Slashdot Mirror

Hey comrade, you're dropping your articles again! Back to the IRA training gulag for you.

BTW, did you get one of those personalized messages from the USA?

SpaceX is based in California, and launches from there and Florida. United Launch Alliance is based in Colorado and launches from Florida. Those are the two astronaut launching companies NASA has picked. Texas isn't part of the game.

As for the whole voting for Trump thing, that's just what red states do. They can't help themselves. They think it's a normal good thing. It doesn't mean they're inbred or anything like that. However, Texas is really harsh on its border, treats its Hispanic citizens as second class, and revoking passports if people claim they were born in Texas vs Mexico. https://sputniknews.com/us/201...

So yeah I guess Texas is a backwater state that supports Trump and his anti-American policies. They have no astronauts. Nobody will launch a rocket from there. There's no "Mission Control" (like Hawthorne CA), and there's no "Calling Houston" unless you mean Matt Houston.

John

How can anyone respect, admire, follow, or in any way support this overfed cesspool of ignorance and corruption defies science.

It would help if the cesspool had published this policy beforehand, so that people wouldn't get the wrong impression.

One problem with all of this is that the ranking algorithms are largely opaque - things that happen for completely legitimate and reasonable reasons can be seen to be the child of ignorance and corruption.

A very good example of the way people can take something completely innocent the wrong way is Google's treatment of Trump and Clinton in the last election. The examples show the Google suggestions for various search completions, against those same searches on Yahoo and Bing.

For example, searching for "Hillary Clinton is " shows many results of "is awesome", "is winning", and so on for Google, while that same search on Yahoo and Bing results in many disparaging completions.

All of this, despite "Hillary Clinton is a liar" versus "Hillary Clinton is awesome" shows that the former search term has a much higher relevance.

The Google search term "crooked " returned "smile", "smile lyrics", and "creek" at the time, while the same search on Yahoo and Bing returned "Crooked Hillary" despite *that* phrase having an obvious trend relevance during the election cycle.

On a more recent note, searching YouTube for "How Trump Should Deal With Cohen & Manafort – Ann Coulter", the *exact* title of a video by Anne Coulter, puts the exact match far below a list of dissenting videos that google thinks you should see instead.

It all boils down to Robert Epstein's published paper that shows that search engine results can sway an election.

Google is making use of their position in light of that paper.

Wouldn't you?

This effect has been well documented for the last couple of years or so.

Even the Google search "when is the election" shows a smiling image of Hillary Clinton, as if her presidential opponent didn't exist. That page clearly (and subliminally) associates the smiling image of Hillary with the upcoming election.

All these results *seem* to be statistically and scientifically valid.

This is the sort of thing our president is complaining about.

And it seems that there is, in fact, a problem here.

How can anyone respect, admire, follow, or in any way support this overfed cesspool of ignorance and corruption defies science.

It would help if the cesspool had published this policy beforehand, so that people wouldn't get the wrong impression.

One problem with all of this is that the ranking algorithms are largely opaque - things that happen for completely legitimate and reasonable reasons can be seen to be the child of ignorance and corruption.

A very good example of the way people can take something completely innocent the wrong way is Google's treatment of Trump and Clinton in the last election. The examples show the Google suggestions for various search completions, against those same searches on Yahoo and Bing.

For example, searching for "Hillary Clinton is " shows many results of "is awesome", "is winning", and so on for Google, while that same search on Yahoo and Bing results in many disparaging completions.

All of this, despite "Hillary Clinton is a liar" versus "Hillary Clinton is awesome" shows that the former search term has a much higher relevance.

The Google search term "crooked " returned "smile", "smile lyrics", and "creek" at the time, while the same search on Yahoo and Bing returned "Crooked Hillary" despite *that* phrase having an obvious trend relevance during the election cycle.

On a more recent note, searching YouTube for "How Trump Should Deal With Cohen & Manafort – Ann Coulter", the *exact* title of a video by Anne Coulter, puts the exact match far below a list of dissenting videos that google thinks you should see instead.

It all boils down to Robert Epstein's published paper that shows that search engine results can sway an election.

Google is making use of their position in light of that paper.

Wouldn't you?

This effect has been well documented for the last couple of years or so.

