Slashdot Mirror


DNC Salute to Vets Featured Backdrop Of Russian Warships

An anonymous reader writes "Our politicians, and their henchmen, at their finest! In an apparent error, the Democratic National Convention's primary backdrop for its salute to veterans, by a 4-star admiral, featured a composite warship backdrop, in parade review, as a sign of U.S. strength and force projection; unfortunately, all of the naval ships in the image were Russian warships."

218 comments

  1. This happened a long time ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    The rest of the media already picked this apart weeks ago, and has since processed the DNC's effusive apologies for somebody's error in Photoshop.

    Seriously?

    1. Re:This happened a long time ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Slashdot's new motto - News that Fox News posted a month and change ago, and their mouth-breathers found it relevant.

    2. Re:This happened a long time ago by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      I for one have never heard of this. I'm betting a lot of people haven't.

    3. Re:This happened a long time ago by Tommy+Bologna · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Dumb avoidable mistakes are relevant. It is a peek at how a candidate's party will govern. Not that we need the peek -- it's no surprise that neither party is competent. We're circling the drain and they still want to have their slap fight.

    4. Re:This happened a long time ago by Ronin+Developer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh...what a crock of shit. This error was caused by a staffer who prepared the presentation and didnt know better or someone either playing a practical joke or trying to embarass Obama.

      Those ships were Soviet era warships. Someone in the navy, as i was during that era, would know that. Most civilians wouldn't know the difference.

      And, why is this being posted weeks AFTER it occurred and has already hit the mainstream?

      By the way, who is going to help Romney add roll-down windows to the airliners? You?

    5. Re:This happened a long time ago by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      The rest of the media already picked this apart weeks ago, and has since processed the DNC's effusive apologies for somebody's error in Photoshop.

      Seriously?

      Just another photoshop disaster, blame it on the (most likely fired) person who was surfing around looking for ship pictures and was too lazy or stupid to see what they snagged.

      Could be worse .. could take an engagement photo of two men, photoshop it and distribute it campaign literature to deny them their civil rights. Lawsuit is off and running.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    6. Re:This happened a long time ago by EdIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Christ this is fucking pitiful. You get a +5 insightful for an impossibly stupid argument that the mistake is indicative of how a political party will govern.

      Really?

      Slashdot actually runs the article here.... and has a fucking icon to represent Democrats. I know there are a ton of people here frothing at the mouth about Democrats, and Republicans (only to be drowned out by people who hate government period), but how more more ridiculous can this get?

      This was on Slashdot? Some staffer who could not identify Russian warships in a presentation he was putting together becomes news worthy? Really?

      This was simply some poor fool who did a Google image search and did not get "lucky" . People do stupid shit like this every 60 seconds in Corporate America.

      Not News for Nerds. Not Stuff That Matters.

    7. Re:This happened a long time ago by readin · · Score: 1

      If it was prepared by a staffer then presumably reviewed by other people (if something that they planned to show at a big convention and on national TV wasn't reviewed by multiple people then there really is a serious leadership problem). What we can deduce is that no one involved 1. had enough military experience to notice the difference or thought it was worth checking to be sure that they were using American ships (they might not have been Russian - they might have been Chinese or who knows what).

      It weakly suggests some management issues (only weakly because it was the type of gaffe that most organizations make occasionally) But it strongly suggests (though it doesn't prove) that the DNC puts a low priority on military matters.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    8. Re:This happened a long time ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? The Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces not knowing the difference between US forces and Russian forces "isn't news?"

      But covering Romney making a joke about airplane windows is somehow a huge gaffe?

      Oh, right. Liberals. They have no sense of scale.

    9. Re:This happened a long time ago by jrroche · · Score: 2

      Yes, Obama was personally in charge of putting together a presentation slideshow backdrop. He also handled all the travel arrangements, prepared all of the food at the convention, and swept up afterward. No wonder he looks so tired all the time!

    10. Re:This happened a long time ago by Tommy+Bologna · · Score: 5, Informative

      I used to be a staffer who prepared graphics for high level government presentations. I was hired because I knew what I was doing, and I'd have been fired if I made a mistake like this. Let me correct that -- I'd have been fired, my boss would have been fired, and the company for which I worked would have lost a multi-million dollar contract which would in turn place scores of other peoples continued employment in jeopardy.

      To write this off as just some staffer's oversight displays a certain ignorance about how important presentations come together, how they're vetted, and the competency of people involved in creating those presentations.

    11. Re:This happened a long time ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's really pretty funny, given that every time someone said they could see Russia from their living room, or that jesus rode around on the back of a t-rex, or that 47% of americans are degenerate do-nothings that only vote democrat, or that a president got his moral compass from text written on invisible tablets read out of a top hat by a known con man, it's always, "unimportant stuff blown way out of proportion".

      Some AV contractor nobody knows pastes a google images silhouette of "battleships" into a glorified powerpoint... obviously Obama is a communist and the media didn't spend enough time on it because they're in on the conspiracy.

      Goddamn knuckle-draggers, man. It's embarassing.

    12. Re:This happened a long time ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dumb avoidable mistakes are relevant.

      I'm afraid you might not be getting the real story here ...

      It's a dumb mistake, but in this case, it ain't that avoidable --- they're the ones who praised and helped the 'freedom fighters' in Libya to overthrow their dictator only to have the same Libyan 'freedom fighters' killing ambassador Chris Stevens.

    13. Re:This happened a long time ago by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 2

      Oh the stories I could tell... Shit like this slips through all the time. And we don't know how many people were fired--I would imagine many. But to say that this doesn't happen is silly, the democratic convention is something like 48 hours of A/V material. The fact that a couple seconds were in error isn't surprising in the least. I bet there were a few typos as well.

    14. Re:This happened a long time ago by Q-Hack! · · Score: 1

      That because you don't watch Fox news.

      --
      Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
    15. Re:This happened a long time ago by drkim · · Score: 2

      Yes, Obama was personally in charge of putting together a presentation slideshow backdrop. He also handled all the travel arrangements, prepared all of the food at the convention, and swept up afterward. No wonder he looks so tired all the time!

      Hilarious! I'm pretty sure Obama personally shot the pictures, composed and arraigned the music, and changes the light bulbs in the hall, too.

      But seriously, Romney wasn't joking about the jetliner windows. He really couldn't figure out why they don't let you open them in flight. This is the guy we want setting our space policy? Our national science policy? And (worst) our national educational policy? A guy who thinks God lives on planet Kolob?

      Actual quote:

      “When you have a fire in an aircraft, there’s no place to go, exactly, there’s no; and you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem. So it’s very dangerous.”

      ...so for Romney supporters, you have a choice. You can admit this quote was serious, which makes Romney pretty dumb; or you can pretend he was 'joking' which makes him stunningly un-funny.

    16. Re:This happened a long time ago by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Incorrect. I also listen to Rush Limbaugh. This was brand new to me.

    17. Re:This happened a long time ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh...what a crock of shit. This error was caused by a staffer who prepared the presentation and didnt know better or someone either playing a practical joke or trying to embarass Obama.

      Those ships were Soviet era warships. Someone in the navy, as i was during that era, would know that. Most civilians wouldn't know the difference.

      Civilians might not identify them as Russians -- the naval ensign being distinct from the well-known Russian flag -- but it could hardly be mistaken for any US flag, so most civilians would know they were foreign.

      By the way, who is going to help Romney add roll-down windows to the airliners? You?

      Really? you just made excuses for one cock-up because an exceptionally stupid or unobservant member of the general public could miss it, then you jump on another one? I wonder what the difference is...

    18. Re:This happened a long time ago by thesandtiger · · Score: 5, Funny

      True story about bad Google image search results:

      My best friend started working for a Catholic hospital and during the orientation the person giving the talk put up a series of what she felt wee inspirational slides.

      One of them, she said, was God's hands parting a cloud so that the sun could shine through. It was a picture that had been made by Something Awful forum members that were putting goatse imagery into random scenes.

      My friend just bout died trying to contain her laughter.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    19. Re:This happened a long time ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that why you used to be a staffer?

    20. Re:This happened a long time ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      If you had bothered to check on the Romney story you would know that he was joking.
        But I guess just running with whatever the haters tell you is good enough.

    21. Re:This happened a long time ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you honestly say that the media would have treated a similar GOP mistake similarly? No you can not. You know, and everyone else does, that it would have led the nightly news and been talked about for weeks. In this case, it was mentioned on Fox News, and a couple sites talked about it. THe double standard is palpable. Don't you have a +10 Dem poll to shove in someone's face.

    22. Re:This happened a long time ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it also turns out that the warplanes shown in the same image were most likely Turkish Air Force jets.
      Dorks.
      Shows how much the dems care about the Military.

    23. Re:This happened a long time ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, shut up.

    24. Re:This happened a long time ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes because Obama is so much smarter, and I quote "Over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states?", ROFL...WTF? Romaney asking about jetliner windows stupid, yes, obama thinking there is 57 states that goes beyond stupid...mentally r******* comes to mind. haha 57 states...

    25. Re:This happened a long time ago by 93,000 · · Score: 1

      Yep -- had a 'born again' high-school classmate who posted that on facebook, saying something to the effect of "If this isn't proof, I don't know what is."

      I try to stay out of religious conversations on FB, but I did feel the need to post "1. That's Photoshopped. 2. It's not showing what you think it is showing. 3. you may want to research the inspiration for that photo, though I take no responsibility for what you find."

    26. Re:This happened a long time ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, why is this being posted weeks AFTER it occurred and has already hit the mainstream?

