"I am particularly struck that the alleged bombers made use of online bombmaking guides like the Anarchist Cookbook and Inspire Magazine. These documents are not, in my view, protected by the First Amendment and should be removed from the Internet.
It is notable that she did not say who should remove these from the internet, or how. I don't agree with the idea of censoring the material, but her statement is so incomplete that it is really hard to tell what she is trying to say.
I know that here on slashdot she generally has an approval rating roughly on par with smallpox, but she could be given a little more slack on this statement.
While they don't have identical roles, it does sound like CNNIC is taking a page from the ICANN playbook by handing out more favors to better donors. Yet we trust the information that ICANN endorses...
This sounds more like the usual slashdot front page material. Someone forgot to mention that it also gives him the right to eat your firstborn - regardless of their age - but it is nonetheless much closer to what we usually see here now. It isn't funny, but neither were any of the April Fool's articles.
We frequently have more profound conspiracy theories on the front page of slashdot than this. This not only isn't interesting but it also doesn't encourage immediate removal of President Obama. I find this disappointing, and I'm sure other slashdot readers do as well (albeit perhaps for different reasons).
The rest of the GOP pack is a bunch of people who have been politicians for most of their life.
We could still see the godfather's pizza guy, and Trump keeps teasing us about planning to run as well. We also have Rand Paul, who is definitely running and was busy doing non-government stuff before running for senate. And don't forget that the last president from the GOP - as much as they encourage us to forget him - had more years of experience in business than in government.
Fiorina does kind of stand out as someone who has led a large company. Which would be better for her if her leadership wasn't absolutely terrible.
Don't forget, though, terrible leadership in business generally ends up ranking as "above average". HP does still exist as a company, so she did vastly better than a lot of other CEOs who drove their companies straight into the ground. Also remember that both of those strategies generally warrant multi-million dollar bonuses.
At least they have done something to warrant their publication costs. I figured the charges were just all going to the CEO, now we see that some very small part of them went to hire a CSci intern for a few weeks.
You don't read anyways, so it wouldn't matter if I specified sources or not. I gave specific reasons why I reject your conspiracy and the video you attempted to use to support it.
Your anger - likely stemming from the realization that not a single statement you have made yet is supported by anything resembling factual information - is so voluminous I can see it from my house. It's not helping your cause, though it is amusing watching it battle with your ego.
That's why the first question they ask you is "Do you know how fast you were going?"
The last time I was pulled over for speeding - a couple decades ago - I recall the question was "Do you know why I pulled you over?". I honestly answered, "No, I do not" as I was genuinely not speeding. In fact, the officer pulled a number out of thin air for my alleged "speed" that was beyond the abilities of the car I was driving (with a carbureted 70hp 4cyl engine) considering the mass of people in it (pushing 1,000 lbs including myself) and the proximity to the stop light that I had to stop completely for (about 40 feet).
He still insisted on writing a ticket. I returned to contest it when the time came up. Not a minor use of my time as it was a fair distance from home but it needed to be done. I started with a meeting with the DA who was willing to reduce the speed dramatically and offer me a plea bargain on account of the fact that I had a perfectly clean record.
One requirement of the plea was that the ticket would not be reported as long as I was not pulled over again in their county for 2 years. I haven't been back there since. The irony is I was in their county to go to the casino down there (when I was younger and less careful with my money), and I never went back there either. So that 100% bogus ticket cost them even more.
Why didn't I contest it down to zero? Because the only way to do that was to go back to their county for a second visit to the courthouse, and I never wanted to go back. The plea bargained payment was less than the value of my time and gas for a second trip.
Your reading comprehension is abysmal even for the crowd you idolize here on slashdot. I could layout a list of why it is obvious to anyone who read even your first comment to me that you couldn't carry an argument in a bucket, but that would be comically obvious to everyone but you, and you likely wouldn't learn anything from it.
Here's the thing. You don't win arguments by stating your opinion and shoving your fingers in your ears when facts are presented that discredit them all. You also don't win arguments by pretending that you never posted any non-factual opinions and following them up with conspiracies instead. And you most definitely don't win arguments by throwing petty insults at the person who dismantles your arguments.
