but widely disemminating such a document massively increased the chance of a leak
Except he did not "widely diseminate such a document". He had a "training seminar" and was asked for feedback, which he provided on an internal board reserved for such discussions internally.
AKA : he did nothing wrong at all. Google got bad press because they force everyone into "diversity training" and then don't like it when people don't think "skin color" or "gender" is a good attribute to base hirings on and lets them know the "seminar" was simply bad.
Right there is your problem. Of course there were other responses Trump could have made.
Well he could have done the Clinton-Bush-Obama method of sending them money, but obviously 20 years of doing that shows it's not a good solution.
And it's not like he did any differently than his predecessors, as Clinton and Obama both used the "But ours is bigger" method with North Korea in the past, without it resulting in thermonuclear war (because that would be way one sided and even the DPRK regime knows not to actually do anything). See here for information about how this is not a "Trump thing" :
So I don't know what else you propose, Arm chair president ? Ignoring the problem has done nothing, sending money to solve it as done nothing. Might as well just remind little "Rocket Boy" that the US' rockets are bigger and proven to work and leave it at that.
Again, says more about you that you want to spin this negatively. Obviously, you're not really afraid of nuclear war, as you're here on Slashdot instead of hiding in a bunker somewhere.
The more I read about politics on Slashdot, the more I see the damage that CNN/MSNBC and other left "news" is doing to the minds of people.
Your way of thinking seems to be that (a) Kim is unaware that the US has a large nuclear arsenal, (b) that there is literally no other response Trump could have made but to point that out to him (c) the president has a particular response he's looking for from Kim in response to this presumably new information.
Since I believe none of these are true
I feel you are simply unable to make accurate analysis of anything.
(a) Kim stated something to boast of North Korea's might. As North Korean and other dictators are prone to do.
(b) Trump simply stated a simple fact to put him in his place. There really was no other answer, as DPRK pretending to have any relevence in any arms race is laughable.
(c) Trump doesn't care what "Rocket boy" does moving forward, so long as he stops playing with his toys over our allies' countries.
I feel your issue is you want this to be a negative for Trump. You really feel that the man can't do anything right, and thus you put negative spin on everything, and you assume everything he does is out of malice against you.
I mean, I hope they got paid. If they didn't get paid to run this blatant advertisement for snake oil, they got ripped off.
A better story would've been about stuff that actually matters, like say "Today's package updates for Arch Linux" or something equally irrelevant as this "stupid idea from the 00s resurfaces" thing.
The site's icon is Pepe the fucking frog. The notion that this is an unbiased site where you can have a democrat leaning feed if you want it is laughable.
Pepe is bi-partisan. Pepe is used by everyone. You just mean progressives don't like Pepe because Hillary Clinton hated pepe and the SPLC dubbed it a hate symbol out of sheer ignorance of Internet culture. Progressives are just the radical wing of the Democrats after all. I'm sure you're a much more sensible liberal, not someone who thinks a cartoon frog used in memes is a hate symbol.
Trump tweets about moving the capital of Israel and the next day there are protests in the streets. The body count for that tweet was, I believe, 4 dead Palestinians.
He didn't just tweet that out though. They actually formally announced it during a press conference :
So no, in this case, it's not a tweet. And let's go further on that, something the media didn't do. This wasn't a Trump decision. It was a bi-partisan vote in congress that made legislation forcing the executive branch to move the embassy to Jerusalem. The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 established this :
So really, your beef and those "4 bodies" are on the hands of Congress, which voted 90% in favor of said legislation, on both sides of the aisle (Democrats and Republicans). So you know, just the little things you might want to know about what Trump does, before you accuse "Tweeting". This is far bigger than a single tweet.
Correct, the 2nd amendment is for self defense, not for influencing public policy (i.e. terrorism).
So if the Governement repealed the 1st amendment, and then Governement forces tried to batter down your door and kidnap you in the middle of the night because you said something that was disapproved by "The Party", you wouldn't use your guns in self defense ?
Same for 2nd and the Governement trying to take away your guns ?
Then I'm sorry to say you're anti-constitution my friend. Maybe you just don't understand the concept of the Four Boxes of liberty :
It is not merely a statement of fact; it was the one fact out of all the facts in the universe that was selected. Since choice was involved, it clearly reflects at least somewhat on the chooser.
It was a reply to a statement made by the dictator in chief of North Korea. He didn't choose to post it out of thin air. Context matters. Your whole rant is based on you thinking he said this out of thin air, and thus you're just uninformed and angry about something that ultimately lies on you.
Again : says more about you than it does him. The statement was a simple fact. It was said in response to someone else mentioning a fact about nuclear arsenals in their own country.
