Slashdot Mirror

You go where the money is? Reasonable business decision, I'd say.

And in saying it you demonstrate how racism is self-reinforcing.
No point in building stores where people are poor, so no jobs for poor people.

Oh, and for all the inevitable reactionary color-blind posters telling me I'm the racist for pointing out this is racism:
In america wealth is a proxy for race.
White families average 10x more wealth than black families . Furthermore, 20% of black families have negative wealth which is 2x the rate of white families. And the wealth that many black families do have is mostly tied up in a depreciating asset - their car.

These disparities are largely due to public policy choices like red-lining, jim crow, etc, that have repressed the ability of non-whites to accumulate generational wealth. But examples like jawtheshark's amoral business logic also contribute.

I'm looking at RT.com's front page right now. Everything looks semi-normal, no glaring "FAKE!" story, at least stories that go completely counter to what Western media is spouting. Taking a particular piece, about Lebanon's Hariri and the whole "quitting from Saudi Arabia" debacle of the last week :

https://www.rt.com/news/410561...

Comparing said story with the Washington Post's story on the same event shows near identical facts being stated by both outlets :

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

So... what's the issue with RT.com's coverage ? Only the fact that it's state sponsered ? But by that token, so is PBS, BBC, CBC, ABC (the Australian ABC, not the American one!)... This all seems rather unfair and lacking any actual substance. It seems to be ... actual anti-Russian propaganda in a way. Maybe if Alphabet were a bit more transparent about their findings that led up to this decision. I mean, surely they're not just doing this based on the "Russian meddling" narrative, that's based on a report from a private firm like Crowdstrike... or worse... the Steele Dossier that's been proven false in many regards. And why are they not blocking Buzzfeed news ? Let's be real. Buzzfeed.

Now they keep going on about a uranium deal that she had absolutely nothing to do with and a contribution to her charity by someone no longer involved with the deal which actually represents a tiny fraction of the uranium trade for uranium that can't leave the country anyway. Just because Trump says it doesn't make it true. About the worst is Bill's misogynistic behavior and her still supporting him. It's all whataboutism with Trump where he tries misdirecting blame at others and refuses to take responsibility for his own mistakes. Hell, even Fox News debunked the Uranium theory, much to the chagrin of their viewers.

I heard ZERO indictments of him about his political leanings

https://qz.com/1055466/the-alt... basically calls him a liar when he denies being 'alt right'.

Then there are the suspicious string of articles all basically going, "Damore is an alt-right [hero|martyr]":
https://www.theguardian.com/co...
https://www.usatoday.com/story...
https://www.recode.net/2017/8/...
https://www.huffingtonpost.com...
https://www.vox.com/culture/20...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.newsweek.com/who-ja...
http://nymag.com/selectall/201...

Maybe that was just because there was too much material to get to boring stuff like that in his 15 minutes of fame.

No, it's because his political leanings are by all accounts very much aligned to the people trying to demonise him, hence the multitude of articles trying to position him with the people they don't like.

I hesitate to say 'conspiracy' but it sure as fuck doesn't look like independent and honest reporting to me.

I don't know about the phone you're using, but if I need to I can power down without unlocking at which point only the pin will unlock it again. Yes if an officer was quick and grabbed the phone before I was able to do so and physically forced my finger on the sensor then they could unlock the phone, but if they are so desperate to unlock my phone it's unlikely a PIN would stop them either.

You need to turn off your TV. Gun violence is trending down, as the media continues to hype up and emphasize the few cases that are left. If you think that shooting is getting worse, you've fallen for the media's lies.

Example:
We've had a massive decline in gun violance
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Example 2:
FBI: US Homicide Rate at 51-Year Low
https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-...

To further blow your mind - if you look at the stats, there's a strong correlation between increased numbers of guns and decreased violence. It's quite possible that increasing gun ownership will decrease crime even more.

treat them with respect _before_ they want to die. It's like the right wing being anti-abortion and then cutting child insurance programs. Nobody really gives a fuck. They just want to seem like they do.

You've got it backwards there. The left and far left have pushed on regular people to the point where left-wing politicians and academia have told, implied, and shamed people in general not to take pride in their country, culture, and so on.

No, you have it backwards. The Right, and the Far Right, have pushed on regular people to the point where right-wing politicians demagoguery have told, implied, and shamed people in general not to criticize their country, culture, and so on, as anything less than fervent pride is wretched base calumny.

Patriotism has been corrupted by the most vilest act of all.

