Slashdot Mirror

Yeah, right. https://www.esquire.com/uk/lat... [esquire.com] Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard Zuck: Just ask. Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one? Zuck: People just submitted it. Zuck: I don't know why. Zuck: They "trust me" Zuck: Dumb fucks.

https://www.esquire.com/uk/lat...

Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard

Zuck: Just ask.

Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS

[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?

Zuck: People just submitted it.

Zuck: I don't know why.

Zuck: They "trust me"

Zuck: Dumb fucks.

Trump's Lies

All False statements involving Donald Trump

Trump’s Lies Have Grown Far More Frequent—and More Dangerous

The 25 Worst Lies From Donald Trump’s First 200 Days

Donald Trump has said 3084 false things as U.S. president

How Trump Gets Away with Lying, as Explained by a Magician

The Other Side: President Trump’s lies a clear and present danger

Trump lies about having ‘no financial interests in Saudi Arabia’

Trump's Relentless Lying Threatens Our Democracy.

This Is as Obvious and Blatant a Presidential Lie as You're Going to See

It’s True: Trump Is Lying More, and He’s Doing It on Purpose

President Trump Made 1,950 Untrue Claims in 2017. That's Making His Job Harder

How can you be the "victim party" that faces everyone's bias and be the party in power?

Gerrymandering.

How the GOP Rigs Elections
Republican Ruthlessness and Democratic Ineptitude Got Us Here
Five myths about gerrymandering
How Michigan is an extreme example of gerrymandering
Supreme Court favors Republicans in gerrymandering cases
N.C. has the worst gerrymander in US history. What else is new?
The Atlas Of Redistricting

You think standing matters to ICE or Border Patrol?

How credulous can you be?

I said I would consider your POV if you sent supporting materials. Since you can't support the one statement you made with any fact the only logical conclusion is that it is fiction designed to justify US presence in those countries as the one point you answered. I won't be wasting cognitive effort trying to validate your position.

Essentially your saying that an Iraqi or Afghani military presence in New York or the rest of the world having military bases in every state in the US to sort out your domestic disputes is justifiable using your reasoning. Newsflash: The US is the invader and the rest of the world would like you a whole lot better if you just went home and mind your own business. You seem somewhat obsessed with the idea of the US Empire. You keep your bases and I'll head off to the doctor to get my hurt feelings checked for free.

As for your claim of Whataboutism you've unsuccessfully attempted to invert my position. I don't need to accuse the US of hypocrisy because everybody outside the US can already observe that. Why do I need to disprove if Kim.Com faces court for copying a few shit movies when it has been established that GWB committed crimes against humanity, that's how the rest of the world views him. My viewpoint is already supported by law so the accusation has already been directly refuted.

Also US law, as according to the U.S. constitution, the U.S. president is responsible for all actions carried out by the executive, therefore, George W. Bush is responsible for the torture methods used by U.S. authorities, such as waterboarding. So what you're suggesting is that its ok to use these methods on US citizens the same way the US uses them on international citizens - or are you a hypocrite?

Or are you suggesting is that it's ok for the US to use these methods against US citizens - or are you a hypocrite?

Or is it more reasonable that the person responsible for bringing that shame on American citizens take responsibility for their crimes - or are you a hypocrite?

At least we agreed that you don't understand English, so it isn't like you didn't understand any of the words at all. That's something.

As for your accusations of flamebait, maybe, you bit, I've still given you a way out. As for my command of the English language I think I've demonstrated a suitable excoriation of your pithy ramblings to adequately provoke an emotional response in you with only half my wit, which is clearly double yours. I gave you a graceful, humorous way out so that you wouldn't look like a hypocrite but you were too stupid to take it. So feel free to go ahead, demonstrate you're a hypocrite and defend torturing people.

You may wish to update your statement.

https://www.esquire.com/lifest...

The left oppose the notion of originalism. E.g. Roe v Wade decided people had always had a right to abortion because of an invented 'right to privacy'.

Nope, the right to privacy was not invented, it's natural.

The SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage was based on the notion that it was an inevitable consequence of Due Process under the 14th Amendment.

The SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage was actually based on the pattern of discrimination that had been demonstrated by the opponents of same-sex marriage.

Even though the people who wrote the original documents didn't believe in a right to abortion or a right to gay marriage.

They're dead. How exactly do you know what they'd believe, and why should we care anyway? Did I miss some declaration where we subsumed ourselves to their eternal dictatorship from beyond the grave?

Judicial activism is always about allowing your political views to alter the way you read the law. It's a sort of 'ends justifies the means' approach to law. If you agree with the ends, then the means
- twisting or inverting the meaning of the actual words in the law or inventing new rights that aren't actually there - doesn't matter.

That's actually original-ism, as found in numerous instances.

