Slashdot Mirror

Just look at all the domestic spying that has been uncovered, admitted to, and simply resumed without anything being done about it.

You mean the domestic spying which got its real start when Bush forced telecom companies to install equipment which allowed the government to listen in on every phone call without a warrant? That he admitted to signing the executive orders and which were subsequently found to be illegal? Who then went and expanded the program?

You mean those hacks who kept saying over and over it's for our protection, that the right to privacy no longer exists?

https://www.truthmapping.com/a...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://cognexus.org/id41.htm
https://www.amazon.com/Dialogu...

Others: http://barcamp.org/w/page/4722...

An idea: "The argumentative theory of reasoning" (Humans may be adapted to find solutions to problems and approach the truth through arguing with each other in small groups)
https://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes...

> oversized

> The drone, which was about two feet in diameter and weighed about two pounds

Yeah, nah.

Ooh, are these the same history books that refer to slaves as "workers"? Because American history books are NEVER EVER EVER biased, nope, nope, nosiree. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/1...

if I have to disclose my social media accounts and phone or social media login details, I will spare you from the several thousand bucks

Trump had, literally, nothing to do with it. Here is a June 28th 2016 article about the searches, but our racist media gave Obama a pass until Trump got elected. And then, before the President-elect even entered office, there was an avalanche of articles about the "new" procedures — not directly blaming him, but planting the negative thoughts in the gullible heads (like yours and those of your adoring moderators here today). Only some of the reports mentioned the truth:

searches increased fivefold in the final fiscal year of the Obama presidency

So, no, it had nothing to do with Trump. More likely, the reason is the growth of dollar since last December — vacationing in the US simply became more expensive for foreigners, while going abroad became cheaper for Americans.

Here is an example
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

And based on the comments she voted republican not democratic.

“If you try to predict height using the genes we’ve identified in Europeans in Africans, you’d predict all Africans are five inches shorter than Europeans, which isn’t true,” Dr. Posthuma said.

Trump: "Nobody knew that health care could be so complicated" Yeah, that was pretty dumb, go ahead and mock Trump over it.

By the way, do you remember President Obama in 2011?

Obama: "'Shovel-ready' was not as shovel-ready as we expected." Blogs I read mocked Obama over it.

Here's video of President Obama saying the words quoted above:
https://youtu.be/O55aRrvXtio?t=36s

Analysis from New York Times:
Obama Lession: 'Shovel Ready' Not So Ready

It would be more surprising if a candidate didn't promise grand things and have to walk them back.

Like sanctuary cities that think they're above the law?

Actually, the vast majority of sanctuary cities are within the law, even by Trump's standards.

Like the federal government under Obama not enforcing immigration laws on the books.

It is well within the powers of the President to prioritize law enforcement, especially immigration. It's not like deportations dropped suddenly under Obama. Would you rather deport X felons or X/2 felons + X/2 otherwise innocent people? This kind of thing happens all the time at every level of government. District Attorneys don't prosecute every case that comes in front of them, they have to prioritize. Would you claim a cop is "not enforcing the traffic laws" because they choose not to pull over a speeder while on their way to a homicide? Probably not.

The Trump administration has done nothing counter to Constitution.

Well not successfully at least. Federal judges from all over the country found enough of a Constitutional issue in Trump's travel bans to warrant indefinite injunctions until the cases are settled (assuming the Administration still intends to fight them at all).

Keep in mind, the Administration didn't try to justify the bans in court, but instead claimed that they didn't have to provide justification. From the 9th Circuit Ruling (source):

[T]he government has taken the position that the president’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections. ... There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy.

Here, I will explain it to you.

1) Corporate is always looking for ways to pay people less money/get more done with less expense, even when this results in terrible things happening (to other people.)

2) Corporate decides that IT "Just costs too damn much." Decides to do something about it.

3) Corporate notices that there is this potential way to replace those expensive local IT people with very inexpensive foreign IT people, but it has a caveat attached-- they have to try to fill any vacancies their firings create with local workers first.

4) They tell their HR people to create job descriptions that no sensible person would ever consider even close to being realistic, so as to purposefully exclude 100% of the local talent pool. This creates the "shortage!!" they need, so that they can use H1B workers at a fraction of the cost.

5) The country of choice to obtain these workers, India, is notorious(1) for its false academic certifications, and lack of academic ethics. An entire industry(2) springs up to satisfy Corporate America's insatiable desire for cheap replacements for its domestic tech workers. The "tech workers" produced via this process are often of terrible quality, and certainly DO NOT actually meet the absurd resume requirements demanded by HR-- but *DO* meet them on paper, because the certification bodies and subcontractor industries in India fake everything to make this so.

