It's getting pretty bad. My karma has taken a beating. Simply put, Slashdot is the Donald Trump Forum, and if you're not advocating for him to be president and demanding imprisonment for Clinton, you're going to pay. I'm going to be honest, after being here since 2003, I'm just about ready to leave simply because mod points are being handed out to some of the most regressive people around, the very same kind of people that endlessly whine about how they're being censored for their views.
In fact, I'm not even sure why I'm here now. This place sucks, and not because of new owners or advertising, but simply because it has become a den of libertarian reactionaries who hate everything and everyone.
How much longer before Android devices start appearing without the jack? How much longer, as Doctorow suggests, before the music industry starts insisting on getting rid of analog ports entirely, and DRM is put in place so that even with a dongle, you're still faced with the limitations that DRM put in place? Then, of course, it will carry on to computer manufacturers, and you'll be using USB speakers and headphones on them, and the music industry will get the end-to-end DRM on music just like they're getting with video.
That's largely where I'm heading. More and more of my music purchases are either direct from the artist, via Bandcamp or similar services. I'm not interested in streaming services, I actually like to own music, and not merely rent it (I'm an album guy). It's not really even a matter of price anymore, it's not like I can't afford to buy music off of iTunes or other online music stores, it's simply that I value my freedom to play the music I own how I want and when I want, and not be beholden to the vagaries of a large corporate machine that long ago abandoned any notion of interest in the consumer as an individual.
Or you can just actually provide some real evidence, as opposed to inventing lists of dead people that two individuals who have been in politics their entire adult lives had involvement with.
You have some actual evidence of a hit, right? Because when that very article was brought up yesterday, one of your fellow conspiracy theorists was found to have invented much of the scenario surrounding the staffer's death. The claim of a "double tap to the head" turned out to be multiple gun shot wounds to the victim's back, and that the victim was found conscious and died an hour later.
So tell me, are you a liar or just a gullible halfwit?
The Mexicans want to destroy the US? An army of brown people invading the US? Yes, orange pickers are such a profound threat to the US.
I'm pretty dubious the Russians want to, they just want to get back their old Soviet sphere of influence. And China wants to build its own sphere of influence, but pretty much needs the US to keep buying stuff made in China, or its navy won't be able to afford an inflatable raft, let alone destroyers, patrol boats and aircraft carriers.
If my exchange yesterday with one of the anti-Clinton conspiracy theorists indications is any indication, I think you'll find that the Clinton haters will happily fabricate facts to bolster their theories. The poster from yesterday (an AC, naturally) made the claim that it was an assassination because, and I quote, there was a "double tap to the head". When you actually read the story, of course, you find out that there were multiple gun shot wounds to the back, and that the staffer was actually found conscious (making "double tap to the head" a rather improbable scenario) and lived for an hour after the attack.
Simply put, at this point, Trump supporters, Sanders supporters, and various other anti-Clinton types simply invent details out of whole cloth to justify their hatred. It's hard to say whether they know they're lying, or they're just so gullible that they'll buy any account from one of their own so long as it makes Clinton seem like Don Corleone.
My view is Assange is simply making shit up, because Wikileak's policy against revealing identities of whistleblowers means he can say anything he wants and never have to justify it. He's had a hate-on for Clinton for a while (maybe justified, if you buy into the idea that he's been persecuted, rather than being a rather shabby sex fiend). Clearly he believed that the leaks would destroy Clinton's electoral hopes, but he, like a lot of people, didn't bargain on Trump being so tremendously awful that it ceased to matter what dirt real or imagined could be produced.
And yes, I know, the overwhelming number of Trump supporters on/. is likely to mean I'm going to lose even more karma. It's getting to the point where I don't even care.
*Muslims* as a group may not be a race, but I'm not seeing much evidence that when Trump and his supporters are talking about *Muslims* that they're referring to, say, Indonesians or Malaysians, but rather to people who could generally be identified as "Middle Eastern" and "Central Asian"; in other words, brown skinned people of Arabic or Iranian origins. In other words, yes, it is racism.
