Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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

Comment Another Explosive Revelation! (Score 1) 318

The story says that Mark Zuckerberg was looking to "get in on the action a bit, and perhaps curry favor with Podesta and the Clinton camp in shaping public policy." Let's check the email they quoted.

Mark is meeting with people to learn more about next steps for his philanthropy and social action and it’s hard to imagine someone better placed or more experienced than you to help him

He’s begun to think about whether/how he might want to shape advocacy efforts to support his philanthropic priorities and is particularly interested in meeting people who could help him understand how to move the needle on the specific public policy issues he cares most about. He wants to meet folks who can inform his understanding about effective political operations to advance public policy goals on social oriented objectives (like immigration, education or basic scientific research).

Mark wants help learning how to make his philanthropic efforts more effective? What a monster! How long will we allow these billionaires to spend their fortunes trying to improve education and support scientific research? It sounds like he wants to become a more useful citizen by reaching out to people in his professional and social network—and we can't have any of that!

Comment Thoughts (Score 1) 55

1. Apricot did the "Small display integrated with keyboard" thing with a bunch of their MS DOS machines in the 1980s. You could use it as a calculator, and apps could address it directly. It was a good idea, but the lack of it on the PC meant they quietly dropped the feature when they switched to making PC clones.

2. So they're losing Esc, but they're keeping the Caps Lock key? Even Google has the design sense to lose that.

Comment Re:They both look the same from here (Score 1) 12

Read the definition of fascism. It simply doesn't require racism.

Yes, it does. This is the umpteenthm time you've made this claim, and it's why I'm going to plonk you now. I've explained it to you. I've even linked to Mussolini's own words and actions on the subject. You've outstayed your welcome, using sophistry to push forward the utterly stupid claim that racism isn't part of fascism.

Just because the term was coined in the 1900s doesn't mean that it wasn't practiced before

Yes, it does. The term and the ideology were invented by Mussolini. Mussolini had some thoughts, he gave a name to them. He didn't announce "Hey guys, I've come up with yet another synonym for totalitarianism", which would have been pointless, given totalitarianism has plenty of synonyms already.

If she was such a big fan of democracy, why didn't she object to what the DMC was doing

Because what the DNC did was a non-scandal. You had people in a political organization admitting in emails that they preferred one candidate over another. That's called real life. The DNC leaks revealed little of substance beyond one issue DWS rightly resigned over that Clinton had no knowledge of.

Hillary also promotes violence (promoting war is certainly promoting violence)

Promoting war is not promoting violence against your political enemies. Osama Bin Laden has never run in an election against Hillary Clinton. Clinton has never declared war on Trump.

But if you want recent scapegoating, just look at her refusal to say that the leaked emails are true or fake, instead using the Russians as scapegoats to distract attention from the core issue)

As I've explained to you several times before, they're not her emails, and it would be incomprehensibly stupid for her to confirm something she has no control over is "genuine".

As far as the Russians go: she has protested that the Russians are involving themselves in the US election by committing illegal acts and leaking one side's emails. She's not the originator of that claim, that's the official position of the US government. She is entirely entitled to be pissed off that the Russians are trying to influence the US election, still worse by illegal means.

Suppression of truth and trying to control the story in the media counts. And she certainly did all she could do to defend Bill and attack his accusers when they were telling the truth.

No, it doesn't "count". Trying to control the story in the media is normal behavior for every politician, it's called spin. As for attacking her husband's accusers "when they were telling the truth" (which hasn't happened very often), she's entitled, as his wife, to believe him, and defend her husband.

You're zero for six, or maybe more than six, I've lost count, and you've become truly offensive. I appreciate trolling is your specialty, but this has gone far enough. One of the candidates at this election meets the definition of a fascist. The other is merely a little dishonest and a bit of a war monger. This election is - casting Clinton in the worst possible light and arguably far worse than the facts support - Mussolini vs Nixon, not Mussolini vs Franco.

Of course, you'd probably argue Nixon was a fascist too. But that's because apparently Canada's education system is just as terrible as that in the United States. Who knew.


Comment Re:Just curious... (Score 3, Insightful) 149

Possibly due to perspective. If a solar system is far away, you can observe all of it. If an object is in the solar system *and* out of the elliptic it may well be hidden. The location of the other planet, which may have an orbital period of centuries, has to be in the correct place to be seen and you need to be looking for it. Just guessing.

Now that there is evidence of a large object outside the elliptic I'm sure someone will try to calculate the period and approximate location of it. The fact it is out of the elliptic may explain why some comets are out of the elliptic.

By the way, nice sig.

Comment Re:No you don't (Score 4, Insightful) 169

The problem with Microsoft, is that they view themselves as a "Windows" company. I've said this for years, and was laughed at a long time ago. They are still a "Windows" company. Everything they do, they try to tie into "Windows" regardless of whether or not it fits that product. In the end, they will be a Windows company.

Their mistake, is thinking "Windows" when they should have been thinking "Technology"

Comment Re:So what? (Score 1) 318

It's also not Facebook, it's a few top people at Facebook. And there are at least two top people at FB who are very publicly associated with Trump (albeit one has the self awareness and sense of decency to at least be embarrassed and ashamed about it.)

This is a non-story, and like certain other non-stories (OMG! A low level Clinton staffer was caught spitballing ideas about how to demonstrate Trump supporters are violent!) it's an attempt to muddy the waters and get people to forget wide truths (Facebook has pro-Trump [1][2] people on its board, Trump has actually supported violence against opponents.)

Comment Re:So says every SJW attacking Peter Thiel (Score 3, Informative) 318

Both sides!!!1!?!!!

Thiel gave $1.25M to a candidate who'd just had it revealed he has serious problems with women (to put a politically correct spin on it), who is/was telling people he wouldn't accept the results of the election if he loses, and who previously has supported violence against his opponents, who is threatening legal sanctions against his opponents and the press, and who has engaged in racial scapegoating and in dehumanizing minorities.

Clinton has done none of those things (with the possible exception of one dubious comment about "predators" aimed at criminals in the 1990s that she's since apologized for.) So yeah, even though we don't like Clinton very much, we absolutely reserve the right to be angry that someone's response to a candidate boasting they can sexually assault women and get away with it is to give him money.

If Thiel had given money to Jeb Bush, nobody would have bat an eyelid. Nobody was angry when numerous billionaires gave Romney, McCain, or Bush Jr lots of money at the last few elections either. The fact you can't tell the difference between donating to Trump and donating to those guys or Clinton suggests you've been living under a rock this election campaign - or else actually think there's nothing wrong with sexual assault, opposing democratic elections (and supporting violence in politics), silencing critics, and attacking minorities.

Slashdot Top Deals

A university faculty is 500 egotists with a common parking problem.