Of course, there are problems with the nature of pride, not to mention your own support for the suppression of Cornish, Jersey, Manx, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, and other identities.

Then went on blaming them that all the ills in the world are their fault and so on. The backlash is growing because the left created their own enemy.

Again, backwards, the right then went on stoking up the fires of outrage and hysteria, to get the mob of people chanting their denunciations en masse. It's easy to provoke, people are easily misled by the forces of anger and hatred. That way somebody ELSE is to blame.

Common psychology really, responsibility is hard to apply for yourself, easy to apply to others.

That ranges in everything from those 'minorities' getting preferential treatment in the judicial system, to those minorities given a free pass to rape young girls for decades(see rotherham in the UK and other cities there). And the police being 'afraid of being labeled racist' as the reason that they did nothing. Or turning around and charging the rape victim with a hate crime, while letting her attacker go free.

Yes, we know the British police aren't a hotbed of racism and bigotry, they don't cover up crimes, they don't blame the innocent, nope.

And I didn't even bring up their misconduct in Northern Ireland.

If you don't think this is the way that it happened, you only need to look at media.

If you don't realize how the right-wing is making things up, you need to look at them with a more critical eye.

With the various "cultural appropriation" garbage, or buildings being scrubbed of historical names because 'reasons' of whatever they might be.

Are you still upset that people keep telling you that your cuisine isn't genuinely authentic British, but a hodgepodge of varying intersecting influences?

Or are you upset that people no longer want to be associated with tobacconists? You never protested when things were being renamed as tributes to Thatcher. Curious that. Very curious.

Political correctness was the start of this, people put up with it for a long time. But even people who are browbeaten, because they can't do something for "fear of being labeled a racist" will eventually have enough.

LOL, the "politically correct" attitude among the right is why they're smashing Keurigs and threatening anybody who cancels commercial time on their preferred media outlets. Meanwhile, the actual people who are browbeaten, the exploited and abused, you don't care about, and won't even spend one word of thought for them.

It's always funny when the right-wing stalwarts complain about "PC" though, when they're the most demanding tha

According to Gordon Haskett, they actually have dropped prices. By about 1%.

So. There you are.

You'd think that, but thousands of people still forget to unload their handguns from their carry-on baggage every year[1]. Those cost on the same order as a cellphone and failure to remove them can result in jail time, not just missing a flight.

[1] Washintgon Post, August 2017

I wouldn't be surprised at all. Seriously, some of the most racist people I know are well intentioned liberal retards who think they are helping black people. Because obviously, black people don't know about cell phones or even where the DMV is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I suppose you can hear that if you really want to... but there's some major slight of hand going on in that video.

Here's the actual facts:
1) Voter IDs laws are designed to disenfranchise black people because black people overwhelmingly vote Democrat.
2) This works because the process required to get a government ID is fairly complicated, and the things that make it complicated tend to correlate with being black, hispanic, poor, or elderly. 3 of those 4 groups that lean Democratic.
3) States looking to disenfranchise minorities tend to treat their black population worse in general. If they're trying to disenfranchise them with voter ID laws they'll try extra hard to avoid giving them IDs.

Now here's the first trick the Fox News reporter pulls:

1) He seeks out a bunch of white undergrads who understand that voter ID laws seek to disenfranchise minorities but they don't fully understand the mechanisms that make it difficult for minorities to obtain IDs for voting.
2) Next he primes them with answers, for instance one problem with getting ID over the Internet is you may not have the proper documentation. Other than the first guy who talks about access the reporter seems to prime them by talking about access, so predictably they run with the idea that some of the disenfranchised black people have trouble accessing the internet.

Now, here comes the second trick:

1) The white undergrads were talking about black people in states targeted by voter ID laws. New York is not one of those states. So many of the fundamental issues like access to ID aren't applicable. Basically he's "debunking" the assertions by talking to a completely different group of people.
2) Now this one is very subtle but very disingenuous. The white interviewees are talking about the specific subset of black people who are being targeted by the voter ID laws, ie people having trouble obtaining ID. Now the reporter repeats those statements back to individual black people as though they were meant to describe them, the reporter is the one who generalizes the statements and makes them racist.

And of course you have the fact that he's almost certainly cherry picking a very non-representative sample of interviewees. You should be very skeptical of accepting a heavily edited video as evidence from someone known for deceptively and unethically editing their videos.

You still trying to blame Democrats and liberals because lawsuits in Wisconsin, Alabama, North Carolina, Texas, and Pennsylvania resulted in courts finding the conservative Republican governments in each of those states committed willful and deliberate racial discrimination in order to deter blacks from voting?