Even the Google search "when is the election" shows a smiling image of Hillary Clinton, as if her presidential opponent didn't exist. That page clearly (and subliminally) associates the smiling image of Hillary with the upcoming election.

All these results *seem* to be statistically and scientifically valid.

This is the sort of thing our president is complaining about.

And it seems that there is, in fact, a problem here.

How can anyone respect, admire, follow, or in any way support this overfed cesspool of ignorance and corruption defies science.

It would help if the cesspool had published this policy beforehand, so that people wouldn't get the wrong impression.

One problem with all of this is that the ranking algorithms are largely opaque - things that happen for completely legitimate and reasonable reasons can be seen to be the child of ignorance and corruption.

A very good example of the way people can take something completely innocent the wrong way is Google's treatment of Trump and Clinton in the last election. The examples show the Google suggestions for various search completions, against those same searches on Yahoo and Bing.

For example, searching for "Hillary Clinton is " shows many results of "is awesome", "is winning", and so on for Google, while that same search on Yahoo and Bing results in many disparaging completions.

All of this, despite "Hillary Clinton is a liar" versus "Hillary Clinton is awesome" shows that the former search term has a much higher relevance.

The Google search term "crooked " returned "smile", "smile lyrics", and "creek" at the time, while the same search on Yahoo and Bing returned "Crooked Hillary" despite *that* phrase having an obvious trend relevance during the election cycle.

On a more recent note, searching YouTube for "How Trump Should Deal With Cohen & Manafort – Ann Coulter", the *exact* title of a video by Anne Coulter, puts the exact match far below a list of dissenting videos that google thinks you should see instead.

It all boils down to Robert Epstein's published paper that shows that search engine results can sway an election.

Google is making use of their position in light of that paper.

Wouldn't you?

This effect has been well documented for the last couple of years or so.

Even the Google search "when is the election" shows a smiling image of Hillary Clinton, as if her presidential opponent didn't exist. That page clearly (and subliminally) associates the smiling image of Hillary with the upcoming election.

All these results *seem* to be statistically and scientifically valid.

This is the sort of thing our president is complaining about.

And it seems that there is, in fact, a problem here.

How can anyone respect, admire, follow, or in any way support this overfed cesspool of ignorance and corruption defies science.

It would help if the cesspool had published this policy beforehand, so that people wouldn't get the wrong impression.

One problem with all of this is that the ranking algorithms are largely opaque - things that happen for completely legitimate and reasonable reasons can be seen to be the child of ignorance and corruption.

A very good example of the way people can take something completely innocent the wrong way is Google's treatment of Trump and Clinton in the last election. The examples show the Google suggestions for various search completions, against those same searches on Yahoo and Bing.

For example, searching for "Hillary Clinton is " shows many results of "is awesome", "is winning", and so on for Google, while that same search on Yahoo and Bing results in many disparaging completions.

All of this, despite "Hillary Clinton is a liar" versus "Hillary Clinton is awesome" shows that the former search term has a much higher relevance.

The Google search term "crooked " returned "smile", "smile lyrics", and "creek" at the time, while the same search on Yahoo and Bing returned "Crooked Hillary" despite *that* phrase having an obvious trend relevance during the election cycle.

On a more recent note, searching YouTube for "How Trump Should Deal With Cohen & Manafort – Ann Coulter", the *exact* title of a video by Anne Coulter, puts the exact match far below a list of dissenting videos that google thinks you should see instead.

It all boils down to Robert Epstein's published paper that shows that search engine results can sway an election.

Google is making use of their position in light of that paper.

Wouldn't you?

This effect has been well documented for the last couple of years or so.

Even the Google search "when is the election" shows a smiling image of Hillary Clinton, as if her presidential opponent didn't exist. That page clearly (and subliminally) associates the smiling image of Hillary with the upcoming election.

All these results *seem* to be statistically and scientifically valid.

This is the sort of thing our president is complaining about.

And it seems that there is, in fact, a problem here.

How can anyone respect, admire, follow, or in any way support this overfed cesspool of ignorance and corruption defies science.

It would help if the cesspool had published this policy beforehand, so that people wouldn't get the wrong impression.

One problem with all of this is that the ranking algorithms are largely opaque - things that happen for completely legitimate and reasonable reasons can be seen to be the child of ignorance and corruption.