There isn't just one media. There are several news organizations out there, both American and international. The idea that they are all in the DNC's pocket is absurd. Beyond that, Trump was even picking fights with a Fox news journalist, so if there's anyone to blame for negative media perceptions of Donald Trump, it's Donald Trump. But really, like I said, it's just laziness, or perhaps wishful thinking on your part. I imagine you find the idea that voters could find someone like Hillary Clinton a more attractive candidate to vote for than a candidate like Donald Trump to be some sort of unbelievable scenario. I would imagine if you want to look for the fault in that feeling, you could start by turning off the TV, walking into the bathroom, looking into the mirror and asking yourself why you feel must lash out at other people and ultimately at the other candidate, rather than accepting that the candidate you would like to be out front is a complete fucking lunatic who can't keep on message for more than a few minutes, and seems to need to say one complete outrageous thing per day.
But hey, I get it. You have an infantile mind, and like all children, you don't have the maturity to honestly assess either the situation outside your head, or the situation inside your head. So blame the media. I'm sure it will you keep going for years to come, and will prevent for any kind of analysis of yourself or those of around you of similar ideological bent. Maybe you can even be like the guy elsewhere on this topic that declares that Seth Rich was assassinated on Clinton's orders with a "double tap to the head", when in fact, the poor bastard was multiple times in the back and lived nearly an hour after a bungled robbery. Please keep concocting idiot conspiracies great and small, that'll show 'em whose smart, eh?
Either a robbery, or the most idiotic assassin in history.
Assange is just trying to make some fireworks, I wonder what this AC's intention is. So far he has managed to wholly exaggerate the incident. What he claimed was a "double tap to the head" transforms into a "double tap into the back", but all I read is that multiple shots were fired, and the victim died quite a while after the attack. Sounds like a bungled robbery/mugging to me, and not real the work of some masterclass Clinton assassin.
I wonder if the problem here is a combination of too many video games, an active imagination, and a bizarre negative obsession with Democrats.
Oh, and by the way, where does your "double tap to the back of the head" actually come from? In the article it says he was shot several times from behind and was still conscious when found. While it's theoretically possible to have multiple gun shot wounds to your head and still remain conscious for a while, if your description of an assassination is true, then either it's the worst assassin ever, or some other set of circumstances.
I'm thinking your "double tap" is just your idea of a necessary flourish to try to underscore what you know is a rather tortured line of logic.
Do you have some statistics to back up your claim? It sounds to me like you're willing to rationalize this any way you can to make your conspiracy true.
Provide me one actual piece of evidence linking this to Clinton. Go on, I openly challenge you. I don't want innuendo, I don't want assertions. I want you to provide evidence, actual tangible real evidence.
I agree that Assange has always been a bit of a nut, and certainly the occupation he ultimately chose requires the belief that you should always attribute to malice that which can usually be attributed to incompetence. As to sexual issues, he was a superstar, a rock star among his peers and followers, with an almost cult-like status. Guys like that always end up in bed, often with multiple partners. Whether he was framed or not I have no idea. My firm belief was that if the US saw him as that big a threat, they would have found a bit more effective way than finding to Swedish women to frame him for rape. And really, the CIA's track record on destroying people isn't that great. If it was, Fidel Castro would have been six feet under half a century ago.
At this point, his exile to a minor embassy has probably driven him completely over the edge. He clearly believed his first data dump was going to destroy Clinton, who he obviously views as one of the principle reasons for his misfortunes. And maybe it might have worked to some extent, except the Republicans picked the one candidate whose knack for stealing the spotlight with outrageous, bizarre and infamous antics outweighs even Assange's ability to dominate a news cycle. In the end he's a footnote, at best. He'll barely be mentioned when the scholars sit down to write about the Clinton presidency.
Perhaps, in four years, if the Republicans manage to pick a sane candidate that won't piss off every demographic a candidate now needs to win the Presidency, some of this might stick, but my feeling is that save for the Birthers and other conspiracy nuts, who will need to transfer their obsessions to the next Democratic President, no one else will give a flying shit about any of it. Assange's days as a media darling are done, and really were done the minute Edward Snowden hightailed it out of Dodge. Assange is a has-been.
Clearly those were practice runs! Had to make sure the gun would fire, the dark trench coat was the right hue of menacing, and to make sure the Hillary Clinton-shaped neuro-controller/double-sized butt plug would hold!
