Slashdot Mirror

Story

AmiMojo -

China got most of it's early space technology from Russia by simply buying it

Reality - china got ALL of its space technology from the US during the Bill Clinton administration where he allowed export of national secrets to China in exchange for donations to the DNC. Was brought up in the Gore v. Bush debates where when confronted with it Gore said "No controlling legal authority" admitting what he and Clinton did WAS illegal, he knew it, and knew that they told Janet Reno to not prosecute.

S Korea attempts to get parts of all missile launches from N Korea to see what technology level they have. The last few have had US guidance systems from the 90s, the SAME ones Clinton allowed to be sold to China for campaign donations. So not only did Clinton enable China, he also enabled N Korea.

What is the definition of traitor again?

Thanks for keeping up my theory that every "fact" spouted by a liberal is not only false, but easily checkable. The term for people who lie in easily detectable ways is sociopath, AmiMojo appears to be acting like a sociopath

The big commercial parts of the internet are just as heavily censored as China ever was. And what a coincidence, the censors unironically call themselves Maoists and have connections to Huawei, Tencent, Beijing Borch, etc, except for the few that are Islamists from the SAAR Foundation.

And look at this dream team: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

I count three Wikipedia board members, one of the people responsible for the Mattress Girl rape hoax, nine or so Democratic Party activists, an executive from the New York Times, one of the Daily Show's executives, and they are all run by a board member of Twitter who used to run Pearson, the big educational company.

... as though I'm going to trust a mega-corp for the truth.
http://www.democracynow.org/20...
https://capitalresearch.org/20...
https://www.spreaker.com/user/...
http://observer.com/2016/08/te...

Maybe the Democrats created the welfare state ... as Johnson said "Keep those niggers voting for us for the next 200 years".

Oh wait, that doesn't fit the narrative you want to portray?

Ah, you mean that alleged quote, which is not verified through independent sources but instead comes from a book by Ronald Kessler written decades after Johnson's death, and met by the opposite statement that it would cost the Democrats the South, that allegedly comes from a comment to Bill Moyer, but is also lacking in verification?

That particular narrative goes both ways, in case you didn't know.

Interesting that you only present one side, is it because you don't want to portray the opposite sentiment? Is it because you have your own agenda to push?

Or are you simply unaware of the quote's lack of legitimacy?

Which is it?

Maybe you actually think Abe Lincoln did warn you not to trust everything you read on the internet?

But even "Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre." is probably made up as well.

The Gates Foundation funds education, including education for girls.

The Gates Foundation also funds anti-science wackofems who are scaring women out of STEM careers.

Mediamatters ??? Oh that's funny. An organization that exists for no other reason than to pimp the Clintons

http://downtrend.com/robertgeh...
http://dailycaller.com/2015/06...
http://capitalresearch.org/201...

You are appealing to reason, but you categorically dismiss people that hold the view you are opposing as crazies?

Everyone I've ever met who believes in "global man-caused climate change" also believes that Jenny McCarthy, MD, can "cure" children of autism.

By the way, those "crazies" happen to include the vast majority of climatologists

Please look again at the research. Given that the majority of the UN "climate change" panel members are NOT climatologists, and a number of climatologists quite the panel in protest of its unscientific methods, you're not on solid ground making that claim.

There are some serious criticisms of Anthropogenic Climate Change that need to be addressed, but that those that hold that view are "crazies" is not one of them.

Then the movement should stop putting their crazies front-and-center as their spokespeople.

And also, they need to stop lying about their financial stake in this.

The persuasiveness of the anti-global warming crowd has its origins in the argumentation structure of Holocaust Deniers. Please refer to Michael Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things" for a description of how to go about constructing the argument in an effective way.

Unfortunately, there are those among us who feel that Global Warming is a singular argument that can be disproven by one set of observations or by re-labeling part of the system.

Global Warming is a theory that arises from the confluence of many thousands of observations. It is generally accepted by the scientific community (see the Union of Concerned Scientists.) There are a very small number of scientists who believe otherwise.

Scroll down this list to Exxon and take a look at the list of foundations. Visit a few and then go to the excellent Exxon Secrets which was funded by Greenpeace a few years ago. Cool social networking analysis. You will see how sixteen million dollars was used to persuade you and I that it is not necessary to do anything about CO2.

By stipulating that all fund be distributed in a set period of time, Gates avoids this problem.

Preview, I meant to hit preview...

http://www.capitalresearch.org/search/orgdisplay.a sp?Org=CEI200

Next week: "Smoking is good for your health" by the R.J. Reynolds Institute.

