If Putin wanted a puppet in the White House who would be incompetent and allow him to do whatever he wanted, all he had to do was contribute to the Clinton Foundation and support Hillary.
Yeah, yeah, funny line for the late night comics, but the US has also pushed for sanctions that have crippled the Russian economy and greatly expanded oil developments and backing other countries' efforts to do the same, causing oil prices to crash and further wrecking Russian finances as well a Venezuela's as a bonus.
Obama's foreign policy had few real teeth, but they were hardly complicit with the Russians. But Putin detests Hillary Clinton, and has ever since she cast doubts on the legitimacy of his 2011 election. He's wanted to her out ever since then and has made no bones about it. Not only that, but now that he has a real ally in the White House, not to mention a real buddy as Secretary of State, and that's a huge upgrade from Putin's perspective over Hillary. He doesn't HAVE to scrape together minor victories in his quest to make Russia the dominant power, he has someone to actively collaborate with.
Look at America's global strength pre ww2 and post ww2. Turns out when you show up late to the war and clean up all the spoils it really works out well.
America sent out incredible amounts of material and manpower, but the real reason that America turned out ok after WW2 was that it wasn't invaded. Not having its buildings and infrastructure blown up were the spoils that the US cleaned up.
Nice attempt at trying to obfuscate the discussion and completely dodge the point that I made. As you failed to do that, the point still stands.
Bringing transparency to a democratic process is not a threat.
Only if transparency is brought equally, otherwise it is a threat and an attack. Everyone's got bad stuff in their closet. If only one group has that bad stuff exposed, well they'll look pretty crappy in comparison to the folks who pretend they're saints while thanking the Lord that their every secret was not exposed.
This is the entire thrust behind David Brin's The Transparent Society**: transparency has to be applied to all, otherwise it's just another weapon and power structure to be wielded by those who get to keep their privacy against those who do not. The exposure of secrets has to apply to both sides.
** (Not that I agree with Brin on the benefits vs costs of the transparent society)
The creator of a work is not necessarily the rights holder.
If the creator and rights holder is fighting with each other over how to distribute music, the rights holders have far bigger problems than, and won't care about, people downloading the music from the creators.
Wow, that is the strawest straw-man I have ever seen.
You sure that's a strawman? We hear that nonsense spouted by the Libertarians on Slashdot all the time. And most of it are real things that America did dabble with at the end of the 1900s. That was real life back then. Don't think it can't happen.
Even if the government had never funded the Internet, it is possible that something similar would have been developed
The federal government didn't prohibit other services. There were BBSes. Compuserve. Prodigy. Even AOL a bit later. They SUCKED. The government option's way was far superior. I have no problems with the way things turned out, except for the whole "ISPs own the local lines." We've gotten screwed over by that, but otherwise things were pretty good.
The top 1 percent (1.3 million filers) paid a greater share of income taxes (38.1 percent) than the bottom 90 percent (122.4 million filers) combined (29.8 percent).
And yet, they are somehow richer than ever. The wealth disparity is immense, and the haves directly control exactly how high or low the wages are on the have-nots. Convenient how that works.
The Left failed to deliver for the Rust Belt and we got Trump. Heaven help us if California goes that direction and with our bullshit leadership it just might.
California tried that once and it got the Governator. It worked out ok.
Off-topic: We already have one overloaded word (hella, which sounds a bit too much like "hell of") that is apparently the responsibility of the SF Bay area. We don't need another (hecka). TIA.
Its amazing how many of our problems would go away if we honestly cared about life. e.g. replaced the urge to make babies until we helped the ones that can be saved
The problem is completing that goal is something you can never achieve. There will always be babies in need of saving. The question then becomes well.. how long do you wait? For most people having a family is THE goal in life -- there is literally no higher calling. They aren't just going to say "well my life is not going to have the one important thing I wanted that defines me as a human being.. but all those illegal immigrants coming into the country get to raise a family here." No way. There are so many emotional barriers to that happening that it's hard to contemplate.
I also love all you assholes who point out that this is LEGAL. Who cares? LEGAL AND MORAL ARE NOT EQUAL. There is no law that prevents a company from acting in a moral manner. That B.S. half of you shills spout about a company having to maximize profits is a LIE. No such law exists.