      Because slashdot has become a circlejerk of the ignorant and uninformed. They have nothing else to do.

    27. Re:This happened a long time ago by Brewster+Jennings · · Score: 2

      That's like saying that the bride and a groom don't really love each other because the ice sculpture swans at the reception were the wrong size.

    28. Re:This happened a long time ago by Straif · · Score: 1

      I think the Russian naval insignia on the bows in the place normally reserved for the American flag on US ships might have been a tip off as to the origin of the ships, even if they don't know the difference in radar arrays or actual ship design.

      They planes they used in the graphic also happen to be of the Turkish military stunt flying team and not the US Air Force.

      So 0 for 2 for whoever's job it was to put that image together.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    29. Re:This happened a long time ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the Russian naval insignia on the bows in the place normally reserved for the American flag on US ships might have been a tip off as to the origin of the ships, even if they don't know the difference in radar arrays or actual ship design.

      Do you ever speak except to lie? Have you even seen the photo in question?

    30. Re:This happened a long time ago by drkim · · Score: 1

      Yes because Obama is so much smarter, and I quote "Over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states?", ROFL...WTF? Romaney asking about jetliner windows stupid, yes, obama thinking there is 57 states that goes beyond stupid...mentally r******* comes to mind. haha 57 states...

      ...he corrected himself right after in the same speech. He was thinking of the 50 states, minus Hawaii and Alaska.

      Unfortunately, Romney's wasn't a slip of the tongue, he really didn't know....

    31. Re:This happened a long time ago by Straif · · Score: 1

      From the Navy Times:

      But the fact they are Russian ships is not in doubt. In addition to the ship’s radar arrays and hulls, which are dissimilar from U.S. warships, the photo features one more give-away: a large white flag with a blue ‘X’ at the ships’ sterns.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    32. Re:This happened a long time ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if the Republicans did it, it'd be the stupidest thing ever done at a convention, right?

    33. Re:This happened a long time ago by Tommy+Bologna · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying this stuff never happens. Obviously it does. But it's also fair to judge them on these mistakes because it's evidence of the management environment the candidate has created, or allows to fester. Communications professionals implement procedural safeguards to prevent these sorts of public mistakes. Mistaking a photo of the Russian Navy for the United States Navy is a blunder of the first order for a professional graphic artist. At this level, the guy assembling the presentation isn't some dopey intern with powerpoint and an internet connection.

  2. Old news by Dave+Emami · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I found this funny at the time, but it happened almost three weeks ago.

    --

    "The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
    1. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russian ships, Turkish planes, all old news. Biden must have been in charge of the imagery.

    2. Re:Old news by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      This is what happens when you don't have much ex-military in leadership.

      You say that like it's definitely a bad thing...

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    3. Re:Old news by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is what happens when you don't have much ex-military in leadership.

      It's not just a case of no 'ex-military'. Some years ago, I had to correct a USAF Lt (computer dude, not a flyboy) who was preparing a Powerpoint slide deck. About 1/3 of the way through, there was an image of some fighter jets. Navy F-18 fighter jets.

      Dude...you need to change that picture.
      Why? It's jets. I'm trying to conjure up the concept of speed
      When your *Air Force* audience sees that picture of Navy jets, they will discount everything else you have said. Cluelessness does not work. Do your homework. It's not like we have a shortage of jets around here. Go 1/2 mile down the street, and you can see about 75 of our jets. Use some of those.

      Bottom line, just grabbing an dramatic pic does not work. Do your homework and grab a relevant dramatic pic. Hell...that is a line item in the "Action Officers Handbook", under 'How not to fuck up'.

    4. Re:Old news by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 1

      I think this must have happened because those ships and planes look more like the ideal image one has of a battleship or fighter planes.

      Because modern warfare does not look like that: drones look like they are out of science-fiction movies. Ships don't have those big easily-recognisable guns -- launchers are way more effective, but just look like unexciting trapdoors. They could have gone with a big carrier: that really says US projection power.

      But in the end, who cares? it's a fake image designed to elicit emotions, not a documentary. It says "we care about our soldiers and our art department can't tell which is the business end of any military hardware". Which is OK, because presumably the art department is not invited to give its opinion on military matters.

    5. Re:Old news by OverlordQ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I found this funny at the time, but it happened almost three weeks ago.

      But if the Republicans did it, the talking heads here on /. would be bringing it up for the next 6 months.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    6. Re:Old news by fm6 · · Score: 1

      It's never too late to say nasty things about those socialist fascist democrat partiers!

    7. Re:Old news by fm6 · · Score: 1

      None of us have our own TV shows, so none of are "talking heads". On the other hand, you can be sure that right-wing talking heads will be reminding of this one until the end of time.

    8. Re:Old news by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1

      This is what happens when you don't have much ex-military with experience in identifying ships by silhouette working as graphic designers who pick the coolest looking stock photos of obsolete warships

      FTFY

    9. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was my first though : Wait, we had another DNC?

      Oh... guess not. Just month-old news.

    10. Re:Old news by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 2

      Yes, because military leadership is demostrated in Photoshop compositions.

      Do you think the photo was chosen/doctored by a navy assessor? Most likely, it is the job of some assistant who thought "Well, the thing under looks like the sea, so the big things on it must be ships. And they are grey and have guns, so they probably are from the military (they lack *so much* imagination when it comes to colour!). And since we won the Cold War, only we have ships, don't we".

      If you want to worry about military leadership, a better issue would be the childlike bickering between officers of the different branches ("if you say that a Navy plane is an Air Force plane they won't hear to you, even if it is not related to the argument!")

      --
      Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
    11. Re:Old news by fm6 · · Score: 1

      There's another side to your story. Ask yourself, why do we have all these separate military services that were designed for roles that were standard 200 years ago? Armies fought on land, Navies fought on water, and Marines fought on ships. All of these roles have blended into each other, and all the traditional services compete with the Air Force for a role in air power. So why not just get rid of all these different services, and have a unified service, like Israel? Save a ton of money on duplication.

      I'm sure you're already muttering the answer: tradition. Military services live on the stuff. Navy recruits need to hear about John Paul Jones and Midway, Marines about Chosin Reservoir, etc., etc., or morale goes all to hell. The Canadians discovered that when they went to a unified service.

      But if an officer doesn't even know about that stuff, you have to wonder how hard his service is working to maintain traditions.

    12. Re:Old news by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Your use of the word "battleship" reveals your lack of military background. Only civilians call all warships battleships. To a military person a battleship is a big armored seagoing gun platform that lines up with other battleships (originally "line of battle ships") and dukes it out with enemy battleships. Obsolete ever since naval warfare became about airplanes and missiles rather than guns.

      Who cares? Probably the very vets they were trying to honor. Recognizing military hardware (especially the hardware of a nation the U.S. spend over 40 years preparing to fight) is part of their training.

    13. Re:Old news by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 1

      I used the word battleship advisedly. This is exactly what I meant, because this is exactly how people imagine naval warfare to happen. I well know that all-big-guns battles have not taken place in the last 60 years.

    14. Re:Old news by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Actually, big gun battles did take place in Korea and Vietnam. They were kind of one-sided...

    15. Re:Old news by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected.

    16. Re:Old news by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 1

      But Viet Nam was very nearly 60 years ago...

    17. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make a great argument. You see the other side is worse so no matter what our side does, it's justifiable. Nanny nanny boo boo.

    18. Re:Old news by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      "graphic designers who pick the coolest looking stock photos"

      FAIL

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    19. Re:Old news by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      But if the Republicans did it, the talking heads here on /. would be bringing it up for the next 6 months.

      In politics everybody beats dead horses.
      Mitt Romney personally brought up the "47% don't pay income taxes" canard two years after it was widely debunked.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    20. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good Idea. The Navy and the Marine Corps is all that's needed. Everything else is a waste.

    21. Re:Old news by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Hey, I'm not even 60, and I came close (though not very close), to fighting in that thing. Last U.S. troops left about 40 years ago. Most of the nastiest U.S. involvement, including including the deployment of the New Jersey occurred about 5 years earlier.

    22. Re:Old news by Q-Hack! · · Score: 2

      Mitt Romney personally brought up the "47% don't pay income taxes" canard two years after it was widely debunked.

      Um... hate to bust your bubble here, but the article you use for reference, clearly states that 47% of the population of the USA doesn't pay federal income tax. It goes on to say is that there are other taxes that people pay that equate to a smaller number. For instance, when you include payroll taxes, then only 10% of the population pay no taxes.

      Now if you had said that Romny was missleading, I might agree with you, but he was factually true. Nice try though.

      --
      Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
    23. Re:Old news by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2

      Now if you had said that Romny was missleading, I might agree with you, but he was factually true. Nice try though.

      It is a "true lie" - it is a literal truth meant to mislead about a larger issue. People who say "true lies" fall into two camps - either they are deliberately intending to mislead, or they are so credulous that they believed the larger implication. Nobody cites a "true lie" because they really care about the true part as the true part is invariably of little interest just by itself.

      So yes, it was debunked. Especially when you consider the context of his delivery - stuff like, "I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." That is an obvious attempt to imply not paying any tax at all, which is the lie part of that particular true lie.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    24. Re:Old news by drainbramage · · Score: 1

      The Saddest Day: 30 April 1975.
      Then congress ensured we would not intervene in the Killing fields.
        It is estimated that at least 1.7 million people perished at the hands of the Khmer Rouge.
      The UN did what it always does, held their balls and special meetings.
      Eventually ejaculated some words saying it all might be a bad thing.