Oh well, I guess you can blame Obama.

After all, nobody could imagine the DMV being a hotbed of obstructive bureaucracy.

China has known about these pollution problems at least since 2008, probably even longer. But silicon tetrachloride is an environmental "show stopper" if not reprocessed...it's worse than the old Roman idea of "salting the land". Nothing grows, animals die, etc. ST can be used for other purposes (like making fiber optic cables) but that requires vertical planning in your manufacturing sectors.

https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

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

The problem is, you're telling the wrong audience. Western societies are already having depopulation problems.

Billionaire Bill Gates is personally investing $50 million to help fund research to find a treatment for Alzheimer’s disease, a type of dementia Gates says has struck members of his own family.

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

Furthermore, you're citing a poem as evidence of... what?

The failure of your Moscow reform school to educate you on either Literary Analysis or American Civics?

Oh well, no worse than usual.

I heard the GOP is still trying to convince folks that Sutherland, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Pulse, and the Boston Massacre were all personally orchestrated by Hillary Clinton's secret underground pizza ring.

Meanwhile, nobody can deny that Roy Moore dated teenagers in the 1930s at the height of the Depression. Wait, wait, I mean, Roy Moore's inability to deny dating teenagers while in his thirties sends the GOP senators into a depression.

It's OK though, you are secretly planning to take your cyanide pill a week early.

Fortunately for us in the USA, we have a constitution that prevents gun grabbers like you from trying to take our guns (and we actually own guns, so even if you abrogate the constitution, you are still stuck trying to confiscate 300,000,000 guns from 50,000,000 gun owners who will fight you if you try confiscation by force.)

In the US, your odds of dying in a mass shooting are minuscule, less than 100 fatalities a year https://thesocietypages.org/so... out of 340,000,000 people. It is sensational and tragic, but dogs and bees combined kill about the same number of people each year. https://www.washingtonpost.com... no one is screaming to ban dog ownership or demanding bee licenses. Your odds of dying from medical mistake (500,000 deaths per year) are orders of magnitude higher. Gun murder rates in most of the US (outside of certain inner cities dominated by minorities) are on par with murder rates in Canada and Northern Europe, and unlike those places, we have the option and capability of defending ourselves. OTOH guns save hundreds of lives every day, usually just with defensive warnings or defensive brandishing, which is enough to deter most assaults, rapes and muggings. Further, our democracy is protected by gun ownership. All the disarmed countries are one charismatic leader away from another Nazi Germany. And there is nothing they can do to stop it if it happens, no fundamental backstop to tyranny of their own government...

The truth about freedom is that there is a cost. As a US citizen, I say 100 deaths per year is reasonable in a country of 340,000,000, If there were more law abiding citizens with concealed carry, the country would be even safer. If you are afraid of guns and a gun grabber, you might want to educate yourself on actual facts instead of the spoon fed propaganda you have been force fed for years. Try something like https://www.amazon.com/More-Gu... sorry, it is a "chapter book" that requires at least 3rd grade reading comprehension.

How about we crack down on GOP senatorial candidates who target children?

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

But noone really has a short-term incentive to change either of those.

More importantly, they have a major incentive to continue to exploit it. For instance, the top 10% of drinkers drink more than 10 drinks per day (over 70 drinks a week). Most people will admit that these people have a problem. The problem is that this group of problem drinkers buy over 50% of the alcohol. Think about that, if Budweiser cut them off, they would lose over 50% of their sales. If instead of cutting them off, they limited them to only 5 drinks per day (35 drinks a week), they would still lose over 25% of their sales. A substantial portion of Budweiser's sales (and everyone else's) are people with addictions. Likely most if not all of their best customers are people with addictions. This likely holds for facebook, casinos, and possibly even department stores. Try telling a business that they need to cut off their best customers.

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

Yeah. This is exclusively my thing and no one has else argued the same.

https://www.economist.com/news...

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

https://www.thedailybeast.com/...

If it's any consolation you're not the first country going down the populist road.

65% of white men in voted for Trump in the 2016 election. Tonight, 63% of us voted for Gillespie.

Most of us voted for Trump. After the shitshow that has been the republican dominated government the past few months, almost none of us said "You know what, I really fucked up last November."

Slashdot is obviously mainly white dudes and has been for some time. I don't think it's Slashdot has simply become infested with new trash, I think we as a demographic are simply becoming okay with being stupid, ignorant, selfish, and mean, and are letting it out more often online, in the voting booth, in alt-right marches, and in crowds of people with guns.