Remember, to a conspiracy theory, there is no such thing as evidence counter to a claim. Everything, even nothing at all, is evidence of the conspiracy.
Which means what exactly? If Trump delivers Clinton Congress, or at least the Senate, and a majority of Americans, no matter how reluctantly, support her bid, then what you have is the usual cranks making the usual noises and achieving what they usually achieve, which is nothing at all except a spot on 5 o'clock news for the latest shit-and-squat on the front lawn of city hall, or yet another tired Breitbart article or Limbaugh invective.
If you want to actually change something, you have to win elections. One-fingered saluting yourself into irrelevance is not only counterproductive, but possibly a sign of intense stupidity.
Ever heard of a bungled robbery? Unintentional homicide in the commission of another felony isn't exactly that rare.
But that doesn't fit with the conspiracy theory you and your ilk want to to propagate.
Want me to believe your story, provide actual evidence. Unevidenced conspiracy theories, innuendo and wishful thinking are not evidence, no matter how many times you repeat the claim.
Bungled robberies resulting in unintentional homicides are not THAT uncommon, and that would be the default position of an investigator unless someone could produce evidence to demonstrate that the murderer had intent to kill. If such evidence exists, by all means provide it.
Bad luck. It at least fits the facts, as opposed to feverish conspiracy theories put forward by deluded individuals who think they're in possession of special knowledge that sets them apart, since the rest of their pointless lives indicate they're little more than dull mediocre individuals, or are jjut plain nuts.
If the Republicans had picked anyone other than the complete basket case they now have to float as their candidate for POTUS, poor Julian might have been able to wreak his terrible revenge for his perceived martyrdom. As it is, nobody is even listening now.
Yes, I doubt it. People get murdered all the time. If you have some actual evidence, do please provide it. Otherwise it's just a conspiracy theory largely built up to confirm your biases.
Slashdot Mirror
It's getting pretty bad. My karma has taken a beating. Simply put, Slashdot is the Donald Trump Forum, and if you're not advocating for him to be president and demanding imprisonment for Clinton, you're going to pay. I'm going to be honest, after being here since 2003, I'm just about ready to leave simply because mod points are being handed out to some of the most regressive people around, the very same kind of people that endlessly whine about how they're being censored for their views.
In fact, I'm not even sure why I'm here now. This place sucks, and not because of new owners or advertising, but simply because it has become a den of libertarian reactionaries who hate everything and everyone.
How much longer before Android devices start appearing without the jack? How much longer, as Doctorow suggests, before the music industry starts insisting on getting rid of analog ports entirely, and DRM is put in place so that even with a dongle, you're still faced with the limitations that DRM put in place? Then, of course, it will carry on to computer manufacturers, and you'll be using USB speakers and headphones on them, and the music industry will get the end-to-end DRM on music just like they're getting with video.
Where in your post did you actually deal with what Doctorow was saying?
That's largely where I'm heading. More and more of my music purchases are either direct from the artist, via Bandcamp or similar services. I'm not interested in streaming services, I actually like to own music, and not merely rent it (I'm an album guy). It's not really even a matter of price anymore, it's not like I can't afford to buy music off of iTunes or other online music stores, it's simply that I value my freedom to play the music I own how I want and when I want, and not be beholden to the vagaries of a large corporate machine that long ago abandoned any notion of interest in the consumer as an individual.
Or you can just actually provide some real evidence, as opposed to inventing lists of dead people that two individuals who have been in politics their entire adult lives had involvement with.
You have some actual evidence of a hit, right? Because when that very article was brought up yesterday, one of your fellow conspiracy theorists was found to have invented much of the scenario surrounding the staffer's death. The claim of a "double tap to the head" turned out to be multiple gun shot wounds to the victim's back, and that the victim was found conscious and died an hour later.
So tell me, are you a liar or just a gullible halfwit?
The Mexicans want to destroy the US? An army of brown people invading the US? Yes, orange pickers are such a profound threat to the US.
