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


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

Submission + - 'Calibration error' changes GOP votes to Dem in Illinois (foxnews.com)

Okian Warrior writes: Early voting in Illinois got off to a rocky start Monday, as votes being cast for Republican candidates were transformed into votes for Democrats.

Republican state representative candidate Jim Moynihan: “I tried to cast a vote for myself and instead it cast the vote for my opponent,” Moynihan said. “You could imagine my surprise as the same thing happened with a number of races when I tried to vote for a Republican and the machine registered a vote for a Democrat.”

The conservative website Illinois Review reported that “While using a touch screen voting machine in Schaumburg, Moynihan voted for several races on the ballot, only to find that whenever he voted for a Republican candidate, the machine registered the vote for a Democrat in the same race. He notified the election judge at his polling place and demonstrated that it continued to cast a vote for the opposing candidate’s party. Moynihan was eventually allowed to vote for Republican candidates, including his own race.

Comment Was that on purpose? (Score 1) 307

1) TruePundit is not a real news website.
2) It's much simpler than that. Julian Assange is a right-winger - a self-described fan of Ron Paul, anti-abortion, and with a long history of supporting authoritarian leaders worldwide.

Scott Adams says that attacking the source first is a tell for being "guilty".

I notice that you didn't sat that the information was false.

Was that on purpose?

Comment Latin lover (Score 1) 171

Both candidates have specific, well-laid-out proposals which anyone can find.

Yes, except Trump's proposals are all to women he's trying to feel up.

Do you know Trump's well-laid-out plan for international trade? Do you know his well-though-out plan for dealing with the deficit? Can you name a single bit of legislation that Trump said he would push besides term limits?

Is this discussion about *me*? (*BLUSH*)

Trump is a fraud of a fake of a fugazi [...]

Ah, I see it now. You want me to do all the work, just so you can throw an insult in response.

Here you go, Latin lover: "Salus populi suprema lex esto".

And no, I didn't look that up.

Comment Collateral murder (Score 5, Insightful) 307

Let's take a trip down memory lane.

Wikileaks published the diplomatic leaks in three large chunks, which included the "collateral murder" video.

At the time, Julian was surprised at how little impact the releases caused. He thought at the time that a huge drop would cause a huge response, but that turned out not to be the case(*). The news cycle quickly moved on to other issues.

He realized then that to get maximum effect you have to play the media a little.

So now he announces ahead of time that he has the data, then releases the data. He releases the data in smaller chunks, to spread the effect out, to keep the news cycle interested..

People see the "I have an interesting drop coming up" announcements as feeding his ego, but what he's *really* doing is getting everyone's attention.

And of course, a single monolithic drop is easy to counter with a juicy counter article. We saw that with the Trump "locker room" clip, which completely eclipsed the first of the recent Podesta E-mail drops. If Julian had released the entire tranch at that time, it would have been lost in the noise.

If Wikileaks had simply released everything at once after getting it, and not let Assange make his statements obviously made to be clear attacks on Clinton's campaign, you might have a point. But they didn't.

You're completely wrong on this point. Portioning out the drops gives the data maximum exposure, and helps to ensure that people notice and comment.

Julian is doing a good job, let's not lose sight of the sheer volume of corruption he's brought to light.

(*) From my memory of an interview he gave.

Comment Competing theories (Score 1, Troll) 307

There were Trump leaks? News to me. It seems like Assange has just been going after Hillary because he knows she won't pardon him.

There are really multiple competing theories on this.

Maybe Assange has been going after them because he leaks what he has, and doesn't have dirt on the other side.

Maybe Assange has been going after them because they are more corrupt than the other side, so he has much more dirt on them.

Maybe Assange is going after them because Hillary conspired to have him killed, and took "legan and extra legal" steps to silence him.

Your position doesn't look too strong.

Who are the "morons" again?

Comment She's not here (Score 1) 171

Why don't you try an argument from reason, based on some specific examples.

Maybe first, your favorite presidential candidate should do those things.

I have it on good authority that she's busy.

Perhaps you could post something in her place?

What would Hillary actually *say*, if she had to make an actual argument?

Comment Two sides to every issue (Score 1) 171

> A link confirming that his position is what you say it is would be nice.

Lol. Trump has been on every side of nearly every issue. [...]

And Hillary has a public policy and private policy on every issue (in her own words).