6) These "terrible more often than not" (3) replacements come on board, Corporate ALREADY KNOWS THEY ARE INCOMPETENT, and thus demands that the native workers that are being displaced train these A-holes-- Or they wont get severance pay.(4)

7) This is profoundly effective (In the short term) for Corporate, as they slash the operating budget of IT, which they view as a bloated cost center-- up until they get hacked, or something goes horribly wrong.

8) Meanwhile, the now displaced native workforce is effectively unhirable, because the base pay they need to even afford food and basic utilities, are forced to find new careers. They migrate to other segments of the workforce, taking their skills with them.

9) Morons like the analysts that created the linked article, improperly attribute this rise in general technical affinity in the general labor pool; Assume foolishly that it is because of young workers just being more competent with tech. Nevermind that being a 30-something is NOT old by any stretch, and that this generation is the generation most affected by the mass firings and replacement with H1B visa holders.

10) People like yourself are either disinterested, or listen to the garbage from Corporate America, and come away with very strange ideas of the actual pathology of this problem, and dont understand how "Really inferior H1B workers taking over" and "Very skilled people being systematically excluded" are not mutually exclusive.

1)
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/20/...

2)
https://qz.com/965291/wipro-to...

3)
https://qz.com/965291/wipro-to...

4)
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/0...

I did check. All media outlets are reporting it as a rape investigation.

And here. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0... we have this:

His Swedish accuser, through her lawyer, decried the decision. “It is a scandal that a suspected rapist can escape justice and thereby avoid the courts,” the lawyer, Elisabeth Fritz, said in a statement to news agencies. “My client is shocked.”

There is this tho which is really interesting. https://www.theguardian.com/me.... Content of this I agree strongly suggests there was no significant change in allegations leveled inspite of the R word being thrown around in the media over recent events so I need to retract my prior comments about this and revisit my thinking on this.

Maybe it's a mark of the CIA's extreme deviousness that they would create a plot in which their secrets were stolen and their agents betrayed just to frame the Chinese state but I doubt it. In any case, why isn't the reference to the original NYT story?

China executes the spies it finds.

"The article describes a Russian soldier in the Ukraine pretending to be a 42-year-old American housewife".

Blown right away. There are no Russian soldiers in Ukraine.

Kadyrov, is that you?

Oh, wait, maybe you're Mahmoud, I guess since you've been barred from running again, now you're ./ing from your Mom's basement :P

You're really whining about Obama's pension?

It was killed by "dumping" of sets into the US market at or below cost by Japanese manufacturers beginning in the 1970s, and peaking in the 1980s.

http://www.nytimes.com/1983/12...

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

Humph. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0... You were saying?

I'm sticking with him not having a clue as to what is happening in the FTC. Seems like Trump is in that 30% that doesn't know what Net Neutrality is.

Trump is never going to stop Pai on technical grounds, Trump is going to fire Pai after he anger millions of voters. That's something that Trump will pay attention to.

Doesn't matter if it is a technical understanding or not. Trump has been told and has parroted the anti-net neutrality talking points and has made it apart of his campaign and his administration staff have stated they will start reversing Obama era title 2 see here for references to the Spicer press release statements. The administrations/Trump's tact is that it was an overreach. No matter how you cut it, Trump is involved and has talked about it multiple times.

So yes, this is a Trump goal and a Republican goal.

Why are they discussing sensitive matters in insecure environments? Because they're fucking clown shoes. They think it's ok to just break out sensitive intelligence documents in the middle of a crowded dining room at a hotel. Trump's personal body guard can't figure out how to use a fucking Manila folder to keep the Secretary of Defense's phone number private.

See here. Comey was asked to drop the Flynn investigation. This is more or less fact now (memo's are admissible as evidence). So no, I'm not saying the FBI director is lying. I'm saying he's telling the truth and Trump broke the law by obstructing justice. Unless Trump is above the law he is due to be impeached. Again, is there a flaw here I don't see?

This is another case of "The cover up is worse than the crime". Bill Clinton didn't break the law getting a blow job, he broke the law lying about it under oath. Now, if a regular guy lied about getting a blow job to a judge he'd probably get a fine and let off. If a regular guy interfered in a police investigation I don't think he'd get let off with a fine.