      --
      No brain, no pain.
    25. Re:Old news by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Not only is it old news, but . . . WHO GIVES A FUCK?

      Seriously, we send people over to Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries to conduct "military actions" resulting in thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of casualties over a decade and we don't give them enough resources on the ground to protect themselves while they protect our various assets and interests (and by "our", I mean government and corporate interests) . . . and the wrong fucking ship in a piece of promotional backdrop at a showboating convention full of twits is what gets the panties of a bunch of tough military guys in a twist?

      When I heard about this (when it was reported in the news WEEKS ago), all I could think was "nobody seriously has so little to worry about in their life that they are giving even a fractional fuck about this".

      Seriously, there is an unending supply of lies and deceit and un-American, un-Constutional, anti-citizen bullshit in the actual content of messages from both sides of the part and, in our own typical American fashion, we ignore all of that and focus like a pit-bull on the most trivial bullshit.

    26. Re:Old news by khallow · · Score: 1

      So why not just get rid of all these different services, and have a unified service, like Israel?

      Ok, let's see. Israel has an air force. It has a navy. It has an army. The thing here is that those divisions, which supposedly aren't in the Israeli military, are there.

      Basically, every military groups its forces by role, region, and mission/purpose, the US just as much as the rest. Relative weight of the groupings can vary as indicated in the post above, but I don't see a lot of significance in that.

    27. Re:Old news by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Oh please. We killed a million Vietnamese trying to win the Vietnam war, so don't talk to me about the killing fields. And BTW, the Khmer Rouge came to power with U.S. help.

    28. Re:Old news by drainbramage · · Score: 1

      So your point is that a million 'foreigners' killed is fine by you if it's fine by the UN...
      Well, aren't you a sweet boy.
      Is this some kind of equal justice thing?

      --
      No brain, no pain.
    29. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since Israel does not own aircraft carriers, its navy does not own airplanes. Since it has no marine corps, the only branch that operates tanks and infantry is the army, and the air force is the only branch that operates airplanes. The fact that a national military is composed of different branches does not entail overlap between their functions.

    30. Re:Old news by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia calls these the "Israeli Air Force", etc. (Wikipedians live to shove things into familiar categories, however poorly they apply). Israelis call the the whole thing the Israel Defense Forces. There are ground, air, and naval organizations within the IDF, but all report to the same general staff and draw on the same pool of personnel. There are no branch-specific uniforms or ranks.

    31. Re:Old news by fm6 · · Score: 1

      I'm saying that given our track record in S.E. Asia, intervening in Cambodia probably would have made things worse.

      Not that there was any chance of such an intervention. You think that the U.S.tolerated the Khmer Rouge because of wimpy politicians? Totally wrong. The U.S. wanted an ally in the area to offset it's loss of South Vietnam, so it destabilized the neutral government of Cambodia. The U.S. sponsored military dictatorship that was supposed to take over didn't last, but once the Khmer Rouge came to power, U.S. policy favored them as a counterweight to the pro-Soviet Vietnamese. This included blocking action against them and even shipping them arms.

      Spare me the "sweet boy". Personal remarks aggravate your appearance of historical ignorance. I suggest you crack an actual history book instead of listening to Fox News.

    32. Re:Old news by khallow · · Score: 1
      The US calls its stuff the Department of Defense.

      There are ground, air, and naval organizations within the IDF, but all report to the same general staff and draw on the same pool of personnel.

      Same with the US.

      There are no branch-specific uniforms or ranks.

      It's worth noting here that the US has the same ranks for all of its military.

      The real difference between the US and Israel is that the US has branch-specific uniforms and rank names. Not a whole lot of difference there.

    33. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's worth noting here that the US has the same ranks for all of its military.

      No, it doesn't. It has unified pay-grades, but ranks can be quite different across the branches -- even the article you cite indicates that. The one I've seen people argue the most about is "Captain". Go look at it on your chart.

    34. Re:Old news by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      It's bad when you're addressing military issues, if only for the lack of expertise.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    35. Re:Old news by khallow · · Score: 1

      It has unified pay-grades, but ranks can be quite different across the branches

      Ok, I looked. Pay-grade is rank. "Rank" as you put it, is a label stuck on a pay-grade. Sure, it might appear to be confusing that a captain in the US Army has a lower rank than a captain in the US Navy, but it wouldn't be at all surprising that an O-3 has a lower rank than an O-6.

    36. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mitt Romney personally brought up the "47% don't pay income taxes" canard two years after it was widely debunked.

      Um... hate to bust your bubble here, but the article you use for reference, clearly states that 47% of the population of the USA doesn't pay federal income tax. It goes on to say is that there are other taxes that people pay that equate to a smaller number. For instance, when you include payroll taxes, then only 10% of the population pay no taxes.

      Now if you had said that Romny was missleading, I might agree with you, but he was factually true. Nice try though.

      Its cute how you think you pay your own payroll tax. Thats actually paid by the evil rich man who pays you, your payroll tax, and another tax in case you screw around and get fired and he has to pay your unemployment. Are you blissful in your ignorance? I guess the good news is after all the businesses that decide to pay the penalty thats cheaper than health care so they can drop your insurance, and your left without coverage you can pay obama $750 dollars when you file taxes bc you don't have insurance and you need to be penalized for not buying any. Bc thats exactly what his healthcare plan did, but I suppose you can save up 24,000 dollars a year and buy your own.

    37. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say that like it's definitely a bad thing...

      Indeed. The ex-military have at least demonstrated, by putting their butts on the line, a commitment to their country. Irregardless of personal faults or shortcomings, or political leanings.

    38. Re:Old news by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Even though the Iowa class is being decommed, they can provide firepower that is useful, and are still survivable for all but a very few threats. But we are in love with technology, so cruise missiles are more popular than big guns, even for shore and near -shore barrages.

      I miss them. I know..

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    39. Re:Old news by fm6 · · Score: 1

      There are ground, air, and naval organizations within the IDF, but all report to the same general staff and draw on the same pool of personnel.

      Same with the US.

      You're lecturing me on military organization, and you don't even know how the DOD is structured? Each service has its own it's own staff. (You've heard of the joint chiefs of staff?) They even have their own civilian oversight With very few exceptions, they do not share personnel,. If you're recruited by the Air Force, you will serve in an Air Force unit. An Air Force mechanic doesn't normally get transferred from his USAF air base to a Navy or Marine Corps air base, even though they have pretty much the same planes. There are inter-service transfers, of course, but those are rare. A few years ago, the USAF loaned the Army some airmen to help guard bases in Iraq. This minimal cooperation was considered a major except to normal "interservice rivalry".

      Bored now.

    40. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, rank is rank. That's why we call it rank... that's what the word means. Pay-grade is pay-grade. Pay != rank: it is possible to make more as an O-3 than an O-6, depending on years served. You have no idea what you're talking about.

    41. Re:Old news by fm6 · · Score: 1

      We're not in love with technology, we're in love with saving money. A battleship needs 1900 people to run her, That's enough people to man 6 destroyers (1/10 of the current U.S. destroyer fleet).

      Survivability? The battleship's biggest asset in that department is its armor, which is useful against guns on another battleship. It's useless against missles and plane-delivered bombs. Destroyers are vulnerable too, but no more so than battleships — and destroyers can dodge.

      BTW, in the run up to WW II, the Iowa class was seen as seriously outgunned by huge Japanese battleships.. The "black shoe" Navy wanted to build Montana class battleships with even more armor and armament, to counter this "threat." Fortunately, the war started before any ships were actually built, and the real world fighting in the Pacific demonstrated the uselessness of battleships in modern naval warfare, which is dominated by carriers and other ships that can proect destruction at great distances.

      I'll admit they're beautiful. If I'm ever in New Joisy, I'm absolutely gonna pay my respects. But they've been obsolete for 75 years now.

    42. Re:Old news by hawk · · Score: 1

      >Ask yourself, why do we have all these separate
      >military services that were designed for roles that
      >were standard 200 years ago?

      Just taking a wild guess, but it would perhaps be because the Army and Navy kicked the tar out of the British in the War of 1812, while the Air Force failed to shoot down a single plane in that war?

      No wonder the other forces don't want to merge with it . . .

      hawk

    43. Re:Old news by khallow · · Score: 1

      No, rank is rank. That's why we call it rank...

      I gather a lot of things don't work that way in the military.

      it is possible to make more as an O-3 than an O-6, depending on years served.

      Look I wasn't looking to argue. I was just pointing out that there really isn't that much difference between modern military forces. I think I made a solid case here. Saying that US military pay-grade isn't rank, when well, it is, just isn't contributing anything to this discussion.

  3. Republican Shills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More attacks on Obama. Slashdot is falling for the Rmoney kool-aid. Next you'll be parading around pictures of Obama with an iPhone and claiming he's a corporatist.

    1. Re:Republican Shills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, Omaba ISN'T a corporatist? Then why do I keep finding footage of him and Ronmey giving each other corporate reacharounds on the internet?

      (The preceding was purely fictional, any relation to real persons is purely coincidental and in jest. Don't you just hate disclaimers?)

    2. Re:Republican Shills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the only reason you hate the GP is because Obama's black. If Obama was a white man you'd be praising the GP for the post that it made. Instead you'll stand by and call the GP a racist because you're a racist.

    3. Re:Republican Shills by wierd_w · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...(looks in way-back machine to "election 2008")...

      "You're just saying Obama isn't a good candidate because he's black, and you are a racist!"

