Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:WHat I said on ars: (Score 1) 564

Oh, FFS I tried. You really are obtuse. My point, made tersely in my original response to Katko and pertaining directly to the topic of the OP, elaborated on with examples after you came white-knighting in here, being that Julian Assange is a dick - prone to behaving in a sanctimonious, hypocritical, cowardly fashion - said nothing whatever about wikileaks but is indeed largely predicated on accepting the claim that "Wikileaks is in the publishing business, not the hacking business". So just keep repeating it. Either wikileaks is a dumb clearing-house or wikileaks is a legitimate publisher. If the former, Assange is at best some kind of unusually self-aggrandizing but otherwise tangential media commentator, guilty in this case only of lying about his willingness to trade himself for Manning - but if the latter, he's responsible for the at best shoddy job and terrible lapses of judgement and at worst the utterly venal nature of wikileaks' editorial policy - the failure to protect the innocent, the failure to champion let alone act on journalistic principles of fairness, independence and accountability, the threat to use information withheld for purposes of damage or retaliation etc. etc. Give me a good old fashioned partisan hack any day over the smooth untroubled hypocrite who believes he acts on principle. /communication

Comment Re:WHat I said on ars: (Score 1) 564

Yes. Really. "I used to support you until I had these Concerns!" == concern trolling.

Again, no. Concern trolling is defined by the intent to disrupt the discourse by falsely representing one's motivations, not by the simple presence of a clause stating that "I don't believe x anymore" - particularly when the statement as in this case was a simple, if heated refutation of the stupid claim that "everyone used to believe in x until a week ago, so anyone who says they don't believe in it now is an American sockpuppet". But I think you know that, you just enjoy calling people names. If you really thought I were a troll, aren't you a little old to be feeding the likes of me?

Your hand waving and butthurt attempt at avoidance are noted.

What, like in a little black book or something? That sounds kind of authoritarian.

Yes that really is the issue right there, isn't it? Because either wikileaks is a publisher, and Julian is editor-in-chief and responsible for policy, or blah blah blah blah

Word salad is boring and needs more radishes.

And your failure to address the substance of a literally a single one of the points I made shows just how empty your argument is. Except it's not really argument is it, it's just name-calling informed by anarcho-syndicalist dogmatism - or somesuch drivel - tossed off without a thought. You don't have to stick to the party line on every bloody thing you know, you're allowed to have your own thoughts. Or a debate, with someone who probably agrees with you on more positions than not.

Comment Re:WHat I said on ars: (Score 1) 564

You just gave the definition of a concern troll.

Not really, no, given the topic of the OP and the ludicrous assertions in the post I was responding to that essentially claimed all criticism of Assange had sprung up in the last week from "an [sic] US army of armchair warriors". But don't let facts and context get in the way when you're on troll roll, eh?

Wow. If I end up saying something stupid, I don't make a point of referencing the stupidity later on:

I very happily stand by my judgement and comments. You on the other hand seem to be suffering butthurt because... I don't know, your idol turned out to have feet of clay? That's ok, It happens to everyone, but you'll grow out of it. Leaktivism will (hopefully) survive Assange the Dick.

Wikileaks is in the publishing business, not the hacking business.

Yes that really is the issue right there, isn't it? Because either wikileaks is a publisher, and Julian is editor-in-chief and responsible for policy, or it's a dumb pastebin/liveleaks type dumping ground and what role does that leave for him? And when you have the editor/figurehead/sometime-saint on the one hand saying that wikileaks' policy is fighting for openness and justice, even offering to sacrifice his own limited freedom to obtain clemency for Manning, and then on the other hand acting not only in a blatantly partisan fashion - remember wikileaks' criticism of Panama papers? The October surprise? Threats to release personal details of journalists families? but straight out in cowardly bad faith - no wikileaks material on Putin at all, no follow through on the Manning quid pro quo - then you have right there an enormous, flaming, king-size hypocrite.

2) Russian handlers? That's so stupid it's not worth responding to.

Indulge me and my stupidity, and respond anyway. Before you do, how about actually read the link in my old stupid comment to an eyewitness account from a Russian dissident, also look up the definitions of "mouthpiece" and "stooge". The best assets don't even ask to be paid in vodka or big macs, they do it for free because they've got their own motivations.

At your next troll meeting, you might suggest that you and your fellow trolls back up these character attacks on Assange, so you can't be dismissed as tools in .002 seconds.

So hurtful.

Comment Re:WHat I said on ars: (Score 4, Insightful) 564

What rock have you been living under? Plenty of originally supportive folks decided Assange was a dickhead a long time ago. I myself have been saying so in this very place for years, most recently just two months ago. And I'm not American let alone on some American psyops payroll, I'm an Australian who believes in freedom, whistleblowing and exposing corruption - you know, all the things that wikileaks used to stand for. So you can fuck right off.

Comment Re: You know what? (Score 1) 588

Furthermore, the original model was proven wrong, leaving pro-global warmists without even a predictive model to cling to.

