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:FFS, just indict her (Score 1) 592

Not sure where you are getting your information. The Republicans have never stopped screaming over Hillary's emails. And more to the point, an actual criminal investigation is ongoing -- the FBI is going to question Hillary's top aides in April and potentially the former Secretary herself shortly thereafter. Are you just making stuff up here? Do you know something I don't know? Really curious.

Comment Re:Voting is picking the least evil/bad (Score 1) 592

Power corrupts, yeah. But Machiavellian hearts of darkness are one thing, having the incompetence to get caught is another. I say lock her up and throw away the key. She's one of the weak and sickly world leaders, and this is a natural part of the cycle of life. Our leaders are widely assumed to be scoundrels, so it's not news. But when the curtain slips and there's something tangible to actually indict these people for, then they absolutely do need to be removed from office. Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon -- I wish he had let the Justice Department do its thing and air all the dirty laundry instead.

The alternative is that you get leaders who know they can do anything they like, and even flaunt it publicly, and nobody can touch them. Is that what you want?

Comment Re:Work-Speak [Re:FFS, just indict her] (Score 2) 592

Hold on, Tex, she said in an interview that's simply short-hand for cleaning it up for non-classified release

Maybe. Or maybe she's lying about that, the same way she lied in her claim that there was no classified material on her server. She deserves the benefit of the doubt in terms of a fair law enforcement investigation, but news flash -- she really doesn't deserve the benefit of the public's doubt.

Comment Re:FFS, just indict her (Score 4, Informative) 592

If you follow the link, the Breitbart piece quotes from and summarizes a linked Yahoo News piece by Michael Isikoff. The Isikoff article in turn quotes Congressman Trey Gowdy talked about specific published emails from Hillary's illegal server. Seems adequately substantiated to me. And I disagree with your dismissal of Breitbart, I suspect that claim originates from those who simply don't like their conservative focus. The Brietbart editors certainly make mistakes, but probably no more than some of the larger news gateways and punditry outlets.

Comment Re:Remember how "Top Secret" works (Score 4, Informative) 592

Information that is "Top Secret" is born classified.

Only in the land of fairies and unicorns. Information is born and everyone with a classification is supposed to submit it to a original certification authority that'll determine what, if any, classification status it'll get. Primarily it's the one who creates this information but secondarily everyone who receives it also has an independent duty to get any information they think is classified reviewed. From what I gather a lot of people sent information to Clinton's server that has been retroactively classified, meaning those who sent it didn't do their job. The accusations are so far as I can tell that Clinton should have recognized some of this information as obviously classified, so she didn't do her job either.

I'd be much more interested to hear if there's any accusations of mishandling actual, pre-classified information. It's one thing to say that you could have, should have, maybe seen this was classified it's quite another to be reckless about content that's clearly marked secret/top secret. If they can prove that, they might have an actual case against her. If it's only a case of omission as a recipient of information that ought to be classified, that doesn't seem like that big a deal.

And the Special Access Program (SAP) information? The emails that everybody involved, including the recipient Clinton, certainly knew was always and permanently classified? Clinton committed a crime in multiple ways in the handling of that info. Here's an example -- simply leaving the received email on her server in any format that could be read by her own IT staff was a crime. Deleting it and knowing that the bytes might still be on the HDD would also be a crime. Ignoring the situation was a crime.

Of course, somebody went to great lengths to somehow hop the airgap between the SAP network and the public internet. But even as the recipient, Clinton committed a crime in allowing that email to continue to exist on her server.

Stop trying to paint her as anything other than a willing lawbreaker on this. Lesser analysts of the State Dept or the TLA intelligence agencies would go to jail right away. It's only the Democratic party's M.O. of corruption while they hold the reins of power that keeps Obama's DOJ from arresting her.

Comment Re:A sprat to catch a mackerel (Score 1) 592

So, the little fish, who certainly did nothing wrong in setting up a mail server

On the contrary, per the US Federal Code, if the IT worker knowingly provided access to classified info on this server, then he could be charged with a crime, even if he was "just following orders". (The proper response to an illegal order is to refuse to carry it out.) However basic fairness says that the head honchos who gave the IT person instructions to enable illegal handling of classified info bear greater responsibility. So it's logical to grant immunity to a lesser wrongdoer in order to get critical testimony to indict the greater wrongdoers.

Comment Re:Bad stuff happens in war (Score 0) 529

Yes, this is exactly what I was trying to say. Thank you.

It's easy for leftist SJWs to rant against Israel and whitewash the Palestinian cause, but sometimes they accidentally encounter reality. I'm thinking of those college girls who went over to volunteer and demonstrate with Palestinians, and ended up getting sidelined, generally held in contempt, and (yes) raped by adherents of that religion of peace and tolerance. If you're a Jew, you get an extra helping of hate from Palestinian terrorists, but it turns out that they have plenty of general malfeasance to go around. So yes, I'll take the society that's actually trying to move ahead with a liberal (small "L") culture and build chips for Intel over the stabbers and head hackers shouting "Allahu Akbar".

