The ability to blame Russia keeps the Democratic party from fixing it's internal corruption and winning elections. Russiagate has already made the entire American news system shit the bed over basic journalistic integrity and understanding which direction time moves in.
The Russian propaganda is "Your politicians don't listen to you and your democracy is a farce." That line is a lot harder to sell if you are politicians DO listen to you, and your democracy ISN'T a farce.
For example, had the Democratic nominee been Bernie Sanders, the emails showing the corruption of the DNC would HELP him, not hurt him, because it would paint him as an underdog fighting against corruption. THAT would be an effective countermeasure.
I'm sure you'd like to, but you'd be wrong. America was shouting at the top of their lungs for populism, and the Dems rigged the primary for the most status quo candidate possible.
In May's case: NOT trying to gain political power by having a Brexit referendum that you didn't actually want to pass.
In Clinton's case: NOT telling Trump to run. NOT having your campaign ask the media to take Trump seriously (a.k.a. the "Pied Piper" strategy). NOT sabotaging her primary opponent. NOT nominating a VP whose picture was in the dictionary next to 'milquetoast.' NOT giving highly paid speeches to banks that destroyed the global economy. Stepping foot in the Rust Belt. Supporting popular policies, such as a $15 minimum wage, legalizing marijuana, and not getting into more wars. Or just not NOT running for president after she was the villain that Obama inspirationally overcame in the last primary. Change any one of those, and we wouldn't have President Trump.
Economically, most of what I'm asking for is to go back to the immense success of America before Ronald Reagan's Alzheimer-riddled idiocy implemented some bullshit written on the back of a napkin while Cheney and Rumsfeld were in the room, because you can't do anything stupid in America without them, apparently. Hell, Bernie's platform only winded the clock back to roughly Ronnie's FIRST term.
My slashdot history is full of posts asking for Donald Trump to be shot into the sun. I'm not a sockpuppet, I just hate losers who continue to use failed strategies, especially when those strategies get in the way of actual left wing policies being passed. Get rid of the Clintonites and replace them with actual progressives, and Trump and his ilk don't stand a chance.
It would be a lot more believable if there were any signs of using EFFECTIVE methods of countering Russian propaganda. A commonly stated goal of Russia is to undermine faith in western democracies. Instead of changing policies to restore faith, they are using Russia to avoid actually implementing populist agendas.
The problem is that it's just an excuse by liberal elites to not take responsibility for abandoning their voter bases. Even if Russia did interfere, the best solution would be to adopt populist left policies, but that would mean rich assholes would have to actually pay taxes, and that the "centrist" corporate cocksuckers would need to die out like the dinosaurs they are.
I don't find this scary in and of itself because we're already at the point where we could destroy human civilization several times over, and have been for decades. I'm far more concerned that so many are goading Trump into escalating with Russia to "prove" he isn't a puppet.
Such information being made public so quickly seems to be in line with the "make people fear the Russians" campaign that's been going on since the election. Normally, this kind of thing would be classified (we overclassify EVERYTHING, and Russian nuclear capabilities is a legit secret), so a public release likely indicates an attempt to shape policy. IIRC, US intel overestimated the number of Soviet nukes by an order of magnitude, which made an easy sell for building a fuckton of nukes.
Yes, Putin is bad. Russia is bad. That doesn't mean we should trust something the Pentagon releases.
You can think that Trump is a criminal that should be shot into the sun, and still think that the "Russian collusion" angle is just bullshit the DNC made up to cover their asses.
To everyone complaining about the comparison between the top of bug hunters and the average software engineer, you are clearly missing the point. They aren't trying to present a meaningful comparison of two fields, they are trying to paint a statistically inaccurate picture of luxury in order to flood the market and drive average wages down. C'mon, is this everybody's first day on/. or something?
They look down on people that they PERCEIVE as arrogant asswipes. That can be because 1) they ARE arrogant asswipes, or 2) because they don't agree with you, insisting on facts or data that you won't acknowledge.
Slashdot loves to talk about how slashdot isn't as smart as they think they are, but won't consider that human cognition is a train wreck in regards to fitting within actual reason and logic.
The problem is that people confuse "what I think, feel and believe" with "genuine debate or skepticism." If you think you are being reasonable, but aren't treated like you are reasonable because you aren't reasonable, you are going to assume that the people disagreeing with you are smug assholes.
Decrying the value of intelligence greater than one's own, which implies that one's own inteligence is adequate, is practically the motto of "Mt Stupid," so I doubt the accuracy of your reading on Dunning-Krueger here.
You are assuming that people who call other people smartasses are correct in their assessment of behavior. The nature of empathy is that it's easy to be empathetic to people that are like us, and much harder to be empathetic to people that are different from us. This also applies to conceptions of behavior being appropriate or inappropriate. "People are pieces of shit, especially to someone different" is an adequate explanation for the given information.
What an idiot. The evidence is very clear: Hillary was a Russian agent. Why the hell else would her husband tell Trump to run, sabotage a very popular Dem candidate, and then have her campaign tell the media to take Trump seriously if she wasn't working for them?
To be fair, there is a major security flaw covering the majority of desktop CPUs sold over the last two decades. You are correct that they have not done proper testing, but this is on a ridiculous scale.
Slashdot Mirror
The ability to blame Russia keeps the Democratic party from fixing it's internal corruption and winning elections. Russiagate has already made the entire American news system shit the bed over basic journalistic integrity and understanding which direction time moves in.
What the hell "liberal polices" are you talking about? Obama passed Nixon's healthcare plan and expanded our wars into another 5 countries.
