Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Internal Report Proving the FCC Made Up a Cyberattack (gizmodo.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the make-believe dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: An investigation carried out by Federal Communication Commission's own inspector general officially refutes controversial claims that a cyberattack was responsible for disrupting the FCC's comment system in May 2017, at the height of the agency's efforts to kill off net neutrality. The investigation also uncovered that FCC officials had provided congressional lawmakers with misleading information regarding conversations between an FCC employee and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's cybercrime task force. A report from the inspector general's office (OIG) released Tuesday afternoon states that the comment system's downtime was likely caused by a combination of "system design issues" and a massive surge in traffic caused when Last Week Tonight host John Oliver directed millions of TV viewers to flood the FCC's website with pro-net neutrality comments.

Investigators were unable to "substantiate the allegations of multiple DDoS attacks" alleged by then-FCC Chief Information Officer David Bray, the report says. "At best, the published reports were the result of a rush to judgment and the failure to conduct analyses needed to identify the true cause of the disruption to system availability." [Here's an excerpt from the report:] "While we identified a small amount of anomalous activity and could not entirely rule out the possibility of individual DoS attempts during the period from May 7 through May 9, 2017, we do not believe this activity resulted in any measurable degradation of system availability given the minuscule scale of the anomalous activity relative to the contemporaneous voluminous viral traffic." Yesterday, before the report was released, FCC chairman Ajit Pai came clean on the fact that the hack of its comment system last year actually took place. Pai blamed the former chief information officer and the Obama administration for providing "inaccurate information about the incident to me, my office, Congress, and the American people."

134 comments

  1. Ajit Pai is a traitor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Hang the Trumpies! TRAITORS

  2. False flag fake news propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't trust the government anymore. They abuse the trust we're forced to give them.

    1. Re: False flag fake news propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And ironically you are modded -1 by the blind patriots. It's like America doesn't even want freedom anymore.

    2. Re:False flag fake news propaganda by Sique · · Score: 5, Insightful
      You are not forced to trust the government. That's why we have checks and balances. That's why a free press is essential to a working democracy. That's why you are entitled to challenge in court every governmental decision affecting you.

      No, it's your very task as a citizen not to trust your government, but to keep yourself informed and ready to challenge anything that you don't like, by speaking out, by voting and by going to court, if all else fails. A government is made by humans, and like any humans, it can err, it follows an agenda, open or hidden, and it will be blind to some serious effects of its decisions.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    3. Re: False flag fake news propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      The Four Boxes of Freedom

      1. The soap box.
      2. The ballot box.
      3. The jury box.
      4. The ammo box.

      To be used in that order.

    4. Re: False flag fake news propaganda by Sique · · Score: 2

      It's a good proxy to determine how democratic a country is: How much ammo do you need to change the government?

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    5. Re: False flag fake news propaganda by rickb928 · · Score: 2

      You've forgotten one:

      The Moving Box.

      Freedom of speech and association is the First Amendment to our Constitution for good reason. To go where you wish, with whoever you wish, is to ensure you can say what you wish to those you wish to, though they may ignore you, as is their right.

      From this all other rights can be ensured. And ti s no mistake that there is a movement in American to silence some speech, for free speech is the springboard of liberty.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    6. Re: False flag fake news propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol you both are blind idiots

    7. Re: False flag fake news propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Counter proxy:
      How available does the government allow the ammo to be?

    8. Re: False flag fake news propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Democratic not ammocratic.

    9. Re:False flag fake news propaganda by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

      Of course, they'd do a fine job of enforcing "Net Neutrality". They wouldn't lie to us about that.

      --
      There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
  3. Is anyone surprised? by weilawei · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Hey, let's just say we got DDOSed. No one will ever know afterward! We're the government!"

    I'm not surprised, and they have a dangerous mentality as government officials in committing a fraud on the American people.

    1. Re:Is anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To this admin, a DDOS is anytime anything that could threaten their ascendency sounds the slightest bit louder than they do.

    2. Re:Is anyone surprised? by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      If they thought they would get away with this just imagine what sorts of things they've already gotten away with that they've been doing carefully.

    3. Re:Is anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Has this administration ever done anything "carefully"? They have all the nuance and subtlety of a megaphone blaring Yakety Sax 24/7.

    4. Re:Is anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lookup the disgusting use usa governments first used "state secrets" to justify a lie.

      hint, to deny paying compensations to widows they killed due to negligence/poor maintenance of aircraft.

      if they'll lie for a few measly bucks to widows, they'll lie over anything.

    5. Re:Is anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you kidding??? This is great news! It means that at least the FCC cares enough about public opinion to lie to the public before they yank our infrastructure.

      One day you will look back on this post as the Golden Age of US Government responsibility and mourn for your loss of control.

      Now go back to the assembly line, slave. Your corporate masters still want that pint of your blood.

    6. Re:Is anyone surprised? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      "Hey, let's just say we got DDOSed. No one will ever know afterward! We're the government!"

      Explain the difference between a DDOS coming from, say, an IoT botnet, and one coming from 1000 people all actively posting crap to a comment submission system. Yes, one is "cyber", one is "human". That's a difference. Both take place in a "cyber" environment, just one is humans programmed, I mean "incited", by a call to action, the other is IoT stuff programmed to action.

    7. Re:Is anyone surprised? by q4Fry · · Score: 1

      Explain the difference between a DDOS coming from, say, an IoT botnet, and one coming from 1000 people all actively posting crap to a comment submission system.

      After Jeff Kao posted a screenshot of Regex101.com highlighting some generated comments, his analysis across the dataset, and the source code to reproduce his results, I'm pretty sure you can make a determination on whether it was humans posting those submissions.

      I don't think anyone was personally trying to take down the comment site.** It was merely lots of parties trying to push their viewpoint, including: (a) Lots of pro-NN people, some of whom watch HBO; (b) a handful of con-NN people; (c) a few moderate pro-NN bots; (d) a few exceedingly aggressive con-NN bots.

      ** Except Pai himself, after the Jon Oliver segment.

  4. While you're distratced, EPA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Perhaps you missed this really HUGE news in bad governance:

    https://archpaper.com/2018/08/epa-asbestos-manufacturing/

    EPA, the *ENVIRONMENTAL Protection Agency", “no longer consider the effect or presence of substances in the air, ground, or water in its risk assessments.”

    Under this rule change, EPA does not consider the *environment* while decided if something is bad for the environment. Hence asbestos, which still kills 40,000 people a year, is now safe and allowed in products, because it's presence in air is no longer considered, so its presence in lungs is no longer considered, so its no longer toxic, according to the EPA.

    So now Uralasbest can now export it from Russia to USA (its no longer made in USA). Here's a stock market quote of this company quoted in Moscow:
    https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/urag?countrycode=ru

    To invest in the Russian stock market, you'll need a Russian trading bank..... Alfabank is one of the biggest of those.

    1+1=2, f**ing Russians.

    1. Re:While you're distratced, EPA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For those curious here is snope's take on the matter

      https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...

    2. Re:While you're distratced, EPA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's staff sought to protect him from exposure to toxic formaldehyde from an office desk last year, emails show — just months before his top political aides blocked the release of a report on health dangers from the same chemical."