This is in of itself a good reason to distrust the US left. E.g. look at the gay marriage case. Both Obama and Clinton run on a platform of opposing it, but Obama set up a case which would legalise it and then celebrated. Even if left wing politicians say they won't do something, they may appoint judges who will twist the law to do it and then celebrate the result.

Both Clinton and Obama were wrong to take the cowardly position they did on same-sex marriage, and were roundly condemned for it, they set back civil rights for over a decade.

Now I'm not all that fussed about gay marriage. However even there you can see that the left will use it as a cudgel to beat the right - e.g. Christian bakers will be asked to bake a "I support gay marriage cake" and sued if they refuse.

Actually, it's the right that's upset that they can't get Confederate Cakes.

By the way if Gorsuch ruled in a way that you didn't like would you say "Well he's just interpreting the law. You can't say he's allowing his political beliefs to get in the way"? I'm guessing not, because he's an originalist and not a believer that the role of a judge is to invent new rights. if someone's political views explicitly include a different method of how to interpret law - e.g. 'Improving rights' vs 'Originalism' then those political views obviously alter how they'd rule when they were a judge.

That's because Gorsuch would allow his political beliefs to get in the way.

Look at the SC

You cite a group that puts out false propaganda to support a conservative agenda to claim one desert might be shrinking.

Meanwhile, California has just put out fires fueled by climate change. Other deserts are definitely expanding. China isn't investing in green energy because they're tree-huggers. They're investing because their ruling elites are smart enough to realize climate change is real, is an existential threat, and that green energy is the new oil rush.

Probably not surprising given that their leaders are largely people with science degrees and the Chinese communist party is better educated than the american voting population.

It's not an overstatement

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a38878/steve-jobs-steve-wozniak-blue-box-phone-phreaking/
Blue Box sales funded the first Apple computer

These social democracies seem to be the least dysfunctional and have the highest quality of life for citizens.

You're right, and the US could have an even better standard of living, but no-one quite does propaganda like the US so you have to spend all that tax money on never ending overseas wars and the worst health system possible instead of a decent life for everyone.

Limeys don't cut checks, they bounce them.

a bit like your president ;-)

So, you *do* want things.

I want the nation to continue to exist. Without military and police it will not exist, therefore, military and police are necessary. Moreover, there can not, unfortunately, be a competition among different groups of armed people, so they must be under a single command — this is why I'm willing to hold my nose and accept the government doing both.

Space exploration is not required for a nation to exist. Nor are social programs. If, heaven forfend, all of the six thousand homeless of San Francisco die tomorrow, the city will not be any worse off. Moreover, provision of these folks with food and shelter can be accomplished by competing charities. Therefore, it must not be done by the government. A clear cut rule, easy to apply and understand.

So if a commie socialist program reduces more crime per dollar spent than spending it on police, you'd be in favour of that? I suspect not.

Your suspicion is correct — because socialist programs do not reduce "more crime per dollar". Not at all. The total cost of crime in the US is about $200 bln/year. The annual cost of the "War on Poverty" meanwhile costs four times that — only a tiny fraction of that stemming from the above-mentioned military.

So, if we eliminate the "War on Poverty" altogether — thus saving about $750 billion/year — and the crime so much as doubles we'd still be saving about $350 bln a year. But, of course, it will not double — because it didn't half, under Lyndon Jonson, who saddled us with this burden — so the actual savings will be much greater.

No, help for the poor can not be justified by efficiency of crime-fighting — indeed, it never was the justification. The government's benevolent and omniscient saints — including the current President — have always appealed to the taxpayers' compassion and charity. Sentiments, that are not compatible with monies being confiscated at gun-point, which is how the taxes are collected.

but now it has no government so free market pixes

Thanks to its Socialist past, it has no law and order either — which are required for a free market to do its magic.

But, so long as we are giving each other relocation advice, maybe, it is you, who should consider moving? North Korea — the worker's paradise — provides its happy citizens with free everything and has a wonderful space-exploration program too. And the glorious Rays of Chuch'e shine on everyone!

...doesn't really understand how commercial radio has worked since, well, forever.

It's never (except for the smallest enthusiast-stations) been "about the music". The 'customers' of radio (and TV, for that matter) aren't the consumers. THEY ARE THE PRODUCT BEING SOLD. The customers are the businesses that are paying for ad time.

He's a dumb shit, is that any surprise?
How's Tidal doing, dude? (answer: lost $28 million last year) http://www.esquire.com/enterta...
First year: 540k subs, lost $11 million
Last year 3 million subs, lost $28 million.

LOL.

This may come as a shock to you, but we nerds have eclectic interests. Sure we love tech, but we also love science fiction and fantasy. Two subjects that crop up here a lot. Some of us enjoy sports, art, and literature, and other subjects that crop here from time to time.