All this talk of neuro-* while an animal with no brain still requires sleep: https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Nobody in the church had a gun to defend themselves, but a neighbor and a good Samaritan did chase the guy off

So basically pelt this guy with some Seuss and letâ(TM)s be done with it.

Haven't you heard that Dr. Seuss is no longer allowed because it's racist propaganda?

Big announcement by their CEO with Trump yesterday.

They told him to pound sand

So you do concede there was an attempted approach? That's a significant shift from "zero contact". Unfortunately, Jeff Sessions subsequently lied about this, under oath, on more than one occasion. He is finished, and will likely be the next one wearing a wire (if he isn't already...)

Yep, there was an attempt to collude with the Russians:

Clinton lawyer kept Russian dossier project closely held

Fake news is news that is literally mostly made up.

No, that was the trojan horse. Create some nebulous concept of "fake news" with a vague, implied definition that everyone can agree is a Bad Thing, then expand the definition to include legitimate news outlets you don't happen to like to justify censoring them. Bonus points if you can use manufactured xenophobia to help.

Almost no one needs help differentiating (semi)legitimate mainstream news from literal "The Onion"-tier bullshit, and those who do don't exactly tend to be swing voters anyway. The flaw in the "fake news" scheme was it was much too transparent, hypocritical, and overzealous, allowing the right to effortlessly hijack the terminology for their own use.

Donald Trump reporting that he had proof of Obama's fake birth certificate was him reporting and making up fake news. (i.e. lying) It was basically evidence 01 for the subject in recent times.

If Jon Stewart et. al. can get a pass on gleefully distorting facts or flouting journalistic ethics to push their agendas by playing the "LOL NOT A REAL REPORTER" card, then Apprentice-era Trump gets an even bigger pass. He wasn't even playacting as a journalist.

I am betting Trump is in need of a distraction, like maybe this latest fallout from the Mueller investigation: Sam Clovis, intended to take a science post at the Department of Agriculture (although he has no background in agriculture or science) is dropping out because of his ties to George Papadopoulos, the first person to plead guilty in the Russia probe.

Earlier this year, Trump nominated him to a formal position within the department: the Undersecretary of Research, Education, and Economics. That position... is often referred to as Agriculture's chief scientist. The law that created the position indicates that the person nominated for it should be chosen “from among distinguished scientists with specialized training or significant experience in agricultural research, education, and economics."

That description is a poor fit for Clovis... Clovis admits he hasn't taken any courses or published any research in science or agriculture. Instead, he suggested he was qualified because some of the courses he taught included some material on agriculture, and he had run for statewide office in Iowa. "One cannot be a credible candidate in that state," Clovis contended, "without significant agricultural experience and knowledge.”

This is too funny. Don T. said he'd “hire the best people.” Well, as scientists go, Clovis is an excellent talk-show host.. He's out now, but there's plenty more appointees to help you question whether studying hard was worth it.

I am betting Trump is in need of a distraction, like maybe this latest fallout from the Mueller investigation: Sam Clovis, intended to take a science post at the Department of Agriculture (although he has no background in agriculture or science) is dropping out because of his ties to George Papadopoulos, the first person to plead guilty in the Russia probe.

Earlier this year, Trump nominated him to a formal position within the department: the Undersecretary of Research, Education, and Economics. That position... is often referred to as Agriculture's chief scientist. The law that created the position indicates that the person nominated for it should be chosen “from among distinguished scientists with specialized training or significant experience in agricultural research, education, and economics."

That description is a poor fit for Clovis... Clovis admits he hasn't taken any courses or published any research in science or agriculture. Instead, he suggested he was qualified because some of the courses he taught included some material on agriculture, and he had run for statewide office in Iowa. "One cannot be a credible candidate in that state," Clovis contended, "without significant agricultural experience and knowledge.”

This is too funny. Don T. said he'd “hire the best people.” Well, as scientists go, Clovis is an excellent talk-show host.. He's out now, but there's plenty more appointees to help you question whether studying hard was worth it.

It sure did and the Obama administration had hard evidence of Russia targeting the election and did absolutely nothing about it.

You know in those video games where your avatar's life is bleeding out in a rising cloud of numeric bubbles? Credibility works this way, too. Only you have to visualize this yourself. It's a little harder, but may I suggest it's a worthwhile life skill to develop.