    3. Re:While you're distratced, EPA by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "its no longer made in USA"

      Actually, that is somewhat untrue. Jewelry forms of asbestos are still mined and produced in the USA to this very day.

      Source: I just got done nabbing some crocodilite over the weekend while out in the high desert of SoCal. Lovely blue/black Tigers eye (aka Hawks eye, the pre-oxidation form of Tigers eye.)

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  5. run for the border by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, at least now we know why anchor baby Ajit Pai decided to "come clean" about the hoax yesterday. He knew the proverbial jig was up and he figured he'd do a partial reveal before he was exposed.

    It's become the signature move of this degenerate administration: get out ahead of the bad news and try to blunt the damage.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re: run for the border by alvinrod · · Score: 0

      Every political group has this play in their playbook and it is hardly unique to this administration. If it seems that way it is because unlike other politicians who keep tight lipped about such things when possible, Trump likes to blurt out his opinion on Twitter ever chance he gets which draws more attention. Since everyone knows that Trump will throw them under the bus, they have no particular loyalty to remain silent themselves if blame can be deflected.

    2. Re:run for the border by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 3

      No the signature move is calling it fake news. This is a refreshing change of pace.

    3. Re: run for the border by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Every political group has this play in their playbook and it is hardly unique to this administration.

      Yes, but none of us have ever seen it used at anywhere near the scale we're seeing it now.

      And also, none of us have ever seen this strategy applied to crimes up to and including making deals with foreign powers to steal elections and then paying them back with policy. Even Nixon had the good taste to use all-American burglars to get dirt on his enemies. Collusion with a foreign power at this level hasn't been seen in way over a century (I don't remember farther back than that, so I can't say).

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re: run for the border by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Every political group has this play in their playbook and it is hardly unique to this administration. If it seems that way it is because unlike other politicians who keep tight lipped about such things when possible, Trump likes to blurt out his opinion on Twitter ever chance he gets which draws more attention. Since everyone knows that Trump will throw them under the bus, they have no particular loyalty to remain silent themselves if blame can be deflected.

      So it wasn't super clear to me from the article just how much the CIO deserved blame for crying wolf and how much Pai was going all-in on a preliminary finding.

      But the thing that gets me is the childishness of Pai's statement:

      I am deeply disappointed that the FCC’s former [CIO], who was hired by the prior Administration and is no longer with the Commission, provided inaccurate information about this incident to me, my office, Congress, and the American people. This is completely unacceptable. I’m also disappointed that some working under the former CIO apparently either disagreed with the information that he was presenting or had questions about it, yet didn’t feel comfortable communicating their concerns to me or my office.

      What ever happened to the guy at the top taking responsibility? Pai didn't just throw the guy under the bus, he tied him up, hopped into the driver's seat, and drove over him a few times to make sure.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    5. Re: run for the border by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      You don't remember colluding with France?

      The US was built on colluding with foreign powers.

    6. Re: run for the border by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      What ever happened to the guy at the top taking responsibility?

      Uh, what happened?

      November 2016 happened, that's what.

    7. Re: run for the border by alvinrod · · Score: -1

      Yes, but none of us have ever seen it used at anywhere near the scale we're seeing it now.

      This I am not certain of either and it seems to be said about every new administration. There is likely a lot of recently bias influencing your (and really everyones) thought process, much like how people tend to say that music is crap now and used to be way better. This is not necessarily the case, it is just that people forget all of the terrible music from decades passed and we are unable to look twenty years into the future to see what music from today will have survived and be remembered. It was the same with Obama where he was called the worst president by his opponents just as Clinton was before him. The same for Bush who was derided, but has largely been forgotten about.

      It is also quite clear from your post history that you really do not like Trump. Like you really, really do not like Trump. If you were less vehemently opposed to him, I might take what you say a lot more seriously. However it is just as likely for you to want to believe this irrespective of whether or not it is true, which makes it far more difficult for me (or anyone else) to put much value in your assessment. What you say may in fact be true, it is simple the case that you are a poor gauge to measure the veracity of the statement. However, if you do have some third party systematic analysis of this that you have used to form your own opinion, I would be more than happy to read it and change my mind.

    8. Re: run for the border by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the Nobel Prize in Whataboutism goes to...

    9. Re: run for the border by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It is also quite clear from your post history that you really do not like Trump. Like you really, really do not like Trump. If you were less vehemently opposed to him, I might take what you say a lot more seriously.

      I don't think you get how this works. You don't have to be in favor of someone to criticize them. In fact, the most critical people might be the ones who are...most critical.

      However, if you do have some third party systematic analysis of this that you have used to form your own opinion, I would be more than happy to read it and change my mind.

      Brother, you've come to the right place:

      Here is a comprehensive list of every false claim Donald Trump has made since Inauguration Day to two weeks ago, listed in reverse chronological order and cross-referenced by topic. There are 2,083, and again, that's not counting the past two weeks. Each false claim is accompanied by a citation, and apparently they were pretty conservative when making this list because I can name at least 24 false claims not listed here that Trump made in June and July. This list is under continual review and has been open to challenges. None have been successful so far. Other such projects have put the number at just over 3,000, but let's give our big, wet, boy the benefit of the doubt, shall we?

      http://projects.thestar.com/do...

      Now, the most expansive (and I do mean expansive) list of the false claims of Barack Obama, assembled by a some nutty alt-right too-crazy-for-Breitbart blogger out of rural Pennsylvania, is 1,375. And that's over eight years. Trump as amassed his 2,083 over the course of 1.5 years. That puts him on course to out-lie Barack Obama by a ten to one margin.

      So yes, we haven't seen anything of this scale before. Also, we haven't seen a degenerate president collude with a hostile foreign power to sway an election and attempt to pay them back with policy. So ithe difference isn't just qualitative, it's quantitative. Treason trumps hyperbole every time.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re: run for the border by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I'm sure he's genuinely disappointed in a concerted attempt to further the dissolution of Net Neutrality, which was only coincidently aligned with his own goals. Merely a disappointing coincidence.

      And IIRC, the response to learning that thousands of fraudulent messages were submitted - was to immediately shut down the FCC's Internet Suggestion Box, and declare that all the messages would be taken into consideration anyway. Which seems like an honest, vigilant response to hearing that the integrity of your processes might be suspect.

    11. Re: run for the border by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      No, you just feel stupid for being wrong and forgetting basic American history.

      Proceed with your histrionics.

    12. Re: run for the border by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Skimming through that list it is a giant list of nitpicks over numbers and a few subjective interpretations. Like him claiming we have a $150 billion deficit with the EU but that's only true if you exclude services, otherwise it's only $100 billion! LIAR! Most of it inconsequential. Good for people who like to obsess over how much they hate Trump. We all know he exaggerates and has a big ego. And since he's on twitter all the time he exaggerates often, leading to a big number of "lies".

      And claiming he conspired with Russia to steal the election is so far proving to be a conspiracy theory.

    13. Re: run for the border by c · · Score: 1

      What ever happened to the guy at the top taking responsibility?

