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


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Better idea (Score 1) 173

I don't disagree with you on the subject of Trump. I also don't think the other offering is any better, just a different flavor of ass if you will. I wanted Bernie. Still do.

Regardless, I won't sacrifice my values and I am not a "the ends justify the means" kind of person. That kind of thinking got us our current choice between Tweedledee and Tweedledum, among other things, and put Trump in a good position to actually win.

Comment Re:I think it's pretty obvious (Score 1) 158

Right now, Europeans think that reason must prevail, and that there's no way the American public can possibly vote in someone like that. But history has a tendency to repeat itself.

Are these reason loving Europeans the ones complaining that the people they invited into the EU are bombing, shooting, stabbing, axing, raping, and running over their friends and families? You can't have it both ways I guess. Either you are for unmitigated immigration, or you are racist xenophobe for entertaining the idea that letting in anyone and everyone without oversight or screening might be a bad idea.

You are as obtuse as you are transparent. Can't you smell your own filth?

Comment Re:Austin Chased Uber and Lyft Out (Score 1) 67

Woah, woah, WOAH!!!! No facts man! This is /.!

Seriously though, drinking impairs judgement. And not just the judgement you use on the road once you are driving, but more importantly, the judgement you use to decide if you are too drunk to drive in the first place. Those that are too impaired to make sound decisions will, if given the opportunity by friends or bystanders, choose to drive drunk regardless of how many options you give them. And, it is those individuals that are so blasted they end up killing people that are not going to call a cab or a ride service.

Also, this quote " ride-sharing had no effect on drinking-related or holiday- and weekend-related fatalities" could also be written as "Ride sharing successful in reducing drinking related fatalities 5 days out of 7 (with the exception of holidays.)" Much different. Also, I have heard that the line between a regular accident and a "drinking related" accident can be something less than you might expect.

Comment Re:Better idea (Score 1) 173

No need to debate. I am against any and all types and forms of election fraud. This is fundamentally because I believe in freedom, fairness, self determination, and the rule of law. I will not support disenfranchising my American brothers and sisters, regardless of whether or not they agree with my political leanings.

Thank you for your candor in admitting you are fundamentally dishonest and are willing to sacrifice our electoral system in support of whichever candidate you support. You really had me going with the first part of your post and I almost fell for it. I thought you actually were concerned about a fair election and vote counting process.

Comment Re:false positivity? (Score 1) 173

I can only imagine what you could have accomplished by playing along, amassing proof, and revealing it not to those people in the government that perpetrate and participate in these heinous actions, but to the PEOPLE who, ostensibly, still run this country as stated in the Constitution.

Don't get me wrong, I don't hold it against you in any way and I might have reacted the same as you in the same position. It just reinforces the fact that we need more people like Snowden who understand what a gift this country is and who are willing to put their lives on the line to defend us and the concept of freedom from the psychopaths that are in our own government. We should treasure them, not allow the institutions who transgressed against all of us dictate how they will deal with him and the people like him.

Comment Re:What is there to protect? (Score 1) 173

Hopefully future DNC leaders will think twice before acting this way, and if they continue to do these things, hopefully there will be more leaks.

They will think twice, but not about changing their actions. They will just become more clandestine and untraceable in their actions. They learned from Nixon (why didn't he just burn the tapes?) to cover their tracks well (disappearing hard drives, wiped severs, documents stolen from the national archives, etc. ad nauseum.)

However, as the American people increasingly choose and support partisan-ism as a surrogate for law, order, and justice the need for our leaders to conceal their misdeeds becomes less relevant. What I mean by this is that each time we allow our elected officials to get away with actions that even appear improper (much less that are violations of law) not only do we embolden them to engage in further abuses, but we anesthetize ourselves to the abuse. They become part and parcel of the landscape, eventually we internalize those abuses, and we learn to live with it, accept it. Furthermore, and most horribly, when someone in government does something even more outrageous than the last debacle, it is not compared against an absolute reference point like the law, or decency, or even what is acceptable. Increasingly, bad actors and their misdeeds are compared against the worst actions of past leaders and politicians.