You're always welcomed to post comments in my journal entries in the future again, but please do yourself a favor and post comments that are useful next time. You never posted anything that was more valuable (or arguably more relevant) than a birther claim. Then when you showed you weren't willing to read the replies that were posted to your comments you did nothing to earn any respect for your stance. If you want respect, show respect - and show some sources instead of just making wild fact-free claims (that have been debunked many times before) and ducking your head.
Unless, of course, your aspiration is for a career in comedy. You're almost on the right path for someone who aspires to be the next Colbert, but cursing in anger was not part of his act and wouldn't really have been much welcomed.
You have indeed conflated pro-business Republicanism with rank-and-file conservatism, as I suspected.
(But I'm glad to hear you opposed Obamacare.)
I would be willing to entertain the ACA as being non-conservative only if you're willing to entertain the idea that there is absolutely nothing liberal about a multi-billion dollar gift to giant for-profit corporations.
If you want to offer up a definition of conservative that excludes every elected federal member of congress, then I would like to know what it means to you for someone to be liberal. It could well be that you and I have very different ideas of conservative.
Yet you voted for him twice. What does that say about you?
You've asked that many times before. Apparently you didn't like the previous answer, no matter how many times I repeat it. So I won't bother repeating it again.
And for the viewing audience
That level of ego should not surprise me from you.
Surely you're not calling our slide into a police state, with government consuming an ever-growing percentage of GDP a move to the right.
I most certainly am. Those are moves that are in favor of corporate power, in favor of income stratification, in favor of power concentration, and in favor of opportunity oppression. Those are all hallmarks of the right and far-right.
Obamacare was move to the right??
That was the single largest corporate handout in the history of government. It is a move to the right without any shadow of a doubt. Furthermore there has not been a republican president in (at least) the last 5 decades who would not have voted for it had it been passed under his time in office.
these are all moves that liberals I know still applaud.
Then it's time you meet a liberal who knows what it means to be a liberal. There was nothing liberal about handing out billions to a morally bankrupt for-profit industry at the cost of the American citizens.
There are a few actual conservatives left in this country, and they'd still like to see us shrink the size of government as a percent of GDP,
Which we have done under the current POTUS more than any other POTUS in recent decades.
reduce taxes,
The current POTUS has reduced taxes - especially for the wealthiest of Americans - more than even Reagan. You should be beside yourself with that victory, instead you are angry about it.
reduce the intrusion of government into our personal lives
That's a fun one, there. If you want "less intrusion of the government into our personal lives" does that mean you support the recognition of same-sex marriage? After all, the government telling people they can't be acknowledged as married is a pretty clear intrusion into their personal lives.
While this time he does have a point - there needs to be an ethical discussion - he is another character who has ruffled a lot of feathers after winning his Nobel Prize. He's up there with James Watson and Kary Mullis in the realms of prize winners who some of us wish would just go away so we can go back to just doing science.
You haven't tried actual facts with me, yet. You started with a list of lies - not a single one of which you ever made an attempt to support with anything resembling a fact in the slightest. I called you out on those lies and then you reached for a conspiracy theory that you were only willing to try to "support" with a youtube video. Since then you've gone to attacking me instead.
I will not make any effort to present information unless you agree to accept information from given sources.
You once attempted one awful source and I told you why I was not interested in it. You have not attempted any other source. Since that point you have been obsessed with attacking me and spouting a meaningless conspiracy.
Your recent attempt to declare yourself the victor is amusing. The fact that you are being moderated down by your own conservative peers for being off your rocker shows that nobody finds you credible.
You have lied to - and about - me repeatedly. Lying about lying about - and to - me doesn't help change that. You would do better to just stop lying.
As to setting up other accounts... I've not done that.
And I never accused you of setting up the other accounts. If you had the reading comprehension of a third grader you would have realized that. I have tried to write responses to you as simply as possible as you are clearly of only very marginal literacy. Try setting your wounded ego aside for a bit before you make yourself look like an even more massive idiot than you already have. Hell, you're preaching in front of a conservative majority here and you're being moderated down - you're clearly doing something wrong.
I'm also too good at what I do to need to do it.
You are willing to lie, and are a frequent practitioner of lying. Good at it, though, I would say no. Someone who is good at lying would be able to make their lies look truthful (see: politicians). You lie all the time and your lies just come across as lies.