The Russian propaganda is "Your politicians don't listen to you and your democracy is a farce." That line is a lot harder to sell if you are politicians DO listen to you, and your democracy ISN'T a farce.
For example, had the Democratic nominee been Bernie Sanders, the emails showing the corruption of the DNC would HELP him, not hurt him, because it would paint him as an underdog fighting against corruption. THAT would be an effective countermeasure.
I'm sure you'd like to, but you'd be wrong. America was shouting at the top of their lungs for populism, and the Dems rigged the primary for the most status quo candidate possible.
In May's case: NOT trying to gain political power by having a Brexit referendum that you didn't actually want to pass.
In Clinton's case: NOT telling Trump to run. NOT having your campaign ask the media to take Trump seriously (a.k.a. the "Pied Piper" strategy). NOT sabotaging her primary opponent. NOT nominating a VP whose picture was in the dictionary next to 'milquetoast.' NOT giving highly paid speeches to banks that destroyed the global economy. Stepping foot in the Rust Belt. Supporting popular policies, such as a $15 minimum wage, legalizing marijuana, and not getting into more wars. Or just not NOT running for president after she was the villain that Obama inspirationally overcame in the last primary. Change any one of those, and we wouldn't have President Trump.
Of course we're done here. You're so fucking illiterate that you consider Ronald Reagan's tax brackets "communist."
Back to whine about how America isn't sucking off the rich enough, AC?
Economically, most of what I'm asking for is to go back to the immense success of America before Ronald Reagan's Alzheimer-riddled idiocy implemented some bullshit written on the back of a napkin while Cheney and Rumsfeld were in the room, because you can't do anything stupid in America without them, apparently. Hell, Bernie's platform only winded the clock back to roughly Ronnie's FIRST term.
So please, spare me your bullshit.
My slashdot history is full of posts asking for Donald Trump to be shot into the sun. I'm not a sockpuppet, I just hate losers who continue to use failed strategies, especially when those strategies get in the way of actual left wing policies being passed. Get rid of the Clintonites and replace them with actual progressives, and Trump and his ilk don't stand a chance.
It would be a lot more believable if there were any signs of using EFFECTIVE methods of countering Russian propaganda. A commonly stated goal of Russia is to undermine faith in western democracies. Instead of changing policies to restore faith, they are using Russia to avoid actually implementing populist agendas.
Yes. May made a poorly calculated risk, just like Clinton did. So, both blame Russia.
Except none of the groups blamed are extreme, outside of DC.
The problem is that it's just an excuse by liberal elites to not take responsibility for abandoning their voter bases. Even if Russia did interfere, the best solution would be to adopt populist left policies, but that would mean rich assholes would have to actually pay taxes, and that the "centrist" corporate cocksuckers would need to die out like the dinosaurs they are.
Truth. Hillary Clinton was the real Russian agent.
I don't find this scary in and of itself because we're already at the point where we could destroy human civilization several times over, and have been for decades. I'm far more concerned that so many are goading Trump into escalating with Russia to "prove" he isn't a puppet.
Such information being made public so quickly seems to be in line with the "make people fear the Russians" campaign that's been going on since the election. Normally, this kind of thing would be classified (we overclassify EVERYTHING, and Russian nuclear capabilities is a legit secret), so a public release likely indicates an attempt to shape policy. IIRC, US intel overestimated the number of Soviet nukes by an order of magnitude, which made an easy sell for building a fuckton of nukes.
Yes, Putin is bad. Russia is bad. That doesn't mean we should trust something the Pentagon releases.
You can think that Trump is a criminal that should be shot into the sun, and still think that the "Russian collusion" angle is just bullshit the DNC made up to cover their asses.
To everyone complaining about the comparison between the top of bug hunters and the average software engineer, you are clearly missing the point. They aren't trying to present a meaningful comparison of two fields, they are trying to paint a statistically inaccurate picture of luxury in order to flood the market and drive average wages down. C'mon, is this everybody's first day on /. or something?
They look down on people that they PERCEIVE as arrogant asswipes. That can be because 1) they ARE arrogant asswipes, or 2) because they don't agree with you, insisting on facts or data that you won't acknowledge.
Slashdot loves to talk about how slashdot isn't as smart as they think they are, but won't consider that human cognition is a train wreck in regards to fitting within actual reason and logic.
The problem is that people confuse "what I think, feel and believe" with "genuine debate or skepticism." If you think you are being reasonable, but aren't treated like you are reasonable because you aren't reasonable, you are going to assume that the people disagreeing with you are smug assholes.
Decrying the value of intelligence greater than one's own, which implies that one's own inteligence is adequate, is practically the motto of "Mt Stupid," so I doubt the accuracy of your reading on Dunning-Krueger here.
You are assuming that people who call other people smartasses are correct in their assessment of behavior. The nature of empathy is that it's easy to be empathetic to people that are like us, and much harder to be empathetic to people that are different from us. This also applies to conceptions of behavior being appropriate or inappropriate. "People are pieces of shit, especially to someone different" is an adequate explanation for the given information.
Having a leader that's too smart for their employees is like putting a jet engine on a smart car.
While perhaps not a perfect fit for the sentiment, I believe it's fairly well covered under "anti-intellectualism."
What an idiot. The evidence is very clear: Hillary was a Russian agent. Why the hell else would her husband tell Trump to run, sabotage a very popular Dem candidate, and then have her campaign tell the media to take Trump seriously if she wasn't working for them?
To be fair, there is a major security flaw covering the majority of desktop CPUs sold over the last two decades. You are correct that they have not done proper testing, but this is on a ridiculous scale.