There are a lot of devotees of Ayn Rand here on Slashdot. The Randians believe that the one and only moral thing is rational self-interest. They will favor doing whatever it takes to get ahead.
Still trying to wrap my head around the notion that this country isn't great
America isn't great, because if it's great, it's much harder for those not currently in power to use the tried and true method of acquiring it: 1) Tell you that you have a big problem. 2) Sell you the solution of that problem.
They actively worked to sabotage the US economy, threatening to shut down the US government at a time when the economy was weak and insighted war with Iran with the Stated goal of damaging the United States so that people would blame the damage on Obama and the Democratic party.
Only by the most tortured, left-wing rationalization of events is that anything close to being true. Of course, the Republicans want to take Obama out, he was going to be a "one term President," at least that was their stated goal. "Actively working to sabotage the US economy" is nonsense, and most Republicans will whole-heartedly believe that it is the increasing size of the federal government that is the greatest drain on the economy and the recovery. A government shut down would be worth the pain if it resulted in budget cuts and departmental slashing.
"I don't believe in Republican policies, therefore terrorism" just lessens the word terrorism.
everyone here probably rooted their phones and used it as the full featured computer it is.
Except when you do that, you're stuck on an old OS, because OS updates disable the phone rooting and close the security holes that allowed the root to happen in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
If Putin wanted a puppet in the White House who would be incompetent and allow him to do whatever he wanted, all he had to do was contribute to the Clinton Foundation and support Hillary.
Yeah, yeah, funny line for the late night comics, but the US has also pushed for sanctions that have crippled the Russian economy and greatly expanded oil developments and backing other countries' efforts to do the same, causing oil prices to crash and further wrecking Russian finances as well a Venezuela's as a bonus.
Obama's foreign policy had few real teeth, but they were hardly complicit with the Russians. But Putin detests Hillary Clinton, and has ever since she cast doubts on the legitimacy of his 2011 election. He's wanted to her out ever since then and has made no bones about it. Not only that, but now that he has a real ally in the White House, not to mention a real buddy as Secretary of State, and that's a huge upgrade from Putin's perspective over Hillary. He doesn't HAVE to scrape together minor victories in his quest to make Russia the dominant power, he has someone to actively collaborate with.
Look at America's global strength pre ww2 and post ww2. Turns out when you show up late to the war and clean up all the spoils it really works out well.
America sent out incredible amounts of material and manpower, but the real reason that America turned out ok after WW2 was that it wasn't invaded. Not having its buildings and infrastructure blown up were the spoils that the US cleaned up.
Nice attempt at trying to obfuscate the discussion and completely dodge the point that I made. As you failed to do that, the point still stands.
Bringing transparency to a democratic process is not a threat.
Only if transparency is brought equally, otherwise it is a threat and an attack. Everyone's got bad stuff in their closet. If only one group has that bad stuff exposed, well they'll look pretty crappy in comparison to the folks who pretend they're saints while thanking the Lord that their every secret was not exposed.
This is the entire thrust behind David Brin's The Transparent Society**: transparency has to be applied to all, otherwise it's just another weapon and power structure to be wielded by those who get to keep their privacy against those who do not. The exposure of secrets has to apply to both sides.
** (Not that I agree with Brin on the benefits vs costs of the transparent society)
The creator of a work is not necessarily the rights holder.
If the creator and rights holder is fighting with each other over how to distribute music, the rights holders have far bigger problems than, and won't care about, people downloading the music from the creators.
Wow, that is the strawest straw-man I have ever seen.
You sure that's a strawman? We hear that nonsense spouted by the Libertarians on Slashdot all the time. And most of it are real things that America did dabble with at the end of the 1900s. That was real life back then. Don't think it can't happen.
Are you complaining about being on the loosing side of the Civil War?
Do you really miss slavery that much?
You are a real piece of shit.
He didn't say he did, so don't put words in his mouth, mister strawman.
Even if the government had never funded the Internet, it is possible that something similar would have been developed
The federal government didn't prohibit other services. There were BBSes. Compuserve. Prodigy. Even AOL a bit later. They SUCKED. The government option's way was far superior. I have no problems with the way things turned out, except for the whole "ISPs own the local lines." We've gotten screwed over by that, but otherwise things were pretty good.