How can a nation continue to improve when the reference points for the future actions of our leaders are the failures of our previous leaders?

Comment Re:Better idea (Score 2) 173

Agreed. Bruce gets this completely wrong. The answer to security in this is not greater and more complex levels of security and secrecy. It is the exact opposite that will create the security we need, namely openness, transparency, and simplicity.

I was also thinking that an "opt-in" secret ballot would be and interesting way to reduce the error bars on the problem. Since many are already rabidly dedicated to a certain party, why not give those brainwashed minions the option of grandstanding for their overlords by allowing them to cast a non-secret ballot?

Comment Re:Why not? (Score 1) 1005

You are bringing up different issues, implying I said things I specifically did not, and straying far afield from what the original poster stated and what I stated in return. He said "attack us" as in a foreign government attacking our country. That is light years away from invading a single person's privacy, and you damn well know it.

The last part of your emails is what I can only assume to be a rebuttal of the part of my post that says the Russians should, with all haste and justification, immediately start hacking all of Hillary's emails. The only problem with that is I never said that. I don't advocate for it in any way. YOU added that to what I wrote, from your own mind. I don't know what you have going on in your head that led you to this conclusion, but it's obviously affecting your ability to think logically and critically.

Comment Re:let me get this straight... (Score 1) 1005

The GOP presidential candidate is encouraging a hostile foreign power to intrude into US government data systems in the hopes of revealing evidence Clinton may have acted contrary to the interests of the United States.

Have I got this right?

Nope, completely wrong. First, the whole reason there was ever an issue with Hillary's emails is that they were...wait for it...on her PERSONAL system. And, you also are aware that the emails in question were never turned over to the US government. They were deleted from the copies that were handed over to the US government. You know all of this, right? You are, I sincerely hope, at least dimly aware of the facts of the case and the reason for the whole email scandal from the very beginning? In light of those simple details, what you wrote above is, lets be charitable about it, hopelessly confused and wildly inaccurate. You have my pity.

Comment Re:And give Putin a Pulitzer Prize (Score 1) 1005

The New York Times isn't a governmental agency or a Presidential candidate. Those are held to different standards than the media. And the New York Times didn't call on foreign hackers to instigate an attack on a government server to get material

Neither did Trump. And what the hell are you talking about? The whole issue, from the very fucking beginning, with Hillary's email server was because it was a PERSONAL EMAIL SERVER. If those emails were on a government server to begin with Hillary would either be leading by 30 points right now, or on her way to prison (depending on what was on them.)

Also, the US government doesn't have any of those deleted emails, because, you know...they were, well...this is hard to say without sounding outrageously condescending....they were....deleted. You do know what "deleted" means right? Well lets let that just sit there for a minute and consider that regardless of your ability to parse simple English, those emails never were, never have been, and still are not on any government server. How you can be so incredibly obtuse is downright amazing to me. Flabbergasting. By comparison, your fundamentally flawed mental processes make Trump look like some kind of genius. Do you know how hard that is?

Try on for just a minute that you have made at least two colossal mental failures in just one short post. I now know what the phrase "not even wrong" means in context. You are so far off base in what you believe that you can't even participate in a rational discussion of the facts. It seems that you are looking so hard to find a way to discredit Trump that you have let your mind twist basic simple definitions and facts to that purpose, rather than to represent reality. And you got modded +5 for the irrational drivel you posted. That is some pretty scary shit right there. Not just that you have such a sloppy, emotionally compromised thought process, but that there are many others that are willing to believe in your delusion without first passing it through the cognitive filters of reason and logic.

Comment Re:Watch the video - he does NOT like Russia! (Score 1) 1005

Anyone running for president has NO BUSINESS making jokes about other countries engaging in acts of War against this country. That's the equivalent of making a joke about having a bomb while in line at the TSA. When they take you seriously, you deserve NO sympathy.