The problem is... real news organizations have published a great deal of information about the Russian interference in the election.... stupid fucking fascist republicans just can't accept they've been lied too like little worthless bitches by their masters. If the average republican wasn't such a whiny little fascist bitch with their heads up their ass, they might not be so fond of living in their own little fantasy land.... but they are.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0... ...among just way too many to post for you're stupid anti-intellectual brain dead ass.

So... are you a fucking Russian spy... of a fucking neo-nazi fascist bitch?

I'd say the report from The Office of the Director of National Intelligence is pretty clear:
https://www.nytimes.com/intera...

There's a big difference between whistleblowing on illegal activities

Manning did it to impress his boyfriend:

To parse Private Bradley Manning’s motivation for sharing classified documents with WikiLeaks, the New York Times talks to Manning’s circle of friends, including a group of “politically motivated computer hackers” that he met through his boyfriend, a drag queen. Those friends suspect that Manning was compelled by “desperation for acceptance — or delusions of grandeur.”

>The government repealed the ACA's pre-existing condition protextions. Directly endangering the lives of his family.
Can the state change that? Which is easier for him to change to help him?

>Failure to save a life is murder. You will not convince me otherwise.
Not trying to convince but semantics and acknowledging assisted suicide.

>What the US did before Obamacare absolutely was genocide.
Rubbish. You are seriously devaluing the word 'genocide' by using that word which is used to describe the holocaust with a national healthcare policy... ridiculous.

>There is absolutely overwhelming evidence.
Not in the US there isn't. few states have done anything remotely close to universal healthcare and that is the problem. With all the other federal initiatives you mentioned they all had state frameworks across different states large and small. Obamacare or Romneycare was only in a few states for a small amount of time. That is nto enough to convince the other states to use that framework model.

Even now Obamacare, while laudable, has economic issues that are not popular with smaller states and weaker economies even though their citizens are getting the most out of it. Yes, NY and CA with large industry and tax base can fund expansive programs. This is part of the issue of why you have to have enough state frameworks to get a federal initiative to work. It isn't murder or genocide in wanting a sustainable and effective government and taking it slow to adopt any policy that can bankrupt a small economy. Just because NY can do it doesn't mean all states can do it. If you don't' have a sustainable and effective policy in governance instability will happen and your laudable goal will cause harm.

The US is hardpressed to use other frameworks from other nations because of the state and federal distinctions. Even Trumps " buy insurance across statelines" is hard because there are literally hundreds of different laws for healtcare the company has to abide by from local to state to federal.

>Dialysis is fully covered by federal funding for anybody who needs it
Yes, and it is 6% of Medicares total budget and growing... Cost is a huge part of it and if costs do not come down (currently around 75k per patient a year) will cut into other services provided by Medicare. Something like what happened to NY when they finally allowed for-profit dialysis centers to operate because the costs were making the hospitals and non-profit clinics having trouble staying solvent. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01...

>And get rid of profit seeking healthcare while you are at it
Tell that to NY and their dialysis centers.

Have a look at the New York Times getting their review of the iMac so desperately wrong in 1998. You sound like that.

My MacBook, single USB C, does 'real work' just fine. The MacBook Pros will do more of it, should you need to. The aim isn't a million dongles, the point is you've bought the start of the new normal.

Ladies and gentlemen, step right in...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

I dropped the link somehow. Thousands and thousands!

That's why, for example, judges and jurors are sought to be impartial.

There you are! Justifying Trump's dismissing a judge as "biased" because he was of Mexican descent...Racist, racist, racist!

Of course, attacking a judge because of his ancestry is indeed, racist, and Trump's admissionsa actually showed his own realization of the bias and animus he had been demonstrating.

That is what Trump chose to do. He picked a deliberate course of racial antagonism to attack a judge in a lawsuit where it was immaterial. In the media. Nothing more. Remember, Trump University? It didn't get filed as a request for recusal in court, it was merely engaging in political aggrandizement. You don't get a judge to act in a case just because you go on CNN and pout like a crybaby.

You do know this, right? Trump was whining about a judge. He chose to do it with an included racist spin, so it only reflects on Trump. Not the judge. In the realm of public opinion. At least, until it becomes relevant to a legal matter. Now personally, I blame Trump's political advisers, who should have at least made Trump temper his remarks, but he still has a problem with running his mouth. Or twitter fingers, as the case may be. But he's not the only one with a problem with that in his administration. That sort of thing can reflect on you.

Which was why when somebody takes your statements, applies them to you, in a legal case, and submits them to court, well, then you have a judge rule on it.