      "No, I think he's a bad candidate because his official policy statements cannot possibly be met, and because his plans to get us out of this recession slump resemble FDR's new deal, which historicallu tripled unemployment!"

      "RACIST!" ......(steps out of the wayback mchine)....

      "And the only reason you hate Obama is because he's black. If Obama was a white man you'd be praising the Democratic party for the work that's been accomplished under this administration. Instead you'll stand by and let the Republican wreck the country further because you're a racist."

      "No, the reason I don't like Obama is because he bailed out the people who flushed the economy down the toilet, continues to support printing money as economic stimulous which drives up inflation, enacted policies which tripled deficit spending, FAILED to close GITMO, EXPANDED govt wiretapping programs, and did exactly what I said he would do concerning unemployment."

      Let me guess. "Racist!" Right?

    4. Re:Republican Shills by wierd_w · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I dunno. That would require contemplating the idea that the republican party actually had sufficient intelligence to enact such a tactic. Given their track record, and inability to keep things secret, such a faux pas as that would have already exploded in their faces like a loaded cigar.

      Occam's razor says to pick the least convoluted explanation.

      It is more likely that some percentage of the population actually voted for obama _because_ he was black, while totally ignoring his political platform, and ascribed all resistance to "their" candidate as de-facto racism. To wit: the widely monetized sales of Obama's "historic" inauguration speech, clearly marketed toward african americans.

      I don't care what color Obama is. He could have been the first green president for all I care; his policies were abysmal, and his track record is nothing I want to see more of.

      I ascribe the "racist!" Posts and rhetoric I see as "racially biased electioneering part II", and find them offensive in every possible sense. That people have forgotten how heavily the word "racist" was slung around 4 years ago deeply saddens me. I don't know how many times I was accused of that disgusting vice 4 years ago for merely questioning obama as a candidate, based on his POLICY statements!

      That was the reason for the prior post. Anyone with doubts can just go to waybackmachine.org, type slashdot.org for the site, 2008 for the year, and see for themselves.

    5. Re:Republican Shills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was a great hypothetical argument with an idiot.
      But I know of no one who would argue that way. I've seen this racist claiming Obama supporter mentioned again and again, but no one can ever say who it was, it's just a fiction.
      Kinda like the Obama bailout - Bush signed TARP. Look up the date- December2008.
      Maybe I should change the first sentence from "with an" to "between two."

    6. Re:Republican Shills by poity · · Score: 1

      But I do think this gaffe is good to point out in the wake of the Romney airplane windows gaffe, which has gotten so much attention. People on both sides make a big deal about nothing just to have the satisfaction of one-upping the other guys on trivial matters. Now that these stupid "aha look how dumb they are" moments have happened to both sides, I really hope everyone who has joined in on the mockery can step back and take a look at themselves.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    7. Re:Republican Shills by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      If it's a fiction, then why does a google search return hits from reputable news sources concerning racial mudslinging being used by democrats against percieved republicans?

    8. Re:Republican Shills by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      For instance, these two:

      Abcnews.com

      wash.post

      Granted, both are blogs, but if it were a fiction, how could both blog entries comment on official political rhetoric?

    9. Re:Republican Shills by artor3 · · Score: 1

      "You're just saying Obama isn't a good candidate because he's black, and you are a racist!"

      No one ever said those words to you, you lying piece of shit. But lots of people (like you!) accused black voters of being racist for voting for him, and nevermind the fact that black people have supported the Democratic candidate by 90+% margins in each of the last several elections, ever since the Republicans openly announced that they were pursuing a "Southern Strategy" to take advantage of racial hatred following the passage of the Civil Rights Acts.

      So you bitch about imaginary people accusing you of racism while simultaneously accusing others of racism. What a great person you are.

    10. Re:Republican Shills by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      Really now..

      Stating it is more likely that some of the aftican american demographic would have voted for obama because he is black is no different than saying some of the white demographic voted for mccain because he was white. It does not imply that all african americans are racists. It implies the reality that some are. Just as there *are* racist white people who voted for mccain on racial terms.

      I am not one of either of those types of people. I considered obama's campaign in this light: the democratic party needed a candidate that it could galvanize the polls with. At first it tried with Hillary, but she failed to garner the support they were looking for in the polls, and she lost the nomination to Obama. I can't prove that the intentions of the democratic convention was to incite controversy over the first black presidential nominee, but it definately worked out in their favor: the illusion that refusal of the candidate was a vote for another white man, and the disenfranchisement of the black man was a powerful tool used by their campaign. See the linked blogs earlier in the thread. Almost overnight the landscape of the election shifted from platform (Obama was widely criticised for not having a consistent one, other than a nebulous "change" message) toward mudslinging over race and insinuations that people were afraid of the idea of a black president.

      As for being called a racist during the 2008 election, in pretty much exactly the situation I lampooned, yes, it did happen. I was there. You were not. Kindly abstain from decyring bullshit when you can't possibly disprove the statement.

    11. Re:Republican Shills by gmyerxa · · Score: 0

      Exactly.

    12. Re:Republican Shills by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Comments like this and the several above it are a great example of why coming to Slashdot sucks, anymore. This is the kind of "republithug/libtard" kindergarten retardation that you see vomited in the comments section of youtube and every news article ever linked to by Matt Drudge on his website. This is what Slashdot is devolving into. A place with little tech, where all those tech-less vacuums are filled in by mouth-breathing dumb-fucks carrying on like the conversationally lowest of the low on the internet.

    13. Re:Republican Shills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're completely convinced that people voted for Obama for racist reasons, and that the Democrats counted on that, and that the number of black racists exceeds the number of white racists (since the strategy wouldn't make any sense otherwise) despite white people outnumbering black people by a vast margin.

      You are a racist. You don't think you are. It's subconscious. But you are.

      Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. Don't deny that you do... you're parroting his opinions almost word for word. I've heard this all before from my family. It's no coincidence. Which, incidentally, is how I know you're lying. I don't need to have been there, since there was no "there" to be. I don't need to have been standing next to Moses to know there was no talking burning bush.

    14. Re:Republican Shills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey anything for page views i guess

    15. Re:Republican Shills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember GW Bush?

      He socialised airport security which was then re-tasked into scaring all those terrorists hiding in trains and cars.
      He contradicted Republican policy by preaching 'too big to fail' and organised the bail-outs, which some banks didn't need.
      He enacted tax cuts for people with lots of money which increased deficit spending.

      ... did exactly what I said he would do concerning unemployment.

      Remember the Global financial crisis? A lot of people lost their jobs because of it. It makes it difficult to measure what damage Democrat's policies caused. But we definitely saw that Republican policies made the problem worse.

    16. Re:Republican Shills by Straif · · Score: 1

      If you want to see how race affected voting for Obama you may want to look at the nomination breakdown. Hillary won every racial breakdown (most being in the neighborhood for 60/40 for Hillary but the black vote went overwhelmingly for Obama (85.1%) and that gave him the nomination.

      If ideology is the only factor affecting black voting patterns, as you assert, then how do you explain such a disparity in voting when the only candidates are effectively identical from an ideological perspective.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    17. Re:Republican Shills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are entirely full of crap. The 2008 DNC nomination race was neck-and-neck until the Kennedy family threw their weight behind Obama, who then won landslide victories in several northern states where the black vote is essentially inconsequential. You totally made that up, or you failed to vet the story of somebody else who made it up. You are a terrible person.

    18. Re:Republican Shills by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      Oh yes. Beat that strawman harder.

      That is not what I said at all, and no, I don't watch nor listen to limbaugh, any of the fox news personalities, nor to talk radio of any sort.

      What I do see, are stories like this one, which treat the issue with alarming matter-of-factness, along with disturbing numbers of youtube videos parroting the same views as Mr Jackson's.

      Seeing that tells me that racism from the african american demographic is a stark reality.

      However, conflating that I think this demographic alone (black racists) is sufficient to garner the win of a presidency is a farce. Intead, will attempt to explain it to you.

      Much like germans will become enraged at the mere mention of suggesting they are nazis, many white people become equally disturbed at the implication of being called racist, at least here in the US. So much so that saying "you are afraid of the idea of a black president" to them can greatly influence their behavior, and even influence how they will vote.

      The black vote is a big red herring. As you pointed out, historically 97% of that demographic consistently votes demorat across the board, regardless of the candidate's race. The issue here was influencing independents and moderates of other demographics. The implied "you are racist if you don't vote for obama" message of the last election cycle had more impact than you care to realize. The DNC initially tried to get the women's vote with hillary, but was unsucessful. (Hillary is just not likeable enough.) They then decided that they could sensationalize a black candidate, which they did. It isn't obama's blackness that I found distasteful at all, nor did I think all black people would vote for him due to his skin color, though it is a foregone conclusion that some did. (See link earlier) what I found distasteful was the sensationalism concerning his race. It is *never* acceptable to engender support of a candidate due to their skin color. End of discussion. The DNC did exactly that, when they started campaigning that McCain supporters were "afraid of the idea of a black president." A huge nonsequitor like that, coupled with rhetoric that undoes work to reduce racial tensions does more harm to racial equality than you can possibly imagine.

      Of course, it is just easier for you to consign me to some prefabricated mental stereotype, and deounce anything I say as lies, but that doesn't reflect poorly on ME.

      It reflects poorly on YOU.

    19. Re:Republican Shills by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      I believe you have mistaken me for a neocon.

      I am a moderate centrist. I am neither liberal, nor conservative. (I often get attacked by both however. I would be seen as raging conervative by europeans however. No contest.)