Comment Bad stuff happens in war (Score 0, Flamebait) 529

The moral picture is still asymmetrical -- Israel is fighting an existential war of self defense, whereas the Palestinians are fighting to murder and drive out the Jews, and institute a stone age theocracy in place of the Middle East's only democracy. If a few IDF soldiers went unhinged and committed murder (for which I'd expect them to be prosecuted by Israel), that's still both qualitatively and quantitatively different from the acts of murder by Palestinians against Jewish civilians. Palestinian suicide bombers who kill civilians achieve a sort of sainthood in Palestinian society, whereas Israeli soldiers (and orthodox zealots) who go off the reservation make (most) everybody in Israeli society angry, because in their personal acts of revenge they bring dishonor on their country's war effort.

Bracing myself for onslaught of angry leftists, and reflecting on how lucky we are in a society where free speech has been the rule for centuries to be able to blow steam out our ears and argue with each other seven ways to Sunday, without it really occurring to us to shoot and stab one another, at least for the most part (yeah yeah, Slashdot is USA centric).

Comment Re:"nonconsensual sex or touching" (Score 1) 399

A much more likely explanation: professionals and graduates are simply exposed to less risk (e.g. they spend more time studying, away from parties and bars).

That was my first thought too, and I agree with the point you're making. However, if the question being asked is "have you ever in your life..." then we're also asking about those people's undergraduate experiences. I'm not sure that you could successfully argue that the vast majority of sorority/fraternity crowd doesn't go on to graduate.

Comment Re:"nonconsensual sex or touching" (Score 2) 399

Oddly enough, graduates and professionals report WAY lower rates. So, that means the increase in rape/non-consentual penetration/sexual touching by force is a recent event.

Or else there is a lot of wrong self reporting in these studies. It could be that students of previous years took responsibility for their own boozing and sleeping around without hyperanalyzing and reevaluating it later in light of 2015 feminist attitudes. Not to say that date rape isn't real, just that drunken sleeping around is sometimes something that both people walk into intentionally, and there is a lot of immaturity and unwillingness to take responsibility for one's own behavior out there, particularly when "blame the male" is a convenient cop out.

OK, I'm done ranting now. Disclosure: I didn't drink in college, and I hope my own kids stay far from that whole crowd.

Comment Re:Can you liberals please wake the fuck up? (Score 1) 965

So here's a different viewpoint. Speaking as an atheist, I am so far removed from all the religious groups that they are indistinguishably worshiping the same absurd stone-age fantasy.

I hate to interrupt your enjoyable session of patting yourself on the back, but have to point out that your attitude is not scientific. If you take a measurement and round it unnecessarily, you are throwing away part of your data. Just enjoying the look of the nice round numbers may be good for your personal psychological well being, I suppose.

Comment Re:Why (Score 1) 965

Your knee-jerk liberal equivocating is as wrong as it is boring. In the USA you are very unlikely to encounter violence over strongly atheistic speech. You will get a vigorous response of (take a wild guess...) more speech -- in Texas I admit you may be yelled at, you may have some ladies tearfully tell you they'll pray for you, you may have a greasy haired evangelist do his best to save your soul, etc. However, you will not be shot or tased.

See, you're falling into a typical liberal fallacy -- "any speech that makes someone mad is hate speech and is the same thing as violence". In fact, so called hate speech that leads to more speech back and forth is an inescapable part of a healthy and diverse society.

Comment Re:Why (Score 2) 965

So the real question is, who are these people making decisions, and why did they make those decisions? It's odd that you don't seem to recognize that.

"There is no god." "Mohammed was a false prophet." Either of those statements is sufficient for militant Islam to want to chop off my head, as I said either sooner or later as they see their way clear. It is the job of civilized governments to constrain and box in militant Islam so it can't expand and chop off heads and blow people up in any wider of a sphere than necessary. It is distinctly NOT the job of civilized governments to censor our lovable albeit loud mouthed atheists to make the Muslims happy.

Consequently, the question of why a particular militant Islamic group goes murder-crazy at a particular moment may in some cases be purely academic and moot for policy purposes.

Comment Re:Why (Score 1) 965

Except, of course that there has been surveys done of French Moslems (by the Pew Research Institute if memory serves well), that tend to prove they are the least radicalized and best integrated of all European Moslem communities. You really have no idea what you are talking about, so please just STFU.

After rampant reports of burned cars and attacks on Jews in Paris, I'd really hate to see what poorly integrated Muslim populations looked like.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you can't learn to do it well, learn to enjoy doing it badly.