And some of enjoy discussing politics. Particularly when we have, without a doubt, the worst president in history. A man who is a climate denier and anti-vax. A president who releases classified intelligence on his phone in a country club for all and sundry to see. Whose political aides are so stupid that they can't even find a damn light switch. I fear I don't have time to document this administration's mistakes as they create even bigger gaffes in the time it takes me to write this.

46% of Americans want him impeached, and it was 43% last week. Also using the term SJW marks you as a bumbling entitlement warrior bravely trying to drag the world back to an era that never existed.

This whole thing is just laughable. We've gone over the technical evidence and it's really bad. But they do nothing to justify their other random conclusions.

So we now have the idiot Left telling us we can trust Clapper & co. based on secret evidence that Russia might have... online trolls? Oh, but never mind Correct the Record's self-described "nerd virgins." Or is it because Julian didn't refuse Russian interviews, never mind that he's been doing lots of interviews with many outlets for many years now? The whole report is simply moronic. It's not even a good effort. It's aimed at people who just read headlines from media who rarely ever link to one lest you find all the ways they're lying.

But in the report, we obviously don't care about all the money funneled by Saudi Arabia & Qatar to the Clinton Foundation. No, that would never influence a candidate. And it's not like those states have anything to do with funding Islamic terrorists, like that guy who murdered a Russian diplomat. Yes, we're very confused as to why one of the "moderate" Islamic terrorists Hillary & co. were supporting in Syria would be a callous murderer.

Please do keep on informing us so well, media. We clearly haven't figured out how to research things ourselves from primary sources. Please do keep telling us about how we get all our info from idiot Macedonian clickbait sites we've never even seen before. It's really convincing when we can read your own damn emails on our own and find out about Glen "because I have become a hack" Thrush and the WaPo party and Donna "I get the questions in advance" Brazille. Good thing I don't watch CNN, or I'd think that it was illegal to read Wikileaks. I'm guessing Cuomo is as good at law as he was at math.

Yesterday, Washington Post ran a story that the Russians hacked our power grid.

Yep, and now that story contains a correction at the top of the page. That's what legitimate news sites do when they make factual errors. Fake news sites don't issue corrections, because their entire purpose is to make up facts.

NYT a couple days after the election reported Trump had poisoned Meghan Kelly before the first debate. Their source was Mrs. Kelly. Every other news outlet rushed to her to get details and she said that never happened.

Actually, your timeline is a bit messed up. What actually happened was that New York Magazine reported in September that "Kelly had even begun to speculate, according to one Fox source, that Trump might have been responsible for her getting violently ill before the debate last summer. Could he have paid someone to slip something into her coffee that morning in Cleveland? she wondered to colleagues." This was NOT ignored in the media, but rather spread in September as a big rumor, which Kelly did NOT address or debunk at that time.

Then a couple months later when the New York Times published a book review, it talks about a passage where Kelly recounts the SAME weird story herself where a driver repeatedly insisted on giving her coffee and then rapidly became violently ill. Why exactly she reported that story in her book is unclear, but it seems to confirm that she did find the incident suspicious, as had already been reported in major media outlets two months earlier.

The NYT book review is NOT meant to be a solid piece of "factual journalism," but rather a playful dialogue with the book. Note the repeated "We report. You decide." quip in the review, which is meant to make fun of the Fox News slogan -- and in this case meant to signal a somewhat sarcastic rendering of this story from Kelly's book:

Ms. Kelly never says outright that someone tried to poison her. (A stomach bug was going around, she notes.) But the episode spooked her enough that she shared it later with Roger Ailes and a lawyer friend of his. Foul play? Again: She reports. You decide.

After this story becomes even more viral (no pun intended) than the September one did, Kelly steps in and tweets that it really was just a stomach bug. But why did she even tell the story in the first place in the book with her suspicion (of what?)?

At best, the book critic at the NYT could be accused of "reading between the lines" about a suspicious passage in the book and reporting an old story which had appeared elsewhere that had NOT been previously debunked by Kelly... and then making a playful "She reports. You decide." joke about it.

Seriously?? Those are the best examples of "fake news" in the mainstream media you can come up with?

This is an actual fake news site. It's made up of completely bogus articles, though it looks legit and the stories may sound vaguely legit if you only read the headline and first paragraph. But it's completely bogus, and most of the stories make that clear by becoming increasingly ridiculous when you read them.

