At least on Facebook, one can edit their posts. Slashdot has a system which deliberately elicits the most visceral responses possible -- it rewards being 1st to post more than anything else. Certainly, 1st to post is rewarded more than accuracy here. Galloway is a marketing professor and he's been "predicting" that Amazon and Facebook would be targeted by the government for a while. I guess he is calling for it openly now. Maybe their relevance algorithms are too good? So good that they make him irrelevant? Hard to say. Of course, the fact that he took his message to a British publication is pretty telling. Brits are all too eager to give up their freedom for safety.
Oh, and just because I copied a quote from a previous comment to which I was replying, doesn't change the fact that you are in the tank for the Criminal Democratic party. Let me tell you something every Libertarian who switched their vote from Johnson to Trump thinks: I kept the criminal Clinton out of office and I sleep fine.
Yeah, that was a missed "copy" in the copy-n-paste. The Slashdot javascript intercepts keystrokes slower than I actually type. There are characters missing from wrods or sometimes full words missing all the time. The quote I was replying to was this:
How about you get over Benghazi and her emails?
And, of course, you can't edit your posts after the fact. This is just the format which drives Slashdot. It's what makes it, at times, uniquely psychotic in its own special way.
That a British corporation is trying to pretend that we should take in the stride as we take other US corporations while it reports on dealings of Russian corporations. Both Britain and Russia are foreign nations with their own interests which sometimes align with ours and sometimes go contrary to ours.
Since when have Russian elections been elections? Putin arrests opponents, bans them, substitutes fake proxy opponents, and even then the votes taleys are fake as fuck.
And all Obama did was illegally listen to the phone calls of the Trump's campaign. Not excusing Putin... don't really care about Putin. But to suggest that the last election was not rigged for Clinton is absurd. Hillary Clinton just happens to be so incompetent that she lost an election despite rigging it.
You know the difference between those stories and Russia?
Yes. Those stories are true. And the Russian collusion story is a fabrication made up to divert attention from them.
The investigations were completed and found nothing.
No, they found her guilt. And then the Obama-led administration let her off the hook because she knows where the proverbial bodies are buried.
If Russia is nothing, then let the investigations complete it and tell us so.
It's been completed a long time ago. It's not even looking at the collusion anymore. It's looking at the abstraction of justice which legal scholars (as opposed to news reporters) don't think is possible in this case.
Look in the mirror. You'll see someone defending a criminal enterprise that the Democratic party has become. Live with it.
Trump is a Republican. So on the internets that means he has the burden of proving his innoncence, don't you know that yet? Hundreds of millions of dollars given to Clintons are not an indication of Russian influence. Because it's not proven. But an accusation by 17.. ummm 4.. oh, who cares.. ALL intelligence agencies against Trump has to be disproven before it's false. Get with the program or you are a Kremlin spy, too. Go back to performing some gross sexual act of poster's choice.... Ivan!
Yeah. Ok. That's why he gave hundreds of mllions of dollars of dollars to Clintons in the open. So that he could spend $100k on ads for the Trump campaign. Fuck off, retard.
Reuters is a British corportation and its US branch exists and operates only as a subsidiary. Its stock trades in the US as a depository share (similar to Alibaba -- a Chinese company). Despite a common language, Britain is NOT part of the US. It has, at times, priorities which are opposed to those of the US (as was clearly evidenced by Britain's Jerusalem embaassy vote in the UN).
Are you joking? And eye for an eye is the Jewish precept which Christ tried to moderate with "let the one without sin throw the 1st stone." Which makes Christianity a moderation (in the pacifist direction) of Judaism.
If you thought any of them were fighting back, your world view is horribly warped.
Ha? Right. Israel was formed because Jews, who lived in Palestine and were British subjects, who fought in WWII for Britain weren't in a mood to take orders from the British anymore. They were perfectly ok to turn around and fight the British until they left them alone.
What allowed Holocause to happen was that Jews, who were citizens of european countries, did not think their loyalty as citizens would be betrayed by the host countries -- the countries which allowed Germans to project their madness at post-WWI treatment on european Jewish citizens. It was not pacifism to think that the civil society, of which they were full-fledged citizens, which treated them as members of society, would all-of-a-sudden go coocoo. But it was shortsighted to think that it could never happen.
Screw me once, as the saying goes shame on you. If they were pacifist, they would have allowed to get screwed again by the British in Israel. They did not.
they are mired in politics, which is sort of inevitable with a large enough organization;
is wrong. It's inevitable in a large organization with weak leadership. Strong leadership creates predicatability of accepted behavior. Weak leadership necessitates community bonds which can only result from politics.