Seriously, what the righteous fuck are you talking about? Is your argument going to consist of a series of utterly unsupported assertions, or are you ever going to back up this shit with citations?
Oh, and I do read the journals, and know how to interpret the results - I'm a physics PhD so better than you, I almost guarantee it - and that plus the fact that I have kids and care about the world they are going to inherit is what made me and makes me passionate about the subject, not some fucking shill with an agenda in a Youtube video. Look, it occurs to me now from your language that you're actually 16 years old, in which case I forgive you, and suggest you get an actual education and stop looking at Youtube so much. Otherwise, again, grow up.

Comment Re: You know what? (Score 1) 588

I'm sorry, are you suggesting that a link to a Youtube video of a self-published and self-publicising "mens movement" crank interviewing a liar and fossil-fuel industry shill is a scientific citation? I had something more traditional in mind - you know, links to original peer-reviewed research.
I retract my previous assertion. Folks like you aren't remotely interested in the truth when it might impinge upon your own cuddly childish fantasy world. Grow up.

Comment Re:Nuance is the key (Score 1) 588

No friend, you are flat-out wrong. No such debunking has taken place (care to provide even one citation?). Global temperatures have indeed risen in the last hundred years, and faster in the last 50 than in all of recorded history. See for an excellent easy-to-read chart. Given even optimistic scenarios more rise is already unavoidably locked in. Rising temperatures caused by human emissions is a real effect, is unprecedented in its speed compared to natural variation, and is a big problem.

Submission + - Study: microbiome changes drive the dieting yo-yo effect

wheelbarrio writes: We've known for a long time that diet-induced weight loss is rarely permanent but until now what has been a frustration for dieters has also been largely a mystery to science. A paper published today in the prestigious journal Nature presents good evidence that your gut microbiome may be to blame. Studying mice fed cycles of high-fat and normal diets, the authors find that the particular bacterial population that thrives in the high-fat regime persists in the gut even once the mice have returned to normal weight and normal metabolic function after a dieting cycle. This leaves them more susceptible to weight gain than control mice who were never overweight, when both populations are exposed to a cycle of high-fat diet. The details are fascinating, including the suggestion that dietary flavonoid supplementation might mitigate the effect. My guess is that this may end up being one of the most cited papers of the year, if not the decade.

Comment Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... (Score 1) 2837

I'm not sure who you're charging with hypocrisy, but as someone who thought the Occupy movement at best quixotic and at worst simplistic, self-indulgent, and borderline antisemitic, I'm certainly not going to wear that one. The problem here, as with every one of Trump's positions, is that he's consistently proven himself shamelessly willing to both contradict himself without apology and also to play the man ("bankers") and not the ball ("the banking system"), appealing to both naked prejudice as well as legitimate grievance. And that delegitimizes his presidency, morally if not legally: until recently it's been an almost universally accepted if unspoken rule in American politics that you don't appeal to bigotry just to win. If both sides agree to play by that rule then neither political side gains an advantage, and society wins because repugnant beliefs are marginalized. Sure, racists are gonna vote anyway, but if a racist card isn't on the table then they're gonna vote on the real issues, as they should, and may the best candidate win. But under the new Trump rules, apparently it's ok to appeal to bigots directly. Sure, you walk back your initial extreme position later, and collect the votes of plenty of decent folks, but never exactly disown the original one. And happily pocket the original hater votes too, and win.
Lots of Trump voters here saying this victory wasn't all about hatred, racism and sexism. I agree; 49% of American voters can't be hateful racists, boastful sexual predators, or Putin apologists for that matter. But maybe 2% are, or 3% or 5%, and I know who they voted for, because Donald encouraged them, and never disowned them. And if he needed those votes to win, well then he didn't deserve it. Remember what those exact same folks said about Muslims, that not all Muslims are terrorists but 100% of terrorists are Muslim (which was never true, but anyway)? Well, now we know that not all Trump voters are Klan members but 100% of Klan members were certainly Trump voters, so they're all tarnished in my books until I hear some loud and heartfelt repudiation of every fucked-up thing Trump ever said. But I'm not holding my breath.

Comment Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... (Score 2) 2837

Yes, this was republished today from wikileaks twitter account, trying desperately not to look like bad guys now that they've played a hand in getting Trump in. But it's barely news, let alone scandalous. It's a perfectly legitimate strategy that I'm 100% certain the Republicans followed too (If you want amateur examples from this very forum, look back at all the faux-love Bernie got from Trumpeters like Okian Warrior et al, once it became clear that Hilary was DNC choice - a pure divide-and-conquer play). If you want real hard-core sanctimonious apologia from wikileaks though you should check out Assange's piece here. To summarize: "I only publishes whats I gets and my Russian handlers didn't give me anything damaging on Trump, so... I no publish anything". If you think that Russian handlers thing is a stretch, read what Nadya Tolokno has to say about it.

Comment Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... (Score 1) 2837

Ahahahahahaha... good one! He hasn't even picked up the keys yet and the excuses have started already! "It was like this when I got it!" "The other guy reversed into me!" "Some damn kids took it for a joyride!" The R's will have presidency and both houses and you STILL want to lower expectations for success because... "the Fed's bubble?" Don't forget the Jewish bankers, and illegal Mexicans, and I dunno, why not the liberal media too. They're all out there right now, working against America's success, just to spite Trump voters. How about we judge the guy at the end of his term by the same big-kids standards that every other president has been judged... on his record. I'll check back with you in four years. Best of luck.

Slashdot Top Deals

When you are working hard, get up and retch every so often.