And concluding your comment with grade-school insults doesn't help your argument in any way, shape, or form. Indeed it mostly just reinforces that you are not prepared for a discussion based on facts.
This sounds like their m.o. for choosing the "best" candidates to move their agenda forward. Nobody fought ICANN on any of their shitty ideas in the past 5 or more years, why would anyone fight ESRB?
Here's a clue, for the clueless. You have dedicated a lot of time to lying about me (based mostly on what you refuse to read). However, there are already accounts set up for the purpose of lying about me, so you're late to the party. Repeating your same lies endlessly won't make them true, and you clearly have a problem with facts. You can't really save face at this point but you can at least stop making yourself look like more of an idiot (than what you have already demonstrated yourself to be) by giving up.
Now that you've lied about me in a discussion in a front page thread, there is a better chance that some of your friends here on slashdot will see what you have written. Slashdot doesn't allow you to edit your posts, but you can stop lying.
"Voter apathy," you mean. I for one don't want people who would only vote because of a legal requirement to do so. If they won't get out and vote on their own, they're certainly not going to take the time to make an informed decision.
No, I meant what I wrote. Disenfranchisement is a significant operation in this country right now.
That said, mandatory voting indeed does not mandate voters being informed. There are, however, plenty of voters who are informed but find voting to be so difficult - recall the disproportionately long voting lines in the 2004 and 2000 elections in particular - that they either don't bother to try any more or they go see the lines and go back home (or to work).
One thing that should be seriously considered is making election day a national holiday to guarantee that everyone has time to vote.
Wow, is that what you look like after reality comes crashing down on you? I wish I had a reset button I could give you so you wouldn't feel so embarrassed over what an idiot you made yourself look earlier... Unfortunately time doesn't work that way - and surely that must be Obama's fault, too, right?
Slashdot Mirror
"I am particularly struck that the alleged bombers made use of online bombmaking guides like the Anarchist Cookbook and Inspire Magazine. These documents are not, in my view, protected by the First Amendment and should be removed from the Internet.
It is notable that she did not say who should remove these from the internet, or how. I don't agree with the idea of censoring the material, but her statement is so incomplete that it is really hard to tell what she is trying to say.
I know that here on slashdot she generally has an approval rating roughly on par with smallpox, but she could be given a little more slack on this statement.
While they don't have identical roles, it does sound like CNNIC is taking a page from the ICANN playbook by handing out more favors to better donors. Yet we trust the information that ICANN endorses...
This sounds more like the usual slashdot front page material. Someone forgot to mention that it also gives him the right to eat your firstborn - regardless of their age - but it is nonetheless much closer to what we usually see here now. It isn't funny, but neither were any of the April Fool's articles.
We frequently have more profound conspiracy theories on the front page of slashdot than this. This not only isn't interesting but it also doesn't encourage immediate removal of President Obama. I find this disappointing, and I'm sure other slashdot readers do as well (albeit perhaps for different reasons).
This story isn't far off from some of the stuff that samzenpus typically allows to the front page.
I would moderate you up if I could. This is worse than not doing anything.
A great April 2nd story would be how Slashdot drove its readership away with bad April Fool's jokes.
That would be even harder to believe than an April Fool's joke claiming that slashdot still had readers before today.
The rest of the GOP pack is a bunch of people who have been politicians for most of their life.
We could still see the godfather's pizza guy, and Trump keeps teasing us about planning to run as well. We also have Rand Paul, who is definitely running and was busy doing non-government stuff before running for senate. And don't forget that the last president from the GOP - as much as they encourage us to forget him - had more years of experience in business than in government.
Fiorina does kind of stand out as someone who has led a large company. Which would be better for her if her leadership wasn't absolutely terrible.
Don't forget, though, terrible leadership in business generally ends up ranking as "above average". HP does still exist as a company, so she did vastly better than a lot of other CEOs who drove their companies straight into the ground. Also remember that both of those strategies generally warrant multi-million dollar bonuses.
She won't really stand out in the crowd of crazy that the GOP is already assembling.
At least they have done something to warrant their publication costs. I figured the charges were just all going to the CEO, now we see that some very small part of them went to hire a CSci intern for a few weeks.
After all, the website is broadbandmap.gov (no 's'). If he was going to broadbandmaps.gov he almost certainly did not get useful information.
