Oh good, we should put a person on the moon soon because other people are doing it, right?
We've already been there a half dozen times. Furthermore, we have limited resources for this type of thing. Is another mission to the moom really worth our time without some sort of concrete goal for the mission?
I think not, NASA has far better uses for its resources
So because the establishments in our political parties have their heads up their asses we should be totally fine with Russian influences on our elections? How can that make sense to you? If anything it makes Russian interference even more scary.
So people of lesser means should basically do without a car given the price point of a car run off batteries and just have to settle for our horrible mass transit in this country?
Battery powered cars are basically at the toddler phase and still out of reach of many Americans.
Anyways, you're bringing up a complete bullshit side tangent from the topic at hand. The current reality is that gas powered cars are driven on the streets.
Funny that even the summary describes people trying to legally get access to this server prior to it being wiped. Maybe try reading the second paragraph of the summary.
Maybe let's not ignore that a very significant geopolitical adversary of the US was trying to change our election outcomes (for which there is ample evidence) and like a rational person consider them as a possibility in things like this.
So people should stop driving cars? I ask because I guarantee you people walking along New York streets suffer far more lung damage than the person inhaling the rare vape fumes
What you inhale second hand is incredibly minimal. You might as well ban cars from driving near areas where people walk at this point because I guarantee you that walking along New York streets and breathing the air polluted from all the traffic is far more unhealthy for you than breathing vape fumes. https://www.popsci.com/ask-us-...
On top of that, almost no one becomes addicted to second hand smoke of any kind, least of all from a vape (disagree? show me an example beyond singular anecdotal experience). You're being a stupid paranoid.
Maybe the "biased media" did their homework and realized that she was just one of 10 people or entire organizations who approved it and had no kind of veto power so that it was therefore not really a scandal at all. I went over this above.
You mean the Uranium scandal that only Obama had the power to stop and was approved but almost dozen other people / agencies and that Clinton at best could have only sent the matter for Presidential approval? http://www.factcheck.org/2015/...
A very inconvenient quote for you from the article "The fact is, Clinton was one of nine voting members on the foreign investments committee, which also includes the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, the attorney general, and representatives from two White House offices — the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. (Separately, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission needed to approve (and did approve) the transfer of two uranium recovery licenses as part of the sale.)"
Once again, you are running with pure speculation.
I also love your "I'm the center of the world" comment about "everyone" knowing she is in Russia's pocket. If you believe it, it must be a universal truth! Funny then that over 50 percent of voting Americans voted for her.
"They already had Clinton in their pockets with their massive contributions to the Clinton Foundation, and they knew Trump wouldn't be their sworn enemy based on his comments during the campaign. This was basically a no-lose election for them."
Well when you start with a false premise you can prove anything! Clinton is a proven hawk when it comes to international affairs and you have no proof in regard to your claims that Hillary was "in their pockets", just pure speculation. In fact it is well known that Hillary was very much in favor of far more US intervention in Syria, a firm Russian ally ( http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/06/... , http://time.com/4730416/syria-... , And Trumps take: http://time.com/4730416/syria-... is to bad mouth her position). Clinton also made it very clear in 2016 that Russia was not our friend ( http://time.com/4730416/syria-... ) where as Donald consistently stated the contrary.
That's pure hypotheticals. I was a Bernie supporter first and foremost but he is far to the left of traditional American politics. Of course Trump is far from traditional American politics as well but there was certainly no guarantee that Bernie would have won the election given how nontraditional he was.
There is no way those are both done by original authors. I find all divisive AC comments suspect nowadays, especially when they line up with my own ideology.
How is it not possible to you that lower tier management has members that happen to end to up being racist but the upper tier that does the hiring isnt? It's not as if there's a fool proof interview question like, "are you racists. No? Oh good, you're hired then!". Lower tier management is where you figure out who works for future management and who doesnt. You seem to have a real disconnect with reality in regards to how general employment works.
Also, it's great you have a great big racist boogy-man like South Africa to bring out but that has nothing to do with the conversation.
A) I happen to be very well traveled, thank you very much. B) Everything East of India tends to be extremely all Asian, as in very few people of African descent. It's not at all surprising mono ethnic countries didn't find labeling black people as dirty as offensive. There just aren't enough black people to be statistically significant. C) Reenacting a scant few religious festivals by playing a historic / mythological role as some one who was oppressed at the time is not at all the same as a TV commercial literally labeling black people as dirty. Nice try though! D) White people in America found it offensive too. Most of us like our black neighbors.
Year after year I read idiots complain "Back in my day it was all tech". News flash, I've been here since 98 (Didn't create a log on until latter) and it has never been all tech.
"And based on that commercial you can see that "racism", on both the giving and receiving ends of the equation is just what society says is acceptable."
And where is your evidence that black people found that add not offensive? Seems like your entire comment is based on a fantasy scenario where minorities don't mind being diminished because of the color of their skin, which I think is complete fucking bullshit. How would you like your skin color to be labeled "dirty"?