Wait a second...

If someone hacks my personal email server its an act of "WAR"? Sorry, but you are hopeless and confused. A personal email server means nothing at all to the government. Its a personal server. Its definitely not a government email server, and I don't own it in the legal sense of citizens owning the government. I don't have anything to do with it at all it seems, as, by the actions of our government, its officials, and Hillary herself, the contents in question are not my business (the 30,000 "personal" emails Trump was referring to). They aren't even a concern of our government. Our government hasn't asked for them forcefully. They haven't reviewed them, and they aren't planning to. Even the government emails sent and received from Hillary's personal server have been declared so innocuous that sending and receiving them did not trigger any of the provisions discussed in the briefings about classified documents. So even having access to those can't be construed as an "attack" on our government. Remember nothing marked as classified was ever sent through that email system. Might as well be quilting tips and brownie recipes, right?

None of the facts support your position. You should retract your statement as it is blatantly false.

Comment Re:Why not? (Score 1) 1005

What's even more contemptible is the situation that has arisen from a civil servant's willfulness to skirt her responsibilities to the people who employ her. She created this issue. Now everyone who isn't a zombified Hillary supporter has questions about what was in those emails.

Openness and transparency was promised. Obama assured us we would have it. Instead we have secrecy, zero accountability, and willful stonewalling...by our employees!!!. But hey, it was a personal server, and the 30,000 emails in question were only personal emails. If she wants to play it that way you can't go back and now say Trump is advocating anything having to do with government email systems, inciting harm to the government, etc. No silly "treason" accusations, no false cries of tampering with a government email system. It was a personal server, not a government server.

  And, furthermore, the contents of the entire server (with the exception of the deleted "personal" emails" that no one saw but Hillary, her inner circle, and her lawyer) were all approved by the justice department, the FBI, Loretta Lynch, and Barak Obama. No classified emails were sent. Nothing that would violate her clearance protocols at all. That server was as harmless as a kitten during her term as Secretary of State. How much less relevant are the things in there now that time has passed? Well I guess we won't ever know will we?

Comment Re:Why not? (Score 1) 1005

Even if he wasn't joking, are you really saying that this quote about hacking into someone's personal email system, to acquire personal emails, that America has been assured to have ZERO classified details in them and ZERO government affiliation, is considered "inviting them (Russia) to attack us"? Hacking into a non-government server to retrieve details about a wedding and what to wear is not "an attack." Calling it one is blatant stupidity or baldfaced partisanship.

Your political thinking cap is on waaaaay too tight, homey. Its cutting off the circulation to what's left of the rational part of your brain. You know, the part that isn't pwned by a false ideology sold to you be shysters in government garb and media shills.

Comment Re:The basest, vilest (Score 1) 1005

There's a problem with what you are saying then. Trump asked Russia to give the media copies of the 30,000 "personal" emails Hillary deleted from her home-brew personal server. The only way there would be "personal" emails from her server residing in a government server is if they weren't personal. They would be "government" emails, sent to members of the government, that she deleted for some reason. Definitely not "personal" emails.

And, furthermore, what's up with the treason accusations? Even if Trump did say to hack her email (which he didn't), the head of our justice department, Hillary, and the FBI have all declared there is nothing on her email server that was classified. No need to worry how insecure it was, or that it was a violation of policy to use it, everything there was as safe as tap water. Furthermore, it is not a government owned server. It's a personal server, so there are definitely no "treason" issues as it's not government property being talked about.

Not siding with either one of these juvenile, puerile, and corrupt imbeciles, I just want all parties to keep their heads when discussing the issues. Hyperbole and sensationalism backed by rabid self interest and self justified irrational beliefs don't help the conversation one bit. All it does is show that some people are so hopelessly wrapped up in the ideology they have been sold that they are willing to sacrifice their integrity and honesty to scratch out a couple of imaginary hash marks on the internet scoreboard of shame.

Slashdot Top Deals