Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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

Comment Re:"Tacit approval"? My nose! (Score 1) 200

Again your interpretation is contradicted by the first sentence of your source!

Read that again. Arranged the donation in 2014, this was started in 2013. I know, it's so out there...especially in context. Also re-read the first source, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt where you missed the important part.

Her term as Secretary of State ended in 2012.

Comment Re:"Tacit approval"? My nose! (Score 2) 200

Considering the stuff that's come out from leaked emails including stuff like Hillary knowingly ordering the destruction of data even after demands for the data under law? You can take the link as you want, it does have backlinks to all of the previous leaked emails, previous statements and so on. That means she/they was lying, ignored official requirements, or simply believe they're so big they can avoid prosecution.

You might want to have a closer look at your source (and the actual evidence your source is using).

In Dec 2014, after delivering the first batch of emails to the FBI, Clinton decided to change the retention policy to 60-days (which would nuke all the old emails), but the sysadmin didn't actually do it.

In early March 2014 the House Committee issues a subpoena, in late March 2014 the sysadmin realized he hadn't carried out the request from back in December.

What Clinton and her team have maintained is that the sysadmin made the decision to violate the subpoena by belatedly carrying out the deletions on his own.

You may not believe it, but neither the sysadmin (who got immunity) nor the emails you're citing here, actually contradict that narrative.

Again your interpretation is contradicted by the first sentence of your source!

"Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arranged a $12 million donation from Moroccan King Mohammed VI to her family’s charity in 2014 in return for the Clinton Global Initiative hosting its international meeting in the North African Muslim nation, according to an email made public Thursday by Wikileaks."

Of course it's not entirely your fault, the Daily Caller is apparently convinced that a charity doing something for a major donor is somehow wrong.

Comment Re: Equal amounts? (Score 1) 326

This is basically what I take from your position:

Sacrifice our principals to stop Trump? Never!

Sacrifice our principals to stop Hillary? Hell yeah!

Well that's a glorious way of summing up your own bias that you could possibly parse it that way. Advocating that people vote for a third party is clearly not favoring one of those over the other. Advocating people vote for Johnson or Stein is obviously a way to not sacrifice my principles to either.

It's ironic that you complain of how I parsed your statement, because you completely misparsed mine.

I didn't say you were abandoning your principles by supporting a 3rd party.

I said you were abandoning your principles by endorsing the actions of a major power using spycraft to try and sway the election.

Neither candidate so dangerous as to be worth sacrificing one's principles over. At the end of the day they are both pathetic and craven. Neither one will cause armageddon; they're too vain to.

GWB went into Iraq based on his gut feeling that it was the right thing to do.

As a result of that action hundreds of thousands have died, the EU is experiencing a migrant crisis that threatens breakup, and the global recession was a lot worse than it likely should have been.

And GWB was orders of magnitude better suited to be president than Trump. Don't underestimate just how much damage Trump could cause.

What a shocking revelation! Next you'll tell us that wrestling is fixed!!

Actually, it is a bit shocking. Most politicians are not so pathetic and chameleon as to openly state this to their backers.

How would you know? We've only seen Clinton's dirty laundry.

Romney for certain was at least as guilty as Clinton with his 47% comments.

There are ways to openly and honestly separate one's personal opinions from one's politics whilst not lying to the people about the positions one will be fighting for.

If you're looking to confuse the public and cause needless controversies. Do you really think Obama only came around to the idea of gay marriage in 2012?

Clinton's personal opinions are kept personal because they're irrelevant. It's the positions she campaigns on that will show how she'll govern.

Even Trump managed to do this, at least once and at least briefly regarding the transsexual bathroom thing. He's for letting transwomen use the bathrooms in Trump Tower, but he defers to the party when it comes to national policy--he'll veto legislation that tries to protect transsexuals on the national stage because he's "in favor of letting the states decide." (Maybe he's walked this back since then; I don't know.)