I'm pretty dubious the Russians want to, they just want to get back their old Soviet sphere of influence. And China wants to build its own sphere of influence, but pretty much needs the US to keep buying stuff made in China, or its navy won't be able to afford an inflatable raft, let alone destroyers, patrol boats and aircraft carriers.
If my exchange yesterday with one of the anti-Clinton conspiracy theorists indications is any indication, I think you'll find that the Clinton haters will happily fabricate facts to bolster their theories. The poster from yesterday (an AC, naturally) made the claim that it was an assassination because, and I quote, there was a "double tap to the head". When you actually read the story, of course, you find out that there were multiple gun shot wounds to the back, and that the staffer was actually found conscious (making "double tap to the head" a rather improbable scenario) and lived for an hour after the attack.
Simply put, at this point, Trump supporters, Sanders supporters, and various other anti-Clinton types simply invent details out of whole cloth to justify their hatred. It's hard to say whether they know they're lying, or they're just so gullible that they'll buy any account from one of their own so long as it makes Clinton seem like Don Corleone.
My view is Assange is simply making shit up, because Wikileak's policy against revealing identities of whistleblowers means he can say anything he wants and never have to justify it. He's had a hate-on for Clinton for a while (maybe justified, if you buy into the idea that he's been persecuted, rather than being a rather shabby sex fiend). Clearly he believed that the leaks would destroy Clinton's electoral hopes, but he, like a lot of people, didn't bargain on Trump being so tremendously awful that it ceased to matter what dirt real or imagined could be produced.
And yes, I know, the overwhelming number of Trump supporters on /. is likely to mean I'm going to lose even more karma. It's getting to the point where I don't even care.
*Muslims* as a group may not be a race, but I'm not seeing much evidence that when Trump and his supporters are talking about *Muslims* that they're referring to, say, Indonesians or Malaysians, but rather to people who could generally be identified as "Middle Eastern" and "Central Asian"; in other words, brown skinned people of Arabic or Iranian origins. In other words, yes, it is racism.
There isn't just one media. There are several news organizations out there, both American and international. The idea that they are all in the DNC's pocket is absurd. Beyond that, Trump was even picking fights with a Fox news journalist, so if there's anyone to blame for negative media perceptions of Donald Trump, it's Donald Trump. But really, like I said, it's just laziness, or perhaps wishful thinking on your part. I imagine you find the idea that voters could find someone like Hillary Clinton a more attractive candidate to vote for than a candidate like Donald Trump to be some sort of unbelievable scenario. I would imagine if you want to look for the fault in that feeling, you could start by turning off the TV, walking into the bathroom, looking into the mirror and asking yourself why you feel must lash out at other people and ultimately at the other candidate, rather than accepting that the candidate you would like to be out front is a complete fucking lunatic who can't keep on message for more than a few minutes, and seems to need to say one complete outrageous thing per day.
But hey, I get it. You have an infantile mind, and like all children, you don't have the maturity to honestly assess either the situation outside your head, or the situation inside your head. So blame the media. I'm sure it will you keep going for years to come, and will prevent for any kind of analysis of yourself or those of around you of similar ideological bent. Maybe you can even be like the guy elsewhere on this topic that declares that Seth Rich was assassinated on Clinton's orders with a "double tap to the head", when in fact, the poor bastard was multiple times in the back and lived nearly an hour after a bungled robbery. Please keep concocting idiot conspiracies great and small, that'll show 'em whose smart, eh?
Either a robbery, or the most idiotic assassin in history.
Assange is just trying to make some fireworks, I wonder what this AC's intention is. So far he has managed to wholly exaggerate the incident. What he claimed was a "double tap to the head" transforms into a "double tap into the back", but all I read is that multiple shots were fired, and the victim died quite a while after the attack. Sounds like a bungled robbery/mugging to me, and not real the work of some masterclass Clinton assassin.
I wonder if the problem here is a combination of too many video games, an active imagination, and a bizarre negative obsession with Democrats.
Care to provide the citation for that statistic?
Oh, and by the way, where does your "double tap to the back of the head" actually come from? In the article it says he was shot several times from behind and was still conscious when found. While it's theoretically possible to have multiple gun shot wounds to your head and still remain conscious for a while, if your description of an assassination is true, then either it's the worst assassin ever, or some other set of circumstances.