A very good example of the way people can take something completely innocent the wrong way is Google's treatment of Trump and Clinton in the last election. The examples show the Google suggestions for various search completions, against those same searches on Yahoo and Bing.

For example, searching for "Hillary Clinton is " shows many results of "is awesome", "is winning", and so on for Google, while that same search on Yahoo and Bing results in many disparaging completions.

All of this, despite "Hillary Clinton is a liar" versus "Hillary Clinton is awesome" shows that the former search term has a much higher relevance.

The Google search term "crooked " returned "smile", "smile lyrics", and "creek" at the time, while the same search on Yahoo and Bing returned "Crooked Hillary" despite *that* phrase having an obvious trend relevance during the election cycle.

On a more recent note, searching YouTube for "How Trump Should Deal With Cohen & Manafort – Ann Coulter", the *exact* title of a video by Anne Coulter, puts the exact match far below a list of dissenting videos that google thinks you should see instead.

It all boils down to Robert Epstein's published paper that shows that search engine results can sway an election.

Google is making use of their position in light of that paper.

Wouldn't you?

This effect has been well documented for the last couple of years or so.

Even the Google search "when is the election" shows a smiling image of Hillary Clinton, as if her presidential opponent didn't exist. That page clearly (and subliminally) associates the smiling image of Hillary with the upcoming election.

All these results *seem* to be statistically and scientifically valid.

This is the sort of thing our president is complaining about.

And it seems that there is, in fact, a problem here.

How can anyone respect, admire, follow, or in any way support this overfed cesspool of ignorance and corruption defies science.

It would help if the cesspool had published this policy beforehand, so that people wouldn't get the wrong impression.

One problem with all of this is that the ranking algorithms are largely opaque - things that happen for completely legitimate and reasonable reasons can be seen to be the child of ignorance and corruption.

A very good example of the way people can take something completely innocent the wrong way is Google's treatment of Trump and Clinton in the last election. The examples show the Google suggestions for various search completions, against those same searches on Yahoo and Bing.

For example, searching for "Hillary Clinton is " shows many results of "is awesome", "is winning", and so on for Google, while that same search on Yahoo and Bing results in many disparaging completions.

All of this, despite "Hillary Clinton is a liar" versus "Hillary Clinton is awesome" shows that the former search term has a much higher relevance.

The Google search term "crooked " returned "smile", "smile lyrics", and "creek" at the time, while the same search on Yahoo and Bing returned "Crooked Hillary" despite *that* phrase having an obvious trend relevance during the election cycle.

On a more recent note, searching YouTube for "How Trump Should Deal With Cohen & Manafort – Ann Coulter", the *exact* title of a video by Anne Coulter, puts the exact match far below a list of dissenting videos that google thinks you should see instead.

It all boils down to Robert Epstein's published paper that shows that search engine results can sway an election.

Google is making use of their position in light of that paper.

Wouldn't you?

This effect has been well documented for the last couple of years or so.

Even the Google search "when is the election" shows a smiling image of Hillary Clinton, as if her presidential opponent didn't exist. That page clearly (and subliminally) associates the smiling image of Hillary with the upcoming election.

All these results *seem* to be statistically and scientifically valid.

This is the sort of thing our president is complaining about.

And it seems that there is, in fact, a problem here.

most certainly not for renting golf carts for the Secret Service agents who are supposed to take a bullet for her.

She'd just tell them to fuck off. https://nypost.com/2015/10/02/...

At least she never made them to run errands in their free time. https://sputniknews.com/art_li...

When it comes to EU decision-making, the prevailing view in five of nine European nations is that Germany has too much influence. This view is most common in Greece, Spain and Italy.

There's the general state of things.

This pretty much came from Germany, and they're trying to fine nations not doing it

On top of that the U.N. is really trying to put the screws to us to do the same. It was happening under Obama, outside of our own law through end-runs and dictates. It's not happening anymore The U.N. is not happy about it.

There's your one.

What kind of data really needs to set powered off for 40 years, though?

I guess we know where you work... https://sputniknews.com/milita... ;)

I do like the premise of companies storing data locally.

I think all the "cloud backup" advocates have it backwards. The cloud's the best place for live data; but companies (and people) should have local backups of their clouds.

Living in Houston, I am a big fan of geographically separate backups. When half of the city is under water, local backups may be as well.