For example, if the government needs an inventory system built, pays a professional to do it, and turns the results back to the public, then how is the quality of the system affected by the fact that the end result is open source? After identifying the groups with an interest in open source, DeLong spends the rest of the article explaining how such a system can only pale in quality over the long run in comparison to a commercial system -- without ever noting that the difference between open source procurement vs. commercial procurement will in most cases only determine whether or not the public will have access to the results of software design done for the government.

On a related note, some background on the think-tank he works for. In some ways, this is like having Richard Stallman arguing the merits for copy-protection.

FYI, there are 2 Olin Foundations out there which some slashdotters may be familar with -- The FW Olin Foundation, which appears primarily concerned with furthering higher education in science, engineering, and business, and the more conservative John M Olin Foundation, which seems to specialize in throwing money at various right wing pundits.

FW Olin Foundation blurb: (scroll down to #8)
http://www.capitalresearch.org/publications/a ltern atives/1998/june.htm

John M Olin Foundation:
http://www.mediatransparency.org/fund ers/john_m_ol in_foundation.htm

The following article talks about the supposed disadvantages of open source and makes an odd link between OS and Ralph Nader--as if it were some conspiracy. This is the most in-depth anti-OS piece I've ready. It's also quite amusing.

• Nader's Microsoft Agenda: Progressive Nonprofit Plan for 'Free' Software

No! Don't do that! They might evolve into intelligent martians and come back to attack us! You'll never know how cosmo radition would alter their genetic structure. We have enough trouble to worry when will killer tomatos come and get us all!

Here is a little more recent set of numbers for MS, HP, IBM, Oracle, Apple and some others.

It even talks about Bill's personal charity foundation.

-Marc

Conservative critics like the Capital Research Center (CRC) are more concerned about the sorry history of corporate philanthropy. If computer-related companies follow the example of other businesses, it may be better that they contribe nothing at all. CRC's annual report, Patterns of Corporate Philanthropy, finds each year that corporate giving to liberal advocacy groups outweighs giving to conservative groups. Liberal advocates whittle away at the foundations of a free market and responsible society that foster economic success.

Many companies also fail to tie their giving programs to their products and marketing programs, donating instead to nonprofits haphazardly. Such practices betray corporate leaders' hesitancy to affirm their companies' value to society as profitmaking enterprises.

Unfortunately, while Microsoft's donations of technology are favorable to the industry, many of the nonprofits that receive Microsoft grants are liberal advocacy groups that are bad for business. These include the ACLU, Humane Society, League of Women Voters, NAACP, National Organization for Women, Greenpeace, Sierra Club, National PTA and Planned Parenthood. The Capital Research Center is the only known conservative organization receiving support at this time, although Microsoft has indicated interest in broadening its support for free-market advocates.

I'm afraid you are mistaken. The entire paragraph, found at http://www.capitalresearch.org/ trends/ot-0499a.html, is as follows:

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) has been developing OSS products since 1983 but has had little success in reducing consumer allegiance to proprietary software. The organization is headed by Richard Stallman, a programmer who quit his job at MIT's Artificial Intelligence Lab to pursue an end to "the commercialization of system software." FSF's main activity is its GNU Project, which has developed a complete OSS computer operating system called GNU (a.k.a. GNU's Not Unix). Unix is a proprietary operating system intended to compete against Microsoft Windows; originally OSS, later versions of Unix were made proprietary by Sun Microsystems, Hewlett-Packard and other companies.

So first off, I'm afraid I did not misquote the article. I'm curious how you expect to comment on something you haven't read properly :p

Second, if Sun, HP, and other companies have made the GNU HURD or the GNU utilities proprietary, then someone should pass this info on to the FSF folks, because that would be a serious violation of the licensing terms of GNU software. This is not the case, of course.

Sorry, but the authors of this article are attempting to refer to the original Unix, which originated at AT&T. The reference to Unix in the middle of a paragraph about GNU is confusing, but then the rest of the article isn't particularly accurate either, it it?

Yes, very amusing/frightening. These people seem to believe that the non-profit organisations will destroy the families and turn the US into a (OH NO!!) welfare state. Also, don't miss the one-year-old article about "Computer Philantropy", listing how much money the good hearted computer companies have donated to charity.

Mr. Reilly forgot to incude his bio and email address with his article, so I'm posting them for your convenience:

Patrick Reilly, Research Associate and Editor, Foundation Watch, Organization Trends
PReilly@capitalresearch.org
Before joining CRC in 1997, Reilly was the executive director of Citizens for Educational Freedom, a national school choice advocacy group. He has bachelor's degrees in print journalism and political science from Fordham University and a master's in public administration from American University.