      Well, in his defense, there are a lot of bad apples in the FCC from the Obama years. Pai himself being a prime example.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    14. Re: run for the border by alvinrod · · Score: 0

      I don't think you get how this works. You don't have to be in favor of someone to criticize them. In fact, the most critical people might be the ones who are...most critical.

      You are completely missing what I am trying to say. Let us pretend we are attending a conference on qualfonic energy, which is completely made up. Let us suppose that someone has just given an address with a serious criticism of this form of energy. Would you be more likely to trust this criticism if it came from someone who has had nothing good to say about it or from someone who was a major proponent of it? Hopefully you can understand why people might take the comments from the latter person more seriously given no other information.

      Hopefully you can also understand why people would not regard you as an unbiased or disinterested source concerning trump. If we had to rank order named commentators based on comments, you probably come at least three standard deviations away from the mean.

      If this were not the case you would understand why a source pointing out all of the things that Trump has lied about or misrepresented is not sufficient proof of your claim. You need to compare it to other politicians and I am not convinced that Trump is significantly worse. He certainly is not a truthful politician, but few are and we tend to forget the myriad lies and cover-ups of controversies that surround past politicians. I suspect that if we were discussing some subject where you were not in agreement with the conclusion, you would be quick to employ the same arguments I have used here, but you dislike Trump so much that your emotions blind you to reason.

      That is not to say you are a bad person, because everyone is that way about something that they take personally. My point is that in this particular area, you are not a good source absent significant and quality evidence.

    15. Re: run for the border by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      You might want to look up what a conspiracy is legally. Because that's textbook what's been done here by Trump and team. Funny thing about conspiracy....you don't have to be successful to get charged. You just have to organize to do something illegal, and/or try to cover up that plot.

      You know.....like meet with representatives of a hostile foreign government to try to sway an election, and then lie and say it was a meeting about adoptions. That's pretty much textbook conspiracy, and very much a chargeable federal offense.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    16. Re: run for the border by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Would you be more likely to trust this criticism if it came from someone who has had nothing good to say about it or from someone who was a major proponent of it? Hopefully you can understand why people might take the comments from the latter person more seriously given no other information.

      Actually, I'd trust the person who was never a proponent more in many cases, and I'd be especially doubtful if the supposed proponent was offering some tepid, even half-hearted criticism. Especially if they didn't admit fully and entirely to their complete wrongness on the subject, or worse yet, blamed their opponents (aka, just like Ajit Pai is blaming the Obama administration already), for anything that went wrong.

      That's the thing you seemingly have an understanding issue as a Trump apologist.

      Hopefully you can also understand why people would not regard you as an unbiased or disinterested source concerning trump. If we had to rank order named commentators based on comments, you probably come at least three standard deviations away from the mean.

      Yes, he'd actually be a lot better than the average Trump apologist who can't even grudgingly admit what a complete and utter waste of human flesh that Trump and his hangers on happen to be.

      I'd believe PopeRatzo made a mistake. Trump's cadre? I believe it's already demonstrated they won't even admit simple mistakes without blaming others, let alone admit to actually being utterly in the wrong.

      I suspect that if we were discussing some subject where you were not in agreement with the conclusion, you would be quick to employ the same arguments I have used here, but you dislike Trump so much that your emotions blind you to reason.

      I suspect based on your behavior, that you'd believe your are somehow being more reasoned and rationale, while to others, you will be indignant that you are being accused of being an apologist for Trump who is unable to honestly and openly admit what a complete farce he happens to be. You are at best, able to say "Well, he's like all the other politicians" which is just plain silly. Since when it's a subject you disagreed with, you'd actually be fully and completely accusing the other side of being what you refuse to admit Trump is.

      Sorry, but you're the one who needs to stare into the mirror and see your own place in the abyss.

    17. Re: run for the border by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I found the list to be rather fair to Trump. Some of them were minor, but they were demonstrably not true. This is a list of things trump says that aren't true. Not just a list of things trump says that are horribly untrue. Now if you find something that isn't demonstrably untrue, then you'll have room to bitch.

    18. Re: run for the border by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      So Obama was a better President because he kept so many things to himself...

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    19. Re: run for the border by tbannist · · Score: 3, Informative

      You are completely missing what I am trying to say. Let us pretend we are attending a conference on qualfonic energy, which is completely made up. Let us suppose that someone has just given an address with a serious criticism of this form of energy. Would you be more likely to trust this criticism if it came from someone who has had nothing good to say about it or from someone who was a major proponent of it? Hopefully you can understand why people might take the comments from the latter person more seriously given no other information.

      Neither. They both have motivations to lie. I'd want to fact check the claims of either person because the first one might be inventing a criticism and the second one may be omitting other major problems. You're a fool if you think either of them is more trustworthy than the other. Furthermore, a proponent admitting a minor flaw, is a classic hustle technique to get you to buy into the product that they're pitching.

      If this were not the case you would understand why a source pointing out all of the things that Trump has lied about or misrepresented is not sufficient proof of your claim. You need to compare it to other politicians and I am not convinced that Trump is significantly worse. He certainly is not a truthful politician, but few are and we tend to forget the myriad lies and cover-ups of controversies that surround past politicians. I suspect that if we were discussing some subject where you were not in agreement with the conclusion, you would be quick to employ the same arguments I have used here, but you dislike Trump so much that your emotions blind you to reason.

      Trump's lies corrode democracy.
      There's a long history of presidential untruths. Here's why Donald Trump is 'in a class by himself.
      How Does Trump Stack Up Against the Best — and Worst — Presidents?
      Trump’s Lies vs. Obama’s
      Donald Trump running the most dishonest White House ever, says historian
      Comparing Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump on the Truth-O-Meter
      Are Clinton and Trump the Biggest Liars Ever to Run for President?

      That is not to say you are a bad person, because everyone is that way about something that they take personally. My point is that in this particular area, you are not a good source absent significant and quality evidence.

      How much evidence do you need? If you're really interested, there's a lot more stuff on Trump's lack of honesty and his place in the world of American politics in respect to that, but I think it's telling that presidential historians (who ought to know quite a bit about past presidents) have (spoilers) ranked him last place out of all of America's presidents. That's pretty unusual, most politicians get ranked in the middle somewhere during their terms, neither best nor worst.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    20. Re: run for the border by bobschneider8 · · Score: 1

      Even Nixon had the good taste to use all-American burglars to get dirt on his enemies.

      Actually, 3 of the 5 Watergate burglars were born in Cubs

    21. Re: run for the border by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This I am not certain of either and it seems to be said about every new administration. There is likely a lot of recently bias influencing your (and really everyones) thought process, much like how people tend to say that music is crap now and used to be way better. This is not necessarily the case, it is just that people forget all of the terrible music from decades passed and we are unable to look twenty years into the future to see what music from today will have survived and be remembered.

      Nope. They don't like the changes. But rather than express that, they resort to a poorly articulated response that they've been habituated to expressing. Your understanding of people's mentality is flawed.

      It was the same with Obama where he was called the worst president by his opponents just as Clinton was before him.

      Actually, it was quite different. For one thing, his opponents literally made up crap about Obama's birth certificate, including a certain Turnip, and when it was Clinton, they still pass around this mythical death list.

      Whereas people actually come up with substantive criticism of Trump, and yet his, and his apologist's, defenses are even more over the top hyperbole which you dismiss and downplay.