Obama's secret struggle to punish Russia for Putin's election assault — The Washington Post, 23 June 2017

Obama also approved a previously undisclosed covert measure that authorized planting cyber weapons in Russia's infrastructure, the digital equivalent of bombs that could be detonated if the United States found itself in an escalating exchange with Moscow. The project, which Obama approved in a covert-action finding, was still in its planning stages when Obama left office. It would be up to President Trump to decide whether to use the capability.

That last sentence certainly does manage to call in question whether Obama did nearly enough, soon enough. (Spoiler alert: he almost certainly didn't, and would now admit this himself.)

Sure, it sounds like it, because they oversimplified the problem. One issue with engineering education is that in order to make problems solvable, they teach you to make a lot of assumptions to simplify the problem. It's a useful tool for making control systems on a small scale, but for more complex systems like biology(even single celled organisms), politics, economics, weather, climate, psychology, it doesn't work. I think this disconnect leads to a lot of arrogance(I myself had to learn the hard way) about what we have the ability to control or even predict. I think this arrogance, the over simplification of complexity, is largely why engineers tend to be the most likely candidates for terrorism. They have immense power to understand and control simply systems, so why not big complex systems too? https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Sort of. The article starts by talking about terrorists, but when they get into talking about engineers specifically they shift to talking about "leaders of extreme right-wing groups".

In other words, that article is political propaganda that we've become accustomed to seeing from the Washington post or in Slashdot terms: "nothing to see here,move along."

The biggest danger to the stock market would seem to be squirrels..
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

In 1994, Nasdaq shut down for more than half an hour after a squirrel chewed through a power line. The outage was particularly memorable since it was the third in just a few weeks. The other problems resulted from new software and from a faulty disk drive.

It was the second time a squirrel had caused problems for the exchange. The first incident was in 1987.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/29/trumps-voter-fraud-commission-wants-to-know-the-voting-history-party-id-and-address-of-every-voter-in-america/

Well I'm in the 50% of the US population without a FaceBook account so I didn't see those ads.

<sarcasm>
But it sounds like time to bring back literacy tests for voting - if you have a FaceBook account or a Twitter account you can't vote because, well, some bad people might have run ads you saw and you're not smart enough to know the difference.
</sarcasm>

But I find it very interesting that we don't hear any complaints about other foreign "influenced" ad buying. As defined in the US code related to foreign interference in the election process, a "foreign" individual includes anyone not residing in the US legally. So by that definition any and all campaign contributions and advertising paid for by money from illegal immigrants is the same violation and as such fits the left's definition of collusion.

So if say a group like Latino Victory buys an ad featuring minority kids chased by a truck on behalf the Democrat candidate, then shouldn't we investigate to find out if Latino Victory receives donations from illegals and is therefor in violation of US campaign laws?

Wonder why know one seems to be concerned with those violations?

In Europe before the EU if a large corporation wanted to lobby for something unpopular it had to do it with national governments. So in the UK that meant it needed to lobby MPs. MPs are of course elected and know that, in theory if they backed something highly unpopular they could be challenged. Of course this doesn't really limit scope for corruption much in practice but there have still been cases where MPs flipped their stance on a law because of its unpopularity. Governments have failed to pass unpopular laws because of backbench rebellions. I.e. MPs who are part of the government party but didn't get a seat in government vote against the government.

Now in many ways the EU is a solution to this problem, from the of the lobbyists. Lobby at the European Commission level and you're lobbying appointed, not elected politicians who therefore don't care about public opinion. The European Commission is the body that initiates legislation in the European Parliament. It can also introduces directives which national governments are obligated to implement - the EU can take them to court if they do not. So if you're a lobbyist it's easy to get stuff pushed down from the EU level that you couldn't get passed national parliaments.

Now the US isn't quite as bad as this, but it still has the possibility for lobbyists for monopolists like Verizon to push laws down from the Federal level onto states. Quite possibly laws it couldn't get passed in one state legislator, let alone all of them. Famously most US Congress people run in gerrymandered seats where the other party has no chance of unseating them and are only vulnerable to being primaried by their own party. Re-election rates are 84-85% and yet Congress's approval rating is 15%. Of course money from lobbyists helps unpopular incumbents defeat less unpopular challengers. I.e. Federal politicians are more powerful and less accountable than politicians at the state level.

I.e. adding more layers of increasingly indirectly accountable government makes things worse for consumers, but better for monopolist corporations. Of course the ultimate for the lobbyists would be to have laws at the NAFTA level and make sure that politicians there are appointed and not elected. Only then would the US's lobbyists have created an environment as conducive to them as the EU is to their European counterparts.

