speaking as someone who was not only alive at the time but actively serving in the military at the time, you seem to forget Saddam himself was being conned by his own scientists who feared for their lives if they reported failure. Furthermore, the CIA believed they had WMD's, and the head of the CIA advised the Bush administration that WMD's were present.

So here you are, the President, sitting in the Oval Office. You've got a murderous thug of a dictator, someone who has shown no compunction about using WMD's against his own people when it suits him. His own services report having WMD's. Your own intelligence services confidently say he has WMD's. What do you do? Ignore all that?

Put this way, if you go to three different doctors and they all diagnose you with cancer, are you gonna say "nah, I feel fine, these guys don't know what they're talking about"? Or are you going to get treatment for cancer as if you actually HAVE cancer? And if afterwards when the chemo has made you sick as hell and all your hair falls out you discover you didn't really have cancer, are you going to blame yourself for making the decision to get treatment? Or are you going to blame those that wrongly advised you?

Based on your above comments, you'd have to blame yourself and hold those who wrongly diagnosed you as completely innocent. Not that that makes any fucking sense, but that's what you're doing.

Comment Re:Awesome satire. (Score 3, Insightful) 457

Like I said, anything remotely offensive is branded racist...or, in your case, bigoted. Can't say anything critical about certain politically-protected groups, now, can we? Even when it's true, speaking it aloud gets you the PC equivalent of the scarlet letter.

Please, find me something incorrect in the poster's statement regard the central tenets of Islam? Homosexuality is a deadly sin, repression of women, religious indoctrination...if this were called "Christianity" instead of "Islam" you'd be calling them backwards, knuckle-dragging, inbred hillbillies who are stupidly worshiping a sky fairy. Alas, bashing Christians is in vogue, just as defending Muslims is in vogue.

Gotta love progressives. Hypocrisy, doublethink, and cognitive dissonance are so entertaining to watch.

Comment Re:Awesome satire. (Score 4, Insightful) 457

To this generation, anything vaguely hinting of duty and authority is immediately branded fascist. Anything remotely offensive is immediately branded racist whether race is actually involved at all (for example, being against Islamic extremism is frequently called "racist" despite the fact that Islam is a religion, not a race). We've raised an entire generation of hyper-sensitive, easily-offended, thin-skinned "citizens" who are utterly repelled at the concepts espoused in Heinlein's "Starship Troopers." All this despite such a generation absolutely requiring a cadre of protectors dedicated to the very principles they abhor in order to shield them from the ramifications of their naivety.

Comment Re:Pretty sure I read this story last decade. (Score 1) 357

“2006: Expect Another Big Hurricane Year Says NOAA”—headline, MongaBay.com, May 22, 2006

“NOAA Predicts Above Normal 2007 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration press release, May 23, 2007

“NOAA Increases Expectancy for Above-Normal 2008 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, gCaptain.com, Aug. 7, 2008

“Forecasters: 2009 to Bring ‘Above Average’ Hurricane Season”—headline, CNN.com, Dec. 10, 2008

“NOAA: 2010 Hurricane Season May Set Records”—headline, Herald-Tribune (Sarasota, Fla.), May 28, 2010

“NOAA Predicts Increased Storm Activity in 2011 Hurricane Season”—headline, BDO Consulting press release, Aug. 18, 2011

“2012 Hurricane Forecast Update: More Storms Expected”—headline, LiveScience.com, Aug. 9, 2012

“NOAA Predicts Active 2013 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, NOAA press release, May 23, 2013

“A Space-Based View of 2015’s ‘Hyperactive’ Hurricane Season”—headline, CityLab.com, June 19, 2015

“The 2016 Atlantic Hurricane Season Might Be the Strongest in Years”—headline, CBSNews.com, Aug. 11, 2016

“NOAA: U.S. Completes Record 11 Straight Years Without Major Hurricane Strike”—headline, CNSNews.com, Oct. 24, 2016

And you AGW proponents wonder why people don't take your "the sky is falling!" rhetoric seriously.