      The same for Bush who was derided, but has largely been forgotten about.

      Bush is still beloved by the precious Republicans, actually. Both of them.

      It is also quite clear from your post history that you really do not like Trump. Like you really, really do not like Trump. If you were less vehemently opposed to him, I might take what you say a lot more seriously.

      If you were more vehemently opposed to Trump, people might take what you say a lot more seriously. You should probably look at your own post history, or the post histories of some of the more...strident Trump apologists, and discuss them, before you start throwing stones at others.

      However it is just as likely for you to want to believe this irrespective of whether or not it is true, which makes it far more difficult for me (or anyone else) to put much value in your assessment. What you say may in fact be true, it is simple the case that you are a poor gauge to measure the veracity of the statement.

      Actually, this is more your problem. The value of your assessments is even by your own logic, namely your already stated position regarding a critic who was a proponent, diminished, due to your lack of qualities which make you a sufficiently honest gauge of your own believability.

      To put it another way, if you actually were sufficiently hostile and critical of Trump, your attempts at inducing moderation and decorum might have some traction, however, your consistent refusal to do so, well, that actually diminishes your ability to get a grip on the road.

      However, if you do have some third party systematic analysis of this that you have used to form your own opinion, I would be more than happy to read it and change my mind.

      Your response to the systematic analysis shows you weren't happy, but were displeased and quick to be dismissive.

      So nice to see your pattern of behavior remains consistent.

      Keep on sliding around. Get in your groove.

      And FWIW, your not exactly new either, there's already a lot of people like you who try to chide one side, but are conspicuously silent towards the other, not even raising an eyebrow. They even have excuses for that, most of them laughable. Sorry, but you need to look in your own eye.

      There's a Redwood there. A big one. Blinding your vision. Be your own ophthalmologist.

      That's what you need to do before you can be believed.

      Or be like this.

      Your call.

    22. Re: run for the border by bobschneider8 · · Score: 1

      That's Cuba

    23. Re:run for the border by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice of you to be so racist again, but why does this even matter? Someone speculated that it was a DDoS because it was slow and that reached non-techs in management.

      But it doesn't matter. The comments are NOT a vote, there was nothing to count here. They were not for showing your support or anything like that, they were there to present arguments in favor or against something. And making the same argument once or 1000 times doesn't matter at all. Given that most of the comments were mere screaming, they were ignored and the entire scandal here is utterly stupid.

      You didn't make an argument, you just tried to shout at the comment system. And that doesn't matter. It never did. Only the information in the comments mattered and there wasn't much of that, just people pretending this was up for a "vote" when it doesn't even work that way. It's the same as with the DMCA exceptions, as well, mind you--if you read one of their reports on the comments, a lot of the supports even for a successful rule change are basically ignored if they don't address the legal standards, etc.

      You'd have done better to fund a lawyer or two with all that outrage to write some coherent policy arguments they might actually consider instead of screaming at the comment box in impotent rage that maybe another John Smith disagreed with you or idiots were stuffing the box with identical comments as though they were votes when they're not.

      I'm still amazed at how many of you are ignorant of the process and resort to mere screeching, but I shouldn't be.

    24. Re:run for the border by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      No the signature move is calling it fake news. This is a refreshing change of pace.

      They called the content of the comments fake news, so they've already gone through that phase.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    25. Re: run for the border by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      See? Immigrants do the job that Americans won't do.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    26. Re: run for the border by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Would you be more likely to trust this criticism if it came from someone who has had nothing good to say about it or from someone who was a major proponent of it? Hopefully you can understand why people might take the comments from the latter person more seriously given no other information.

      Well, we have Rick Gates listing off reams of criminal activities involving Ukrainians and Russians. I guess we should blindly believe everything he says?

      Here's a hint - I would tend to believe critics that have backing evidence for their statements with higher belief factors applied to those that explicitly quote and/or provide video of said person lying over those attempting to use truth by blatant assertions (That would be 99% of Trump apologists btw) In fact, the skew towards believing critics is as large as it is primarily because of the utter lack of evidence on the Trump side.

      If this were not the case you would understand why a source pointing out all of the things that Trump has lied about or misrepresented is not sufficient proof of your claim. You need to compare it to other politicians and I am not convinced that Trump is significantly worse.

      Actually, this is wrong. The statement was Trump's in a class by himself on lying. There's ample evidence available as listed by tabbanist which I'm sure they got with a simple top 10 google returns on "Trump lies worst president" or something similar. You could have disputed these by simply providing proof that the claim was wrong. The fact that you didn't (and actually can't) should perhaps clarify that your position is indefensible. That leaves you two choices: change your stance (unlikely in my experience for people with your beliefs) or double down on "but they're lying!! FAKE NEWS!!!!" which is highly likely, based on previous evidence of Trump supporters. Hell, Trump supporters would vote for an accused pedophile rather than a right of center "Democrat".

      People like me who view Trump as someone they'd steer clear from and avoid at all costs because he's just that unpleasant, untrustworthy, slimy, and of a generally revolting personality (and no, that opinion is not recent, it was formed decades ago even before he was a supporter of Hillary in 2000....) He's not ever changed his stripes, just who he's using to fuel his narcissistic needs of the day. He's always been self-centered and egomaniacal to the point that he can be said to be a megalomaniac. To be perfectly clear is to say he's mentally ill. For proof, just view all his tweets and statements where everything he does or proposes is "the greatest/biggest/grandest ever" or his insistence that things related to him are bigger/greater, e.g., his inauguration crowd size, for example. It's a text-book clinical case and any rational Congress would act immediately to remove such a danger from our government.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  6. TRUMP IS A NAZI!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Join JOin Join Join Join JOIN Join Join Join JoiN Join
    Join JOin Join Join Join JOIN Join Join Join JoiN Join

    l . . lnazina
    l . . l . . .
    l . . l . . .
    lnazinazinazi
    . . . l . . l
    . . . l . . l
    nazinal . . l

    The The THe The The The THE The The The ThE
    The The THe The The The THE The The The ThE

    l . . lnazina
    l . . l . . .
    l . . l . . .
    lnazinazinazi
    . . . l . . l
    . . . l . . l
    nazinal . . l

    NaZi Nazi Nazi nazi Nazi NaZi Nazi nazi Nazi Nazi
    NaZi Nazi Nazi nazi Nazi NaZi Nazi nazi Nazi Nazi

    l . . lnazina
    l . . l . . .
    l . . l . . .
    lnazinazinazi
    . . . l . . l
    . . . l . . l
    nazinal . . l

    PaRTY! PARTY! PaRTY! PARtY! pARTY!
    PaRTY! PARTY! PaRTY! PARtY! pARTY!

  7. Fucker should have his head kicked in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fucking douche

  8. I am absolutely outraged... by Phaid · · Score: -1, Troll

    Oh, wait, this took place on the Obama adminstration's watch? Well, down the memory hole with you!

    1. Re:I am absolutely outraged... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh, wait, this took place on the Obama adminstration's watch? Well, down the memory hole with you!

      Who was President in May 2017?