      I have not voted for a major candidate in any of the past THREE elections.

      As such, the false dichotomy you have painted of "if you are down on Obama, you MUST support BUSH!" Is horrible and completely out of touch with reality.

      The truth is that we haven't had a sensible government in the USA for the past 50 years.

      Simply because I call Obama on his failures, does not mean I give the shrub a free pass. Got it?

    20. Re:Republican Shills by Straif · · Score: 1

      You can look it up from many sources but for just one example here is the NYT.

      Or if you accept blog analysis you can try The Audacious Epigone.

      But of course that took 2 seconds of a google search to find so I understand that it was too much effort for some to do their own research.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    21. Re:Republican Shills by saveferrousoxide · · Score: 1
      so i know this is late by two days but dude...snap back to reality for a brief second:

      he bailed out the people who flushed the economy down the toilet

      No... that was his predecessor.

      continues to support printing money as economic stimulous [sic] which drives up inflation

      inflation has barely budged...in fact, it's lower now than it was before the recession started

      see the pretty picture? it actually is a pretty picture, i'm not being snarky...

      enacted policies which tripled deficit spending

      actually, that was Congress, but i'll grant you that as a half point

      FAILED to close GITMO, EXPANDED govt wiretapping programs

      true and true, and don't forget that he's also a lot LESS transparent though he promised more transparency. Big FAIL, and the reason i seriously looked at Romney.

      did exactly what I said he would do concerning unemployment

      you said he would triple unemployment...it didn't even go up another 33% from when he got in office and most of that was momentum as we plunged into the recession. unemployment is now right back down to where it was when he took office... so no, it didn't.

      I can't stress enough how important it is to keep looking at facts and drop the fox news line.

    22. Re:Republican Shills by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      ...I said he ws enacting policies when _resembled_ FDR's new deal, which is what I said tripled unemployment. (The new deal that is.) Obama did not make newdeal part 2. He enacted policies that were similar but not identical. I predicted unemployment would rise sharply. 33% increase is pretty sharp.

      As per inflation, you have the issue with america's credit rating being dropped twice during his presidency, as a result of the deficit spending (which he is culpable for, for faling to do his job as the executive. Congress can pass whatever it wants, he can veto. He didn't.) And the money printing stimulous. This has greating devalued american services and products overseas. Domestic inflation hasn't gone up. Interationally it has. (Surely you noticed the devaluation of the dollar?)

      Also, I don't watch fox news. I am a moderate centrist. That means I lean liberal in some circumstances and conservative in others. I find both CNN *and* Fox news to be unworthy of airtime. Don't get me started about the talking heads.

      I agree though, it is important to look at facts, and not political tag lines. It is also important to have reading comprehension skills.

    23. Re:Republican Shills by saveferrousoxide · · Score: 1

      I predicted unemployment would rise sharply. 33% increase is pretty sharp.

      Um, it peaked at 10% in 10/09 and has been steadily dropping since then. The curve was much more gradual after he took office than leading up to 1/09.

      you have the issue with america's credit rating being dropped twice during his presidency

      9/2011's cut was due to the repubs in congress stamping their feet, holding their breath, and going back on good-faith efforts. I'm struggling to find the 2nd cut though. i see Moody's threatening, but not actually cutting.

      Surely you noticed the devaluation of the dollar?

      No...actually, i didn't. We lost some value back in 2009 against CAD and GBP, but we've been more or less flat since the beginning of 2010. We did lose some value since then against JPY and CNY. We've been making some strides against EUR. Here's the data back to '99 if you're interested.

  4. In Soviet Russia... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... the Democratic National Convention ... um ... Wait, what?

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:In Soviet Russia... by ackthpt · · Score: 2

      ... the Democratic National Convention ... um ... Wait, what?

      In Soviet Russia warships back YOU!

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  5. Well, this confirms it... by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 3, Funny

    Democrats are commies

    (I kid)

    --
    Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    1. Re:Well, this confirms it... by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Of course you kid. Nowadays not even the commies are commies.

  6. Says who? by HanzoSpam · · Score: 0

    What makes you think it was a mistake?

    --

    Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
  7. Slashdot... news for ... WHO GIVES A SHIT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Story is -1 offtopic

    1. Re:Slashdot... news for ... WHO GIVES A SHIT? by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      This really isn't unusual, idle usually is off topic. You can set your preferences to ignore idle if you want.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
  8. In Other Old News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Cold War has ended.

  9. And the jets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... were from Turkey.

    1. Re:And the jets... by drainbramage · · Score: 1

      Sadly, AC is speaking the truth.
      Sad not that it was an AC pointing this out, sad that those jerks could have used any of millions of photos of US ships or planes but somehow they decided only foreign tools were appropriate for their purposes of impressing their constituents.

      --
      No brain, no pain.
  10. Perhaps they're hinting at future budget cuts. by Type44Q · · Score: 3, Funny

    After all, Americans fly into space with the help of aging Soviet technology; perhaps we'll be taking to the seas in mothballed Russian naval vessels - at least those ships won't be vulnerable to the Blue Screen of Death! :p

    1. Re:Perhaps they're hinting at future budget cuts. by Type44Q · · Score: 0

      Ack, I meant to click "post," not "reply." Shit.

    2. Re:Perhaps they're hinting at future budget cuts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will be RED instead!

    3. Re:Perhaps they're hinting at future budget cuts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha! We wouldn't kill the osprey, f22 or f35... but we're going to ditch our working destroyers? At least it'll take a while for all 62 of them to go out of service. And what's going to protect our 11 city sized carriers? I mean, we've got about 4,000 planes that need those. And what do the 71 subs do, now that they'll have no destroyers to roll with, escorting the carriers, carrying the planes?! IT'S INSANITY I TELL YOU!

      Not gunna lie, it would be kinda sweet to get to use some of that $1.5 trillion a year on something with a return, though.

    4. Re:Perhaps they're hinting at future budget cuts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Month-old news. We also discovered the aircraft in the video weren't US aircraft either. -5 karma to the moderator for fail.

    5. Re:Perhaps they're hinting at future budget cuts. by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Funny

      For national security reasons, the DNC decided to not use actual US craft in the photo. They did it to protect us all.

    6. Re:Perhaps they're hinting at future budget cuts. by TorrentFox · · Score: 2

      Sure they will - but the upside is that they won't have had to pay licensing for that privilege

    7. Re:Perhaps they're hinting at future budget cuts. by Locutus · · Score: 1

      sorry, no mod points or it'd be funny. thx for the LOL

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    8. Re:Perhaps they're hinting at future budget cuts. by drkim · · Score: 1
    9. Re:Perhaps they're hinting at future budget cuts. by Fishchip · · Score: 1

      Russia actually offered some surplus military stuff to Canada a couple years ago, including ships. I understand why we didn't accept, but it'd have been cool as hell to be cruising around in a Sovremenny-class flying a maple leaf. :)

  11. Wouldn't do that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Next you'll be parading around pictures of Obama with an iPhone

    Now why would we do that, since he doesn't even know how to use one?

    The problem of course was the iPhone "just works" and Obama is all about putting people and things OUT of work.

  12. Asleep At The Wheel by Baby+Duck · · Score: 3, Funny

    Slashdot. OLD ASS NEWS for Nerds.

    --

    "Love heals scars love left." -- Henry Rollins

    1. Re:Asleep At The Wheel by mister_playboy · · Score: 1

      This problem would have been avoided if a Slashdotter were in charge of the image selection.

      Frikkin' ignorant normies, I tell ya... :)

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    2. Re:Asleep At The Wheel by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

      This problem would have been avoided if a Slashdotter were in charge of the image selection.

      Possibly, but who knows how the convention delegates would have reacted to slides showing Mobile Force Gundam?

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:Asleep At The Wheel by siddesu · · Score: 1

      whar goes the hyphen?

  13. Nothing to see here... by Nexion · · Score: 0, Troll

    Just socialist America standing before a socialist backdrop.

    1. Re:Nothing to see here... by meglon · · Score: 0, Troll

      I'd rather be a socialist thinking that power should be held by the people, then a fucking fascist conservative who think power should be held by businesses and people are nothing more than disposable slave labor.

      But, then again, my advice to you is: if you don't know what a word means (like: socialist), you probably shouldn't use it... cause it makes you look like an ignorant idiot.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    2. Re:Nothing to see here... by readin · · Score: 1

      People who have the guns should have the least freedom to exercise their power. There needs to be some institution that exercises legitimate force for purposes such as law enforcement and wars - but that institution, since it operates on the power of the gun, should be severely limited.

      Corporations and businesses can be just as amoral and even immoral as the government, but unlike the government, corporations and businesses don't have guns backing them up. You don't like the Microsoft monopoly? You may find it difficult to make a lot of money and run the software you want if you install Linux, buy Apple, or just refuse to use a home computer, but you won't find yourself hauled before a judge by armed police officers like you might if you refuse to pay your taxes.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    3. Re:Nothing to see here... by poity · · Score: 1

      The thing is, socialist slogans proclaiming they're for the people aren't too different from capitalist slogans proclaiming they're for freedom. It all winds up in a race for who can use whom to empower himself. My advice is: be skeptical of everything, particularly of ideals which you hold dear.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    4. Re:Nothing to see here... by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      That line of thinking goes both ways. If somebody working at the National Endowment for the Arts, or OSHA or NOAA, is amoral or immoral and has a personal grudge against you, they can screw with you, but they aren't carrying firearms in their line of duty, so there's really nothing they can do to you that you can't try to petition the courts to fix afterwards. If someone in the military, FBI, DEA or BATF is similarly corrupt, venial and abusive, you had better hope your widow lives to seek some kind of justice for your corpse, because that's about the best you'll get. How does keeping the government focused on your tight list of legitimate uses for force protect you from abuses by the agencys of force? It seems to be a libertarian position that the way to keep the FBI from screwing with the average citizen is to close down the Dept of Education and not to restrain the FBI directly, and somehow the FBI will take the hint. I'm just not seeing it. There's parts of the government that have force projection capabilities internal to their mission, and parts that don't, and trying to shut down all the parts that don't because they may get help from the weaponous parts, but not worring about what those weaponized parts might do directly - how does that work out again? Is the CIA only a possible problem if somebody at the GAO activates it on a US citizen, and not if the CIA is targeting US citizens on its own?