The top 1 percent (1.3 million filers) paid a greater share of income taxes (38.1 percent) than the bottom 90 percent (122.4 million filers) combined (29.8 percent).
And yet, they are somehow richer than ever. The wealth disparity is immense, and the haves directly control exactly how high or low the wages are on the have-nots. Convenient how that works.
The Left failed to deliver for the Rust Belt and we got Trump. Heaven help us if California goes that direction and with our bullshit leadership it just might.
California tried that once and it got the Governator. It worked out ok.
The trick is to simplify your life, and get rid of junk you don't need
Like relatives!
Good post.
Off-topic: We already have one overloaded word (hella, which sounds a bit too much like "hell of") that is apparently the responsibility of the SF Bay area. We don't need another (hecka). TIA.
Hella is more of a Southern California thing.
Its amazing how many of our problems would go away if we honestly cared about life. e.g. replaced the urge to make babies until we helped the ones that can be saved
The problem is completing that goal is something you can never achieve. There will always be babies in need of saving. The question then becomes well.. how long do you wait? For most people having a family is THE goal in life -- there is literally no higher calling. They aren't just going to say "well my life is not going to have the one important thing I wanted that defines me as a human being.. but all those illegal immigrants coming into the country get to raise a family here." No way. There are so many emotional barriers to that happening that it's hard to contemplate.
The way to fix this is to have the US corporate tax rate be competitive with foreign tax rates.
Yay, a race to the bottom! Then everyone can be third world together!
I also love all you assholes who point out that this is LEGAL. Who cares? LEGAL AND MORAL ARE NOT EQUAL. There is no law that prevents a company from acting in a moral manner. That B.S. half of you shills spout about a company having to maximize profits is a LIE. No such law exists.
There are a lot of devotees of Ayn Rand here on Slashdot. The Randians believe that the one and only moral thing is rational self-interest. They will favor doing whatever it takes to get ahead.
So who are you infuriated at? The companies that take advantage of those loopholes, or the politicians that put them there?
Both. They are entangled. The businesses support those who put them there, and the politicians pay back the businesses who pay them.
Maybe, but this time it's the BBC posting the dupe.
He's been doing that a lot in this story. I just have to think it's an intentional part of the charm.
Still trying to wrap my head around the notion that this country isn't great
America isn't great, because if it's great, it's much harder for those not currently in power to use the tried and true method of acquiring it:
1) Tell you that you have a big problem.
2) Sell you the solution of that problem.
I feel a small amount of sorrow.
Nowhere close to as much if it was a relative or a pet. But happy/sad is a spectrum, not a binary.
They actively worked to sabotage the US economy, threatening to shut down the US government at a time when the economy was weak and insighted war with Iran with the Stated goal of damaging the United States so that people would blame the damage on Obama and the Democratic party.
Only by the most tortured, left-wing rationalization of events is that anything close to being true. Of course, the Republicans want to take Obama out, he was going to be a "one term President," at least that was their stated goal. "Actively working to sabotage the US economy" is nonsense, and most Republicans will whole-heartedly believe that it is the increasing size of the federal government that is the greatest drain on the economy and the recovery. A government shut down would be worth the pain if it resulted in budget cuts and departmental slashing.
"I don't believe in Republican policies, therefore terrorism" just lessens the word terrorism.
Pretty sure he's talking about domesticating the cheetah, not just grabbing a wild cheetah and keeping it on a leash.
But cheetahs need to run, not much room in the city for them.
Reproduction and intelligence are inversely related. This is not good for us.
Not really, Idiocracy was a funny movie and all, but doesn't in any way match reality.
Aren't you special? I've never been asked if I'm going to have kids - from anyone.
Maybe everyone who knows you just shudders in horror at the thought of you having kids and decides it's not a good topic to bring up?
What entity is going to force birth control on the human population?
Oh, the perfect, uncorrupt, wonderful government that knows best.
From the "progressive" dreamland.
Hey, it beats the (un)"Free Market."
everyone here probably rooted their phones and used it as the full featured computer it is.
Except when you do that, you're stuck on an old OS, because OS updates disable the phone rooting and close the security holes that allowed the root to happen in the first place.