Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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

Comment Re:Fair point (Score 1) 466

No, I know exactly the opposite.

So where is the evidence of Bill Clinton's sexual assaults? Are you sure it's not the same unsubstantiated claims?

Be a man and give us the actual evidence.

Personally, I tend to believe women who say they've been assaulted. That's why I'm voting for the candidate who did not commit sexual assault.

Comment Re:Fair point (Score 1) 466

What we don't have any evidence of is the actual attack.

Ah, good. You do know there's also no evidence of any "actual attacks" by Bill Clinton, right? Lewinsky was consensual, by her own testimony.

Now we're finally getting down to business. Either we believe women or we don't. Juanita Broderick came foward twenty years after she claimed Bill Clinton attacked her. If you want to take sexual assault off the table for both candidates, I'm all for that. People have already made up their minds about Bill and Donald, anyway. All this stuff is baked into the cake.

Comment Re:Relationship of technology to this election? (Score 2) 278

The pollster picks the demographics for the poll, but never justifies why those demographics are reasonable.

As far as I am aware, the normal procedure is to record the demographics from a random poll, and then adjust the weightings of each demographic group based on the actual recorded demographics from the last similar election.

The rest of your comments display a considerable amount of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I really don't think you should write about things you so clearly know nothing about. Maybe you should spend some time and educate yourself about polling procedures, practices and organizations?

Comment Re:Pretty interesting (Score 1) 403

That theory assumes Ecuadorians are stupid.

It's also possible they're just as intelligent as the rest of us, and realising that someone is trying to interfere in the election of the world's largest superpower from their embassy could cause a whole lot of political shit that they don't need beyond that they're already willing to accept having given him refuge was sufficient all by itself.

Really, if my neighbour kicked her husband out and I let him stay at my place next door, but then he started throwing petrol bombs at her out the window every time she walked past, it wouldn't require her to come and threaten me. I'd just tell him to stop it or GTFO simply because I'm not a complete and utter ass. I suspect the same is true of Ecuador.

Comment Re:OMG that's a dodgy check (Score 3, Interesting) 278

Depends what they get for that money, doesn't it? If it helps them keep doing business with the US instead of getting called on human rights abuses, it doesn't look like a great deal.

Saudis have been doing business in the US for a long long time. One owns a big chunk of Fox News, for example. Here is another:

I don't remember you clutching your pearls over homosexuals being hanged back then. Why is that?

Comment Re:Is there more to this (Score 1) 129

I largely agree with you, but I'm not convinced it's a solveable problem, and you've kind of subconciously noted the problem with enforcing that strictly in your own post - what if someone has strong political views that most people find abhorrent, but the bank has to serve them anyway, but that person is also likely to get them in hot bother because they engage in money laundering, or because they simply cause the bank to take a loss? Can they close the account down?

If no, then what happens when everyone whose causing the bank a loss simply declares they have strong political views and uses that as a shield, causing the bank to collapse?

If yes, then what's to stop them just using that excuse to censor anyway - "Oh they're a fraud risk", or "Oh, they're not profitable enough", or "Oh, they cause reputational damage to the company causing a loss for us".

I absolutely agree with you that financial censorship is scary, whatever one may think of Wikileaks (I don't really like it nowadays, it's become a propaganda organisation rather than a transparency organisation) I thought it was always rather disturbing that the US tried to shut down the Iraq/Afghan war log leaks by strongarming Mastercard, Visa, Paypal et. al. to not work with them to censor them and send them offline. It's definitely a real concern, but on the same note how do you implement that legislation whilst also allowing such organisations to reasonably run their businesses?

Also, should it apply to just banks, all financial organisations, or every organisation? If it's just banks, then that means organisations like Paypal, Visa, and Mastercard can cut them off, if it's all financial organisations that's much more clear cut, but it doesn't change the fact other organisations can still censor - a communications infrastructure company could still choose to cut off their broadcast, so you could apply it to every organisation, but then you're right back to square one where businesses are having to potentially serve people that cause them loss and end up going out of businesses anyway.

Here's a semi-related thought experiment from the UK's recent Brexit vote, in the UK it's illegal to discriminate against employees based on political views, but, if a company is forced to make cuts due to Brexit, then shouldn't a company be allowed to fire those who voted for it first and foremost over those who voted against it? Why should some suffer for other's decisions when it would be fairly trivial to make people accountable for their own actions in this sort of case? Should people really be protected from facing the consequences of their actions, whilst expecting others who aren't responsible for their actions to suffer the consequences instead?

I don't know, or even pretend to know the answer to any of these questions - I'm just making the point that it's massively complex, and I'm not sure there really is a rationally objective answer. I think the answer is always going to be subjective and therein lies the problem - what you may view to be a reasonable approach may not be acceptable to the majority. That is unfortunately the reality of democracy, minority viewpoints often get fucked, and the sad reality is that many people don't actually have too much of a problem with censorship, as long as they're not the ones being censored - they're just too dumb to realise that one day it could be them.

Comment Re:Fair point (Score 1) 466

The most they can corroborate is that "Stoynoff said Trump attacked her"

You miss something. Stoynoff told them Trump attacked her, at the time Trump attacked her. At very least, it sets to bed the notion that she only made up the story now because of the election. At the time of Trump's sexual assault on Stoynoff, there was no indication that he was going to ever run for president. In fact, at the time, the very notion would have seemed ridiculous.

"Marina Grasic, who has known Stoynoff for more than 25 years, says she got a call from her friend the day after the attack. Stoynoff detailed everything about the attack, from Trump pushing her against a wall to the business mogul showing up at her massage appointment the following day, she says.

According to Grasic, her longtime friend was embarrassed and even thought of Trump’s then-pregnant wife when deciding not to come forward about the encounter."


“She was particularly concerned that if he was capable of such behavior, what else was he capable of? Certainly character assassination by a powerful man was of great concern to her, which seems warranted in light of what Trump is saying about her this week. She ultimately decided to stay quiet but be taken off the Trump beat.”

Stoynoff’s former journalism professor, Paul McLaughlin, says that the writer called him in tears looking for advice the very night of the harrowing encounter. However, he cautioned her to remain quiet in fear of how Trump may retaliate.

A young writer doesn't ask to be taken off a cushy gig covering the rich and famous unless there's some problem.

Comment Re:OMG that's a dodgy check (Score -1) 278

Are 2 children helped in Africa helped by the Clinton Foundation worth the homosexual that was hung by some Saudis?

My Jesuit education tells me that the Saudis were going to hang that homosexual anyway. Taking their money and using it for some good is a gain. It's money that they can't use for buying fighters from American military contractors.

It's similar to the question of whether missionaries should help people in countries that are run by dictators. In one way, it helps the dictator, in many others, it helps actual people and their families who would just as soon not live in a dictatorship.

On the other hand, we now have top US evangelical leaders saying that Donald Trump sits on the Right Hand of God, so we need to take that into consideration vis-a-vis the moral choice for president.

Slashdot Top Deals

"An entire fraternity of strapping Wall-Street-bound youth. Hell - this is going to be a blood bath!" -- Post Bros. Comics