Now if you want to see a judge who got in trouble because of their own actions, let's try one. That's one where a

Looks like some more Wells Fargo Executives will be getting some well deserved huge bonuses when they retire to spend more time with their families.

I guess you will be disappointed to learn that Wells Fargo is clawing back $75M in bonuses. I'm sure there are still more bonuses they could take back, but it isn't quite the way you make it out to be.

protest groups who took to the streets of Manhattan to save the city from being dismembered, disinfected and depopulated

Decades later, thanks to the heroic efforts, the entire Manhattan remains rodent-infested and overcrowded .

Most film/artistic rewards are usually about somehow benefiting those who run them. For example, it's a pretty open secret that you can't win the Oscars without doing some heavy bribery:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03...

In other words, if you've ever wondered why a rather average movie can win so many awards (I'm looking at you, Lost in Translation) it's because somebody paid good money for it to happen.

That said, it's best to just ignore them.

Thank you NSA for developing this exploit for the ransomware hackers to use.

The US NSA are to blame for this global (dozens of countries) IT clusterfuck. I wonder how the leaders of all of those other countries are feeling about the US right now...

Sanders would have lost even more easily than Clinton did. People had to hate Clinton for Clinton to lose. Sanders merely needed to say what he represented.

You're assuming a the same people who voted in Clinton vs Trump would've voted in Sanders vs Trump. That's not the case. Clinton didn't lose because people who voted for Trump hated her. Clinton lost because people who voted for Obama hated her, and didn't bother to show up to vote.

Registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans. The Democrats' problem has always been lower turnout. For them to win elections, they need a candidate who inspires registered Democrats to bother to vote. Obama did that. Sanders did that. Clinton did not. 2016 turnout was down in counties where Clinton won, up in counties that Trump won. Clinton's message of "If you don't vote for me Trump will win" simply wasn't good enough to inspire Democrats to go to the polls.

No they didn't, the entire story is a propaganda piece to distract us from the fact that anyone and his dog can hack your Windows computer.

"The story told by American officials, cyberexperts .. was a useful reminder that as effective as cyberattacks can be in disabling Iranian nuclear plants, or Ukrainian power grids, they are no silver bullet."

Do you have to repeat this cyber bullshit on this technology site?

You seem awfully sure of her motives.

http://www.npr.org/sections/al... https://news.slashdot.org/stor... https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0...

Under Clinton’s leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure — derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) — represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

Then there is this, cash flowing to the Clinton foundation from donors. Since it's the New York Times though, that's probably just a conservative hit piece.

From the emails (and you'll have to stop being lazy and look this one up on your own), it's apparent that the donors were expecting things in return, even if Clinton wasn't offering anything. Whether she is guilty or not probably depends on the quality and quantity of evidence that can be found, the precise details of the law, and the mood of the jury, but to say there is no evidence is to just close your eyes. There is definitely evidence.

As far as I understand it, Nixon sabotaged the 1968 Vietnam peace talks because a peaceful resolution would have benefited his opponent.

How about this massive and very likely illegal (but never brought to court - surprise surprise) abuse of power:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/0...

I always thought she was the ones with ties to Russia until Trump got elected. Maybe Putin had everyone in check?

And how about if he fired a FBI director that has publicly said on at least three different occasions that he isn't under investigation for anything at all?

When Donald Trump claimed that Comey "has publicly said on at least three different occasions..." he apparently hadn't seen the news.

https://www.theatlantic.com/po...

https://www.theguardian.com/us...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

All three of those citations have links to video of Comey stating, in English, that Trump is indeed under investigation. If you need a Russian translation, we can probably find one for you.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0... Good luck, Secretary Clinton.

Maybe I'm an old fart but I wil never have something like this in my house, if I want connected thermostat and remote electric blinds, I will do it myself with Arduino.

My boss at my previous job asked me what the "Internet of Things" was. I explained to her "It means your appliances can be connected to the internet, so if you want to preheat your oven or turn up the thermostat before you get home, you can do it from your computer or phone. It also means that a hacker can set your oven to clean and burn your house down, or turn off your thermostat when you're on vacation in Mexico this winter so your pipes freeze." Of course, the second scenario can happen if Nest decided to patch your thermostat software during the winter....

Other sources reporting the story:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2017/05/08/epa-michigan-state-professor/101429388/

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/05/epa-boots-at-least-5-scientists-off-board-may-favor-replacements-from-industry/

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/08/politics/epa-scott-pruitt-board/

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/the-epa-just-got-rid-of-a-bunch-of-scientists-on-its-top-review-board-vgtrn

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2017/05/08/EPA-dismisses-five-members-of-scientific-review-board/6031494254095/

Will the AI have a college degree to work as file clerk?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/business/college-degree-required-by-increasing-number-of-companies.html

I'm pretty sure Obama For America employed many, if not all the same tactics in 2008 election...

