Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



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

Comment Re:Our financial foundation is strong (Score 1) 44

The reality is that they've been overstating cash flow for a while, using asset sales to maintain a positive cash flow. Revenues have been in the dumps for years, and BB has largely been living off the large cash reserves it accumulated during the boom years of its business. They should have shuttered the windows a long time ago and returned the investors the cash, but they had managed to turn BB into some sort of weird stock cult, and had legions of idiots running around declaring "any day now, BB is going to take off again" even as the stock plummeted.

BB has been dead for seven years now, it's just that there was enough cash in the bank to keep the corpse twitching.

Comment Re:Star of David used by Neo Nazis... (Score 1) 276

My position is that anyone can have any opinion they want, and that the significance of that opinion to others depends on whatever level of trust the claimer can command. This puts some people in a de facto privileged position. This can be rational (e.g. privileging an oncologist's opinions on cancer over a layman's) and in other cases not (privileging a fellow mom's opinions about vaccines over an immunologist or toxicologist).

So my point is that you CAN make any of the claims you suggested, but your authority won't carry much weight because you're just a random bloke on the Internet. You would have to make a convincing argument. However even then there are lots of very credible-sounding arguments out there that don't sound credible to someone who has actual knowledge.

The bottom line is knowing the truth of any claim is quite difficult, particularly when it involves jargon. In general the judgment of someone who has spent some time studying an issue is more be trusted than what "stands to reason" in your own judgment. Even so, an expert should still be able to give a coherent defense of his positions.

So in the case of this frog meme, I have no particular reason to doubt ADL; however if it were important to me I would look at the evidence ADL puts forward in justification of their position. I do not necessarily agree with ADL on everything (e.g. on Muslims displaying tokens bearing the Shahada), but they have more than any other group tracked violent extremist groups and their affiliates and therefore are in at least a position to compare and contrast the symbols used. If, however, it were an organization like Kahane Chai, I would feel no particular reason to look into their reasoning because they're a racist group. Life is simply to short to treat a source that is consistently nonsense as if it might be credible.

Comment Re:Star of David used by Neo Nazis... (Score 1) 276

Well, actually technically speaking you're the one begging the question: you haven't established that either you or I enjoy some kind of privileged position in which we get to condemn other people for condemning language they don't like.

So by all means condemn them for calling things "hate speech", it's your right; but it's also their right.

Comment Re:no "Russian Hackers", that's B.S. (Score 0) 89

You don't think the Russians wouldn't like a disruptive candidate like Trump winning the election. They're playing similar games elsewhere, like assuring an old style Trot like Jeremy Corbyn stays in charge of Labour in the UK, and feeding all sorts of anti-EU fires throughout the rest of Europe. Russia knows that it has absolutely no hope of every beating a unified West, so it's going to do its best to screw with that unity.

Comment Re:i.e. I think I can ignore the law if I want to (Score 3, Informative) 137

Um, the French and Indian War was between 1756 and 1763. There was no "Canada", save as a bit of a colloquial expression for the New France, which became British after the defeat of French forces in 1759.

You might note that the American War of Independence didn't begin until 1775, and "Canada" didn't become a formal name until 1791 when the former territories of New France were carved into Upper Canada, where many Empire Loyalists were settling, and Lower Canada, where the Quebecois were dominant, and these two colonies later became Ontario and Quebec.

So what you wrote is factually wrong. The French and Indian Wars was a war between France and Britain, an arena of the larger Seven Years War, and most certainly involved the defense of the British colonies (including but not limited to the Thirteen "American" colonies) in North America.

Slashdot Top Deals

Bringing computers into the home won't change either one, but may revitalize the corner saloon.

Working...