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. ×

Comment The other meaning of Orwellian (Score 4, Insightful) 356

"[...]The argument that to tell the truth would be ‘inopportune’ or would ‘play into the hands of’ somebody or other is felt to be unanswerable, and few people are bothered by the prospect of the lies which they condone getting out of the newspapers and into the history books." -George Orwell, The Prevention of Literature

The truth remains the truth, even if unsavory people are beneficiaries of it.

Submission + - Soros-linked corporation supplies voting machines to 16 States (dailycaller.com)

mi writes: Remember, how suspicious (and wrong!) it was for Diebold, whose management openly supported Bush, to be supplying voting machines? We even discussed it here over the years...

Well, a Soros-linked company from the UK is supplying 16 States with voting hardware this year. Will there be a comparable amount of suspicion?

Submission + - SPAM: Attempts to Frame Assange as a Pedophile and Russian spy 1

Okian Warrior writes: Earlier today the website DailyKos reported on a smear campaign plot to falsely accuse Julian Assange of pedophilia. An unknown entity posing as an internet dating agency prepared an elaborate plot to falsely claim that Julian Assange received US$1M from the Russian government and a second plot to frame him sexually molesting an eight year old girl.

Here is the description of the plot from Mr Assange’s legal team.

Link to Original Source

Submission + - Democrat Operatives Caused Violence at Trump Rallies, Framed Sanders Supporters (youtube.com) 16

Xenographic writes: A new video has come out detailing how Democratic operatives created violence at Trump rallies. You may remember that they then framed Sanders supporters for those protests. This video is notable because one of the operatives, Zulema Rodriguez, can be identified in videos of the Arizona protests at 17:35 in this independent video as well as at 10:30 in the first video link. Furthermore, you look at the FEC records of disbursements to her and see that she was paid by MoveOn.org. Finally, this again can be corroborated with the Wikileaks dump, specifically this email. For those too lazy to browse all the links, you can see Zulema's appearance in both videos in this image and note that it's the same person down to the tiny mole on her chest.

Comment Re:Sellout? (Score 1) 379

No. It's much simpler. You don't pay a price, whether professionally or in terms of social capital, when voicing your support for Clinton. You pay a tremendous price when voicing your support for Trump. There are also costs, though comparatively less, to adamantly staying neutral while the media speculates over your political beliefs. Therefore, publicly coming out as pro-Clinton is the safest choice, and all the better if you really do support Clinton.

Comment Re: What's wrong with hate symbols? (Score 4, Insightful) 379

The loss of life, bodily integrity, and personal possession are reasons why your listed crimes are harmful. Their causes are the immediate physical actions that precipitate their loss. In contrast, speech precipitates no loss and no harm, and you only deem it "harmful" because they merely have the potential, down the line, to motivate or to lower the mental obstacles for actions that deprive life, bodily integrity, or personal possession. Your view of "harm" is suddenly made so expansive that it would force us to conclude that, for example, socialist slogans and ideas are forms of hate speech in the sense that they have the potential -- proven through historical precedent -- to motivate actions that deprive life, bodily integrity, and personal possession.

Ultimately, your argument would like us to take extra steps up the chain of causality to ban things that aren't directly related to harm. How far up the chain of causality can we really go, or should we go? 2 or 3 steps seem just as arbitrary a demarcation as 20 or 40 steps. If a butterfly flaps its wings and down the line someone is killed, must we then ban the butterfly from flapping its wings?

Submission + - SPAM: Breakthrough increases plant yields by one third

schwit1 writes: Plant scientists have found a way to encourage plants to better use atmospheric nitrogen, thus increasing yields by more than one third.

For years, scientists have tried to increase the rate of nitrogen fixation in legumes by altering rhizobia bacterioid function or interactions that take place between the bacterioid and the root nodule cells.

Tegeder took a different approach: She increased the number of proteins that help move nitrogen from the rhizobia bacteria to the plant’s leaves, seed-producing organs and other areas where it is needed. The additional transport proteins sped up the overall export of nitrogen from the root nodules. This initiated a feedback loop that caused the rhizobia to start fixing more atmospheric nitrogen, which the plant then used to produce more seeds. “They are bigger, grow faster and generally look better than natural soybean plants,” Tegeder said. “Some evidence we have suggests they might also be highly efficient under stressful conditions like drought.”

The technique not only produces healthier plants and more seeds, it reduces the need for fertilizer, the overuse of which can be an environmental issue.

Submission + - SPAM: Ignorant of Streisand Effect, YouTube restricts Trump's video

mi writes: In an attempt to limit its impact, YouTube's censors have placed "unlisted" Trump's anti-Clinton video and then made it inaccessible in the "restricted" mode.

Predictably, the efforts backfired and the video was seen by over 370K times within 24 hours — seemingly a record for the "Team Trump" channel.

At the time of this typing, all restrictions have been removed from the video.

Link to Original Source

Comment Re:Do me a favor, open the door and let 'em in. (Score 3, Interesting) 287

Also witness the conflating of DNC's behavior with democracy itself. These leaks exposed anti-democratic machinations from the upper echelons of a major political party, and politicians along with everyone who has a microphone or a press credential are trying to convince us that this constitutes "interference" in our democratic process.


Think about that for a moment. We are actually being told that those who expose anti-democratic behavior are a threat to our democracy, rather than those who carry out that anti-democratic behavior. It boggles the mind.

What's truly offensive is the press is unwilling to show even a speck of skepticism, and in fact is very enthusiastically repeating this to all of us as if we're dumb.

Comment Re:Putin has Trump's back... (Score 1) 342

DDoS is not the way a nation state conducts counter-propaganda. It makes no sense strategically since Russia has far more effective resources in RT and various online outlets from which to publish much more impactful hits. It also makes no sense tactically since the sudden absence of some information only highlights the existence of that information.

This points to non-state actors, and unwise ones. It might have been some Trump fans. But it also could have been some other individual or group that Newsweek has recently exposed or embarrassed.

Comment Re:Who said what? (Score 1) 398

Go ahead. You are your own worst enemies.
You will discover in the future that your perverse logic and your ever-expanding definitions of words will have transformed accusations of "racist" and "hate speech" into phrases that are as stigmatized by the vast majority as accusations of "pinko commie" in our modern times. You are the new McCarthyists, and while you come from the other side of the political aisle, your reign of terror on the innocent as you root out perceived enemies makes you hardly any different.

I'll happily goad you and mock you every step of the way.

Comment Re:Hacking (Score 1) 231

illegally influence a US election

Here's what I wrote in an earlier post to another article about this word use:

"affect our elections" is a phrase that has many meanings, and I see Democrats here and elsewhere relying on the broadness of that phrase to muddy the conversation. A foreign actor can "affect an election" through bribery, blackmail, intimidation, and other tactics. A foreign actor can also "affect an election" by exposing the anti-democratic behaviors of trusted officials. The former describes actions that impose influence upon a process and trespass upon national sovereignty, the latter does not. Thus, casting a foreign actor as "affecting an election" has no meaning unless his actions are further qualified.

As an example, if Reporters Without Borders were to release evidence that showed anti-democratic behavior among Iranian public officials in the lead up to elections, they would also be "affecting an election" by the broad definition of that phrase, but hardly anyone would accuse RWoB of imposing themselves upon Iran, or trespassing upon their national sovereignty. In fact, I'd surmise MOST people would celebrate RWoB for having exposed such corruption.

Slashdot Top Deals

Real programmers don't write in BASIC. Actually, no programmers write in BASIC after reaching puberty.