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    5. Re:Nothing to see here... by readin · · Score: 1

      If someone in the military, FBI, DEA or BATF is similarly corrupt, venial and abusive, you had better hope your widow lives to seek some kind of justice for your corpse, because that's about the best you'll get. How does keeping the government focused on your tight list of legitimate uses for force protect you from abuses by the agencys of force?

      It protects by ballot. Voters only get one vote. We don't get to vote for one president who handles law enforcement, a different president who handles energy policy, a different president for NEA, and still a different president for health care. We only get to choose one. If that president does a crappy job handling law enforcement he can still get re-elected because people like his energy policy,or his position on health care, or his handling of mortgages, or his whether he spends more or less money on welfare.

      If the government only manages a few things, it had better get those few things right or it will be tossed out.

      With corporations, you get many votes. Every purchase is a vote. You can vote Ford for your pick-up truck and Toyota for your commuter car. You can vote Apple for your computer and Enbev for your football-watching drink.

      The fewer things the government manages, the more likely it is to get those few things right.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    6. Re:Nothing to see here... by readin · · Score: 1

      If somebody working at the National Endowment for the Arts, or OSHA or NOAA, is amoral or immoral and has a personal grudge against you, they can screw with you, but they aren't carrying firearms in their line of duty

      The entire government is weaponized. Some of them just take longer to get to the weapons than others. If Microsoft wants my money, they have to persuade me peacefully to give it to them (usually by giving me something in return). To use your example, if the NEA wants my money, they send the IRS after me. If I don't pay the IRS, they send the marshals. To use another of your examples, if OSHA wants me to do something because they are an agent of the government and the government has decided how I should act, then OSHA can fine me. If I don't pay they can shut down my business. If I refuse to shut down the business they can send in the marshals to shut it down. There may be more steps involved, but eventually the guys in uniforms with guns will show up unless I go along with what OSHA wants..

      Sure, I can petition the courts, but they are also an arm of the government. At least if Bill Gates takes me to court it is private citizen vs private citizen. He's got an advantage because of his money, but if the government weren't involved in so many things voters could focus more on truly governmental matter like having a fair court system.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    7. Re:Nothing to see here... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Russia today has a lot of bad things going about it. Being socialist in any meaning of the word is not one of them.

    8. Re:Nothing to see here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sir know nothing of conservatism.

  14. Could be worse by speedlaw · · Score: 1

    At least it wasn't Pedobear at the Olympics.

  15. Old news by rickb928 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And it's merely a symptom anyways. Big woop.

    This is what happens when you don't have much ex-military in leadership. If they had, one of the old barnacles would have said 'let's put up a picture of BB 61, that'l scare the hell out of 'em!'. Unmistakeable US naval power, surpassed only by the CVNs. Hey, how about a picture of CVN 77?

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  16. A mistake but... by verifine · · Score: 1

    Anybody can make a mistake, but this was a doozy!

    Also, as others have pointed out, this is really old news. I have to wonder how people can be isolated from what's going on to the extent it takes three weeks for the facts to trickle down to them. A little scary.

    1. Re:A mistake but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I first noticed this on the Drudge Report.

      Was it ever reported on CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, Huffington Post, or the New York Times? Not that any of those lean to the left and would have spiked the story, or anything...

    2. Re:A mistake but... by FhnuZoag · · Score: 1

      It's mostly that there's been a lot of bad press for Romney lately as his campaign goes down the shitter, so, well, quick guys, have something to distract from his failings!

    3. Re:A mistake but... by RoccamOccam · · Score: 1

      Interesting enough that I thought I'd take a look at abcnews.com. So, in the search I type "DNC russian ship" first and then "DNC soviet ship". In neither case did their search return the story that we are discussing (at least on the first page).

      However, in both cases the first story presented (sorting by relevance) has the headline "Puckish Russian Offers Romney a Plane Whose Windows Open". At least the story did admit that Romney was joking.

    4. Re:A mistake but... by Archfeld · · Score: 1

      LOL the Onion did NOT pick it up so of course none of the reputeable national news services got it either.

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    5. Re:A mistake but... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Mainly because whose mistake was it, who can we blame, who can we run through the wringer, who can we get fired and, who can we make claims of political power about. Basically a background staffer who made a really goof ball mistake, who likely will be demoted anyhow and who has zero repercussions on the election. So good fun storey but zero impact on the election. Likely did a good search for images of warship and picked the one they liked the best with complete lack of knowledge, something Americans are well known for generally and as far as political points go, better mileage could be achieved of it in, Russia.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    6. Re:A mistake but... by berashith · · Score: 1

      I thought you must be full of shit, so I tried the search myself. Somehow in "DNC russian ship" ABCnews sorting relevance returns .... Puckish Russian Offers Romney a Plane Whose Windows Open ... and then ... Ohio Slipping Out Of Reach For Romney .

      Anyone who wants to deny media supporting a candidate please step up. this is absurd.

    7. Re:A mistake but... by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Amazing, stuff that is over 2 weeks old doesn't end up in the first few pages of political news during a presidential election campaign. I'm shocked! Of course if you use the term "warships" in your search it'll be in the top 5 results.

      http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/dnc-apologizes-for-showing-russian-warships-in-tribute-to-us-veterans/

    8. Re:A mistake but... by berashith · · Score: 1

      2 weeks old is fine, but why, when searching using a term like DNC should I get 2 articles on slip ups of the opponent? This is the equivalent of searching on bing for anything linux, and getting nothing but windows ads. I am not a Romney supporter, but this does this kind of crap only fuels the Glen Becks to scream media bias.

    9. Re:A mistake but... by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Because one contains the word "russian" and the other contains the word "ship" and hence they both match the search (which is as usual for web sites complete garbage and you are better using google and restricting to that site).

    10. Re:A mistake but... by berashith · · Score: 1

      yes and no. I tried a search with just "russian ship". The "puckish" article moved down to the third slot, and now Paul Ryan is first, and happens to be giving anti-Obama quotes . No surprise there, and I havent read the article to see if they dismiss him or not, because I dont care. The second article is about NASA and the space station and russian space junk. If these are what appears for this term, then why would DNC not bring up anything about democrats?

        The exclusion of one of the parties in the search terms managed to alter the search away from a specific candidate who is a member of the opposite party, which is the interesting piece here. The search using DNC manages to bring up nothing about the DNC, but instead finds potential negatives on a republican.

      I wont say they are intentionally directing all searches to negative romney results, but I will say they are burying this specific case. That would have been a more interesting slashdot article. The fact that this happened is old, if large media outlets are hiding it from discovery then there is something to talk about.

      I agree with web searches not always being great, but some are using internal google appliances.

    11. Re:A mistake but... by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      There are many recent articles that mention russian and many that mention ship. The DNC was two weeks ago and so results that hit on that term will be *way* down the result list.

      They aren't burying anything, you are just using bad search terms. That's not your fault, that's the terrible search engine's fault. There's no need to leap to conspiracy theories, Russia is as usual in the news, and ship is a common word (hence why warship is a better term - far less commonly used).

      Adding an extra term, like say DNC, doesn't help when the search engine is doing a basic OR search, you need to remove the words that are matching irrelevant things. That's got nothing to do with the media trying to bury and hide stories. It's just a bad search engine. They may very well be trying to hide things but those search results aren't evidence of that.

    12. Re:A mistake but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you search for "RNC chair", you won't find a single article about Eastwood's speech (you /will/ find one where he's bitching about the bad publicity it generated). Isn't it just possible that their search sucks balls?

  17. *rolls eyes* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stupidest Slashdot front-page story EVER?!

  18. BUT WHY?!?!?!1111 by Bananatree3 · · Score: 2

    Simple. It's photogenic, and some art fart grad was tasked with finding the highest res, halfway-decent image the night before.

    Grand Conspiracy, my ass.

    1. Re:BUT WHY?!?!?!1111 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never task a boy to do a mans job. Epic fail!

  19. Why is this here? by DAldredge · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why is this on /.?

    1. Re:Why is this here? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Because the guy who made the presentation used Firefox on a Mac to Google the images.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  20. Can you say partisan post? by Sir_Kurt · · Score: 2

    Nuff said!

  21. Picts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pictures... or it didn't happen.

  22. The ironing was more delicious for the BNP by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    http://spitfiresite.com/2009/03/press-review-contd-spitfire-and-politics.html The British National Party used a photo of a spitfire as part of an anti-immigration campaign, only for it to be revealed that the spitfire in question was flown by a Polish pilot.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  23. Typical PR folks by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 5, Informative

    PR folks usually have a pretty tenuous grasp on the subject matter. Hence, to appeal to those concerned about defence they probably just used Google Image to find "warships", look for some cool looking ones (with lots of sticky-out bits) and slapped 'em in their Powerpoint presentation. Note: US warships look less menacing these days, their radars are the slab sided SPY-1 for the Aegis and the missile launches are build into the deck as the rapid-fire Mk 41 Vertical Launch System and similar. So they look less mean, but they are actually more effective that way.

