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

 



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

Comment Re:how can it be a new feature (Score 1) 89

Well, that was a bit of an under-exaggeration. I'd charge it overnight. So first thing in the morning, it would have a full charge. It would be critically low, if not shut off by midnight; often by ten, and sometimes even by 8pm. It became unreliable at the height of its useful period.

Comment Concrete evil (Score 1) 369

Trump, despite all the mud being thrown this way, has done very little concrete evil in comparison.

A $7.8 million contract for Trump Plaza was awarded to S&A Concrete, owned by Anthony "Fat Tony" Salerno. Trump World Tower was built with concrete from Quadrozzi Concrete Company, associated with the Lucchese crime family.

Comment Re:Russia, DNC, and NATO (Score 1) 644

He gave another speech that day where the doors were open to admit hundreds of mouth breathers into a crowded ballroom. Trump got hot and sweaty, decided the HVAC wasn't working, and threatened not to pay the hotel.

Why would any country accede to this guy's demands when he always finds a way to renege on his promises?

Comment Russia, DNC, and NATO (Score 3, Interesting) 644

I rifled through the emails eagerly looking for stuff, but I was disappointed- I couldn't find anything except suspicious use of pronouns (we/us vs they/them). It was all fluffing up of bland talking points. These clowns couldn't rig an election if their life depended on it.

And I also said that they shouldn't be claiming their emails are hacked by Russians, after all we've been hearing about hacked emails for the past year. They may be telling the truth, but making the argument at all is bad optics.

But then I hear this from Trump yesterday, clarifying his previous statements on NATO, which makes the Russian involvement seem more suspicious:

NATO. They ask me about NATO. Right? You saw that the other day, Meet the Press.

"Well, I hear you want to give up NATO..." I don't want to give up NATO. I like... NATO's fine. But they gotta pay. They gotta pay.

So we have all of these countries, and they're not paying. They're not paying. And we're protecting them.

And the question is: "If such-and-such a country were attacked, are you willing to start World War 3?" Because that's essentially what's happening. They don't pay.

They say, "Well, we have a treaty!" So they have these articles: "Donald Trump wants to give up NATO." No no no. I don't want to give up anything. I want them to pay.

We're a country. It's not 40 years ago, 50 years ago. And now, most people in this audience don't even know, that we're protecting Japan, China, we're protecting Germany! Nothing but money.

We're protecting Saudi Arabia. If we weren't around, Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia wouldn't be around for two weeks. We protect Saudi Arabia. They don't pay us what that should be paying. We're losing everything. Folks, we lose on everything.

We protect South Korea. We have 28,000 soldiers on the line, against the maniac on the right. We have 28,000 soldiers against North Korea, separated. Pretty dangerous stuff, considering he's got a million-person army. Pretty dangerous stuff.

So we're doing all this, and yet they're paying us a fraction of what it is.

I saw it with Japan. And by the way, I think it's fine- but they've got to pay us. We don't have the money. They gotta pay us. And they will pay us if the right person asks. If the right person asks. They will. They will.

Do you have any idea the difference that makes for our country if we get countries to take care of us the way they should.

We had a general recently, because we've been doing this, and he said, "Mr. Trump doesn't understand that Japan is paying almost 50 percent of the cost of what we do for them." And I said, why not 100 percent? Why? Tell me why. Tell me why.

Folks, we're run by incompetent people and it's going to end. And it's going to end soon. Because people aren't taking it anymore.

Now, when I talk about we're going to protect Japan, which is great, now, you always have to be prepared to walk. And I said, in one of the articles, they said, "Now what would happen if they didn't pay." I said, âoeWe have to walk."

Hillary Clinton said, "He wants to walk from Japan!" Now, see, what she did, she makes it impossible to negotiate. She's not a negotiator. She's a fool. She's a fool. No, she's a fool.

Because when you tell Japan- very smart people, great people, I have many friends there- but when you say you're not prepared to walk, you'll never walk? So she said, "How dare he say that! We will never walk!"

Then they're never going to pay us. We may have to walk! Folks, we may have to walk.

But- the same thing with Germany. We're spending a fortune in Germany. Same thing with Saudi Arabia. Let me tell you. Saudi Arabia? So we'll say this: "Folks, you gotta pay us. You gotta pay us. Sorry."

They're gonna say no. Bye-bye! Within two days, they're calling back, "Get back over here, we'll pay you whatever the hell you want."

OK? One hundred percent.

But when we have a fool- when we have a fool- an absolute fool like Hillary Clinton, saying, "we will never abandon, we will never leave"- they're not going to pay. And we don't have the money to take care of every nation in the world.

We don't have the money. And the same thing with the NATO nations, and they'll pay and they'll all pay probably- and if they don't pay, you walk! And that's OK, too. That's the way it works, folks. That's the way it works.

WTF is going on here? Is this a prid quo pro?

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) 67

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?

Slashdot Top Deals

Time is an illusion perpetrated by the manufacturers of space.

Working...