YET a number of "articles" on that satirical site have been shared hundreds of thousands or even millions of times on Facebook as if they were real news. Are you seriously going to say that a corrected article in the WaPo and a quip that echoed a pre-existing st

I could literally give you over a hundred citations of Democrats and left-wing media citing and circulating this story as an indictment of Trump, bit I'll just give you a couple of typical examples from The Huffington Post and Esquire:

http://www.esquire.com/news-po...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

The point is that both sides (and their media allies) have become guilty of smearing the other with the most despicable charges, often based on the flimsiest of evidence. It has almost become a defacto standard to call your political opponent a pedophile and/or rapist. And the left has also made it a routine to call Republicans racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. And the right has also made it a routine to call its opponents criminal, treasonous, un-American, etc.

Discourse on both sides has devolved into a giant, very ugly screaming match. And that ain't good.

He'll need someone to read the words of the letter to him because he must be illiterate. That was the premise of your joke, right?

No. By his own admission, The Donald doesn't like to read.

http://www.esquire.com/news-po...

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Based on past performance, the more slack we cut him, the more rope he has to hang everyone. So many business catastrophes, this one is the most interesting imo:
http://www.esquire.com/news-po...

But the theme is usually same: media genius pumps up something until it pops. Not that the US can't do bubbles without his help, but I'm seeing yuge, really yuge ones. But anyway I'm hopeful the US will do really well for a while, then I'll sell.

We have seen the West push for Russia and the week of posts on Slashdot repeating its Russia and only ever Russia.
Time of day, ip ranges, code litter, emoji.
From UK and US, contractors, ex intelligence service people find language and emoji so quickly.
"How Russia Pulled Off the Biggest Election Hack in U.S. History" (OCT 20, 2016 ) http://www.esquire.com/news-po...
Every aspect of the litter seems to have been left to point at Russia and be easy to find and be media for "open source intelligence" groups.
Would any other intelligence service make sloppy mistakes or risk real time discovery with such well understood skills?
Or was the trail left knowing the West and its media had no skills to look no further than ip ranges, code litter and the time of day?
Iran and North Koran have very few pipes to the West that are free of the NSA and GCHQ.
South Korea and Japan have huge listening stations, expert staff and with the help of global reach of their 5 eye nations supporters would know of any Korean internet movements globally in real time.
Miho, Tachiarai and other sites do track everything Korea and have done for a while.
The GCHQ and NSA have Iran surrounded. Overseas Processing Centre, like CIRCUIT, Troodos in Cyprus pick up everything in the Middle East, Iran and into the Caucasus.
The NSA and GCHQ would know if Iran or North Korea acted as a nation and would keep such methods out of the media so they could track, alter material in real time or counter them without comment from contractors, ex intelligence service workers or "open source intelligence" groups reporting on such efforts in real time.
The need for it to be Russian fully, early and often in the Western press is the 'tell'.
If its not secret, been mentioned by method and been tracked its cover for a :
A US internal, domestic walk out, someone gave a package of data and its been covered with "Russia" did it for party political reasons.
Anyone then reading or commenting on or using the material is "Russian" and the leak is reduced.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07...
Julian Assange: 'A lot more material' coming on US elections
""Perhaps one day the source or sources will step forward and that might be an interesting moment some people may have egg on their faces. But to exclude certain actors is to make it easier to find out who our sources are,""
Or as mentioned on slashdot
US intelligence had GAMMA material issues as a totally internal domestic issue. (3 August 2016)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

or is it something that, just like the DNC hacks merely ascribed to Russia with zero evidence offered?

Er, there is evidence, even if you choose to ignore that fact:
https://www.wired.com/2016/07/...
http://www.esquire.com/news-po...

It gets better AC, only FSB or GRU.
"How Russia Pulled Off the Biggest Election Hack in U.S. History" (OCT 20, 2016 )
http://www.esquire.com/news-po...
'... the firm said, worked in a way that suggested affiliation with the GRU. Cozy Bear was linked to the FSB."
All that 'immediately discovered", 'several sloppy mistakes" and emoji litter got left.
Such an easy trail of litter for "unprecedented open-source counterintelligence".