That's not nuance, that's incoherence. On everything except immigration Trump's policies are under-defined and incoherent. Unless it has to do with immigration, Muslims, or the military, Trump is just trying to repeat what he thinks the GOP wants to hear.

I don't respond well to this sort of fear-mongering or this protectionist attitude toward unrepentant liars. Leaks have always happened. They are an essential tool for keeping our democracy at least semi-functional. But suddenly they're not leaks any more--they're "hacks" ! Oh noes!

And there's a strong ethos that the media, who is the one typically digging for and exposing leaks, will pursue both sides more or less equally. Because the power to expose leaks is the power to sway elections.

I appreciate lies being exposed. If it's true that the Russian government is the only one doing it at this moment in time then kudos to them! I encourage anyone and everyone to leak/hack Trump's dirty little secrets as well, though I must say that (as I am with Bill Clinton) I'm much more interested in his lies on policy than his lies about his personal affairs.

Except few entities other than the Russian government have the resources to leak/hack on this scale. This isn't just one phishing attack against one campaign chair. It's months of well crafted attacks against a multitude of people including a series of technically advanced hacks.

You're also advocating for a system where parties would be encouraged to encourage a group of unethical extremist supporters who will carry out their dirty work for them.

I'd be fascinated to see what emails were going around the Trump Org, but that no one has hacked and leaked them is a good thing.

Comment Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score 1) 235

Arguing a federal judge cannot fairly adjudicate a case before him because of his ethnicity is the very definition of racism. The textbook definition mind you of what Racism is.

Correction: He argued a federal judge cannot fairly adjudicate a case before him because of his parents' nationality. Mexicans are not necessarily Hispanic, just as Americans are not necessarily European, African or Asian.

It was because the judge was of Hispanic ethnicity and still embraced some portion of Mexican culture. Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico, did you hear Trump bring it up once? No? Ok. I hope we can forget about that absurd position and agree that Trump was talking about race and culture, not the nationality of the parents.

Note that Rubio and Cruz probably escaped similar remarks because they've publicly embraced white European culture.

And even *if* he had made a racist statement, that still doesn't mean all of his supporters are racist. That's a hasty generalization.

No one sane claims all of his supporters are racist, just a lot of them.

Oh, and this is a lovely flip of the standard "just because a lot of Trump's supporters are racist doesn't mean he is!"

It just floors me when liberals are for free speech *except* when it's speech they disagree with...

If floors me when some conservatives demonstrate that they have no clue what free speech means.

Comment Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score 1) 235

Wanting to keep out members of a "religion" that openly-stated goal of which is the takeover of the world

Islam is a political philosophy of conquest that happens to contain a religion. It's one of several political philosophies that we could live without.

Islam is whatever the hell the particular believer happens to believe.

If you're a member of ISIS, Islam is the one true faith and should be spread by the sword.

If you're a farmer, Islam might be a religion preaching peace and compassion.

If you're a student, Islam might be an annoying set of dietary restrictions.

To claim that Muslim is a political philosophy of conquest is no more valid than an atheist like myself claiming that Christianity is a political philosophy that demands theocracy, the repression and even killing of gays, and Jews should control Biblical Israel to bring the Second Coming.

Those Christians exist, but if you claimed those beliefs broadly represented all Christians people would rightly regard you as a lunatic.

Assuming that anyone who embraces the label Islam is a member of your "political philosophy of conquest" is inaccurately stereotyping a lot of people (probably over a billion). It is the definition of bigotry. If you object to that label then reconsider how readily you categorize 1.7 billion people with a very diverse set of beliefs.

Comment Re:Clinton is a politician, Trump is not (Score 1) 181

> actually seems to garner extra support from their followers by being outlandish.

I wouldn't say extra support. Trump absolutely knows his fanbase, the reality-tv loving, racially insecure (but not financially insecure, trump primary voters average $11K more in yearly income than both clinton and sanders primary voters) authoritarian-leaning types. For them it is not about policy, its about the feels and he gives them the best feels. But they only make up about 40% of the republican party, and everybody else is pretty much grossed out instead of turned on by that shit.