    2. Re:I am absolutely outraged... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, no, it didn't. The "attack" happened in May 2017, four months after Trump was inaugurated, and the lies about the "attack" have been repeated often since then. None of it involves the Obama administration at all, outside of your delusions.

    3. Re:I am absolutely outraged... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh, wait, this took place on the Obama adminstration's watch?

      Not another one. No, this didn't happen during the Obama administration's watch. It happened the first week of May, 2017. Someone else tried to use the "Obama's fault" card yesterday when Ajit Pai first admitted that his agency had not been hacked. How many times does this have to be shot down before you guys give up trying to lie about it?

      https://www.theguardian.com/te...

      Here's the story from last July, so you can track Ajit Pai's weasily and pitiful lie in real time.

      https://gizmodo.com/fcc-now-sa...

      And here's the Slashdot story from yesterday.

      https://it.slashdot.org/story/...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:I am absolutely outraged... by Zaelath · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      I was really hoping for a THANKS, OBAMA! post, but I guess this thread will have to do /sigh.

    5. Re:I am absolutely outraged... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And where was Obama during Katrina?? Why didn't Obama do more after 911?? What an unpresidential coward!

      (here's an /s for all your maga fans out there)

    6. Re:I am absolutely outraged... by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

      Oh, wait, this took place on the Obama adminstration's watch?

      Not another one.

      Not another not another one.

      EVEN WORSE: It all took place on OUR watch. ALL of them. All of US. T / O / B / C / B / etc. Our leaders do represent The People, but exactly which ones are yet to be determined.

      The again, remember the president is not omnipowerful, even though everyone would like you to think that way. Congress is the one with the overall power, the president just has some money, some people that work at his pleasure, and overall attention.

      You want to make a change? Then change Congress, or at least change who the members talk and listen to. Or even better -- quit making overall laws that affect everyone everywhere, let each state decide for themselves. Maybe they'll be right. Maybe wrong. Maybe they'll be completely STUPID, who knows?

      Maybe Idaho like potatos. Maybe Iowa likes corn. Maybe Washington likes apples, or Florida oranges. But let's not pass an overarching law that there's only ONE correct crop. Master country-wide rules (binding laws) need to be far and few between, only handling differences between states, not overriding all of them everywhere to suit a single standard that someone chooses. ("It's good to be King.")

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    7. Re:I am absolutely outraged... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The again, remember the president is not omnipowerful, even though everyone would like you to think that way. Congress is the one with the overall power, the president just has some money, some people that work at his pleasure, and overall attention.

      We have a Congress who has ceded all of its power to a unitary executive.

      I like your style, but everything else you said is horseshit.

      Maybe Idaho like potatos. Maybe Iowa likes corn. Maybe Washington likes apples, or Florida oranges.

      Maybe Alabama likes slaves. Maybe California likes emissions standards. Maybe Colorado likes weed. Maybe Louisiana likes undocumented workers, or Georgia pedophiles.

      As I said, horseshit, but I still think you're OK, grep -v '.*' *.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:I am absolutely outraged... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How many times does this have to be shot down before you guys give up trying to lie about it?

      They will never stop lying about it, because for a significant proportion of the electorate all they need to hear is "it's Obama's fault" and they stop listening, move on to the next thing. They never even notice it being debunked.

      The people saying it have a tactic for handling your debunking too. Just watch, one of the replies to your post will demonstrate it. Change the subject, move on to the next lie. You have to remember that they are playing to their audience who is already hostile to your leftist Marxist alt-left MSM biased attacks, they aren't here for a rational debate.

      Slashdot is a little less bad because there is at least a sort of functional moderation system, but in general it's best not to waste too much time on debunking (reacting, playing defence) and just concentrate on getting your own narrative based on the truth out. The "gotcha" take-down is satisfying and even works pretty well as click-bait, but I don't think it really changes people's minds.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:I am absolutely outraged... by tbannist · · Score: 1

      EVEN WORSE: It all took place on OUR watch. ALL of them. All of US. T / O / B / C / B / etc. Our leaders do represent The People, but exactly which ones are yet to be determined.

      Apparently the Russian people?

      I don't know what to say about people who prefer treason to honest elections...

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    10. Re:I am absolutely outraged... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This happened in May 2017. The transition from the Obama administration to the Trump adminsitration occurred in Jan 2017, four months prior, you reality-denying fascist fuckwit.

    11. Re:I am absolutely outraged... by fedos · · Score: 1

      You're in severe need of a civics lesson.

    12. Re:I am absolutely outraged... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They will never stop lying about it, because for a significant proportion of the electorate all they need to hear is "it's Trumps fault" and they stop listening, move on to the next thing. They never even notice it being debunked.

      Awful lot of projection going on.

    13. Re:I am absolutely outraged... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be Grep-V's post above. You and I both know the rules too fucking well. I'm ready for a new game, but you can't quit this one easily. Somehow he got his comms mixed up and instead of talking about communications, he ended up at communism. He should probably learn to grep his inputs with the full search term instead of comm*

  9. Is this going to change how anyone votes by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    in either the Mid Term or the next Presidential election? For all the bad press the Trump Admin has gotten (killing NN, the Helsinki debacle, opening trying to start a war with Iran, NK almost immediately going back to missile research after getting us to acknowledge Kim's govt as legitimate, raising inflation/interest rates being used to counter act economic over inflation brought on by those tax cuts for the rich, economic hits from the tariffs, etc, etc) Trump's poll numbers haven't budged an inch.

    I''m starting to get some real fatigue here. Like it does't matter what the hell anyone does because no matter what comes out of this Administration or their party it doesn't change how people vote. At the end of the day if folks are still going to show up and vote for an anti-NN administration then all the dirty laundry in the world is irrelevant. At best it might be of historic interest in a thousand years when archeologists write papers on what the heck went wrong.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: Is this going to change how anyone votes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Trump wasn't elected as a man, but as a "weapon" to take down the beltway establishment. Even Republicans have no clue how to govern, but damn do they talk a game don't they. It's all lip service to keep that funding going.

      Meanwhile, the Democrat party is hellbent on authoritarian control with a nasty case of psychological projection.

      So what do we do? Spank all them fuckers HARD? Trump is the weapon to do it! So give him your vote

    2. Re:Is this going to change how anyone votes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Trump lost the popular vote and won the EC by a rounding error. You say his poll numbers haven’t budged, but they are historically bad.

    3. Re: Is this going to change how anyone votes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what do we do? Spank all them fuckers HARD? Trump is the weapon to do it! So give him your vote

      His tiny orange weapon doesn’t scare anyone.

    4. Re:Is this going to change how anyone votes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      You guys enjoy your little "cry party".

      I'm enjoying the tax cut, the economic growth and lower unemployment.

      Don't complain about inflation or the debt until you regularly bitched about it during the previous administration. Don't complain about Helsinki unless you complained about the horrible Iran deal or complained about the previous president bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia.

      Like many people outside your little "cry bubble", if the economy is good and there aren't terror attacks on US soil, I'll enjoy my summer and call it a day. The previous administration somehow couldn't seem to pull any of that off, if they had I would feel differently based on results.

    5. Re: Is this going to change how anyone votes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spank all them fuckers HARD? Trump is the weapon to do it!

