Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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

Comment Re:The three debates (Score 1) 107

Not sure what your experience is in debating, but Trump lost all three massively because he failed to construct an argument at any point.

Hint: These aren't debates in the usual sense of the word. These are Reality TV infomercials for the D & R candidates. A real debate would ask both candidates what they believe on question 1. Candidate A would give their answer, and Candidate B would give their answer. If they disagreed, Candidate A would get a response, followed by Candidate B. Next question would start with question 2 starting with Candidate B, and so on. You'd have questions about policy issues, not "Have you stopped beating your wife?" gotchas. Instead what we get are pissing wars where everyone gets wet. I think Trump is a doofus, that doesn't mean that he didn't perform better in these Reality TV episodes.

Submission + - John McAfee: 'Iran Hacked The DNC, And North Korea Hacked DYN' (

XxtraLarGe writes: Former Libertarian Candidate John McAfee claims that Iran hacked the DNC. FTA:

Who breached the DNC? This seems to be the $50,000 question I as an IT expert have posed as I personally don’t believe it to be Russia, as I have discussed prior, the evidence is circumstantial at best. And it seems Cybersecurity Legend John McAfee, whom I have interviewed prior, is inclined to agree as well. According to an email exchange and phone calls with Steve Morgan of CSO, says sources within the Dark Web suggest it was Iran. I have personally met McAfee prior and as a fellow expert in the IT industry I am inclined to agree, especially when we recall some of the “fun” Iranians have had messing with US corporations and government entities.

Comment Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score 4, Interesting) 160

Arguing a federal judge cannot fairly adjudicate a case before him because of his ethnicity is the very definition of racism. The textbook definition mind you of what Racism is.

Correction: He argued a federal judge cannot fairly adjudicate a case before him because of his parents' nationality. Mexicans are not necessarily Hispanic, just as Americans are not necessarily European, African or Asian. And even *if* he had made a racist statement, that still doesn't mean all of his supporters are racist. That's a hasty generalization. It just floors me when liberals are for free speech *except* when it's speech they disagree with...

Comment The three debates (Score 0) 107

I watched all 3, and the way I judge them is as following:
1st debate: Clinton lost *less* than Trump.
2nd debate: Trump won by a small margin.
3rd debate: Trump won, but the "nasty woman" comment diminished his victory considerably.
Alfred E. Smith Dinner: Trump tanked hardcore. He was doing well until he started in on how corrupt Hillary is. It was not in the spirit of the gathering. Clinton also took mean-spirited pot-shots at him, but he started it. If he had avoided his comments and let her make hers, he would have been better off for it. After watching this event live, Trump seems like a candidate that's trying to lose.

Comment Re:As much as I dislike Trump ... (Score 1) 415

And no, crimes of past president's are not irrelevant. They are very relevant since they show the hypocrisy of people who will excuse those crimes but suddenly become appalled when someone else does the exact same thing. If you didn't consider it a crime then you can't consider it a crime now.

The fact that Bush & Cheney did something does not excuse Clinton from doing something. This is called a tu quoque fallacy. In other words, not a valid argument. I say put them all on trial (Clinton, Bush & Cheney), and if they are convicted, throw them in prison. How do you respond to that?

Comment Re:Minefield (Score 1) 545

He wants to ban all Muslims from entering the US. If that's not an "agenda that is against equality", then what is?

Indiscriminately bombing and burning hundreds of Islamic men, women, and children alive?

Oh, but we've already been at war with Eastasia, right?

That happened under Obama's watch, so no big deal. It will also be okay if Clinton does it, but not if racist Trump does it, because that would be racist!

Comment Re:Facts? We don't need no stinkin' facts (Score 1) 323

Hey, when any "news source" manages to contradict your own personal first hand experience the only rational reaction is to be VERY skeptical.

Did you even bother to check the links I provided before you decided to spout off a flamebait response? That was only one example, there are hundreds more out there. It seems like I questioned something that doesn't contradict your own personal first hand experience, so your "rational" reaction was to be VERY skeptical of what I wrote.

Comment Re:Sorry - whose car is this? (Score 1) 300

If it's good enough to drive at all, it's good enough to be put to use for the purpose I bought it. That purpose might well be a revenue-earning ride sharing thing. Sounds like they're looking for a rent cut from your own purchased car.

Oh, you own the car alright, but you license the self-driving software...

Comment Re:Facts? We don't need no stinkin' facts (Score 1) 323

Yes, it's so easy to just say "the fact checking site is biased"! Once you've said that, you don't even need to look at what it says: you can say it's wrong without even bothering to know what it said.

That seems a bit ironic that you would say that, as it seems you didn't bother to read the examples I posted. The two candidates said essentially the same thing, and Politi"fact"'s rationale was basically the same for both, but they gave different ratings.

Comment Re:Abusing Trump's compulsive behaviors (Score 1) 323

Of course the amazing thing is that Trump probably thinks the tweeting is helping his campaign. He doesn't even want to stop, though Hillary would be helping him greatly if this gimmick discouraged him from tweeting.

Trump is too narcissistic to change his ways. If he had toned it down a bit and stayed on message about the economy & national security instead of pursuing every petty comment made about him, ranging from gold-star families to beauty pageant contestants, he'd probably be in the lead right now. Heck, if the GOP had nominated Kasich, Paul or Rubio, this election would be lopsided in the other direction. Instead, they decided to go for the stooge who would make Hillary a shoo-in. Unless Trump wins, there's nothing that would convince me that the election was rigged by both of them...

Comment Re:Too many paid shills vs organic posters (Score 1) 409

Ah yes, the old "always accuse your opponent of doing what you're doing." Correct the Record actually exists. Has FEC filings and everything. Show me the tiniest bit of evidence of paid Trump shills.

While we know that the DNC hired mobs to riot at Trump rallies, I highly doubt that either Clinton or Trump would bother to hire shills to post on /.

Comment Re: What's wrong with hate symbols? (Score 1) 377

And as always, freedom of speech and freedom of association does not imply freedom from consequences.

Absolutely not. I'd expect that anyone who discriminates on any basis should probably take a beating in lost sales, which is the natural remedy of the marketplace.

Slashdot Top Deals

egrep patterns are full regular expressions; it uses a fast deterministic algorithm that sometimes needs exponential space. -- unix manuals