I'm thinking your "double tap" is just your idea of a necessary flourish to try to underscore what you know is a rather tortured line of logic.
Do you have some statistics to back up your claim? It sounds to me like you're willing to rationalize this any way you can to make your conspiracy true.
Provide me one actual piece of evidence linking this to Clinton. Go on, I openly challenge you. I don't want innuendo, I don't want assertions. I want you to provide evidence, actual tangible real evidence.
Do you have it or not? Yes or no will do.
I agree that Assange has always been a bit of a nut, and certainly the occupation he ultimately chose requires the belief that you should always attribute to malice that which can usually be attributed to incompetence. As to sexual issues, he was a superstar, a rock star among his peers and followers, with an almost cult-like status. Guys like that always end up in bed, often with multiple partners. Whether he was framed or not I have no idea. My firm belief was that if the US saw him as that big a threat, they would have found a bit more effective way than finding to Swedish women to frame him for rape. And really, the CIA's track record on destroying people isn't that great. If it was, Fidel Castro would have been six feet under half a century ago.
At this point, his exile to a minor embassy has probably driven him completely over the edge. He clearly believed his first data dump was going to destroy Clinton, who he obviously views as one of the principle reasons for his misfortunes. And maybe it might have worked to some extent, except the Republicans picked the one candidate whose knack for stealing the spotlight with outrageous, bizarre and infamous antics outweighs even Assange's ability to dominate a news cycle. In the end he's a footnote, at best. He'll barely be mentioned when the scholars sit down to write about the Clinton presidency.
Perhaps, in four years, if the Republicans manage to pick a sane candidate that won't piss off every demographic a candidate now needs to win the Presidency, some of this might stick, but my feeling is that save for the Birthers and other conspiracy nuts, who will need to transfer their obsessions to the next Democratic President, no one else will give a flying shit about any of it. Assange's days as a media darling are done, and really were done the minute Edward Snowden hightailed it out of Dodge. Assange is a has-been.
Clearly those were practice runs! Had to make sure the gun would fire, the dark trench coat was the right hue of menacing, and to make sure the Hillary Clinton-shaped neuro-controller/double-sized butt plug would hold!
Remember, to a conspiracy theory, there is no such thing as evidence counter to a claim. Everything, even nothing at all, is evidence of the conspiracy.
My prediction: No matter what is reported, fevered minds will claim it fits into their conspiracy.
Which means what exactly? If Trump delivers Clinton Congress, or at least the Senate, and a majority of Americans, no matter how reluctantly, support her bid, then what you have is the usual cranks making the usual noises and achieving what they usually achieve, which is nothing at all except a spot on 5 o'clock news for the latest shit-and-squat on the front lawn of city hall, or yet another tired Breitbart article or Limbaugh invective.
If you want to actually change something, you have to win elections. One-fingered saluting yourself into irrelevance is not only counterproductive, but possibly a sign of intense stupidity.
Ever heard of a bungled robbery? Unintentional homicide in the commission of another felony isn't exactly that rare.
But that doesn't fit with the conspiracy theory you and your ilk want to to propagate.
Want me to believe your story, provide actual evidence. Unevidenced conspiracy theories, innuendo and wishful thinking are not evidence, no matter how many times you repeat the claim.
Bungled robberies resulting in unintentional homicides are not THAT uncommon, and that would be the default position of an investigator unless someone could produce evidence to demonstrate that the murderer had intent to kill. If such evidence exists, by all means provide it.
"Blame the media" is just the way partisans blame voters. It's just plain laziness.
Bad luck. It at least fits the facts, as opposed to feverish conspiracy theories put forward by deluded individuals who think they're in possession of special knowledge that sets them apart, since the rest of their pointless lives indicate they're little more than dull mediocre individuals, or are jjut plain nuts.
If the Republicans had picked anyone other than the complete basket case they now have to float as their candidate for POTUS, poor Julian might have been able to wreak his terrible revenge for his perceived martyrdom. As it is, nobody is even listening now.
Yes, I doubt it. People get murdered all the time. If you have some actual evidence, do please provide it. Otherwise it's just a conspiracy theory largely built up to confirm your biases.