It works for any company which has no chance of competing with its clients. I wouldn't store my source code in AWS cloud if I wanted to provide a generic cloud service to developers. But my service has niche, there is no risk that Amazon would compete with me, then why not? Adobe is clearly in the business of making tools for people who are doing something that would not compete with Adobe. Other vendors trying to do this would not work as well. If JetBrains tried it, for example, it wouldn't work as well. Because JetBrains is in the business of software development and it provides tools to software development
Just because you don't understand their motives doesn't mean they don't make sense given their priorities. Their politics change entirely based on pragmatic considerations simply because they are too poor to operate inefficiently. They can't afford the luxury of lofty ideals at the expense of poor economic decisions. We can enjoy the mindset of a middle-class couple whose credit cards are maxed, but who still hold 2 good job. RF has to have the mindset of a single mother whose car has been reposesed twice in the last 20 years.
"you are stupid" is not an argument. Russia doesn't produce anything. It's main export is natural resources. It doesn't have anything to gain from reducing output level of industrial countries. Russia's main competition are other resource exporters. If you want to buy into the world view that Russia is an enemy, you buying into the game which was played when scarcity of food was determining factor in power. The 19th century is over. Russia does not gain anything by having industrial countries turn on each other.
For GB to complain about manipulating anyone's internal affairs is beyond hypcritical. Britain ran an empire based on manipulating internal affairs of unsuspecting colonies. It still uses subtle levers of influence and plausible deniability to set people against each other all the while putting "mother england" on some sort of pedestal. England lives chiefly through its alliances. BBC meddles in internal affairs of former colonies on regular basis under the guise of covering "foreign affairs". The fact that Russian IT companies are being used by anonymous foreign interests to launder (anonymize) their information campaign is in no way an indication of Russia itself using an influence. Russia simply doesn't have anything to gain from it.
Isn't it odd that this completely new country that has absolutely no relation to the old one, is still somehow both populated and led by people from the old one?
Some of them. 145 million live in Russia. 50 million live in Ukraine. I think about 15 million live in Georgia. That's still out of 300 million who lived in the Soviet Union. Oh, and 25 years have passed. That's 1.5 generations who grew up under capitalist system in an open society. You do understand that the conflict with USSR was along ideological rather than geopolitical lines? The ideological differnce is foreign to the current generation of the Russian population. The geopolitical differences are no different from the ones with China.
And isn't it interesting that these people leading the new country have decades of experience, carried over from the old country,
Not even close. Not a single member of the Soviet Politburo remained in power after the collapse of the Soviet Union (25 years ago)... with the possible exception of Yeltsin, who at the time of the collapse was already the head of Russia (the administrative subdivision of the USSR) and was phased out of national USSR politics.
in fields such as espionage (Putin) and propaganda
Putin left KGB with the title of leutenant colonel. That's hardly a leadership position. His last assignment was as a station chief in Germany. That's the lowest leadership position a field intelligence officer can have. His political career was entirely in the post-soviet Russia.
Even if you consider Lavrov (the forein minister of Russia) to be a member of the old guard, you'd have to explain how an embassador to Sri Lanka became a foreign minister.
I don't know enough about the inner workings of the RF government to know who is Kiselyov. I seriously doubt he was a ranking member of the Communist Party of the USSR if he is in any kind of leadership position today. The Communists were completely disenfranchised.
But somehow its' state-run media is very much active in the West, trying to promote the "alternative", Russian, point of view?
I am more concerned about BBC's role in promoting the British point of view than I am about Russia having a voice. The constant denegration of former British colonies is completely out of step with the modern world.
isn't it awfully convenient that although Russia inherited no institutions from the USSR, it still somehow has, just like the USSR had, virtually no independent media and zero press freedom?
No, it's not convenient. It's a mark of any dictatorship. And Russia has emerged as a neo-fascist (not Nazi, but definitely classical fascist) state. If you look at you history, you'll that all fascist regimes emerged from weak democracies which resulted from post WWI upheaval. The descent into fascism in Russia was also a result of weakness of democratic institutions in the post-soviet Russia. But the democratic period did purge the old Communist guard. Comparing modern Russia to the USSR make as much sense as comparing Hitler's pre-war Germany to the Austrian Empire. They are just completely different animals.
He was an agent of USSR. USSR was a Communist dictatorship. It dissolved in 1991. USSR had 300 million people. USSR had media controls as strong as those of North Korea.