How many stories have we had on this topic?
Lets go back down the stories and their new Bear related findings, spies, moles, data diodes and the private sector.
Starting with "How Hackers Broke Into John Podesta and Colin Powell’s Gmail Accounts"
https://motherboard.vice.com/r...
"It’s unclear why the hackers used the encoded strings, which effectively reveal their targets to anyone."
and finally "None of this new data constitutes a smoking gun that can clearly frame Russia"
So the first hint of something that is not very spy like?
Lets try the other link:
https://theintercept.com/2016/... (September 14 2016)
"https://theintercept.com/2016/09/13/colin-powell-emails/"
has "a hacker that many allege to have ties with Russian intelligence." and thats all.
Finally past the two slashdot links and down at
"How Russia Pulled Off the Biggest Election Hack in U.S. History" (OCT 20, 2016 )
http://www.esquire.com/news-po...
Lets keep reading past the 56k modems and 1950's see whats new.
"immediately discovered two sophisticated groups of spies" They are not great spies if they are "immediately discovered" by the private sector.
"soon able to reconstruct the hacks and identify the hackers." If the entry was so easy to reconstruct, it could be anyone with the skills.
"each of the attackers seemed unaware of what the other was doing" so more than one group used methods out in the wider public at random times?
Sounds like a few different groups are active.
So groups with "immediately discovered" methods must be the GRU and KGB?
"But several sloppy mistakes"... Do spies make so many "sloppy mistakes"? Use of their own language and emoji?
The Germans added their support to 'Fancy Bear" from years ago. Well understood methods by "different" groups that the private sector was well aware of?
The "hackers forgot to set" - that sounds like spies? Such a "rapid public reconstruction" and in public so the media could follow along?
Then onto the NSA, data diodes, and a small hint at a real spy could be in play with "an old-fashioned mole passed on the tools."
How did the other data get out? "Using commercial cloud services to "exfiltrate" data out"
So we are back to ip ranges? "Confident" in URL's and all that code litter that expert "spies" left for the media, private sector and "open-source counterintelligence" to find. Don't forget the easy to find emoji as part of the litter :)

Artists that are exceptional live entertainers do not have to worry about this. No jerky phone recording can do the real thing justice.

Agreed but that describes relatively few performers in my experience. Particularly among the flavor of the day pop acts. Some well known bands are absolutely terrible in person. Some like Rod Stewart are inexplicably popular despite a profound lack of singing ability. The Beach Boys were renowned for using hired hands in the studio (others did too) and I can confirm with my own eyes and ears that they were not a great live band. Any performer that has to use auto-tune or lip-syncs is a waste of money.

I don't really understand the point of trying to record a whole or even substantial portion of a concert with a shitty smartphone camera. Especially given that it isn't likely to be watched by anyone ever again.

Almost no one is even 2x your weight let alone 4x.

The Internet disagrees with you on 2X.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2034839/The-worlds-fattest-woman-700-pound-California-woman-enters-record-books.html

Here's a 3X reference.

http://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/a703/esq0806wifl-114-4/

Oh, and the weapons that we thought were there, they were found, and they really were there, but don't let facts get in the way of your sound bite.

Start by citing a reputable source.

Here's a few on the Bush war crimes. By the way, Bush, Cheney and members of their administration were actually tried and convicted for war crimes. But you would know that if you paid attention to websites other than the far-Right version of The Onion, known as The Political Insider.

http://www.esquire.com/news-po...

The only way I could vote for Bill's wife is if she is opposed by a candidate one lab accident away from a supervillain...

To be fair, the opposition comes down to either the least super supervillain or the literal Zodiac Killer.

Who is also, by the way, the former lead singer of Stryper, the biggest pansy-ass metal band in history:

http://www.esquire.com/news-po...

And by the way, Senator Cruz has not denied being the Zodiac Killer and the former lead singer of Stryper.

Based upon "Anonymous" past actions, with a huge focus on defending and promoting freedom of speech and exposing secrets this smells just a teensy bit off. Now based upon the recent history of campaign activities, specifically the DNC saga with supporter lists and Clinton's campaign getting full access to Bernie Sanders lists and nothing said and then 3 months latter access being provided to Clintons supporters to the Bernie Sanders and one Clinton insider accessing within minutes of it being available and then huge complainst and much complicit main stream media campaigning. This actually comes off as a Clinton hack, sure fine, anyone can use 'Anonymous' for any reason but do not expect and positive response or even worse think you can avoid a hugely negative reaction.

Now for the compulsory political question, "Where was Bernie Sanders during the health care debates, right behind you bitch (the word in this case is application appropriate)" http://www.esquire.com/news-po.... When you sink to lows in politics expect people led repercussions.

It's partly their fault, especially Saudi Arabia for pushing their puritanical form of Islam with all their money. In fact, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar are actively funding ISIS and al-Qauda.

It's not surprising most of the hijackers of 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. They've also screwed up places by building madrases to help push their fundamentalist puritanical version of Islam. Boys who go to these madrases for their education learn little except the Saudi brand of Islam along with hate for the west.

Just google ISIS funding.

Ever since 9/11 I've done whatever I can to stop supporting middle eastern countries and wean myself off of using oil. The fact that most of the 9/11 hijackers and their ringleader came from Saudi Arabia made me realize I don't want any of my money to go to fund these countries that promote terrorism.

Correction: none of the emails were classified, or contained information that was classified. The process going on now is that the FBI is reviewing and retroactively classifying some previously unclassified information in order to make sure that what they deliver in responsive to an FOIA request is "clean" - a process that is routine with broad FOIA requests of sensitive information.

As for Bush, etc., not being wanted by any government, read http://www.esquire.com/news-po... . Admittedly a bit obscure, but it was a real trial, by a real government.

hanging out in the hotel bar? Some likely examples:

http://www.esquire.com/enterta...