According to the latest vault 7 https://sputniknews.com/world/... (I simply could not resist using that particular news resource), grabbing phones is not about getting stuff off the phone, it is about getting stuff on the phone. You take someone's phone and then hand them back, 'your', phone because they do not own it any more, it just spies on them from there in on.

Once they take your digital gear, just accept it as lost for ever, buy an new replacement (it has to be new) and sell the old, pretty guaranteed to be hacked one, on ebay and let them spy on someone else. Same when travelling through customs, they do not take you phone to get data off, they take it to get a series of programs on. Been through customs with you phone and you lost sight of it for a couple of minutes, well, sucker you should have dumped it right away because the chances that phone that someone else now owns has been spying on you since then.

America give 4B in free arms to Egypt, 5-6B to Israel and 2B to Jordan. They wouldnt buy PAtriots if they were not free as they have their own Missile programs.

They wouldn't buy Patriots, you say?

So why did Egypt pay $1.3B for the Patriot missiles they purchased?
Source: http://www.nti.org/learn/count...

Or why did Israel take part in a purchase order with Kuwait, Taiwan, and Spain to purchase $12.5B in Patriot missiles?
Source: https://sputniknews.com/milita...

In fact, for a system you say that no one would buy, there seem to be an awful lot of countries lining up to pay for it...
- UAE - $3.3B
- Qatar - $2.4B
- Saudi Arabia - $1.75B
- Greece - $1.1B
- Japan - $1B

There were more countries and more links, but I'll stop there, since I think I've made my point.

So in other words, you'd rather just hand the EU over to Putin.

Point 1. Motive.
Your fear-mongering is so hyperbolic it's hard to take you seriously. The Russians, and Putin in particular, are pretty damn pragmatic. Russia has enough budget problems sustaining not-so-covert combat operations in Ukraine and very overt operations in Syria. Can the Russian government AFFORD to invade the EU? What would the cost-benefit analysis for that be? What is the end state? Russia's primary concern for the past decade has been US ABM sites in their near abroad. The ABMs themselves came after the US unilaterally withdrew from the ABM treaty. These concerns have fallen on deaf ears in Washington:
2016: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...
2008: https://sputniknews.com/russia...
2001: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12...

In the absence of US missiles destabilizing the balance of Mutually Assured Destruction, Russia's force structure was primarily aligned for counter-insurgency in the Caucasus, not conquest of Europe. http://turcopolier.typepad.com... And given that Russia has fought 2 devastating wars against military alliances attacking from the West in the past 100 years, are you really surprised that they are unwilling to give the US & NATO the benefit of the doubt?

Point 2. Logistics
Have you looked at a map lately? Kaliningrad to Warsaw: 275km. Kaliningrad to Vilnius: 300km St. Petersburg to Helsinki: ~350km
Even the US military, probably the king of expeditionary logistics, strains to support a 300-400km mechanized blitz with a 3-6 month buildup.
The Russians hit Tskhinvali pretty quickly but that's barely 140km from Nalchik. They have not demonstrated the ability to sustain a brigade or larger element at the distances required, let alone multiple axes of advance against national capitals in a short timeframe (such as all 3 of the Baltic States).

Finally....you have yet to spell out exactly why I should get my legs blown off so the (numerous, tall, and well-fed) sons of Europe can sleep peaceably in their beds. How is the "EU handed over to Putin" undermining my quality of life as an American expat in Asia? Can you even begin to actually articulate that, in real terms? Or are you only capable of posting one-liners of empty rhetoric?

Not that we'll eve know, but given a Division of US vs a Division or Russian soldiers on the same field, my bet would be on the Russians.

Generals McMaster and MacGregor have said as much, as well. The US brigades and divisions are too light on artillery IMO. Here's a good briefing on the subject: http://douglasmacgregor.com/RS...
But the Army never fights alone. The US relies very heavily on air power to shape the battlespace, and the argument of Russian air defenses vs USAF SEAD/PGMs is a very complex discussion.

Not sure what you're on about here so you may need to provide some references.European military expenditure is still in the normal range

France, the UK, and Poland are spending 2% GDP. China, Australia, India = 1.9%. The global share of GDP is 2.3%. Most of Europe is closer to 1% (Germany 1.2%, Italy 1.3%, Spain 0.6%). https://www.sipri.org/database... http://books.sipri.org/files/F...
And it's hard to argue that the cost savings is materializing as any sort of persistent military efficiency, given that Europe has prosecuted two air campaigns in the past 10 years where they've had to borrow/buy munitions from the US in short order. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.c... https://www.washingtonpost.com...