What a convenient conspiracy theory. Fact is in the last Ukrainian election pro Western candidates won handily. I have seen no evidence for your claims meanwhile there is plenty of evidence for Russia being in Georgia and Ukraine.
It's super great you made a reference to the soviets! That, however. is entirely irrelevant to the conversation. Good try at an attempt to convolute the discussion though!
Furthermore, I don't need an echo chamber to show me that Russia acts contrary to American interests. The country's of Georgia and Ukraine try to go pro West and get invaded and parts of their sovereign nations seized? Former Eastern Block Nations face constant internet attacks traced to Russia? Constant influences favoring Russia's favored candidate in regards to our recent presidential elections are traced back to Russia? Russia favors Iran and Iranian allies thus allowing for Iranian nuclear armament? The list can go on from here.
Please, inform on how Russia is our friend and not a geopolitical adversary because I don't see fuck-all for evidence for them being our friend and you have provided zero evidence for such aside from "Duh... liberals are bad!"
It actually horrifies me that so many Americans are willing to label a country so blatantly contrary to our own interest as a friend just because their favored leader, who is immersed in Russian controversy, tells them to.
There is a mountain of evidence that an adversarial nation to our own (Russia) attempted to sway our election in favor of the current winner. How you can just blow that off is beyond me. Russia is not our friend, not by a long shot.
It's simple, Russia has gone out of its way to make itself an adversarial state to the US (of which I am a member). The Russian government has also been very heavy handed in dealing with its own private sector often dictating how they conduct business and very much muddling the lines between free enterprise and government controlled. This all equals, don't trust "security" provided by the Russians.
Now one can go on with "Americans spy on everything" and yeah, I don't like that. But as a US citizen I like Russians spying on me even less that Americans.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh good, we should put a person on the moon soon because other people are doing it, right?
We've already been there a half dozen times. Furthermore, we have limited resources for this type of thing. Is another mission to the moom really worth our time without some sort of concrete goal for the mission?
I think not, NASA has far better uses for its resources
So because the establishments in our political parties have their heads up their asses we should be totally fine with Russian influences on our elections? How can that make sense to you? If anything it makes Russian interference even more scary.
So people of lesser means should basically do without a car given the price point of a car run off batteries and just have to settle for our horrible mass transit in this country?
Battery powered cars are basically at the toddler phase and still out of reach of many Americans.
Anyways, you're bringing up a complete bullshit side tangent from the topic at hand. The current reality is that gas powered cars are driven on the streets.
Funny that even the summary describes people trying to legally get access to this server prior to it being wiped. Maybe try reading the second paragraph of the summary.
Way to troll.
"If it was ordered by a Republican, it would be the first thing mentioned."
Of course it would because then we'd know who authorized it.
Maybe let's not ignore that a very significant geopolitical adversary of the US was trying to change our election outcomes (for which there is ample evidence) and like a rational person consider them as a possibility in things like this.
So people should stop driving cars? I ask because I guarantee you people walking along New York streets suffer far more lung damage than the person inhaling the rare vape fumes
What you inhale second hand is incredibly minimal. You might as well ban cars from driving near areas where people walk at this point because I guarantee you that walking along New York streets and breathing the air polluted from all the traffic is far more unhealthy for you than breathing vape fumes. https://www.popsci.com/ask-us-...
On top of that, almost no one becomes addicted to second hand smoke of any kind, least of all from a vape (disagree? show me an example beyond singular anecdotal experience). You're being a stupid paranoid.
Maybe the "biased media" did their homework and realized that she was just one of 10 people or entire organizations who approved it and had no kind of veto power so that it was therefore not really a scandal at all. I went over this above.
You mean the Uranium scandal that only Obama had the power to stop and was approved but almost dozen other people / agencies and that Clinton at best could have only sent the matter for Presidential approval?
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/...
A very inconvenient quote for you from the article
"The fact is, Clinton was one of nine voting members on the foreign investments committee, which also includes the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, the attorney general, and representatives from two White House offices — the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. (Separately, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission needed to approve (and did approve) the transfer of two uranium recovery licenses as part of the sale.)"
Once again, you are running with pure speculation.
I also love your "I'm the center of the world" comment about "everyone" knowing she is in Russia's pocket. If you believe it, it must be a universal truth! Funny then that over 50 percent of voting Americans voted for her.
"They already had Clinton in their pockets with their massive contributions to the Clinton Foundation, and they knew Trump wouldn't be their sworn enemy based on his comments during the campaign. This was basically a no-lose election for them."