Russian Federation is a country of 145 million people. Russian Federation, until recently, was a member of G8. It had open trade policy with the West until Western sanctions started (in response to its annexation of Crimea). It has a mixed economy with strong government stake in natural resources and essentially no oversight in the service-sector economy.
If you want to attribute to the Russian Federation some kind of inheritance of the institutions of the USSR, you are going to have to explain how that's possible in a country which has less than half the population, has a completely different legal system, has a completely different economic system, and has an entirely different trade policy.
Actually, it's as telling as telling can get. The fact that the initial claim was that all 17 agencies believed rather than the 4, which did, clearly means that whoever made the claim did not read the actual reports. Now who are you going to believe? Politicians who state that reports (which they haven't read) claim that Russia tried to sway US Presidential election or some guy on slashdot? Well, if the reason for not believing the guy on slashdot is that he is misinformed, consider the fact that the politicians making the claim are not only misinformed, but they also have vested interest in mis-stating the conclusions.
Who would be a better CEO going into the future? Candidates are:
1. Sundar Pichai, whose accomplishments include: destroying G+ as a social platform, a successful Chrome browser, Chromebook (which is worse than unsuccessful -- it actually damages other Google brands), betting a company on unworkable concepts (neural nets can be mathematically proved to be unscalable), making Google the 1st company to merit a successful law suit for discriminating against white males.
2. James Damore, who accomplishments include: training in biology and psychology, extreme competence in software development, dedication to Google even after getting fired for not following half-crazed trends instituted after Pichai took over, a memo detailing which methodologies can be adapted to reduce Google's intrusive and harassing policies without decreasing workplace participation of non-harassing employees, dropping out of Harvard PhD program to pursue career at Google, others
If Google wants to grow beyong the flash-in-a-pan cycle, it needs to find its Steve Jobs. And, at least on the surface, Damore fits the bill more than Pichai. Even if it means that he has to find his way back in through a hostile take over after winning the law suit.
Well, the personal upside to Pichai is that he gets fired before his actions fully sink the unsinkable company. And then he gets to sue claiming that he was fired for protecting workers rights. Consider the alternative -- he doesn't comment and stays on and sinks with the ship.
Slashdot Mirror
At least on Facebook, one can edit their posts. Slashdot has a system which deliberately elicits the most visceral responses possible -- it rewards being 1st to post more than anything else. Certainly, 1st to post is rewarded more than accuracy here. Galloway is a marketing professor and he's been "predicting" that Amazon and Facebook would be targeted by the government for a while. I guess he is calling for it openly now. Maybe their relevance algorithms are too good? So good that they make him irrelevant? Hard to say. Of course, the fact that he took his message to a British publication is pretty telling. Brits are all too eager to give up their freedom for safety.
Oh, and just because I copied a quote from a previous comment to which I was replying, doesn't change the fact that you are in the tank for the Criminal Democratic party. Let me tell you something every Libertarian who switched their vote from Johnson to Trump thinks: I kept the criminal Clinton out of office and I sleep fine.
How about you get over Benghazi and her emails?
And, of course, you can't edit your posts after the fact. This is just the format which drives Slashdot. It's what makes it, at times, uniquely psychotic in its own special way.
That a British corporation is trying to pretend that we should take in the stride as we take other US corporations while it reports on dealings of Russian corporations. Both Britain and Russia are foreign nations with their own interests which sometimes align with ours and sometimes go contrary to ours.
Since when have Russian elections been elections? Putin arrests opponents, bans them, substitutes fake proxy opponents, and even then the votes taleys are fake as fuck.
And all Obama did was illegally listen to the phone calls of the Trump's campaign. Not excusing Putin... don't really care about Putin. But to suggest that the last election was not rigged for Clinton is absurd. Hillary Clinton just happens to be so incompetent that she lost an election despite rigging it.
Funny that she was allowed to leave the jurisdiction. She is still being investigated. That makes her a potential fugitive on the run.
Nice set of right wing snowflake talking points, comrade.
The comrade is in your mirror. You are carrying water for the neo-communist criminal cartel that is the Democratic party.
Putin preferred Trump over Clinton.
No. Just, no. Not going to happen. Next question.
You know the difference between those stories and Russia?
Yes. Those stories are true. And the Russian collusion story is a fabrication made up to divert attention from them.
The investigations were completed and found nothing.
No, they found her guilt. And then the Obama-led administration let her off the hook because she knows where the proverbial bodies are buried.
If Russia is nothing, then let the investigations complete it and tell us so.
It's been completed a long time ago. It's not even looking at the collusion anymore. It's looking at the abstraction of justice which legal scholars (as opposed to news reporters) don't think is possible in this case. Look in the mirror. You'll see someone defending a criminal enterprise that the Democratic party has become. Live with it.