International R&D/procurement programs such as the Eurofighter Typhoon and A400M probably do yield cross-national economies of scale, but without a VERY robust commitment to command & control / administration / logistics / training & readiness, you can't run a multi-national combat force with any degree of integration and proficiency. http://www.military.com/daily-...
"The expert group comprising six defense officials, including former NATO chief Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, warned of "chronic underfunding" and "critical deficiencies" of the Alliance's member states, according to the report, as quoted by the Financial Times newspaper. The NATO report revealed that only 10 of 31 German Tiger helicopters and some three quarters of 406 Marder armored infantry vehicles were usable."
https://sputniknews.com/world/...

Russia is opposed to the TPP, even if the US business establishment is in favor.

Like I posted below, Abe's logic is more likely to be that Trump is unlikely to serve an entire term, and his replacement - assuming it's a Republican - will be very likely to be pro-TPP.

Looks like they are just using regular airplane frames, this is skywalker x8 about 200 bucks. About 1/100 of a US drone probably
https://sputniknews.com/world/...

From TFSummary, you cannot turn off tracking for Google Play or Google Maps. Google always knows where you are, and offers that information to installed apps.

"Don't be evil" is so last-decade. According to Larry Page, the "Don't be evil" culture prohibited conflicts of interest, and required objectivity and an absence of bias. This does not apply to Alphabet. https://sputniknews.com/us/201...

There is much to like about the Trump campaign if you are Russian.

Trump has promised to look into lifting the sanctions that the U.S. has imposed against Russia for its military incursions in Ukraine.

The Trump campaign worked behind the scenes to make sure the new Republican platform won’t call for giving weapons to Ukraine to fight Russian and rebel forces, contradicting the view of almost all Republican foreign policy leaders in Washington.

He questioned whether the U.S. would defend its NATO allies in the event of a Russian attack and claimed that the alliance is “obsolete.”

An isolationist America would pose less of a threat to Russia’s ambitions in Europe and the Middle East.

On top of this, Putin likely holds a grudge against Clinton for this.

I'm amazed someone claiming they follow this news carefully isn't aware of the countless infringements. They're relatively regular and, well documented:

http://www.ibtimes.com/despite...

https://theaviationist.com/201...

http://www.baltictimes.com/rus...

http://www.upi.com/Business_Ne...

http://sputniknews.com/europe/...

http://www.thenews.pl/1/10/Art...

http://uawire.org/news/media-r...

The fact is that Russia is a hostile nation, it's invaded Ukraine, and it's invaded Georgia, it can't pretend it's an innocent bystander that's merely hard done by as you're implying it is.

Russian aircraft are allowed to fly over this airspace if they obtain permission. However when a military aircraft, many of which are armed, enters foreign airspace unannounced, and typically with transponders off as is the case in most these incursions, then that can only be seen as a provocative act.

Russia isn't the only nation that does this, the US does it too in Asia, but two wrongs don't make a right. You're arguing that no harm may come of a Russian aircraft entering sovereign airspace of other nations, in your view, does that remain true even when they actually launch weapons as in Ukraine and Georgia? Given that they have done this, do you seriously still think it's a sensible argument to suggest that armed Russian aircraft entering airspace unannounced should always be considered benign?

It sounds like you're making an awful lot of excuses for Russia over things that simply cannot be excused. The idea that Russian pilots can't navigate a 5km gap making incursion into Finnish or Estonian airspace with armed warplanes with transponders off acceptable is utterly laughable, and pointing out that you can't pass through the English channel without infringing British or French airspace is relevant why? you also can't pass over Moscow without infringing Russian airspace, so what? The fact that the channel is joint sovereign British/French air space is entirely meaningless other than to distract from the fact Russia is a persistent and aggressive violator of sovereign airspace.

There is genuinely no issue with Russian aircraft sticking to international airspace, avoiding civilian airline routes, or announcing routes and flying with transponders on. There's not even any problem with it passing through sovereign airspace of other nations with permission. But that's not what's happening is it? Russia is violating sovereign airspace proper with armed aircraft, flying transponders off, and flying in civilian flight paths unannounced and outside the control and hence potential awareness of air traffic control. It's doing this in the context having recently used such subversive tactics of pretending to be not Russian military to annex sovereign territory of another nation.