Basically, it's like you saying you love the sound of your 1992 Civic's engine after talking about your timing belt blowing up, and me replying about how I just got done installing a Chevy big block V8 in my Corvette and that it purred at the drag strip. And then you go and call me an egomaniac or something. Sorry you have a bad Civic man. Not my fault. *shrug*
We should infer nothing from his choosing to mention this particular fact? Just how stupid do you think we are?
I wouldn't want to call you stupid, but he didn't choose to mention this fact out of thin air. It was a reply to Kim Jung Un who had mentionned a few days prior that he has a button on his desk at all times to launch his own arsenal, which is both factually smaller and not proven to work.
So I don't know what you are that you simply do not get it. Maybe you're just ill informed by the media you watch and fail to understand context ? Luckily that's easily solved by getting better sources of information.
Gab.ai is a social media network, it's not a news site. They also do not censor anyone. There is no republican lean. If you want to follow democrats on Gab.ai, you can do so, and your feed will be democrat leaning.
Unlike Twitter, they don't go out of their way to ban republicans and other right wing folk though.
He meant what the constitution says and it was strictly in the context of the judiciary trampling constitutional rights. If the governement gets out of line and tries to ban guns/take away guns, that's what the 2nd amendment is for.
AKA, if Hillary nominates anti-2nd judges, the 2nd amendment is there to protect said 2nd amendment rights to begin with.
The full context:
Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick --if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know. But I'll tell you what, that will be a horrible day, if -- if -- Hillary gets to put her judges in.
You're saying you're against using your 2nd amendment rights when the governement threatens said rights ? So you're anti-constitution I take it.
So you want to ban the man from tweeting because the media in the US only care to push their anti-Trump narrative and thus try to dissect his tweets to make them sound bad/worse instead of reporting actual news ? Maybe instead of removing his freedom to tweet, you should do something about the "Fake News media", like watch actual news instead of CNN/MSNBC.
The implicit message is literally "The US' nuclear arsenal is one of the biggest in the world and proven to work". It's a simple fact. You can't even deny this fact. That's it.
Reading more than that into it says more about you than it does him.
Because quite a bunch of you have no idea what a Thermostat is, or why it's even "Internet enabled" to begin with if you think is even remotely close to being an issue. How can you call yourselves nerds and not even have a smidgen of a clue of how a Thermostat operates and what it is used for ?
The heck do Internet thermostats even have to do with this story ? ISP throttles you if they catch you infringing copyright. That's it. That doesn't impact your Thermostat at all.
Even my freaking Grand mother knows what a Thermostat is and how it operates.
The problem with "pure" competition over the last mile of infrastructure is: barriers to entry
Because of *drumroll*, governement granted monopolies. You know, more regulations we could repeal.
You'll make a fine Republican someday, you're almost there!
You even know that net neutrality was the de facto standard since the 1980s?
You even know that the FCC regulations being repealed are from 2015 ? You even know that Clinton era regulations that we're going back to date back to 1996 ?
It's funny you bring up 1980. You know, the days when the Internet was unregulated, in an attempt to discredit my "Don't regulate the Internet" post. You ended up solidifying my position.
Why would content providers cripple their own services? For what gain?
Dunno, ask Netflix. They literally did what the parent was saying to AT&T and Verizon customers just 2 years ago. Also, there was that little thing about throttling Comcast to force them to provide free hosting for a "Netflix box", not to mention the throttling Cogent, Netflix's ISP, did that got blamed on Telcos and Cable providers.
If you really think Content providers aren't up to shenanigans themselves, you're deluded. Both sides are as bad. Regulations that only apply to one side are equally as bad. If they are lobbying for it, there's good chance it's not "pro consumer".
There is no public good in having more and more governement intervention in the Internet. We need even less. Remove monopolies from Telcos/Cable companies, repeal Net Neutrality rules. Let the corporations compete to give you the best and cheapest Internet.
Forcing them to do it will only result in more and more and more rules being made, and upping the barrier of entry into the market for smaller businesses wanting to provide good Internet service.
we're all for corporate interests lobbying for laws ?
And Google and Facebook of all places lobbying for "Neutrality" of packets, while at the same time being biased in their handling of their user generated content platforms ?
The Slashdot crowd cheering for this really has lost it if they think any of this is in their best interest.
Slashdot Mirror
Then why are Christian bakers forced to make cakes and pay damages to couples for same-sex marriages ?
Aren't Christian Bakers privately owned ?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oregon-lgbt/oregon-appeals-court-upholds-damages-in-gay-wedding-cake-case-idUSKBN1EN01V
mmmmh ?
Race and Gender are indeed both protected classes. Political affiliations can also be depending on the jurisdiction.
This is surprising to you ?
but widely disemminating such a document massively increased the chance of a leak
Except he did not "widely diseminate such a document". He had a "training seminar" and was asked for feedback, which he provided on an internal board reserved for such discussions internally.