Comment Re:Pretty sure I read this story last decade. (Score 1) 357

“2006: Expect Another Big Hurricane Year Says NOAA”—headline, MongaBay.com, May 22, 2006

“NOAA Predicts Above Normal 2007 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration press release, May 23, 2007

“NOAA Increases Expectancy for Above-Normal 2008 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, gCaptain.com, Aug. 7, 2008

“Forecasters: 2009 to Bring ‘Above Average’ Hurricane Season”—headline, CNN.com, Dec. 10, 2008

“NOAA: 2010 Hurricane Season May Set Records”—headline, Herald-Tribune (Sarasota, Fla.), May 28, 2010

“NOAA Predicts Increased Storm Activity in 2011 Hurricane Season”—headline, BDO Consulting press release, Aug. 18, 2011

“2012 Hurricane Forecast Update: More Storms Expected”—headline, LiveScience.com, Aug. 9, 2012

“NOAA Predicts Active 2013 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, NOAA press release, May 23, 2013

“A Space-Based View of 2015’s ‘Hyperactive’ Hurricane Season”—headline, CityLab.com, June 19, 2015

“The 2016 Atlantic Hurricane Season Might Be the Strongest in Years”—headline, CBSNews.com, Aug. 11, 2016

drum roll please....

“NOAA: U.S. Completes Record 11 Straight Years Without Major Hurricane Strike”—headline, CNSNews.com, Oct. 24, 2016

And you AGW proponents wonder why people don't take your "the sky is falling!" rhetoric seriously.

Comment Re: Pretty sure I read this story last decade. (Score 2) 357

If you dig into this deeply enough, you'll see the utility very likely contributed a great deal of money to one or more elected officials responsible for approving such behavior.

Find who it is. Vote them out. Doesn't matter if there's a D or an R (or even an I) in front of their name. Vote the fuckers out. Corruption is what allows such things. Companies who deal in it are symptoms of the problem but not the problem itself. Blaming the company for gaming the system is like blaming bacteria for rapidly growing in a nutrient-rich solution. Find the corrupt bastard who's feeding the colony and cut them out of the situation. Every will self-correct afterwards.

Comment Re: Pretty sure I read this story last decade. (Score 0) 357

But that doesn't mean there aren't good reasons to stop polluting.

Please, find me someone who's desperately screaming "yes, I want polluted air, land, and water! I want to see wildlife drowning in crude oil! I want barren deserts instead of forests! I want the seas to rise and inundate the coasts! I want weather Armageddon!"

No reasonable person is opposing curbs on pollution. That is a strawman. Reasonable people ARE, however, opposing needless, pointless, EXPENSIVE curbs that do little or nothing to improve things but do much to line the pockets of "climate change" proponents like Al Gore and his "carbon credits" crowd.

Comment Re: Pretty sure I read this story last decade. (Score 2) 357

We need ALL NATIONS to drop their emissions TOGETHER.

And that's the humorous part. When it's the UN clamoring for the US to cut emissions, everybody's piling on the bandwagon saying it's a good idea, no a GREAT idea!

When they're asked to curb their own emissions, suddenly it's a really, really bad idea.

It's almost like it's not about climate change or emissions or anything real and only about taking the US economy down several pegs so other nations can take advantage of it.

Nah, that's just crazy talk.

Comment Re:Pretty sure I read this story last decade. (Score 1) 357

Never forget, in years where hurricane activity is low, we hear "weather isn't climate! It doesn't mean anything!" Yet in years with lots of hurricane activity "see? See? SEE? We told you global warming is real! This proves it!"

If it rains too little it's due to climate change. If it rains too much it's due to climate change. If it rains just right "we told you weather isn't climate! It means nothing!"

You can't have it both ways guys. Obviously doesn't stop you from trying though.

Slashdot Top Deals

"355/113 -- Not the famous irrational number PI, but an incredible simulation!"

Working...