I think this is the key.

Ever since Trump went after the Khan family it's been obvious that the general electorate does not like Trump going after private citizens.

Yet that's exactly what he did after the first debate with Alicia Machado and again after the second debate with the women who accused him of assault.

The first debate proved that the general electorate does not like him acting unpresidential.

Yet he keeps doing it and ended the first debate by calling Hillary "a nasty woman" and creating a completely unnecessary controversy by talking about contesting the election results.

All of his advisors would have told him these were bad ideas ahead of time and would cost him votes. And it's not like they asked him to memorize the constitution word-for-word, avoiding these controversies would have been trivial.

I honestly see two main possibilities for his behaviour:

1) Trump really does have a major deficiency, either comically low levels of self-control or he's living in a massive bubble and somehow thinks these are brilliant ideas.

2) Trump has no intention of winning the election and is just trying to preserve his fortune. He lost his TV show and realizes he's destroyed the mainstream appeal of his brand (possibly his biggest asset), so he's now trying to transform his new base into a market for TrumpTV.

Comment Re: Equal amounts? (Score 1) 326

Why is attacking the Hillary campaign a bad thing?

Because it's a one-sided effort driven by a rival power. Say Russia has pushed the polls by 1% to the Republicans by releasing DNC communications, they could have redirected their efforts the other way and done just as much, if not more.

An entity who sees you as the enemy is trying to manipulate into a certain course of action, don't you think it wise to resist that manipulation?

We now know they corrupted the democratic process in the primary to deliver her the nomination. And we know from the latest Wikileaks release that Clinton has been openly talking to Wall street about the fact that she's been routinely lying in public, saying what is necessary to get elected.

What a shocking revelation! Next you'll tell us that wrestling is fixed!!

Why are you attacking someone for attacking this loathsome woman?

Because even if you were right that she was loathsome (she isn't, but your other wrong ideas take precedence), that doesn't mean the ends justify the means.

What happens when someone decides your favourite candidate is loathsome? Do you still think the Russian government is justified in hacking their internal communications and dumping them to the Internet to look for dirt? Do you want a political system where no one can have an honest discussion over email because a state-sponsored hacker might dump it and cause a scandal?

I even think that would be a more important goal, long term, than sacrificing literally every shred of dignity and concern for the truth and the future of our democracy just to stop some shock-jock version of George W. Bush (i.e. someone who is almost certain, at the end of the day, just a lazy puppet.)

This is basically what I take from your position:

Sacrifice our principals to stop Trump? Never!

Sacrifice our principals to stop Hillary? Hell yeah!

Comment Re:He's an obvious risk (Score 1) 44

Re "And how do you then get him out of the country?"

Like "ózsef_Mindszenty" József Mindszenty , if you can get to a great embassy your safe.

"... he was freed in the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and granted political asylum by the United States embassy in Budapest, where Mindszenty lived for the next fifteen years"

Having a person be fully protected in an embassy becomes a great political talking point and keeps the reason as to why in focus.

Great for Russia, not so much for Harold Martin.

Once he walks into that embassy the only way he's leaving is in a hearse or a police car.

Comment Re:He's an obvious risk (Score 1) 44

You need a passport to stroll up to an embassy and claim asylum/defect?

Disingenuous of his defense to claim a lack of a passport diminishes flight risk. We're not complete idiots.

And how do you then get him out of the country? Is living out the rest of his life in an embassy really a preferable alternative to standing trial and spending some time in jail?

The bigger risk is a state actor (ie Russia) uses some real spy craft to sneak him out of the country and bring him to Moscow.

Comment Prove it (Score 1) 269

The onus is on him to show that his new technology is actually safer than human drivers. So far the only arguments I've seen from him are hand-wavy approximations.