Why yes, look at MIT's Technology Review, the New York Times, and InfoWorld - again, another glaring example of a profound double-standard. When Team Obama did it, it was "ground-breaking", when Republicans employ similar tools it a nefarious plot to control the world!

Normally I'd agree with you but since you are trying to compare putting Obama in the White House to putting Donald Trump in the White House I'm going to have to disagree here. Obama, whatever you may think of him, at least had a multi digit IQ that allowed him to answer questions from reporters, skin that was too thick for his soul to be injured by Saturday Night Live skits and had a clear idea of which countries he had bombed. Trump on the other hand walks out of press conferences when he gets questions he does not like, launches twitter storms where he lambasts anybody who lampoons him and told a reporter he'd launched a missile strike on Iraq until the reporter corrected him and pointed out the strike was on Syria.... and those are just three sample of the highlights of what those bastards at SCL Group and their friends have saddled us with

Exactly - here are some of the links:

MIT's Technology Review
New York Times
InfoWorld

The Left seems to have forgotten how Obama won the 2008 campaign - look at MIT's Technology Review, the New York Times, and InfoWorld.

I'm pretty sure Obama For America employed many, if not all the same tactics in 2008 election...

Why yes, look at MIT's Technology Review, the New York Times, and InfoWorld - again, another glaring example of a profound double-standard. When Team Obama did it, it was "ground-breaking", when Republicans employ similar tools it a nefarious plot to control the world!

Instead we have a government that passed a bill to allow people with mental illness to purchase firearms.

I believe CNN covered how other countries handle firearms awhile back. Having none worked well. Having rigid controls also worked well in at least one case. Was it Sweden? I forget. I think much of it there was that people kept their guns after mandatory service or something similar.

What doesn't work well is complete chaos. Over and over right wingers say things like, well Chicago has high gun crime rates, but restrictive laws. I mean really, are people really this stupid, or do they just not care? Restricting the purchase of a gun in a city is minimally effective at best. People have cars, feet, access to public transportation, etc, etc.

What would work is what Australia did. Australia's response to mass killings

Now, people will come up with nonsense arguments on why it would not work, but they are all bs. Australia and all other similar countries provide more than enough evidence that if you implement a similar solution, you would, eventually, get similar results. (The shear number of guns in America would slow that down.)

Of course implementing a similar solution is harder here because of the amendment which mentions that we might need weapons in case we need to form a militia. I'd tend to argue that we do have cops now. Either way, we don't necessarily have to ban them to at least make major headway. We just need to actually implement some controls to keep those who should not have them from having them.

It is similar with health care. Trump is like "Health care is hard, okay?" It isn't. Lots of countries have figured it out. Pick a solution, tune it to your desired result. The democrats said, "We aren't going to discriminate and everyone needs to pay in. You're alive, so you have a responsibility to, if you get sick, make sure everyone else isn't stuck with the bill." The republicans are more like, "We'll let's just let the free market fix it, which brings us back to pre Obamacare which was far worse. Sick people can't get insurance and either die early, run up costs in emergency rooms that are never paid, or, more than likely both. Lots more bankruptcy and all the rest."

My solution:
1. Leave Obamacare, but with these changes. Minimum benefits remain.
2. buy across state lines is okay, since (2). Note this does not mean you get the same price. An insurance company may charge you more because your state is more expensive.
3. No, you cannot buy insurance on the way to the hospital. What insurance will cover may be limited for say six months after buying it.
4. Double the fine. Seriously, the point of the fine was for people to pay in to spread the actual cost.
5. Add a public option.

For example, he didn't say that Trump looks like a hunk of sloppy pizza dough if you put wrinkly vagina on it, slapped some colorless wrinkled eyes, tossed some wispy old hair on top and dressed it in a suit.

Because that would be uncalled for. That would be as wrong as calling someone “disgusting” and “a slob” with “a fat, ugly face.” https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0...

When we kicked -- along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, "Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't know -- if you don't, Hezbollah will control it."

Would you like me to spell out the 5 lunacies packed into that one phrase of his? Do you disagree, that, had Palin (or any Republican) said something remotely as idiotic as this, all newspapers and all TV-channels would've been dwelling on it for weeks and months? But, because Biden was a Democrat, you never even knews about this until now...