      A weapon of our enemy's. This is how treason happens, you make other United States citizens you're enemy bae.

    6. Re:Is this going to change how anyone votes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You will also enjoy watching him hang for treason.

    7. Re:Is this going to change how anyone votes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      88% is historically bad? You could have fooled me. And 304-227 is pretty damned decisive and hardly a "rounding error".

      If you look at the actual polling numbers Trump has some record highs. Even if you compare it with the "official" numbers you'll see he's easily beating Obama at the same time in his term.

      The fact of the matter is that Trump is wildly popular and it's precisely because he doesn't talk like a politician or pull any of the normal political bullshit. He's a straight shooter who tells it like it is and gets results. And it's something the American people have been desperately looking for in a president for many years now. Especially after the last travesty of an administration.

    8. Re:Is this going to change how anyone votes by ckatko · · Score: -1, Troll

      Fun fact: If you think you're the only one (or your side) is the only one that doesn't do that same thing... you're wrong.

      The left and right do the exact same thing. It's biology. Overlook the failures of your own group, while highlighting the failures of the "outgroup." The only difference is, which "group" do you think you're apart of?

      (Kind of like how bible thumpers in the 90's deemed themselves to be the moral arbiters of Hollywood and video games, and now the left are doing the exact same thing except instead of "sinner" it's "misogynst," "racist," and "Nazi". But abstractly it's the same thing. Attempting to ostracizing a member seen as a "threat" to the group.)

    9. Re: Is this going to change how anyone votes by houghi · · Score: 1

      People vote the way they vote, because it is an emotional process, not a rational one.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    10. Re: Is this going to change how anyone votes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll or moron?
      I can't tell.

      Maybe both?

    11. Re: Is this going to change how anyone votes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I go with whomever is least likely to "duck up" everything. Generally that correlates with not a consistent liar.

      While all politicians suck, Trump has taken the lead in lies and sellouts.

      And, no, I'm not part of any party because that is a dumb idea.

        Does your hatred make you blind, or is it your ignorance?

    12. Re:Is this going to change how anyone votes by Gonoff · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The left and right do the exact same thing.

      This would be meaningful if the USA actually had a left. It has a "center", a "Center-Right" (Democrat), a "Far Right" (Republican) and an "Alt-Right".

      Lefties may do the same as righties - but there are few lefties in the USA - perhaps 1 called Bernie Sanders?

      --
      I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
    13. Re:Is this going to change how anyone votes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      You would have to be a full on communist to claim the US doesn't have a left.

    14. Re:Is this going to change how anyone votes by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      Trump's poll numbers haven't budged an inch.

      I haven't seen that. It looks like they've been trending down.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    15. Re: Is this going to change how anyone votes by Gaxx · · Score: 2

      Troll or moron?
      I can't tell.

      Maybe both?

      Trollon

      --
      -- Gaxx
    16. Re:Is this going to change how anyone votes by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Informative

      I haven't seen that. It looks like they've been trending down.

      Looks like they have been pretty damn flat for the past year. https://projects.fivethirtyeig...

      To be clear he still has the worst approval rating is dismal, but then that's where it also started.

    17. Re:Is this going to change how anyone votes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm waiting for the State of the Union where he just bangs Ivanka on the Oval Office and is applauded for his family values

      Then a year, later shoot the lovechild dead and be applauded for both practicing his 2nd Amendment and not aborting the baby.

    18. Re:Is this going to change how anyone votes by Gonoff · · Score: 3, Informative

      I mentioned your left - Bernie Sanders.

      If you had much of a political left, you would not be famous globally for even your previous president not actually setting up such things as universal health care, welfare state, decent consumer rights, user dapa protection and all the other things that your corporate masters do not think you deserve.

      Can I guess that you do not believe that there is any difference between socialists and communists? Many of your fellow citizens certainly seem to think this. Do you think that the Nazis were socialists because their full party title had that word in it? If so, presumably you think that the old East Germany was a democracy because its name said so. The "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" was as Socialist as the DPRK is democratic or belongs to its people. The USSR may well have been heading towards communism under Lenin. Stalin did not continue that journey and it slid into something that he wanted.

      Those people way off to your left may be in the middle. Where does that mean you are?

      --
      I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
    19. Re:Is this going to change how anyone votes by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      The left and right do the exact same thing.

      This would be meaningful if the USA actually had a left. It has a "center", a "Center-Right" (Democrat), a "Far Right" (Republican) and an "Alt-Right".

      Lefties may do the same as righties - but there are few lefties in the USA - perhaps 1 called Bernie Sanders?

      Thanks for demonstrating nothing but your own position on the spectrum.

      I suppose if you are insanely far to the left, everything looks "right" to you ...

    20. Re:Is this going to change how anyone votes by cbraescu1 · · Score: 0

      Can I guess that you do not believe that there is any difference between socialists and communists?

      I'm not the original poster, but you're nitpicking here in the worst way. Yes, there are differences between socialists and communists, but those differences are in a continuum Despite what extreme-left apologists such as yourself claim, the socialism and the communism are not discrete ideologies and implementations.

      Do you think that the Nazis were socialists because their full party title had that word in it?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise

      The Nazi party was officially called National Socialist German Workers' Party for a good reason: it was Socialist and it was focused on the working class.

      Just read their political program:
      - Every citizen should have a job.
      - No one should live off money from rents or other income unless they have worked for that money.
      - We want all very big corporations to be owned by the government.
      - Big industrial companies should share their profits with the workers.

      The Nazi were the textbook example of what Socialism is. They could make Bernie and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proud!

      f so, presumably you think that the old East Germany was a democracy because its name said so.

      Actually that's what Bernie and his kind used to claim. They claimed the same about USSR, Venezuela, Cuba, and any other heinous totalitarian shithole that claimed they were Socialist or Communist. And, to add salt to your shame, those countries themselves used the terms "Socialist" and "Communist" interchangeably or at least demonstrating the continuum between those concepts. usually the country itself was named as Popular then Socialist, while the Party itself was called Communist (that was because they saw themselves as leading from ahead, as "revolutionary" minority, on the "scientifcally proven path to Communism").

      The "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" was as Socialist.

      But it was. Even Bernie agrees.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KCoR6UYs1k

      The USSR may well have been heading towards communism under Lenin.

      Sure. A path of mass murder.

      Stalin did not continue that journey and it slid into something that he wanted.

      That's a claim only true fanatics can make. Stalin was continuing whatever Lenin started. There is literally *NOTHING* which Stalin invented, he only had more time and more resources to expand the criminal organization which the Soviet Russia was under Lenin.

      Those people way off to your left may be in the middle. Where does that mean you are?

      It means I'm right.

      --
      Catalin Braescu
      Ofaly.com
    21. Re: Is this going to change how anyone votes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      A weapon of our enemy's. This is how treason happens, you make other United States citizens you're enemy bae.

      Decades of half-truths, lies, and omissions about anyone or anything that disagrees with liberal doctrine tends to have that effect.

      By the way, what's treason is a party dedicated to taking away freedoms and resources from one group to win votes from another group in order to maintain power they should never have taken from the people to begin with.