This isn't a web app, you're dealing with people's lives, you can afford to publish some proper research to demonstrate how the AI compares to humans.

Take the initial fatal crash that caused all the uproar. It turned out the car couldn't see the white truck because of the sunlight and time of day. Is that a scenario they examined during testing? Why didn't the AI refuse to drive in those conditions?

Comment Re:Minefield (Score 1) 549

Or promise to keep ban Muslim immigration (race and religion are well correlated).

Idiots like you probably think Iranians and Arabs are the same race because they both wear turbans sometimes. They're not.

You are of course, completely wrong in your understanding of my beliefs.

I wonder, will your wrongness cause you to re-evaluate your own beliefs?

Comment Re:Minefield (Score 1) 549

But with all that Trump has said or promoted, I've not seen yet where he came out to promote the agenda that is against equality in matters of gender and race.

You've apparently never heard him judge women overwhelmingly based on their looks and sex appeal.

Or say that a Mexican judge wasn't fit to judge him explicitly because of his race.

Or repeatedly imply that all black people lived in the ghettos.

Or promise to keep ban Muslim immigration (race and religion are well correlated).

Or you know, campaign at all, including all of the subtler stuff he implies, but I won't mention because there's no point in arguing subtle implications with people who can't even admit his hair is fake.

This is really getting dangerous in this country, if people start getting blackballed, hired or fired for having expressed mere support for X political party or Y viewpoint.

Here I agree, their opinions are wrong and stupid, but most everyone is wrong and stupid about something, and they should be free to express their dumb ideas without fear of getting fired.

Comment Re:Here's the full menu (Score 1) 171

The Melinda Gates idea was a bit odd since I'm not sure what she's done of significance other than marry Bill Gates. And I don't think that's a narrative that Hillary Clinton really wanted to introduce to the campaign. I take it as an indication that this was a very preliminary list.

The number of business people is surprising, I think they were worried that Trump would start coming across as competent and they're need someone richer to undercut the "rich business person knows how to fix economy" narrative.

Comment Re:Attacking the source (Score 1) 171

Scott Adams has a blog post on attacking the source, and claims it's almost always a "tell" for being guilty.

So I read more of the link for context and was surprised to see Adams acknowledge that Trump was guilty.

It doesn't change the validity of disputing the account of an extremely dishonest source like James O'Keefe.

Comment Re:Interesting, but not suprising. Identity politi (Score 0) 171

I'm not *suprised* the Dems lumped candidates into buckets based solely on race and gender, rather than perhaps QUALIFICATIONS FOR JOB, but I do find it interesting and illustrative

The concern trolling is adorable but misplaced.

All this shows is that one guy grouped people based on the obvious political signalling implications of each pick, which is pretty much the main effect of a VP pick in the general election. There's no reason they would have gone forward with an unqualified candidate based solely on gender (such as certain nominees named McCain).

I would hope that if someone like Paul Ryan was making the list his categories would be something like:

Legistlative Experience
Executive Experience (govt)
Executive Experience (private sector)
Foreign Policy Experience

I would hope I get a T-Rex for my birthday. I think I have a better than you.

Paul Ryan would choose his pick the same way every other nominee does, to balance the ticket and improve his general election chances. Qualifications matter only if they pass a minimum bar, after that no one really cares.

McCain chose Palin because he needed a wildcard to beat Obama (he forgot about making sure she was over the minimum bar).

Obama chose Biden to be a safe white guy with lots of experience to balance the cool black guy with relatively little experience.

Romney chose Ryan because Ryan was respected by the Tea Party (which was very dubious of Romney).

Trump chose Pence to reassure the GOP that Trump would be under adult supervision.

In 2020 Ryan is liable to choose someone like Marco Rubio, a Hispanic who can repair some of the damage done by Trump and start flipping some culturally conservative Hispanics to the Republican column.

Slashdot Top Deals

Parkinson's Law: Work expands to fill the time alloted it.