Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



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

Comment I did NOT say I approve of what he did or how (Score 0) 1006

Let me first be very clear here - when the Clinton's are smiling with Trump at Trump's first wedding, I don't trust ANY of these bastards. NOT ONE. Trump and Clinton are statists with different agendas, but statists nonetheless. Madam Clinton is, despite her horrendous dishonesty, is a far more eloquent and disciplined speaker with far fewer gaffes.

That said, the headline implies that Trump approves of the hacking that Russia allegedly accomplished, when the obvious context from the video is that he doesn't approve of any of it and is talking sarcastically about Madam Clinton's 30k+ still-missing e-mails being recovered by Russia. This goes precisely and correctly to the point about the current executive branch's lackadaisical enforcement of security of the e-mail within established government structures where I or anyone else would be permanently disqualified from any secret clearance had I engaged in such egregiously negligent or wilful behavior. He implies as much only a few seconds later in his speech, and he is definitely not joking then, but using the hyperbole (i.e. "joke") as a vehicle to establish a critical point because he feels fed up with this nonsense. I really believe that this is serious to him as well because the same weapons that were used against his opponent can definitely be used against him at any time.

So please, don't put words in my mouth the way the Clinton-oriented press is doing to Trump here. That the message should have been delivered differently (in a much more serious way) is obvious and would've prevented this ridiculous debate and the opportunity for mudslingers like Gawker to even attempt such a false characterization of the statement itself. But I never said I approved of how he did it nor implied it, nor anything else Trump or Clinton says or does.

Comment Watch the video - he does NOT like Russia! (Score 1, Insightful) 1006

It was not only obviously a joke, but he suggested the hack could also be China or some other private hacker.

He also said that Russia and China have no respect for the United States.

Finally, fuck any link to Gawker. Slashdot deserves much better than this, even if such a ridiculous leading headline will falsely stoke the Hillary supporters without any further context. I mean, what's next? "Hillary shit herself regularly..." (...at one year old)?

Comment It really is Google's fault (Score 1) 162

Google should have created an OS architecture that allowed for it to push its own security updates while leaving the aesthetic aspects and third party apps of the phone vendors and carriers alone (unless they were fundamental to the security problem). This whole circus over Android updates would be a moot point if they would at least do that.

Comment Re:Meaningless (Score 1) 106

Its not different standards at all - the comment was made that outside of some very specific middle eastern regions, burkas are uncommon, and yet when I go to London burkas are common enough across the entire city for people not to be staring, pointing or treating them as uncommon.

Therefore the prior assertion is total bollocks - burkas may not be the *norm* in London, but they are certainly not "uncommon".

Comment Re:ABM systems equal escalation? (Score 2) 68

The protection system shifts the threat considerably, because it means the country with it no longer suffers the same threat as the country without it - the concept of mutually assured destruction counts on the destruction of both parties being mutually assured (funny that...), and a protection system means it is no longer mutually assured, one party has a much better chance of coming out with significantly less destruction than the other.

Think of it this way - you and your worst enemy both have guns pointing at each other from a distance of 50 paces. You both know there is enough time to fire back if the other one fires, and you also both know neither of you can move in time to not get hit. If both of you are sane, rational people, do either of you fire? No.

Now consider how that dynamic would change if your enemy put on a full body bullet proof suit of armour. All of a sudden it doesn't matter as much to him whether you fire or not, he is much more likely to survive than before - and he is also much more likely to survive than you are as you dont have his suit of armour.

Gets a little too uncomfortable, doesn't it?

Comment Re:Not as big as... (Score 5, Informative) 157

The Hercules H-4 "Spruce Goose" (Hughes never liked that nickname) is not amphibious, it was a pure seaplane, while this Chinese aircraft is amphibious and it is the largest of its type.

Thats why the summary starts with "China has completed production of the world's largest amphibious aircraft"...

Comment Re:If they didn't want unlimited use (Score 5, Insightful) 421

They no longer offer it.

And they also are under no obligation to allow out-of-contract users from continuing to use the old plan - which is exactly what they are doing here, telling the heaviest out-of-contract users to let up, move plan or Verizon will no longer do business with you.

Just as you don't have to do business with Verizon, once you are out of contract Verizon no longer have to do business with you - you aren't guaranteed or entitled to the same plan for the rest of eternity, only the duration of the contract.

Slashdot Top Deals

Real Users are afraid they'll break the machine -- but they're never afraid to break your face.

Working...