For the T-50, you dont iron out stealth issues over time. That is not how radar signature or stealth signature work. They are design time decisions. The US criticism is of cost and range. Stealth is generally considered part of the definition of 5th gen. No one has questioned if the F-35 is really 5th gen. I agree the Indian are going to continue to invest in it, mostly because the deal includes tech transfer, which they badly need. It is funny they are still threatening to drop it.

T-14 were part of Russian arms expo. Here is one of those http://sputniknews.com/militar...
It is also certainly in production, though not widely acknowledged. http://nationalinterest.org/bl...

Score:4 Informative, without any information, and full of dis-informations.

Tiger Forces complete the east Aleppo encirclement: 800+ ISIS fighters trapped

https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/...
https://www.almasdarnews.com/a...

Al-Nusra Front Confirms Deaths of 300 Terrorists in Syria's Aleppo
http://sputniknews.com/middlee...

WOW, the title Syrian war: Russian-backed offensive in Aleppo has killed 500 people this month, Observatory says
http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...

But actually, by at least 500 people, including 89 civilians, have been killed since the Russian-backed offensive on Aleppo province began earlier this month
Now, do your homework!

In 2015 Finland accepted 15,000 more asylum seekers at a cost of EU 15,000 per head. That works out to EU 225 million *more* in 2015 due to some legitimate asylum seekers mixed in with a lot of opportunistic economic migrants:
http://sputniknews.com/europe/...

Imagine if a portion of that money had gone to existing citizens instead - and the asylum seekers kept closer to their point of origin while receiving the other portion for their care - it's cheaper to help them closer to their point of origin, like in a neighboring country.

Too bad the politicians and bureaucrats in the West always consider their own citizens and tax payers last when deciding where to spend money taken from those very same tax payers.

Updates on the stories that matter. Anyone want to make a submission?

Will the Trans-Pacific Partnership Force Us to Fund the Paris Climate Agreement?

Saginaw [Michigan] County Board calls on Congress to oppose Trans-Pacific Partnership

Poll: Donald Trump trails Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders in matchup

(This one may seem random, but is perhaps the most on-topic to this discussion of the bunch. People got killed but she didn't join Daesh at least? USA #1!) Suspect in Vegas crash said she was stressed living in car

Sanders Campaign Suspends Two More Staffers Over Data Breach

Global Trade Faces Fragmentation Risks From TPP, TTIP, TiSA

PROVE IT! I encourage you counter point-to-point my post. What prevent you do that instead of cheap accusation!?
If you can't, SHUT UP.

He, Rei, can't show proof of his post just ranting. What ever you claim, what ever you whine, that does not change the fact.

He claimed, Russian use $200 barrel bombs instead of precise guided bombs. This is just parroting what MSM said. The Russian released videos, why bother!?
He claimed, Daesh vs non-Daesh. I showed Telegraph article. And, plus, the words from mouth of U.S officials in The Guardians article.
I showed the source of civilian deaths, which is cited from Wikipedia, which is cited from New York Times.

All are cited from Western sources. The last is from "bull-horn of Kremlin" (despite that you may could not discrete that they tell this truth either).

PS: I'm long time reader of Slashdot. I know Rei is smart person (that may be some of you like him), but these posts of him in this topic is just propaganda or he's just brainwashed to believed in those.

What a stupid cracker may look like

I guarantee that whoever that cop in the picture is, he wasn't the one deciding what kind of charges were to be brought against Ahmed.

Here is a picture of the police chief of Irving, Texas:

http://cdn5.img.sputniknews.co...

And here's a picture of him standing with his posse:

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm...

[note: Take a look at the faces in that photo. Now remember that Irving, Texas is 60% minority. Get the picture?]

Here is a picture of the mayor of Irving, Texas, who has been giving speeches about how Muslims are gonna take over the US legal system:

http://cdn3.freedomoutpost.com...

Yes, I stand by "stupid cracker". If you have a more apt term, I'm keen to hear it.