I wish - and I know this would never 'fly' - that we would make their lives as uncomfortable as ours - or even more so. they are really offended when their women are even looked at by westerners. what I would love to see is that we go OUT OF OUR WAY to fondle and embarass all the muslim women - ALL OF THEM - that enter or leave any western country. yes, its payback and its meant to inflict a return feeling for all that have 'done' for us.

WHAAA???!? This is modded "insightful"?

the fact that we let them ruin our way of life - and they got away with it - means that they are boldened to keep doing this crap to us.

What the heck? Who is doing this to whom? We are doing it to ourselves. Who does the TSA work for? Our government.

We did this to ourselves, and for nothing. Is there any evidence whatsoever that the TSA has prevented ANY terrorist attacks since it was instituted? NO.

There are countries that have experienced REAL terrorism. Places where random buses get blown up periodically, or random bombs go off in the downtown area of a city -- from a coordinated effort of terrorists. (See, for example, situations in Israel/Palestine, or England when the IRA was particularly active.)

We have NOTHING like that. If there were any significant number of Muslim terrorists out there just dying to "ruin our way of life," they could easily do so -- bomb some malls, bomb public transport, heck -- shoot up an area right outside the security zone at an airport. Remember after 9/11 when people were actually freaked out about such things? I remember people afraid to go to malls -- afraid that someone would put some chemicals or poison into the water supply, etc., etc.

How much of that happened? Nothing really. We just forgot about it. We didn't really make "security" around any of these things any better. Hell, we can't even keep our weapons-grade uranium safe with any real security.

We're doing nothing for any number of major terrorist targets, and the terrorists are doing nothing to attack them. Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion is there aren't a significant number of real terrorists. (Well, except for the retirees that the FBI entraps by hanging out with them at Waffle House for months and convincing them they should attempt a terrorist act...)

So, given that it's clear we've done this whole TSA thing TO OURSELVES, why exactly is it that you want to lash out at Muslims everywhere, as if they were ALL represented by a handful of folks who plotted 9/11??

if we do a tit-for-tat (as childish as that might initially seem) then maybe the escalations and wars would come to a stand-still.

"Tit-for-tat" implies that there's some sort of actual targeting of people who did something. If a red-headed guy goes on a murder spree in a subway, and afterward the police start just randomly searching and beating the crap out of people on the subway to instill fear and dissuade anyone from attempting a similar act, your response is, "Let's go and starting beating the crap out of all redheads everywhere! That's tit-for-tat, and it will show them!"

(Don't get me wrong here -- I know the analogy is not exact, and there are militant Muslim extremist groups, whereas I don't know if there are militant redhead groups... but hopefully my point is clear. The ones doing the bad stuff at the TSA are our own fault, and saying we should use them to harass others because we allow them to harass us is one of the stupidest things I've seen modded up on Slashdot, and that's saying something....)

As to examples, your ignorance of common knowledge is not my problem. Look at his wikipedia page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

http://nymag.com/daily/intelli...

http://www.esquire.com/news-po...

http://www.poynter.org/news/me...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...

There you go. Links. Suck it long. Suck it hard.

Close, of the Forest Service, doesn't seem to agree. She said the agency was implementing the Wilderness Act of 1964, which aims to protect wilderness areas from being exploited for commercial gain. "That's kind of a distortion," says Peter Essick, an award-winning National Geographic photographer who has worked with the Forest Service before, as well as the other agencies that oversee American wildernesses for years to produce truly remarkable work. "When the Wilderness Act was created in 1964, there were plenty of people doing photography," he says. "Nothing in the Wilderness Act says photography is not approved or banned." When he goes out to shoot, Essick takes the utmost care to the follow the rules of "leave no trace," and he does it with 65 pounds of gear on his back. He's a nature photographer: Not trashing the place is pretty much rule number one.

If they safeguard people's civil rights and don't abuse it for a quick money grab, then I have no problem with computer-based diagnostics.

Having said that I wonder what would happen if the data-analysis started pointing the finger at certain lucrative products in our society - would governments order the corps to fix them or just pass the buck/get tied up in court (as they did for decades with cigarettes)?

Maybe we should bring back the poison squad...

Poison Squad

No, it didn't.
Redskin has always referred to the people, due to their "red" skin.

This may be hard to grasp, but a word can have multiple meanings. Just because you think you know what a word meant to one group of people at one point in history does not mean that all peoples throughout history have used that word the same way. To many people "redskin" undoubtedly means "person with red skin, aka an injun/Indian/Native American/etc.". However, it also was used to refer to the scalps of murdered Native Americans:

"The State reward for dead Indians has been increased to $200 for every red-skin sent to Purgatory. This sum is more than the dead bodies of all the Indians east of the Red River are worth."
(from http://www.esquire.com/blogs/n...)