Well when you start with a false premise you can prove anything! Clinton is a proven hawk when it comes to international affairs and you have no proof in regard to your claims that Hillary was "in their pockets", just pure speculation. In fact it is well known that Hillary was very much in favor of far more US intervention in Syria, a firm Russian ally ( http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/06/... , http://time.com/4730416/syria-... , And Trumps take: http://time.com/4730416/syria-... is to bad mouth her position). Clinton also made it very clear in 2016 that Russia was not our friend ( http://time.com/4730416/syria-... ) where as Donald consistently stated the contrary.
So if South Africa is what we've been talking about then you're agreeing that "White South African" equals "racist"?
I was pretty much just ignoring dumb bigoted claims and addressing your point about management.
That's pure hypotheticals. I was a Bernie supporter first and foremost but he is far to the left of traditional American politics. Of course Trump is far from traditional American politics as well but there was certainly no guarantee that Bernie would have won the election given how nontraditional he was.
To be honest I think you're just voicing support for a Russian troll. They're very active on here, just look at the two replies put up on a recent post by me.
My Post: https://slashdot.org/comments....
Russian: https://slashdot.org/comments....
https://slashdot.org/comments....
There is no way those are both done by original authors. I find all divisive AC comments suspect nowadays, especially when they line up with my own ideology.
Sadly there still isn't a checkbox to filter out idiots who want slashdot to only post exactly what they want to see posted and nothing else.
How is it not possible to you that lower tier management has members that happen to end to up being racist but the upper tier that does the hiring isnt? It's not as if there's a fool proof interview question like, "are you racists. No? Oh good, you're hired then!". Lower tier management is where you figure out who works for future management and who doesnt. You seem to have a real disconnect with reality in regards to how general employment works.
Also, it's great you have a great big racist boogy-man like South Africa to bring out but that has nothing to do with the conversation.
A) I happen to be very well traveled, thank you very much.
B) Everything East of India tends to be extremely all Asian, as in very few people of African descent. It's not at all surprising mono ethnic countries didn't find labeling black people as dirty as offensive. There just aren't enough black people to be statistically significant.
C) Reenacting a scant few religious festivals by playing a historic / mythological role as some one who was oppressed at the time is not at all the same as a TV commercial literally labeling black people as dirty. Nice try though!
D) White people in America found it offensive too. Most of us like our black neighbors.
So basically, you're full of it.
Wouldn't it make sense that the middle managers being racist weren't evolved in the hiring process?
When politics don't "matter".
"News for nerds and stuff that matters"
Year after year I read idiots complain "Back in my day it was all tech". News flash, I've been here since 98 (Didn't create a log on until latter) and it has never been all tech.
"And based on that commercial you can see that "racism", on both the giving and receiving ends of the equation is just what society says is acceptable."
And where is your evidence that black people found that add not offensive? Seems like your entire comment is based on a fantasy scenario where minorities don't mind being diminished because of the color of their skin, which I think is complete fucking bullshit. How would you like your skin color to be labeled "dirty"?
We live in a world of finite wealth. Unless we have actual long term goals for the moon going back there is stupid.
If we lived in a world of infinite resource, yeah, sure, moon, great, whatever. But we don't. There are better ways to spend our money.
Anyone curious about Russian influence in our forums should visit these two responses to my post.
https://slashdot.org/comments....
https://slashdot.org/comments....
Sure, Russia is our friend alright!
What a convenient conspiracy theory. Fact is in the last Ukrainian election pro Western candidates won handily. I have seen no evidence for your claims meanwhile there is plenty of evidence for Russia being in Georgia and Ukraine.
It's super great you made a reference to the soviets! That, however. is entirely irrelevant to the conversation. Good try at an attempt to convolute the discussion though!
Furthermore, I don't need an echo chamber to show me that Russia acts contrary to American interests. The country's of Georgia and Ukraine try to go pro West and get invaded and parts of their sovereign nations seized? Former Eastern Block Nations face constant internet attacks traced to Russia? Constant influences favoring Russia's favored candidate in regards to our recent presidential elections are traced back to Russia? Russia favors Iran and Iranian allies thus allowing for Iranian nuclear armament? The list can go on from here.
Please, inform on how Russia is our friend and not a geopolitical adversary because I don't see fuck-all for evidence for them being our friend and you have provided zero evidence for such aside from "Duh... liberals are bad!"
It actually horrifies me that so many Americans are willing to label a country so blatantly contrary to our own interest as a friend just because their favored leader, who is immersed in Russian controversy, tells them to.
There is a mountain of evidence that an adversarial nation to our own (Russia) attempted to sway our election in favor of the current winner. How you can just blow that off is beyond me. Russia is not our friend, not by a long shot.
It's simple, Russia has gone out of its way to make itself an adversarial state to the US (of which I am a member). The Russian government has also been very heavy handed in dealing with its own private sector often dictating how they conduct business and very much muddling the lines between free enterprise and government controlled. This all equals, don't trust "security" provided by the Russians.
Now one can go on with "Americans spy on everything" and yeah, I don't like that. But as a US citizen I like Russians spying on me even less that Americans.