AKA : he did nothing wrong at all. Google got bad press because they force everyone into "diversity training" and then don't like it when people don't think "skin color" or "gender" is a good attribute to base hirings on and lets them know the "seminar" was simply bad.
Did you even read the memo ?
A good idea for sure. What could go wrong ?
Right there is your problem. Of course there were other responses Trump could have made.
Well he could have done the Clinton-Bush-Obama method of sending them money, but obviously 20 years of doing that shows it's not a good solution.
And it's not like he did any differently than his predecessors, as Clinton and Obama both used the "But ours is bigger" method with North Korea in the past, without it resulting in thermonuclear war (because that would be way one sided and even the DPRK regime knows not to actually do anything). See here for information about how this is not a "Trump thing" :
https://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11574251&cid=55874713
So I don't know what else you propose, Arm chair president ? Ignoring the problem has done nothing, sending money to solve it as done nothing. Might as well just remind little "Rocket Boy" that the US' rockets are bigger and proven to work and leave it at that.
Again, says more about you that you want to spin this negatively. Obviously, you're not really afraid of nuclear war, as you're here on Slashdot instead of hiding in a bunker somewhere.
The more I read about politics on Slashdot, the more I see the damage that CNN/MSNBC and other left "news" is doing to the minds of people.
Because they thought backpacking with only a sketchy non transaction oriented currency was a good idea.
Shows that crypto currencies aren't just being used by bright people.
Your way of thinking seems to be that (a) Kim is unaware that the US has a large nuclear arsenal, (b) that there is literally no other response Trump could have made but to point that out to him (c) the president has a particular response he's looking for from Kim in response to this presumably new information.
Since I believe none of these are true
I feel you are simply unable to make accurate analysis of anything.
(a) Kim stated something to boast of North Korea's might. As North Korean and other dictators are prone to do.
(b) Trump simply stated a simple fact to put him in his place. There really was no other answer, as DPRK pretending to have any relevence in any arms race is laughable.
(c) Trump doesn't care what "Rocket boy" does moving forward, so long as he stops playing with his toys over our allies' countries.
I feel your issue is you want this to be a negative for Trump. You really feel that the man can't do anything right, and thus you put negative spin on everything, and you assume everything he does is out of malice against you.
I mean, I hope they got paid. If they didn't get paid to run this blatant advertisement for snake oil, they got ripped off.
A better story would've been about stuff that actually matters, like say "Today's package updates for Arch Linux" or something equally irrelevant as this "stupid idea from the 00s resurfaces" thing.
The site's icon is Pepe the fucking frog. The notion that this is an unbiased site where you can have a democrat leaning feed if you want it is laughable.
Pepe is bi-partisan. Pepe is used by everyone. You just mean progressives don't like Pepe because Hillary Clinton hated pepe and the SPLC dubbed it a hate symbol out of sheer ignorance of Internet culture. Progressives are just the radical wing of the Democrats after all. I'm sure you're a much more sensible liberal, not someone who thinks a cartoon frog used in memes is a hate symbol.
Trump tweets about moving the capital of Israel and the next day there are protests in the streets. The body count for that tweet was, I believe, 4 dead Palestinians.
He didn't just tweet that out though. They actually formally announced it during a press conference :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk596vBap7c
So no, in this case, it's not a tweet. And let's go further on that, something the media didn't do. This wasn't a Trump decision. It was a bi-partisan vote in congress that made legislation forcing the executive branch to move the embassy to Jerusalem. The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 established this :
https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ45/PLAW-104publ45.pdf
So really, your beef and those "4 bodies" are on the hands of Congress, which voted 90% in favor of said legislation, on both sides of the aisle (Democrats and Republicans). So you know, just the little things you might want to know about what Trump does, before you accuse "Tweeting". This is far bigger than a single tweet.
Do you have a better example ?
Correct, the 2nd amendment is for self defense, not for influencing public policy (i.e. terrorism).
So if the Governement repealed the 1st amendment, and then Governement forces tried to batter down your door and kidnap you in the middle of the night because you said something that was disapproved by "The Party", you wouldn't use your guns in self defense ?
Same for 2nd and the Governement trying to take away your guns ?
Then I'm sorry to say you're anti-constitution my friend. Maybe you just don't understand the concept of the Four Boxes of liberty :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty
It is not merely a statement of fact; it was the one fact out of all the facts in the universe that was selected. Since choice was involved, it clearly reflects at least somewhat on the chooser.
It was a reply to a statement made by the dictator in chief of North Korea. He didn't choose to post it out of thin air. Context matters. Your whole rant is based on you thinking he said this out of thin air, and thus you're just uninformed and angry about something that ultimately lies on you.