Jus to be clear, "Purgatory" wasn't a euphism for Hell, it was a town (where evidently you could trade your scalps in for some serious cash). Our ancestors, being far more religiously-educated than we are, would not have confused Purgatory for Hell anyway (the two are very different places), and the second sentence further clarifies that they were talking about (pieces of) corpses.

No, I do not believe it. I believe that you just made it up. Do you have a citation? Because a Google search finds nothing except a law banning "aggressive begging" (blocking traffic, badgering or pursuing people, loitering next to ATMs, etc.).

I wouldn't go so far as to accuse him of just making it up. There are several places he might have picked up the idea. Some, the courts overrule the laws or parts of it. Some are just proposed. Some require a permit to 'gather' (eg more than 5 people). On Thanksgiving, the church should have 1 person with food in the park. 4 at a time, the homeless could come over. Then, walk away and 4 more could come up. I think the homeless should not be able to look at each other either ;) Get a permit right? I believe in the Orlando case, the problem was, you can only get a permit twice a year for each park so you have to move around. Are the activist intentionally getting in trouble making their point? Sure. Does feeding the poor in the same park, week after week, putting wear and tear on the park? Sure.



Orlando, FL
Raleigh, NC
Las Vegas, NV
Los Angeles, CA
Philadelphia, PA
Dallas, TX
Houston, TX
NYC, NY
USA Today
LA Times

Counter Point with links: No idea which (if either) are true.

The Esquire interview with the guy who claims to have shot Bin Laden.

One of several sources claiming it is probably a fraud. (Google "esquire osama bin laden interview".)

Again, I don't know which if either are true (could be politics on several levels), but I thought I'd post both links for others to peruse.

Read this. Seriously. It answers all your questions.

http://www.esquire.com/print-this/post-office-business-trouble-0213?page=all

Like this little nugget:

Over the past five years, FedEx and UPS have spent a combined $100 million lobbying Congress. Because neither company has a delivery network nearly as sprawling as [the USPS], they contract with the postal service to deliver the "final mile" of much of their cargo. For instance, more than 21 percent of all FedEx deliveries are dropped off by a postal carrier. Meanwhile, millions of postal-service letters hitch rides on FedEx flights every day, for which the company gets paid $1 billion a year. FedEx and UPS don't want the postal service to go out of business but to remain contained, out of the way...

> Fedex and UPS have perfected delivery of packages so why not
> the mail? I'm not sure what magic the USPS possesses that private
> industry couldn't do better anyway

Fact: you have it exactly backwards. The system that UPS and FedEx have "perfected" is... TO USE THE USPS! Can you believe that? A fucking FIFTH of all FedEx deliveries are actually done by the USPS. Abolish them and FedEx will DIE.

FedEx and UPS are perfect examples of the 90/10 rule. You can service 90% of the people with 10% of the total effort... and serving those last 10% takes 90%. But you should NEVER look at something like that and come to the conclusion "Why don't we just ignore that last 10%?" I guarantee you, yo or someone you care about is in the lower 10% of something -- schooling needs, medical needs, etc. Everyone subsidizes someone, and everyone benefits from a subsidy at some point.

That said, I wish the USPS wasn't in the junk mail business. It is a disgusting waste of time, energy, and natural resources. Literally 90% of my mail (by weight) goes straight into the recycle bin, unread.

Arbitrary execution.
It happens weekly -- what do you think Terror Tuesday is all about. And one for certain was completely innocent 16yo American born boy. The government knew so much about him when it killed him, that it claimed he was 21.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/abdulrahman-al-awlaki-death-10470891#ixzz2ABHMgELN
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/the_killing_of_awlakis_16_year_old_son/

Arbitrary indefinite detention.
Obama tried to close the facility at Gitmo and MOVE the PRACTICES to the Thompson Federal Supermax in Illinois. Don't feed me that bullshit about GOP obstruction and he tried to "close GITMO" where people understand "close" to mean "stop the practices" rather than merely continue the practices at a new location.
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/creating-gitmo-north-alarming-step-says-aclu
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/06/obama-promise-close-guantanamo-worse

Libya, and the War Powers Act. Obama conveniently redefines war.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/19/obama-libya-lawyers-war-powers_n_879951.html
http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/house-rejects-authorization-of-libya-intervention-20110624

In the Al Alwaki case the missile was targeted at Al Alwaki killing him and his son was close enough to the blast to be killed as well.