You don't read anyways, so it wouldn't matter if I specified sources or not. I gave specific reasons why I reject your conspiracy and the video you attempted to use to support it.
Your anger - likely stemming from the realization that not a single statement you have made yet is supported by anything resembling factual information - is so voluminous I can see it from my house. It's not helping your cause, though it is amusing watching it battle with your ego.
That's why the first question they ask you is "Do you know how fast you were going?"
The last time I was pulled over for speeding - a couple decades ago - I recall the question was "Do you know why I pulled you over?". I honestly answered, "No, I do not" as I was genuinely not speeding. In fact, the officer pulled a number out of thin air for my alleged "speed" that was beyond the abilities of the car I was driving (with a carbureted 70hp 4cyl engine) considering the mass of people in it (pushing 1,000 lbs including myself) and the proximity to the stop light that I had to stop completely for (about 40 feet).
He still insisted on writing a ticket. I returned to contest it when the time came up. Not a minor use of my time as it was a fair distance from home but it needed to be done. I started with a meeting with the DA who was willing to reduce the speed dramatically and offer me a plea bargain on account of the fact that I had a perfectly clean record.
One requirement of the plea was that the ticket would not be reported as long as I was not pulled over again in their county for 2 years. I haven't been back there since. The irony is I was in their county to go to the casino down there (when I was younger and less careful with my money), and I never went back there either. So that 100% bogus ticket cost them even more.
Why didn't I contest it down to zero? Because the only way to do that was to go back to their county for a second visit to the courthouse, and I never wanted to go back. The plea bargained payment was less than the value of my time and gas for a second trip.
Your reading comprehension is abysmal even for the crowd you idolize here on slashdot. I could layout a list of why it is obvious to anyone who read even your first comment to me that you couldn't carry an argument in a bucket, but that would be comically obvious to everyone but you, and you likely wouldn't learn anything from it.
Here's the thing. You don't win arguments by stating your opinion and shoving your fingers in your ears when facts are presented that discredit them all. You also don't win arguments by pretending that you never posted any non-factual opinions and following them up with conspiracies instead. And you most definitely don't win arguments by throwing petty insults at the person who dismantles your arguments.
You're always welcomed to post comments in my journal entries in the future again, but please do yourself a favor and post comments that are useful next time. You never posted anything that was more valuable (or arguably more relevant) than a birther claim. Then when you showed you weren't willing to read the replies that were posted to your comments you did nothing to earn any respect for your stance. If you want respect, show respect - and show some sources instead of just making wild fact-free claims (that have been debunked many times before) and ducking your head.
Unless, of course, your aspiration is for a career in comedy. You're almost on the right path for someone who aspires to be the next Colbert, but cursing in anger was not part of his act and wouldn't really have been much welcomed.
You have indeed conflated pro-business Republicanism with rank-and-file conservatism, as I suspected.
(But I'm glad to hear you opposed Obamacare.)
I would be willing to entertain the ACA as being non-conservative only if you're willing to entertain the idea that there is absolutely nothing liberal about a multi-billion dollar gift to giant for-profit corporations.
If you want to offer up a definition of conservative that excludes every elected federal member of congress, then I would like to know what it means to you for someone to be liberal. It could well be that you and I have very different ideas of conservative.
Yet you voted for him twice. What does that say about you?
You've asked that many times before. Apparently you didn't like the previous answer, no matter how many times I repeat it. So I won't bother repeating it again.
And for the viewing audience
That level of ego should not surprise me from you.
Surely you're not calling our slide into a police state, with government consuming an ever-growing percentage of GDP a move to the right.
I most certainly am. Those are moves that are in favor of corporate power, in favor of income stratification, in favor of power concentration, and in favor of opportunity oppression. Those are all hallmarks of the right and far-right.
Obamacare was move to the right??
That was the single largest corporate handout in the history of government. It is a move to the right without any shadow of a doubt. Furthermore there has not been a republican president in (at least) the last 5 decades who would not have voted for it had it been passed under his time in office.
these are all moves that liberals I know still applaud.
Then it's time you meet a liberal who knows what it means to be a liberal. There was nothing liberal about handing out billions to a morally bankrupt for-profit industry at the cost of the American citizens.