What's your point?

And I note that you *still* haven't listed an issue or reasoned why her position is better than his.

Comment Equal amounts? (Score 5, Insightful) 307

Wikileaks hadn't been pushing Trump leaks as hard as Clinton leaks. Now its supports are trying to take down US infrastructure. I used to think that Wikileaks is a neutral organisation promoting government transparency, but not any more. I kind of feel that they are up to no good.

What do you propose? Should Wikileaks hold off on Clinton until they have an equal amount on Trump?

Is that your definition of neutral? That they must expose corruption in equal amounts for both sides?

Comment Totally different! (Score 1) 307

.... or by the 2nd?

Looks like the shoe's on the other foot, at least for their 15 minutes of Internet infamy, whomever did this.

We don't threaten to jail our political opponents - that would be a dictatorship!

(But we totally use our influence to silence their detractors! That's completely different!)

Comment Would too! (Score 1) 171

Trump's proposed solutions would not solve anything, and they're aiming at issues that this country has already successfully [...]

Would too!

See how easily I can refute you?

Why don't you try an argument from reason, based on some specific examples. A link confirming that his position is what you say it is would be nice.

You're talking to smart people, you have to use smart arguments.

Comment Address the issues (Score 1) 171

The problem is [...]

And none of that matters. You can try to spin this Clinton's way or Trump's way, but that's just partisanship.

The only issue of note is "change" versus "stay the course".

It's not one-sided, your candidate is not the best choice in all cases, stop trying to make her seem best for all people. Address the *issues*, not your wild guess of what their actions might be in some hypothetical situation.

Both candidates have specific, well-laid-out proposals which anyone can find.

Tell us why her policies are better than his.

Comment Resonating with Americans (Score 4, Insightful) 171

Firstly, I don't put much stock in EQ, or AI as a valid way to measure EQ, or reports from hired companies using AI to assess EQ, as meaningful. As opposed to, for instance, peer-reviewed research.

That being said, it's no secret that Clinton is mostly "we're doing great" and Trump is "we need to change". That's the takeway from this report.

Now let's ask the American people: which sentiment resonates with you? Are you feeling mostly good about your situation, the economy, your job prospects, our internal security, our external policies?

Regardless of all the crap that's going on this election, that's the fundamental difference between the candidates. Clinton is saying "we're doing great", her public speeches say exactly that ("America is already great!"). Trump is saying that we have a host of problems, and we should fix them ("Make America great again!").

This is the intellectual discussion we should be having in this election - not locker room talk or rape allegations or anything less than the overall picture.

Take a moment and ask yourself, how do you *feel* about your situation in America right now, and whether the US government is benefitting you or not.

If you like your situation, vote for Clinton.

If you want change, vote for Trump.

Comment Let's let free speech have its moment (Score 1) 218

They are xenophobic views. Just because someone who identifies as a conservative has them, does not make them conservative themselves. They're pretty extremist, which defies the term conservative as it is.

These are not xenophobic views, they are completely practical views, and we need to debate and consider them as adults.

Carter imposed a temporary ban on Iranians entering the US, which is essentially what Trump wants. Below are Carter's exact words.

Also, banning immigration for any reason is not unconstitutional and has been held to not be unconstitutional by the supreme court in cases which were on point. I won't bother posting a link because explanations are easy to find on the net.

If, and I mean this literally, if you can state a clear case that allowing unfettered Muslim immigration from conflict areas (Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan et al) is good or bad, you should make it and convince the intellectuals who read this board of your position.

Just shouting racist! xenophobe! burn the witch! could result in crippling the country from terrorist attacks.

These are serious issues which should be discussed as adults, and not as Clinton supporters

If you have a case to make then make it, otherwise let the adults talk.

Let's let free speech have its moment.

Fourth, the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.

Submission + - Armed police outside London Ecuadorian embassy (twitter.com)

Okian Warrior writes: Okay, it's 3:17 PM Eastern and Twitter and a bunch of other sites are down, so I can't vet this info at all, but...

Apparently there's some sort of armed police incident outside the Ecuadorian embassy in Londond. This was posted on the Wikileaks twitter feed (with photo), but I can't see it or verify what it says.


Anyone in London 3 hours ago happen to see anything and can tell us what's going on?

Slashdot Top Deals

The less time planning, the more time programming.