Sorry, but that's simply false. In fact, Al Alwaki's son was killed in a separate drone strike two weeks later:

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/abdulrahman-al-awlaki-death-10470891#ixzz2ABHMgELN

When Neil H. Armstrong, a blond, blue-eyed, thirty-eight-year-old civilian astronaut from Wapakoneta, Ohio, steps out of the lunar landing module this summer and plants his size eleven space boot on the surface of the moon, the event will eclipse in historic importance the landing of Christopher Columbus in the New World. Commander Armstrong's step will not immediately affect the nature of the quality of life on earth, of course (neither did Columbus'), but it will mark the departure point of a fantastic new adventure in the saga of man. For that step onto the moon will signal a readiness to travel throughout the solar system, even the universe â" in flights that will lead not merely to new worlds, new substances, new conceptions about the nature of matter and of life itself, but, it can scarcely be doubted, to contact with new beings as well. Moreover, Armstrong's will be the first such epic stride to be recorded in detail by the microphone and the television camera. Future generations will be able to relive all that was said and done at that moment as never before in the history of exploration. The stupendous magnitude and unprecedented visibility of what Commander Armstrong is about to do, therefore, combine to pose the question: when the astronaut takes the first step on the moon, what should he say?

I believe it may have been Gore Vidal who made the suggestion that still sticks in my mind after forty-three years: "We come in peace for all mankind. Now come out from behind that rock with your hands up."

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/post-office-default-11215023

"In other words, we can no longer have nice things from what is still, in theory, our government, because we have placed what is still, in theory, our government into the hands of vandals and madmen, so the solution is to hand everything over to a private sector that repeatedly has shown that, in the pursuit of an extra nickel in profits, it would sell your grandmother to the Somali pirates and drill an oil-well in Lincoln's nose on Mount Rushmore."

a) No. They don't, the Constitution is pretty clear about standards necessary to convict for treason.
b) They didn't all happen on the battlefield.
c) The administration has been in court defending it's right to assassinate journalists on equal footing with terrorists, after an injunction was obtained to prevent exactly that.

If you want darkness, wear this

If you want silence wear these

You know where to put the cork...

If you want darkness, wear this

If you want silence wear these

In fact, get both

But don't tell me I can't look out the window

You are making the assumption that the person did something wrong. How do you feel about murdering innocent teeangers?

The notion that the M16 is unreliable got started with the shaky roll out in Vietnam. The normal teething problems of any system

C.J. Chivers covers this in "The Gun", his history of the AK-47. The inherent reliability of the AK-47 goes back all the way to the prototypes. There are a couple of design decisions that make the AK-47 very reliable. One is that the gas piston reloading mechanism that ejects the spent casing has heavier components and has a much forceful action, it just hammers the spent shells out, so it is harder to jam. Another is that the components were deliberately made to fit together loosely, if the rifle gets dirty or is dropped in sand or mud, it can still fire. The rife was also protected by chrome, which made it corrosion resistant. And the other thing is, they field-tested the prototypes. They didn't settle on the AK-47 design and then start field-testing, they had a number of different designs they were experimenting with and they were rolling them all around in the mud to see which would hold up well under combat conditions.The AK-47 was the design that emerged from this Darwinian design process.

The M-16 has more moving parts, they fit together closely and, critically, the Armalite company never did the kind of field-testing that the Soviet design bureau did. The GIs sent to Vietnam did the field-testing, and when the reports came back that there were problems, the company and the Army were slow to respond. One of the biggest issues is that the M-16 was sent to wet, humid Vietnam without chroming the barrel to protect it against rust. Eventually they worked a lot of the kinks out, but a lot of GIs died in the process. There's an excerpt from the book talking about this you can read online http://www.esquire.com/features/ak-47-history-1110-3.

I think the comparison of this oxygen system to the premature rollout of the M-16 is a valid one. In both cases, contractors fielded a system before it was ready, jeopardizing people's lives. And given the cost of the F-22, I think the design philosophy behind the AK-47 is also worth talking about. The Soviet approach was to create a gun that had several key features- it was lightweight, it had a rapid rate of fire, it was cheap enough to produce in vast numbers, and it was simple and rugged enough that it didn't require a lot of training and maintenance to use. They emphasized quantity over quality. An enemy with accurate weapons and superior training could be overcome if you just rounded up a whole bunch of peasants and gave every one of them a gun that shot 600 rounds per minute. And all you have to do is look at the American experience in Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan to see that there's a lot to this philosophy. Because of planes like the F-22, nobody can possibly defeat the U.S. in a head-to-head contest for air superiority, but that doesn't guarantee victory any more than it did in Vietnam or Afghanistan.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/12/meet-the-people-who-want-julian-assange-whacked.ars

http://news.change.org/stories/brits-arrest-assange-us-politicians-seek-to-hang-him

http://www.tomchambless.com/2010/12/01/fox-analyst-mike-huckabee-wants-to-execute-julian-assange-but-let-murderers-go-free/

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/julian-assange-pentagon-072910