Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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

Comment Re:The New American: (Score 1) 377

Go back far enough and you can throw out quite a few media outlets outright with that. For example, the LA Times? Supported Japanese internment camps.

Of course, I won't argue the broader point that most of the media simply isn't worth reading any more. But when evaluating them, instead of worrying about history, I worry about how detailed an account they give of their sources and how well the stories can be corroborated with other facts.

Anything less would simply be intellectual laziness.

Comment Re:Companies that never made money and never will (Score 0) 104

> I'm old enough to remember when people said that about Facebook.

Well, Facebook was founded on February 4, 2004, so welcome to the over 12 crowd, I guess? :) That'd also imply that you got that username at age one, though.

Anyhow, Facebook has a lot more user data to sell to advertisers, but most people tell me the ads convert like crap. Marketers love just how fine you can tune your targeting, though.

Don't get me wrong, Twitter does monetize its users to people who datamine the stuff and such, but they haven't been making enough money off it.

Right now, they're just cutting costs so their financials don't look so bad, they can probably stay afloat for quite a while just by being so big. I mean, Yahoo has a NEGATIVE value if you take out their stake in Alibaba and they haven't imploded.... yet.

Don't be too surprised if they get sold at fire sale prices if the economy goes south, though.

Comment Re:Companies that never made money and never will (Score 5, Insightful) 104

That's because idiots thought Google gave away free search and didn't know it was raking in money with AdWords because they never looked at any financial statements.

Twitter is a pure money sink that is trading on their fame. I'm not even sure how they would monetize it and I don't think they know either.

Comment How much does CTR pay, anyhow? (Score 1) 356

Might want to fact check that next time. Watch the videos. Look at the corroborating sources. Note that the Zulema lies to the cops and that she fakes illness ("nice acting!") among all the other things.

But don't take my word for it. Watch the videos and compare (not, e.g., the mole on her chest that proves it's the same person). Look at the dates listed on the FEC website in comparison to the rallies.

Think for yourself. Contrary to what some have claimed, you don't need CNN's authorization to look at stuff. The press doesn't have extra rights, particularly not the right to think for us.

Submission + - Clinton Foundation works with Big Pharma to keep the price of US AIDS drugs high (

Okian Warrior writes: A newly released Podesta E-mail explains how the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) works to keep the price of AIDS medicines high in the US.

CHAI contracted with Big Pharma companies for AIDS drugs to be distributed in developing countries. In return, the group agreed to resist efforts to bring similarly lower cost and generic drugs to the US.

The email is a reaction to "comments President Clinton made on lowering domestic AIDS drugs prices at the World AIDS day event":

We have always told the drug companies that we would not pressure them and create a slippery slope where prices they negotiate with us for poor countries would inevitably lead to similar prices in rich countries.

[...] If we do try to do something in this area, we suggest that we approach the innovator companies that can currently sell products in the US with the idea of making donations to help clear the ADAP lists. For a variety of reasons, the companies will likely favor a donation approach rather than one that erodes prices across the board.

[...] I would guess that they would also likely favor a solution that involved their drugs rather than an approach that allowed generic drugs from India to flood the US market at low prices or one that set a precedent of waiving patent laws on drugs. ... We can go to war with the US drug companies if President Clinton would like to do so, but we would not suggest it.

Comment Re:Ignore the ones that have been edited (Score 1) 356

That's a very convenient hypothetical you engage in, but some of us went through a lot of research to corroborate some of those things with the FEC records, two independent videos, etc.

This would tend to give factual support to a conclusion opposite of that hypothetical scenario in which your ideological opponents act in ridiculous ways.

Comment Re:it is as moral as police using informers (Score 1) 356

> Tell me, why have these e-mail releases only come at the expense of the Democrats?

Because nobody has sent Wikileaks any. They're a leak group, not a hacking group. They tweeted themselves that if someone had sent the leaks earlier, this could've been Sanders v. Trump.

> Do you believe that only the Dems conduct shady or embarrassing business?

Unlikely, and one of the GOP hinted as much downplaying the leaks by saying "next time it could be us." But you do have to actually present evidence before I'll go accusing anyone.

> Or is it simply that the current situation validates your political position and you aren't interested in justice?

I'm sure there may be some like that--there always seem to be. I wouldn't count myself among them, however.

> Is it a coincidence that these e-mail releases come during a political campaign?

Not at all. It should be hard to get leaks of campaign malfeasance before a campaign isn't actually going on.

> Or is it a coincidence that Donald Trump keeps making these bizarre admiring comments about Vladimir Putin?

Probably--they talk about playing up his "bromance" with Putin in the leaks, though. I won't defend Russia's actions--I don't like that at all. I greatly prefer not to go to war with them, however.

> I'll take a regulated police officer over a vigilante (or simply paid mercenary) hacker any day.

I will, too, but I'm not quick to condemn whistleblowers for releasing true information. And based on what I've been able to corroborate, it appears to be true.

> We know little about the motivations of these hackers, but logic suggests they have an agenda. And you've fallen for their agenda. Congratulations, an anonymous hacker is pulling your strings for reasons you vigorously deny! You are the perfect patsy.

Everyone has an agenda. I won't blindly believe Wikileaks any more than CNN. That's why I've gone through and verified things for myself.

What have you read? What have you researched? You can't base every decision on your priors, you have to actually test them against the evidence yourself.

Comment Re:Yes, selecting the US president isn't "gossip" (Score 2, Insightful) 356

It's not our business that the primary was rigged, that Bernie supporters were framed for the violence at Trump rallies (actually staged to benefit Hillary)? Normal people would call that newsworthy. It's also something that's been captured on video, including independent videos that corroborate the O'Keefe video. And then we have the FEC showing that person on the Democratic payroll.

What next, are you going to quote some of the joke personal emails they were talking about releasing?

Comment Re:Scientists have proven (Score 1) 356

> The thing about the emails is that there ain't shit in there. Really. Its just inside baseball crap. No actual scandals.

Well, you do realize they leaked PODESTA'S emails, right? :) Hillary's have come out via FOIA, but haven't been leaked (yet?).

And there are plenty of scandals, it's just that you have to read a lot to piece things together. Better to do that yourself than just blindly trust CNN or whoever. I mean, CNN was trying to tell us that there Congressional term limits already exist and that reading Wikileaks is illegal, both of which are complete nonsense. You can find clips of both on YouTube, BTW.

Comment Re:Snowden also did something illegal (Score 2, Interesting) 356

That's supposed to come out Monday, actually, in the next Project Veritas video. I'll reserve judgement until I see it for myself.

That said, there's already evidence that one of the guys caught was regularly visiting Obama and there was an email in the leaks that corroborated their daily 1 o'clock calls with the DNC. And there's all the talk of people who set things up so they won't know about things, not to mention that one might think the "nasty things" you were talking about were the violent rallies we now know to be staged, but whatever. This certainly has been a dismal election, I don't think anyone can argue otherwise.

Anyhow, let's wait and see when all the facts come out. I prefer to update my thinking as facts are uncovered, rather than pre-commit.

Comment Re:Scientists have proven (Score 4, Insightful) 356

Actually, I saw one on the news saying they'd seen some of their emails up there and then they waffled about non-specific "inaccuracies." They clearly said it was their email, but they weren't giving any specifics about what they believed was inaccurate.

So that tells me the DNC email was really leaked. I'd say it's a time to "trust but verify"--that is, don't blindly trust anything you read, but corroborate it yourself with other evidence.

Slashdot Top Deals

Save the whales. Collect the whole set.