      This country was founded on individual liberty and freedom. Democrats work tirelessly everyday to reverse these freedoms, whether it's banning speech they disagree with, banning a person's right to self-protection, ordering people and their businesses on how to operate, or confiscating the fruits of one's labor.

      Anyone who works against the freedom and liberty of the people are treasonous enemies of all of the people, whether they realize it or not. You obviously don't realize it and play the "useful idiot" roll well. Some education might have been helpful, but Democrats corrupted those institutions as well. Some course correction is beyond overdue.

    22. Re:Is this going to change how anyone votes by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 0
      I'll help you with this as someone who would have voted for either early Bernie or Trump. I look at the issues more than the personality. Show me the Democrat who is half as interested in the white middle class as open borders and you can have my attention. Until then all I see in the Democratic party are people who at best dislike white people and at worst openly call for their "cancellation". And when someone disparages white people as a group, as I can cite below, are they punished? Of course not. So why would I vote for someone that openly calls me names and promotes those who dislike me? Pro tip for Democrats who want to win - you can't do it by disliking all white women and hating all white men.

      Citations:

      https://berniesanders.com/open... https://www.bbc.com/news/world... http://www.spiked-online.com/n... https://www.washingtontimes.co...

    23. Re: Is this going to change how anyone votes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, someone's discovered Saul Alinsky!

    24. Re:Is this going to change how anyone votes by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      I suppose if you are insanely far to the right, everything looks "left" to you ...

      Fixed that for you.

    25. Re:Is this going to change how anyone votes by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      but there are few lefties in the USA - perhaps 1 called Bernie Sanders?

      Even Sanders would be considered a typical mainstream left-wing politician in much of Europe. There are a small number of far-left people in the US (after all, you can find people in every area of political ideologies), but none are well-known federal officials.

    26. Re: Is this going to change how anyone votes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do love how anti-Trumpers can never point to facts to back up their claims and instead have to resort to ad homien attacks.

  10. It was always going to happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It just took a little while to figure out how best to use their failure - i.e. to set up the right patsy.

  11. More russian hysteria from democrats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Trump 2020 is getting closer...

  12. Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But if they'd been corporate officials committing fraud on the American People[tm], that'd been peachy fine?

    Privatise the FCC, I say.

    In other words, you lot still have a huckster culture and it's a problem.

    Also, more proof that any mention of "it wuz haxx0rz!" is typically fraud being committed. Or extreme gullibility. Or both.

  13. Hey Ajit, some advice... by ToTheStars · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If one person you meet has bad information, well, that's that. If you think that "my office, Congress, and the American people" are all misinformed...maybe the problem is you.

    1. Re:Hey Ajit, some advice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If one person you meet has bad information, well, that's that. If you think that "my office, Congress, and the American people" are all misinformed...maybe the problem is you.

      He already knows that.

      That fact doesn't stop a pussy from wanting to blame everyone else all the time.

    2. Re:Hey Ajit, some advice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      "This individual, a terrorist really, also misinformed Canada, Mexico, Brazil, ..." (goes on to name all 200 countries)...
      "They also lied to the oceans..." (names all oceans and seas)...
      "They misled the continents, the lakes, the rivers..." (proceeds to name all those)...
      "So sad, the islands received fabrications..." (enumerates every. single. island)...
      "They prevaricated with the planets..." (mentions all planets, asteroids, Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud objects)...

  14. Smelled rotten from the start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone with half a brain knew this was pure shit when it was first reported.
    Don't trust your government.

  15. Fake News! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Fake news. The Trump Administration implemented net neutrality, so the attack must have actually happend.

  16. Investigation to get at the truth by msmonroe · · Score: 1

    This sounds very suspicious. There should be a bipartisan congressional investigation to get to the truth of what happened.

    1. Re:Investigation to get at the truth by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      There should be a bipartisan congressional investigation

      You'll have to wait until the midterm elections for that.

    2. Re: Investigation to get at the truth by phantomfive · · Score: 0

      glwt. It doesn't look like Democrats are going to get control of Congress, which is unfortunate. Note that Republicans have gotten almost as much done in their time controlling government as the D's did their time under Obama. Republicans have been a lot more quiet about it though, passing deregulation and tax cuts as everyone worries about Russians. For R's it's the best distraction ever.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re: Investigation to get at the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a moron, they're going to take it by at least 10 seats. Learn to read kid.

    4. Re: Investigation to get at the truth by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I don't understand how Trump is charismatic. He really annoys me as a person, always has, but somehow people like him. And he's getting calmer, and better at it, and more people are coming to his side. Look even here on Slashdot, it seems more people are openly Republican, and even getting modded up. So unless something happens, if the current trend continues, by the time midterms come, Republicans will do well.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re: Investigation to get at the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think a lot of it is the entertainment factor. Media and other activists have their Two Minutes Hate every time he tweets, so now it's just incredibly fun to watch the troll master incite them every day. It's not so much that the president is charismatic, it's just the constant "WHAAT? Rabblerabblerabble" from the Red Guards.

    6. Re: Investigation to get at the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand how Trump is charismatic.

      Really? LBJ had him figured out. He called it out in the 1960s. Before that, so did Upton Sinclair, Sinclair Lewis, Jack London, a large number of founding fathers, many Greek and Roman philosophers...there's even a more recent book, but the name escapes me. Perhaps Condon's Emperor of America, I think that has the general idea. So maybe try reading that. Except Trump is an anti-Veteran, so ignore that part.

      Why do you have a problem understanding it? Lots of others see it.

      And he's getting calmer, and better at it, and more people are coming to his side. Look even here on Slashdot, it seems more people are openly Republican, and even getting modded up. So unless something happens, if the current trend continues, by the time midterms come, Republicans will do well.

      Actually, he's getting more and more hysterical(check out his tweets on "his" supposed victory in Ohio, or his Wildfire nonsense), and when it comes to the open Republicans Slashdot looks just like it did during the Bush years, It's really a bunch of lying Republican apologists flooding the joint, and denying the trends that show the hollowness of their "victories" and their continual failures. And the only difference from the Obama years is whether or not they slavishly defend the current administration.

      It'd be amusing if it weren't so destructive. Sadly, even if Trump weren't malicious, he's simply incompetent enough to cause harm by sheer weight of his neglectful dissolution.

    7. Re: Investigation to get at the truth by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      "Look even here on Slashdot, it seems more people are openly Republican, and even getting modded up."

      This doesn't mean that Trump is becoming more popular. Trump's fans are simply becoming ever more emboldened by his ongoing success in avoiding prosecution. That's why Mueller needs to hurry the hell up.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re: Investigation to get at the truth by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That's possible, too. Earlier I forgot to mention that a lot of districts are gerrymandered by Republicans, so that's another thing that makes it hard to take back the house (I'm equal opportunity here: I know the Dems would do the same if they had the chance, that's how politics works for better or worse. For worse. But reps just got lucky at the redistricting time).

      Yeah, you are right. If Mueller reveals a bombshell before the election that would totally reverse my prediction. I think: like I said before, Trump is charismatic in ways I don't understand.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  17. I'm against N-N by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Therefore, I don't give a shit.

  18. *Russian* asbestos in American lungs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Snopes only considers the EPA rule change, *not* the fact asbestos is one of the few successful export of Russia. Its totally weird Trump's obsession with removing asbestos restrictions (google his asbestos tweets to see that).