Again : says more about you than it does him. The statement was a simple fact. It was said in response to someone else mentioning a fact about nuclear arsenals in their own country.
Basically, it's like you saying you love the sound of your 1992 Civic's engine after talking about your timing belt blowing up, and me replying about how I just got done installing a Chevy big block V8 in my Corvette and that it purred at the drag strip. And then you go and call me an egomaniac or something. Sorry you have a bad Civic man. Not my fault. *shrug*
We should infer nothing from his choosing to mention this particular fact? Just how stupid do you think we are?
I wouldn't want to call you stupid, but he didn't choose to mention this fact out of thin air. It was a reply to Kim Jung Un who had mentionned a few days prior that he has a button on his desk at all times to launch his own arsenal, which is both factually smaller and not proven to work.
So I don't know what you are that you simply do not get it. Maybe you're just ill informed by the media you watch and fail to understand context ? Luckily that's easily solved by getting better sources of information.
Gab.ai is a social media network, it's not a news site. They also do not censor anyone. There is no republican lean. If you want to follow democrats on Gab.ai, you can do so, and your feed will be democrat leaning.
Unlike Twitter, they don't go out of their way to ban republicans and other right wing folk though.
He meant what the constitution says and it was strictly in the context of the judiciary trampling constitutional rights. If the governement gets out of line and tries to ban guns/take away guns, that's what the 2nd amendment is for.
AKA, if Hillary nominates anti-2nd judges, the 2nd amendment is there to protect said 2nd amendment rights to begin with.
The full context :
Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick --if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know. But I'll tell you what, that will be a horrible day, if -- if -- Hillary gets to put her judges in.
You're saying you're against using your 2nd amendment rights when the governement threatens said rights ? So you're anti-constitution I take it.
So you want to ban the man from tweeting because the media in the US only care to push their anti-Trump narrative and thus try to dissect his tweets to make them sound bad/worse instead of reporting actual news ? Maybe instead of removing his freedom to tweet, you should do something about the "Fake News media", like watch actual news instead of CNN/MSNBC.
So what you're saying is he's pro constitution and pro law enforcement. And you think that's bad ?
The implicit message is literally "The US' nuclear arsenal is one of the biggest in the world and proven to work". It's a simple fact. You can't even deny this fact. That's it.
Reading more than that into it says more about you than it does him.
You know, you can just not read his tweets if you don't like what he says ?
Some of us enjoy his candor and his trolling skills.
Can you link said tweet ? Of course you can't since he never threatened nuclear war.
He just factually stated that the US nuclear arsenal is both functioning and bigger than a certain other country's which is both unproven and smaller.
Stating facts is not a threat.
Because quite a bunch of you have no idea what a Thermostat is, or why it's even "Internet enabled" to begin with if you think is even remotely close to being an issue. How can you call yourselves nerds and not even have a smidgen of a clue of how a Thermostat operates and what it is used for ?
The heck do Internet thermostats even have to do with this story ? ISP throttles you if they catch you infringing copyright. That's it. That doesn't impact your Thermostat at all.
Even my freaking Grand mother knows what a Thermostat is and how it operates.
The problem with "pure" competition over the last mile of infrastructure is: barriers to entry
Because of *drumroll*, governement granted monopolies. You know, more regulations we could repeal.
You'll make a fine Republican someday, you're almost there!
You even know that net neutrality was the de facto standard since the 1980s?
You even know that the FCC regulations being repealed are from 2015 ? You even know that Clinton era regulations that we're going back to date back to 1996 ?
It's funny you bring up 1980. You know, the days when the Internet was unregulated, in an attempt to discredit my "Don't regulate the Internet" post. You ended up solidifying my position.
Why would content providers cripple their own services? For what gain?
Dunno, ask Netflix. They literally did what the parent was saying to AT&T and Verizon customers just 2 years ago. Also, there was that little thing about throttling Comcast to force them to provide free hosting for a "Netflix box", not to mention the throttling Cogent, Netflix's ISP, did that got blamed on Telcos and Cable providers.
If you really think Content providers aren't up to shenanigans themselves, you're deluded. Both sides are as bad. Regulations that only apply to one side are equally as bad. If they are lobbying for it, there's good chance it's not "pro consumer".
There is no public good in having more and more governement intervention in the Internet. We need even less. Remove monopolies from Telcos/Cable companies, repeal Net Neutrality rules. Let the corporations compete to give you the best and cheapest Internet.
Forcing them to do it will only result in more and more and more rules being made, and upping the barrier of entry into the market for smaller businesses wanting to provide good Internet service.
we're all for corporate interests lobbying for laws ?
And Google and Facebook of all places lobbying for "Neutrality" of packets, while at the same time being biased in their handling of their user generated content platforms ?
The Slashdot crowd cheering for this really has lost it if they think any of this is in their best interest.