    If only this basic incompetence and lack of fact checking was limited to PR people. The bulk of journalists these days are also woeful in their fact checking. For example, in Syria they keep talking about "MiG fighters bombing the rebels" all the while showing videos of the L-39 Albatross trainer (nb: not a MiG). A small detail, but lets get the facts we know straight, yeah? What really worries me about modern reporters is that they get the facts I know about so wrong, so I figure that they are probably getting a lot of the other stuff wrong too.

    The City News Bureau of Chicago was famous for their high standards of making the journalists check their facts. They had classic watchwords, like, "If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out with two independent sources.". It is a shame that proper journalism isn't practiced, is probably not that profitable, and doesn't really interest the general public (who'd rather follow a nude prince's private romp in Vegas, and the Duchess of Windor's poolside habits than any of the other things happening on the planet, both good and ill).

    However, these people are not alone in their bad habits. For example, both climate change advocates and climate change deniers seem to cling to dogma rather than continuously checking their assumptions against old and new data. It's always ok to be wrong, you just have to be prepared to change your mind in the face of better information.

    ps. I won't even start a rant on how badly informed most politicians appear to be. Clearly the skills required to enter office are not the same as those required to make informed and sensible decisions once you are there.

    1. Re:Typical PR folks by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      Not typical PR folks, poor quality PR folks. Good PR folks would have you believing that the two parties are somehow different. Don't be so down on the general public, they need leadership, this miasma of legal webbing sprouting everywhere produces only lawyer-leaders, who know best how to argue and stack the jury. Politicians are perfectly well informed, but only on those things that ensure they get re-elected.

      Power as an end unto itself is an end indeed.

    2. Re:Typical PR folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      One of the biggest problems we have is frankly too much data. Period. I think the fact that so much of it is shit data is because nobody (even the people paid to do so) has the time or the energy to sift through it. So as a society we just keep getting more and more poor data. And that's before you even consider the people manipulating the available info for malice and self interest. But I honestly don't see how you get back from that feedback loop. It's tempting to say we just need better data, how are you to genuinely weight that from the poor? So then you say we need to reduce the volume of information available to John Citizen but that likewise is antithetical to free speech, free information and is ripe for corruption. Definitely a problem for smarter people than me.

    3. Re:Typical PR folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and doesn't really interest the general public (who'd rather follow ... and the Duchess of Windor's poolside habits than any of the other things happening on the planet, both good and ill).

      Ok now look, being interested in images of the Duchess of Windsor, topless, does not make me the bad guy here. Stop trying to make this my fault.

    4. Re:Typical PR folks by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      The real problem (IMHO) is not in identifying bad data, it is weighting it down so that other people don't see it first. There is a danger of censorship here, of course. But sensationalist posts/news spread and a duplicated widely and the factual information is lost in the debate. For example, look up "moon landing hoax" or "9/11 conspiracy" and you'll see a vast spread of bullshit articles overgrowing the best information that is known today. Now it is true that Google does put ok information first with example topics I've just given, but Google doesn't condense pages so that you get 29 links to pages of verifiably good stuff and 1 link to the zillions of pages of crank theories; since a page's interest only affects the order you see them in, not the number of links you see - and there is no way (that I know of) for users you flag a page as bullshit (would be good if there was, but just imagine the amount of abuse/censorship that could lead to; not to mention spawning an entire cottage industry about conspiracy theories of why Google "censored the 'Truth'" [was it because they are sock puppets of: the US, Zionists, Al Qaeda, Martians, the Illuminati, the Mahdi, God's Plan ????]).

      Also, there is a lot of data out there, but people would rather watch locats all day and watch fiction rather than find out about the real world around them (mostly it is more mundane and not resolved in two hours like watching a fictional movie, but sometimes reality is stranger, more varied and more exciting than fictional creators can come up with).

    5. Re:Typical PR folks by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      Apologies for the bad etiquette in replying to my own post. Here's an interesting article covering some of the points of my discussion (I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions from the article):
      "Reporting Science: Journalistic Deficit Disorder" http://www.economist.com/node/21563275

    6. Re:Typical PR folks by Bruce66423 · · Score: 1

      She isn't the Duchess of Windsor - that title is extinct. Her father in law is Duke of Cornwall, but William himself doesn't formally have a title. Fact checking?!

    7. Re:Typical PR folks by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      You are right, I made a mistake - look I'll put it here right where people can see it. I won't sit on it for a week and post a tiny retraction on "page 8" as the newspapers do. Incidentally, my mistake was made in haste, rather than in ignorance (I was multi-tasking while typing from work). It turns out that she's the Duchess of Cambridge (Duchess of Cornwall is Camilla) - so if you are gonna point the finger you might wanna check the facts yourself. As I said, anyone can make a mistake (clearly this includes you and I), the important thing is to correct your view in light of the better data :)

  24. Because... by QuasiSteve · · Score: 1

    Because... oh sweet Jesus.

    I suppose the elections are "stuff that matters" - but covering every candidate's (team's) many, many gaffes is practically a day task best left to other sites indeed.

  25. Ouch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Usually we've got rely on the Republicans for this level of foot-in-mouth and general lack of attention to detail. Nice attention to detail, Dems.

    I'm sure Fox News will never let anyone hear the end of this for the next eight months. They're probably just running out of buckets to cum in to as we speak

  26. More space perhaps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It kinda goes along with this earlier story: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/president-obama-asks-medvedev-for-space-on-missile-defense-after-my-election-i-have-more-flexibility/

  27. Shocking! by Art+Challenor · · Score: 1

    I'm shocked, I tell you shocked!

    Does anyone have an empty chair so I can sit down?

  28. Turkey! by bhlowe · · Score: 2

    At least the nitwits got US made F-5 fighters in the backdrop... Unfortunately, they belonged to the Turkish Air Force...

  29. Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Who cares? It's time for military worship to fall into humanities past anyway.

  30. Delusion by Dave+Emami · · Score: 2

    And the only reason you hate Obama is because he's black.

    You honestly believe that? You really think that everyone who opposes Obama would be just fine with him if he were Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, or Al Franken? Or that, conversely, they'd vote for those guys rather than Condi Rice or Allen West?

    It's not as if I agreed with Obama back when he was a white guy named Jimmy Carter.

    --

    "The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
  31. What media? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The real media ever touched this story. Wouldn't want to make any Democrat appear to ever have flaws.

    If there's no other reason to vote non-Democrat, it's simply so that the media will pay attention when mistakes are made. Just look at how the media refused to ask questions of Obama when they were still claiming the embassy hit was random instead of a terrorist attack.

    Voting for Obama is voting for four more years of media/government coverups. Only now with nothing to lose.

    1. Re:What media? by readin · · Score: 2

      If there's no other reason to vote non-Democrat, it's simply so that the media will pay attention when mistakes are made. Just look at how the media refused to ask questions of Obama when they were still claiming the embassy hit was random instead of a terrorist attack.

      You make a good point. Bush made a lot of mistakes too, but at least they made the news quickly.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    2. Re:What media? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      The real media ever touched this story. Wouldn't want to make any Democrat appear to ever have flaws.

      Quite the opppsite.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    3. Re:What media? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      voting with the R's will simply be worst.

      I'm not any cheerleader for the D's but I can certainly tell the diff between 'not getting enough done' (due to R's blockage, basically) and the true evil that the R's (these days) stand for.

      I refuse to have religion enter the stage of poltics any more than it has. R's are all about religion. I find this as distasteful as racism. I won't stand for it.

      the 'part of the rich' is not really what america needs right now. we can't afford more wealth transfer to the superpowerful. in fact, we need course reversal. the D's are closer to this than the R's are.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    4. Re:What media? by artor3 · · Score: 0

      You are so full of shit. Here's the story on CNN. And here it is in the NY Times.

      Not that it even fucking matters. This is the most trivial little "flaw" you could possibly imagine. Some intern putting together a glorified powerpoint went to Google Image Search, typed in "battleships" and picked the coolest looking picture.

      As for the embassy hit, fuck you for trying to politicize that. They reacted quickly, based on what appeared to be the case, and then revised their understanding when more details came to light, just like any sane person would do. If they refused to issue an initial statement, you'd criticize them for that. If they refused to change their statement when new facts came to light, you'd (justifiably) criticize them for that too.

      As for ACTUAL screwups, how about their mistaken belief that they could keep unemployment under 8% with the stimulus? Are you gonna claim that the media hasn't covered that?

    5. Re:What media? by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you ever think about what you write?

      I'm serious here, I'm not trolling or trying to bait you or anything. But it appears that you are against someone being in government because of their religion and think that punishing the rich will somehow fix what you see wrong with the country. I'm not even going to get into the fact that the Senate is controlled by democrats and they have refused to even take up legislation that came from the house meaning your R obstructionism is little more then a campaign lie you might have swallowed.

      So how is this actually going to work? How many poor people have given you jobs you could live off of and how did they remain poor in the process?

      But better yet, how is discriminating against someone because of their religion different then discriminating against someone because of the color of their skin or ethnic make up? Do you seriously think it is perfectly fine to say, well, your a Latino, we can't hold that against you, -oh wait, your Christian, you can't run for office? Or well, I see you are otherwise qualified for the job, but OH Wait, You are Muslim- we can't have any of you here?