Trump is a Republican. So on the internets that means he has the burden of proving his innoncence, don't you know that yet? Hundreds of millions of dollars given to Clintons are not an indication of Russian influence. Because it's not proven. But an accusation by 17.. ummm 4.. oh, who cares.. ALL intelligence agencies against Trump has to be disproven before it's false. Get with the program or you are a Kremlin spy, too. Go back to performing some gross sexual act of poster's choice.... Ivan!
Putin preferred Trump over Clinton.
Yeah. Ok. That's why he gave hundreds of mllions of dollars of dollars to Clintons in the open. So that he could spend $100k on ads for the Trump campaign. Fuck off, retard.
Reuters is a British corportation and its US branch exists and operates only as a subsidiary. Its stock trades in the US as a depository share (similar to Alibaba -- a Chinese company). Despite a common language, Britain is NOT part of the US. It has, at times, priorities which are opposed to those of the US (as was clearly evidenced by Britain's Jerusalem embaassy vote in the UN).
Judaism teaches pacifism above all else.
Are you joking? And eye for an eye is the Jewish precept which Christ tried to moderate with "let the one without sin throw the 1st stone." Which makes Christianity a moderation (in the pacifist direction) of Judaism.
If you thought any of them were fighting back, your world view is horribly warped.
Ha? Right. Israel was formed because Jews, who lived in Palestine and were British subjects, who fought in WWII for Britain weren't in a mood to take orders from the British anymore. They were perfectly ok to turn around and fight the British until they left them alone.
What allowed Holocause to happen was that Jews, who were citizens of european countries, did not think their loyalty as citizens would be betrayed by the host countries -- the countries which allowed Germans to project their madness at post-WWI treatment on european Jewish citizens. It was not pacifism to think that the civil society, of which they were full-fledged citizens, which treated them as members of society, would all-of-a-sudden go coocoo. But it was shortsighted to think that it could never happen.
Screw me once, as the saying goes shame on you. If they were pacifist, they would have allowed to get screwed again by the British in Israel. They did not.
bunch of hipsters. now they are being honest "ironically".
they are mired in politics, which is sort of inevitable with a large enough organization;
is wrong. It's inevitable in a large organization with weak leadership. Strong leadership creates predicatability of accepted behavior. Weak leadership necessitates community bonds which can only result from politics.
It works for any company which has no chance of competing with its clients. I wouldn't store my source code in AWS cloud if I wanted to provide a generic cloud service to developers. But my service has niche, there is no risk that Amazon would compete with me, then why not? Adobe is clearly in the business of making tools for people who are doing something that would not compete with Adobe. Other vendors trying to do this would not work as well. If JetBrains tried it, for example, it wouldn't work as well. Because JetBrains is in the business of software development and it provides tools to software development
just to add to the above: it is simply not true that RF government acts as ideologues. They are not driven by political ideology -- only pragmatism.
Just because you don't understand their motives doesn't mean they don't make sense given their priorities. Their politics change entirely based on pragmatic considerations simply because they are too poor to operate inefficiently. They can't afford the luxury of lofty ideals at the expense of poor economic decisions. We can enjoy the mindset of a middle-class couple whose credit cards are maxed, but who still hold 2 good job. RF has to have the mindset of a single mother whose car has been reposesed twice in the last 20 years.
"you are stupid" is not an argument. Russia doesn't produce anything. It's main export is natural resources. It doesn't have anything to gain from reducing output level of industrial countries. Russia's main competition are other resource exporters. If you want to buy into the world view that Russia is an enemy, you buying into the game which was played when scarcity of food was determining factor in power. The 19th century is over. Russia does not gain anything by having industrial countries turn on each other.
For GB to complain about manipulating anyone's internal affairs is beyond hypcritical. Britain ran an empire based on manipulating internal affairs of unsuspecting colonies. It still uses subtle levers of influence and plausible deniability to set people against each other all the while putting "mother england" on some sort of pedestal. England lives chiefly through its alliances. BBC meddles in internal affairs of former colonies on regular basis under the guise of covering "foreign affairs". The fact that Russian IT companies are being used by anonymous foreign interests to launder (anonymize) their information campaign is in no way an indication of Russia itself using an influence. Russia simply doesn't have anything to gain from it.
Isn't it odd that this completely new country that has absolutely no relation to the old one, is still somehow both populated and led by people from the old one?