There are a few actual conservatives left in this country, and they'd still like to see us shrink the size of government as a percent of GDP,
Which we have done under the current POTUS more than any other POTUS in recent decades.
reduce taxes,
The current POTUS has reduced taxes - especially for the wealthiest of Americans - more than even Reagan. You should be beside yourself with that victory, instead you are angry about it.
reduce the intrusion of government into our personal lives
That's a fun one, there. If you want "less intrusion of the government into our personal lives" does that mean you support the recognition of same-sex marriage? After all, the government telling people they can't be acknowledged as married is a pretty clear intrusion into their personal lives.
While this time he does have a point - there needs to be an ethical discussion - he is another character who has ruffled a lot of feathers after winning his Nobel Prize. He's up there with James Watson and Kary Mullis in the realms of prize winners who some of us wish would just go away so we can go back to just doing science.
I use facts with people that listen to them.
You haven't tried actual facts with me, yet. You started with a list of lies - not a single one of which you ever made an attempt to support with anything resembling a fact in the slightest. I called you out on those lies and then you reached for a conspiracy theory that you were only willing to try to "support" with a youtube video. Since then you've gone to attacking me instead.
I will not make any effort to present information unless you agree to accept information from given sources.
You once attempted one awful source and I told you why I was not interested in it. You have not attempted any other source. Since that point you have been obsessed with attacking me and spouting a meaningless conspiracy.
Your recent attempt to declare yourself the victor is amusing. The fact that you are being moderated down by your own conservative peers for being off your rocker shows that nobody finds you credible.
I haven't lied to you.
You have lied to - and about - me repeatedly. Lying about lying about - and to - me doesn't help change that. You would do better to just stop lying.
As to setting up other accounts... I've not done that.
And I never accused you of setting up the other accounts. If you had the reading comprehension of a third grader you would have realized that. I have tried to write responses to you as simply as possible as you are clearly of only very marginal literacy. Try setting your wounded ego aside for a bit before you make yourself look like an even more massive idiot than you already have. Hell, you're preaching in front of a conservative majority here and you're being moderated down - you're clearly doing something wrong.
I'm also too good at what I do to need to do it.
You are willing to lie, and are a frequent practitioner of lying. Good at it, though, I would say no. Someone who is good at lying would be able to make their lies look truthful (see: politicians). You lie all the time and your lies just come across as lies.
And concluding your comment with grade-school insults doesn't help your argument in any way, shape, or form. Indeed it mostly just reinforces that you are not prepared for a discussion based on facts.
This sounds like their m.o. for choosing the "best" candidates to move their agenda forward. Nobody fought ICANN on any of their shitty ideas in the past 5 or more years, why would anyone fight ESRB?
Here's a clue, for the clueless. You have dedicated a lot of time to lying about me (based mostly on what you refuse to read). However, there are already accounts set up for the purpose of lying about me, so you're late to the party. Repeating your same lies endlessly won't make them true, and you clearly have a problem with facts. You can't really save face at this point but you can at least stop making yourself look like more of an idiot (than what you have already demonstrated yourself to be) by giving up.
Now that you've lied about me in a discussion in a front page thread, there is a better chance that some of your friends here on slashdot will see what you have written. Slashdot doesn't allow you to edit your posts, but you can stop lying.
"Voter apathy," you mean. I for one don't want people who would only vote because of a legal requirement to do so. If they won't get out and vote on their own, they're certainly not going to take the time to make an informed decision.
No, I meant what I wrote. Disenfranchisement is a significant operation in this country right now.
That said, mandatory voting indeed does not mandate voters being informed. There are, however, plenty of voters who are informed but find voting to be so difficult - recall the disproportionately long voting lines in the 2004 and 2000 elections in particular - that they either don't bother to try any more or they go see the lines and go back home (or to work).
One thing that should be seriously considered is making election day a national holiday to guarantee that everyone has time to vote.
Your anger does not help your cause. Might be time to try facts instead. That would probably be a new m.o. for you, if you need help let me know.
Wow, is that what you look like after reality comes crashing down on you? I wish I had a reset button I could give you so you wouldn't feel so embarrassed over what an idiot you made yourself look earlier... Unfortunately time doesn't work that way - and surely that must be Obama's fault, too, right?