    6. Re:What media? by doesnothingwell · · Score: 2

      the D's are closer to this than the R's are.

      Kinda like comparing turds with corn instead of peanuts embedded in it.

      --
      They can have my command prompt when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
    7. Re:What media? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Things are not what they appear to be.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    8. Re:What media? by drkim · · Score: 1

      I'm not even going to get into the fact that the Senate is controlled by democrats and they have refused to even take up legislation that came from the house...

      At least the house Republicans hasn't been wasting their time voting down Obama's new healthcare law...

      ...except for the, you know, the 33 times they have. Knowing that it was a waste of time and taxpayer dollars.

    9. Re:What media? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Sigh,

      what different does it make? One is the same as the other. It's like starting an argument over who is the worst liar and somehow thinking it means the least is magically honest and worthy now.

      If that was all the house republicans have done in the last 4 years, you might have something of a point. However, we both know that isn't true so bring it up is just like saying that because the guy you do not like is a bigger ass hat, the other guy acting like an ass hat you do like is now magically not one too. It is a pointless discussion that only shows you dislike someone not anything important. That is why I wanted to avoid it.

    10. Re:What media? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm voting independent for that very reason. I don't think you're implying the Republicans are any better, but if you are, be aware that they're just as bad.

    11. Re:What media? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Well what else are they going to do, given the Senate refuses to pass - or even address - a budget?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    12. Re:What media? by codepunk · · Score: 0

      I know it was only a couple of years ago but do you remember why the republicans now have the majority? Hint it was not because everyone thought that the Democrats had a great agenda. In fact the voting majority was pissed that Obamacare was rammed through, thus the landslide win. Sorry to break this to you but we are damn glad they are there to do exactly what we hired them to do, block stupid shit.

      --


      Got Code?
    13. Re:What media? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you've bit the talking point hook fully.

      Apparently, the party that is against abortion is "true evil" now. Good to know.

      Also, it's real easy to blame the "other party" in Congress when you don't get something done. You know what's harder? Working with the "other party" to get stuff done. And that's something that past Presidents from both parties have done successfully, and it translated into prosperity and growth. See: Reagan working with Tipp O'neal in the 80s, and Clinton working with Gingrich in the 90s. Even that miserable excuse for a President G. W. Bush worked with Pelosi in his last two years to pass legislation. Why can't Obama?

      (Disclaimer: I am not stating my own opinion on abortion, I'm stating the Republican platform statement on abortion. Flame someone else.)

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    14. Re:What media? by Straif · · Score: 1

      With regards to the embassy hit, according to both sources inside Libya and Washington the administration knew it was a terrorist attack and in no way related to the YouTube video within 24 hours yet they were still pushing the video story up to and including Obama's address to the UN.

      Several sources, including the Libyan government itself, reported that they were warning the US at least 3 days prior to the attacks that they were expecting some form of attack against US interests inside Libya on September 11th and yet no actions were taken to increase any security measures at the consulate. There was actually less intel pointing towards a link to the video than there was that this was a terrorist attack and yet it took a week for the administration to even use the word terrorism to describe it (I believe Obama still hasn't).

      So far the only place to get any actual honest coverage about the attack on the consulate are from sources outside the US because most of the US media is following the administration line. There have been a few honest reports about the fact there were no protests in Libya prior to the attack, but for the most part the narrative is still that it was just an opportunistic attack timed with existing protests.

      This was not an example of getting out the news to the people when they had it and just being a little slow on the uptake, this was a prime example using the YouTube facade to make a foreseeable action seem like just an unlucky coincidence when they knew before appearing on any of the new programs that the two incidents were not linked.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    15. Re:What media? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Marked as insightful, but what I got was:

      1: You think it's silly that the parent doesn't want religion in politics. He doesn't care about the person's religion, never said he did, just that he doesn't want it in politics.

      2: You don't follow the senate that closely.

      Sorry for feeding the troll.

      Perhaps IF I USED random EMPHASIS on words it would MAKE my point SHOW MORE CLEARLY.

    16. Re:What media? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow!

      so, sumdumass, you think that persecution based on religion is the same as if it were based on race, huh?
      i guess that's fair, since you were born with your religious beliefs. i mean, it's just there. you can't change it. you're stuck.
      and people legislate and vote on legislation based on some kind of racial doctrine. it's all in the big book of [insert race here].
      you just read that, we all have one, and you interpret it literally. that's how you figure out how to live your life.
      it just makes sense.

  32. Oh boy by Goodyob · · Score: 0

    I guess that's what they get for RUSSIAN the set design

  33. All your warships... by zlives · · Score: 1

    are belong to us

  34. "apparent error"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course it was an error, are you dense?

  35. BREAKING NEWS by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 1

    A WORD FROM OUR SPONSOR... Ward's new microwave oven will allow you to cook a complete meal for four in under an hour. It will defrost, simmer, bake, and roast. It comes with its own removable browning element and even has a temperature probe. Help the cook in your home by giving her a new state of the art Ward's microwave oven when it comes out his Fall!

    NEWS JUST IN... Antediluvian Heights man Noah Finklestein fresh off a citation for public drunkenness and indecent exposure was seen this evening constructing a large boat on his front lawn. The Ark as he has called it is already catching the ire of the neighborhood home owner's association. HOA representative Ruth Samuel issued a statement earlier this evening: "Clearly, this boat violates his home owner's agreement. Look at the size of this thing. And the animals! It's like he has two of every kind here. They smell horrible. They're ruining the lawns, ALL of the lawns. I don't even know how he could have gotten them all here this quickly. It's a gated community." When asked for comment, Noah replied: "Storm's a comin'. She's comin' on strong."

    Seriously, Slashdot. Get a calendar.

  36. There was a similar scandal in Russia in 2006. by kirillart · · Score: 1

    There was a similar scandal in Russia in 2006. They put huge posters with USS Missouri on Moscow streets on Army Day. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11524992/ns/world_news-europe/t/russias-red-army-day-blunder/

  37. That's it, I'm done with Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Over the last few years, this crap has gotten worse and today is just the last nail in the coffin for me (and I've got a 5-digit UID for fucks sake!). This was posted weeks ago - WEEKS and you crackheads decide to post it now? On top of this, the political nature of the stories is just getting worse and worse, along with a lot more ignorant posters that just can't seem to do anything but post utter crap against each other with no valid content. If I wanted this type of bullshit, I'd head over to whatever media site and scroll through the comments of all the other dipshits that can't do anything but call people names.

    I'm done and not coming back.

    posted as an AC because I simply can. Not worth me even logging into my account to post to this shitty as site.

  38. Seriously? by eagee · · Score: 1

    So is this from the new influence of dice.com? Our tech stories will now be non-sequitor political bullshit? CNN and FOX can deliver crap like this, I expect much much more from slashdot.

  39. obviously they hired someone from the std press by Locutus · · Score: 1

    I've seen time and time again stock footage being used in the press( typically TV ) where they didn't have real footage or images of the area of topic. So when I heard a few weeks ago about the DNC using the Russian warship footage, I just wrote it off as being done by someone hired from the typical media outlets.

    I am surprised someone with a military background didn't catch that unless it was first seen only during the event, ie not during any rehearsals or proofed.

    LoB

    --
    "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
  40. Libs are just showing pics of their heroes ;-) by drnb · · Score: 2

    Perhaps they're hinting at future budget cuts

    Nope, the libs just put up photos of the people they actually consider their heroes, the soviets. ;-)

  41. An honest mistake or a common theme? by aristotle-dude · · Score: 0

    This is not the first time that the Democrats have been caught with their pants down with blunders like this. Back in 2006, they used an image of a Canadian Veteran when they were supposedly honouring American veterans. See:

    http://michellemalkin.com/2006/10/07/dnc-supports-vetsbut-from-which-country/

    A significant portions of delegates at the recent DNC apparently hate god and Israel too. There was an audible "boo" when either were mentioned. What's next? Book burning?

    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    1. Re:An honest mistake or a common theme? by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      What shows you hate veterans more? Using a wrong ship as a backdrop at a PR event, or torpedoing a bill that would give them jobs?

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    2. Re:An honest mistake or a common theme? by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      What shows you hate veterans more? Using a wrong ship as a backdrop at a PR event, or torpedoing a bill that would give them jobs?

      I don't know, why don't we talk about the first issue first before we move onto the next? Typical tactics, you change the subject. If you keep on doing that then no actual discussion occurs between us and you are just spouting rhetoric rather than engaging me in a conversation.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  42. Common mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Few years ago Russians mistakenly put American battleship on their commemorative poster. Russian PR people used to put photos of German soldiers in lieu of pictures of Soviet WW-2 veterans. People tend to forget history, especially young people.

  43. Oh, the internet faux rage! by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    I bet you not 1/100 people could detect that mistake. I'm an aviation buff, and the only thing that stuck out at me was "why use a picture of F-20s?" (and I guess I'm wrong on the fighters). We live in a world of PR hacks who grab whatever pic they can get their hands on. You see this with recycled stock news footage of gas stations, fat people walking, etc. Pure nuttiness to assume this was anything other than a lazy staffer grabbing the first interwebz pic of "some military stuff."

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  44. People's Liberation Army Navy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have that in China.

  45. Isnt't that the point? by kmoser · · Score: 1

    Russian battleships are exactly what we want to see through our submarine scopes, right?

  46. They are all fucking morons! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Linus says Romney is a fucking moron. This proves him wrong, they are ALL fucking morons. Every last goddamn politician on this planet is a fucking moron and we should be in the streets lynching them!