Right, 'cause it's totally illegitimate for a population to choose to secede from a country that tries to suppress their freedoms.
Quite a few European politicians seem to agree (see, for example: http://sputniknews.com/politic..., even if it's sputnik). Of course, you seem to be supporting the opinion of people, who preferred an outcome similar to Donbass.
Also, this is quite amusing.(Scusi, also Sputnik, but you can easily find their sources to be legitimate yourself.)

Right, 'cause it's totally illegitimate for a population to choose to secede from a country that tries to suppress their freedoms.
Quite a few European politicians seem to agree (see, for example: http://sputniknews.com/politic..., even if it's sputnik). Of course, you seem to be supporting the opinion of people, who preferred an outcome similar to Donbass.
Also, this is quite amusing.(Scusi, also Sputnik, but you can easily find their sources to be legitimate yourself.)

Russian tanks just have to be better than this https://medium.com/war-is-bori... against Ukraine. Those were bought by money of Ukrainian tax payers. Or wait, WTF http://sputniknews.com/militar... - sold by private Ukrainian company. This another funny one - http://thediplomat.com/2015/03... - basically somebody stole 5 Indian fighter jets, out of 40 that were send to Ukraine for upgrade.

Presidents change every 4 years in Ukraine, but their mission stays basically the same - steal as much as you can, divert attention by some crazy bullshit. I've been to Crimea a few years back, public transport in Simfiropol was from nineteen sixties - in more than 10 years since USSR collapse Ukraine did nothing for Crimea development. Could be that this is the actual cause of separatism? Shoving Ukrainian village dialect and equally funny culture (vishivanka?lapti?) probably also played a part - those people used to be part of a nation that defeated Napoleon, Hitler and launched a man into space, just to name a few, and now they are supposed to be proud of nazi collaborationists and a village style t-shirt? Time to end this circus, give Galicia to Poland, rest join with Russia, move capital and all bunch of bureaucrats to Kiev and name resulting country Kievskaya Russia.Wait, I'll roll one more...

Russia is also fucked up - looks like they are building unique joined cristian - muslim proudly multinational theocratic state, lol. With a touch of idiocraty, offcourse. Our next lecture might be on topic of retards and idiots in all branches of Russian government, and influence of their retarded laws and other acts on a daily life of ordinary citizens, observed from a safe distance.

The US State Department recruited Hollywood to boost “anti-Russian messaging“.
Sony pirated multiple books about hacking, while aggressively campaigning against piracy.
Emails reveal concerns in the US over the secrecy of the TPP talks.
The leaks included a draft of the international VOD and DHE agreement between SONY and Google
Sony received nearly $48 million in tax breaks in 2011 and 2012 after donating to New York Governor Cuomo.
Ben Affleck demanded PBS program “Finding Your Roots” hide his slave-owning ancestor.
Sony changed the Snowden film press release to remove “illegal spying” from the description of NSA’s activities
Sony cameras are used as a part of the guidance system for Israeli rockets bombing Gaza
Sony Chiefs met with David Cameron ahead of the Scottish referendum
Corrupt product placement practices used in Dr. Oz show

I really hope that slashdot doesn't become another place of pro-government propaganda, as that really pisses me off. The information was already out there, but their republishing obviously did us a favor (us that care about government accountability or knowing the truth anyway). We already have enough media outlets against information out there, let's keep this one useful.
I would never know the above facts if it wasn't for them, as 1. I believed the propaganda that it was mostly employee information and didn't feel comfortable downloading it and reading, and 2. it would be too much work for me to look into the e-mails.
Now that I know these stuff I feel like someone more informed than before. I hope the Slashdot community stops being against information.

By the way, since I haven't seen here a link to their press release, with the leaks, here it is.

Like Radio Free Europe or Voice of America? Yeah we spend a lot of money putting out our message but they do the same thing. It's still a Spy v. Spy world and they have their propaganda engines and we have ours. There's also feet on the street, right now there's a trial going on in NYC and it really sheds some light into the low budget approach on how Russia pursues it's goals. One of my favorite quotes so far in talking about American Women:

"I have lots of ideas about such girls, but these ideas are not actionable because they don't allow (you) to get close enough. And in order to be close you either need to (have sex with) them or use other levers to influence them to execute my requests."

If you take a look at Russia Today, they spew a ton of propaganda, daily, all with English speaking ex-pats or well groomed English speaking Russians. It makes for hilarious viewing sometimes.