Some of them. 145 million live in Russia. 50 million live in Ukraine. I think about 15 million live in Georgia. That's still out of 300 million who lived in the Soviet Union. Oh, and 25 years have passed. That's 1.5 generations who grew up under capitalist system in an open society. You do understand that the conflict with USSR was along ideological rather than geopolitical lines? The ideological differnce is foreign to the current generation of the Russian population. The geopolitical differences are no different from the ones with China.
And isn't it interesting that these people leading the new country have decades of experience, carried over from the old country,
Not even close. Not a single member of the Soviet Politburo remained in power after the collapse of the Soviet Union (25 years ago)... with the possible exception of Yeltsin, who at the time of the collapse was already the head of Russia (the administrative subdivision of the USSR) and was phased out of national USSR politics.
in fields such as espionage (Putin) and propaganda
Putin left KGB with the title of leutenant colonel. That's hardly a leadership position. His last assignment was as a station chief in Germany. That's the lowest leadership position a field intelligence officer can have. His political career was entirely in the post-soviet Russia.
Even if you consider Lavrov (the forein minister of Russia) to be a member of the old guard, you'd have to explain how an embassador to Sri Lanka became a foreign minister.
I don't know enough about the inner workings of the RF government to know who is Kiselyov. I seriously doubt he was a ranking member of the Communist Party of the USSR if he is in any kind of leadership position today. The Communists were completely disenfranchised.
But somehow its' state-run media is very much active in the West, trying to promote the "alternative", Russian, point of view?
I am more concerned about BBC's role in promoting the British point of view than I am about Russia having a voice. The constant denegration of former British colonies is completely out of step with the modern world.
isn't it awfully convenient that although Russia inherited no institutions from the USSR, it still somehow has, just like the USSR had, virtually no independent media and zero press freedom?
No, it's not convenient. It's a mark of any dictatorship. And Russia has emerged as a neo-fascist (not Nazi, but definitely classical fascist) state. If you look at you history, you'll that all fascist regimes emerged from weak democracies which resulted from post WWI upheaval. The descent into fascism in Russia was also a result of weakness of democratic institutions in the post-soviet Russia. But the democratic period did purge the old Communist guard. Comparing modern Russia to the USSR make as much sense as comparing Hitler's pre-war Germany to the Austrian Empire. They are just completely different animals.
He was an agent of USSR. USSR was a Communist dictatorship. It dissolved in 1991. USSR had 300 million people. USSR had media controls as strong as those of North Korea.
Russian Federation is a country of 145 million people. Russian Federation, until recently, was a member of G8. It had open trade policy with the West until Western sanctions started (in response to its annexation of Crimea). It has a mixed economy with strong government stake in natural resources and essentially no oversight in the service-sector economy.
If you want to attribute to the Russian Federation some kind of inheritance of the institutions of the USSR, you are going to have to explain how that's possible in a country which has less than half the population, has a completely different legal system, has a completely different economic system, and has an entirely different trade policy.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I hope they use that standard of evidence at your murder trial.
That is not much of a correction, though.
Actually, it's as telling as telling can get. The fact that the initial claim was that all 17 agencies believed rather than the 4, which did, clearly means that whoever made the claim did not read the actual reports. Now who are you going to believe? Politicians who state that reports (which they haven't read) claim that Russia tried to sway US Presidential election or some guy on slashdot? Well, if the reason for not believing the guy on slashdot is that he is misinformed, consider the fact that the politicians making the claim are not only misinformed, but they also have vested interest in mis-stating the conclusions.
1. Sundar Pichai, whose accomplishments include: destroying G+ as a social platform, a successful Chrome browser, Chromebook (which is worse than unsuccessful -- it actually damages other Google brands), betting a company on unworkable concepts (neural nets can be mathematically proved to be unscalable), making Google the 1st company to merit a successful law suit for discriminating against white males.
2. James Damore, who accomplishments include: training in biology and psychology, extreme competence in software development, dedication to Google even after getting fired for not following half-crazed trends instituted after Pichai took over, a memo detailing which methodologies can be adapted to reduce Google's intrusive and harassing policies without decreasing workplace participation of non-harassing employees, dropping out of Harvard PhD program to pursue career at Google, others
If Google wants to grow beyong the flash-in-a-pan cycle, it needs to find its Steve Jobs. And, at least on the surface, Damore fits the bill more than Pichai. Even if it means that he has to find his way back in through a hostile take over after winning the law suit.
Well, the personal upside to Pichai is that he gets fired before his actions fully sink the unsinkable company. And then he gets to sue claiming that he was fired for protecting workers rights. Consider the alternative -- he doesn't comment and stays on and sinks with the ship.