    Yet its not weird at all when you consider the voices whispering in his ear are Russians looking to expand exports.

    In that context you can see how they would rank their exports as more important than the lungs of Americans.

    1. Re:*Russian* asbestos in American lungs by shilly · · Score: 1

      It seems reasonable to assume that they see the damage to American lungs as being an *added* benefit of expanding sales of asbestos.

    2. Re:*Russian* asbestos in American lungs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Snopes only considers the EPA rule change, *not* the fact asbestos is one of the few successful export of Russia.

      Russia exports several billion dollars of worth of goods to the US on a monthly basis (and the US does the same to Russia), anything from diamond to crab meat are very successful Russian export goods, what are you talking about?

  19. How deep the net has fallen by nospam007 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Years ago, sites were Slashdotted, nowadays they get Olivered and Colberted.

    1. Re:How deep the net has fallen by Obfuscant · · Score: 0

      Years ago, sites were Slashdotted, nowadays they get Olivered and Colberted.

      This. A site that was not intended to have strong authentication for comments became the target of a late night talk show host, and everyone is aghast that it was effectively slashdotted. Now everyone is aghast that an attack that took place in cyberspace ("on the Internet") was called a cyberattack.

      Has this happened before? Of course. I remember several years ago Paul Begala took to the media blaming Rush Limbaugh for crashing the White House telephone system, because Rush told people to call the White House. He complained that "by 10AM the switchboard was useless", which would have been serious, except that Rush's program doesn't start until noon where the White House is -- two hours after his "attack" allegedly succeeded.

  20. Asbesto danger to lungs by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Things are a bit more complicated.

    In a twisted weird point of view, the EPA is actually right :
    accidental small exposure to asbesto aren't dangerous, it's the chronic long-term exposition that is highly carcinogenic.

    So if you just *live* in a building that is fireproofed by asbesto, and maybe drill a hole or two to put your giant protrait on the wall (accidental small inhalation of dust), you'd be just fine.

    On the other hand, the construction workers who will work on the building (e.g.: demolishing or rebuilding it) will inhale massive amount of dust over their career and will almost certainly develop cancer due to that. (well, that and the tobacco smoking).

    So as said, EPA is right in a twisted sense : products using asbesto won't necessarily kill *their users*, and could be actually made safe (for the users).
    It's all the *other* guys, the guys that will need to process this shit and end up breathing a lot of dust that will very likely die from it.

    Not the users, but the other people that will end up with this shit in their environment.

    There's almost something classeist there : Trump can enjoy the benefits (mostly fire-proofing) of products, while outsourcing the horrible death to the poor low-wage (mexican immigrants ?) workers, who will handle it and end up with it in their environment.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Asbesto danger to lungs by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      I am part of a group that just moved into a new space, one with flooring over concrete that is assumed to be asbestos-bearing. We did not remove it, nor expose it. We are installing sealer and flooring to entirely encapsulate it.

      This happens a LOT. Not many buildings have asbestos fireproofing in walls that can be exposed by hammering a nail in, for those get inspected, or already have been, and that's going to be a forced removal. I've been through one.

      This isn't that big a deal, really, but it will be made to be.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    2. Re:Asbesto danger to lungs by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

      In a twisted weird point of view, the EPA is actually right :
      accidental small exposure to asbesto aren't dangerous, it's the chronic long-term exposition that is highly carcinogenic.

      Asbestos is dangerous even in small quantities, because it can easily be lodged in the epithelial wall. It depends mostly on the type of asbestos; shorter fibers mean less ability for cilia to sweep it out of your lungs. Any persistent lung irritant can cause cancer, asbestos is just spectacular at persisting because the body can't break it down.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Asbesto danger to lungs by MisterSquid · · Score: 1

      That's fine until a fire, earthquake, or other event damages these buildings such that "encapsulated" asbestos is released into the air thus exposing first responders, cleanup crews, and civilian bystanders to toxic plumes of asbestos.

      --
      blog
    4. Re:Asbesto danger to lungs by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Building codes.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    5. Re:Asbesto danger to lungs by MisterSquid · · Score: 1

      Building codes would suffice as long as they prohibit the use of asbestos since engineering would be unable to provide proof against catastrophic damage.

      --
      blog
  21. Yeah? by gerald.edward.butler · · Score: 1

    Then how did all those "fake" comments get there? I know for a fact there were a ton of "fake" pro-net-neutrality comments. Everyone who I checked that I knew had several comments from "themselves" that were pro-net-neutrality and when I asked them, they had no idea about the system and had never made the comments. Somebody was up to some shenanigans. Until that is investigated, we all know that Ajit Pie is a criminal and involved in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the American people.

  22. Why is this news? by shayd2 · · Score: 1

    I don't see any new material here. It was all given in earlier Slashdot posts

  23. Remember when slashdot wasnâ(TM)t so politica by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 1

    Yeah me too. Granted the FCC has become useless for citizens the last 18 months but the discussion on the stories here has really suffered.

  24. Ajit and all other responsible partys by Grand+Facade · · Score: 1

    need to fall on their sword

    I don't believe they have my/our interests at heart

    --
    Rick B.
    1. Re:Ajit and all other responsible partys by zlives · · Score: 1

      no need to fall on the sword, the PardonerInCheif to the rescue.

  25. Re:Remember when slashdot wasnâ(TM)t so polit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I started visiting Slashdot in 1999 and it was already political back then.

  26. Pot meet kettle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except when you're the foreign power fucking around in other countries elections.

  27. Re: proverbial jig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As opposed to a regular jig?

    Why not put scare quotes around jig, too, just to look extra stupid?

  28. Yakkity yak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop Yakking about shit you know nothing about. I abate asbestos. What you describe is asbestosis and is dose and time dependent. Mesothelioma is not. In theory, one fiber that manages to penetrate into the layers between the lung walls can become a tumor. To further back that up, sufferers of mesothelioma are usually NOT the person working with the asbestos. It's usually thier family members from where the worker carries all that dust and shit home.

    So in a not-so-twisted sense, you're just an EPA bootlicker. Kissing thier ass on slashdot isn't gonna get you a job there, bro.

  29. fuck you alvin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He gave you EXACTLY what you were asking for and you still shat all over him and his post. You bitch at him for never saying anything good about rump but your ass can't say anything bad about him. You give him a pass on anything because in your mind it's still better than a democrat. You're both partisan shills but the Pope can show proof, as he did. Just because you don't fucking like being called out for what you support means less than nothing. The truth hurts, bitch.

  30. Re: Remember when slashdot wasnâ(TM)t so poli by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 1

    Yeah, good for you son. Notice my UID? Color me unimpressed.

  31. Real reason by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    (Not that this really happened, I'm being funny here. I have no idea what really happened)

    They ran their comment system on a Windows box and it crashed and burned. The time it took them to get it back up was the time it took for the guy to drive from Dumfries VA to Washington, get in and hit the machine reset button. Being microsoft it errored coming up so he had to call Microsoft, pay $250 because they let their support run out and fix it.

    So call it a DDOS or tell the truth? Let's say it was a DDOS.