Here's another report of the same Google problem, including Google's response: "A mysterious message is locking Google Docs users out of their files"

DST is not for the farmers. Can we stop that myth already?
Source

Despite the apparent misconception, "Republic" and "Democracy" are not mutually exclusive. You can, in fact, have a democratic republic.

(although most of the states with the phrase "democratic republic" in their official name put those words in to hide the fact that they were actually neither).

Some links: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/

  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic

The 'Russian collusion/Russia threat' meme will disappear from the media now the NYT and WashPo have reported that Hillary's campaign paid for the Steele dossier.

Before that it reflected badly on Trump, and now it reflects badly on Hillary and the Democrats. And only 7% of journalists are Democrats. So it will simply drop off the short list of stories they talk about because talking about it doesn't fit their preferred narrative.

why were only a few hundred admitted to hospital

Among the official count of these hundreds admitted to hospitals are also included those who said that felt anxiety watching the news on TV.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/08/catalonia-demo-injuries-fact-checking
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/ 2017/10/19/how-fake-news-helped-shape-the-cataloni a-independence-vote/
http://www.politico.eu/article/russia-catalonia-re ferendum-fake-news-misinformation/

And of course those who blatantly lied and got caught red handed.

http://www.lavanguardia.com/vida/20171003/431773709255/la-mujer-que-denuncio-que-la-policia-le-habia-roto-los-dedos-admite-ahora-que-solo-es-una-inflamacion.html

It pleases me to no end to use the Washington Bleep as a source for this

Also the Russiagate narrative was 'Trump paid foreigners to get opposition intelligence to influence a US election'. No evidence of that came out. What did come out was that the DNC paid FusionGPS to get the Steele dossier. The one which accused Trump of hiring Russian prostitutes to pee on Obama's bed. Basically it was a bunch of gossip.

Still consider, Steele was a foreigner. And the DNC paid him for opposition research. Which he may have got from Russian intelligence. To influence a US election. I.e. the exact thing they accused Trump of.

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

It's always struck me as rather naive that the FSB would think that getting Trump elected would solve all their problems and that they'd be try to swing the election for him. It's much more likely that they just want to create chaos in the US and will oppose any US POTUS. In fact both Bush and Obama aimed for a better relationship with Russia. Bush said he'd looked into Putin's eyes and seen a good man (McCain quipped that 'when I look into Putin's eyes I see the letters K, G and B'). Obama and Clinton tried their reset policy and Clinton sold Russian uranium. None of that helped of course - Putin invaded Georgia when Bush was POTUS and invaded Ukraine when Obama was POTUS and Clinton was secretary of state.

Probably Dugin's Foundations of Geopolitics is a better indication of how Russia sees the US. As an enemy that needs to be destroyed

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

The book emphasizes that Russia must spread Anti-Americanism everywhere: "the main 'scapegoat' will be precisely the U.S."

In the United States:

Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements â" extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics."

And of course we found out that Russia had backed BLM and US separatist movements

https://slashdot.org/comments....

You should stop being so rational if you want more /. buddies.

Also the Russiagate narrative was 'Trump paid foreigners to get opposition intelligence to influence a US election'. No evidence of that came out. What did come out was that the DNC paid FusionGPS to get the Steele dossier. The one which accused Trump of hiring Russian prostitutes to pee on Obama's bed. Basically it was a bunch of gossip.

Still consider, Steele was a foreigner. And the DNC paid him for opposition research. Which he may have got from Russian intelligence. To influence a US election. I.e. the exact thing they accused Trump of.

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

It's always struck me as rather naive that the FSB would think that getting Trump elected would solve all their problems and that they'd be try to swing the election for him. It's much more likely that they just want to create chaos in the US and will oppose any US POTUS. In fact both Bush and Obama aimed for a better relationship with Russia. Bush said he'd looked into Putin's eyes and seen a good man (McCain quipped that 'when I look into Putin's eyes I see the letters K, G and B'). Obama and Clinton tried their reset policy and Clinton sold Russian uranium. None of that helped of course - Putin invaded Georgia when Bush was POTUS and invaded Ukraine when Obama was POTUS and Clinton was secretary of state.

Probably Dugin's Foundations of Geopolitics is a better indication of how Russia sees the US. As an enemy that needs to be destroyed

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

The book emphasizes that Russia must spread Anti-Americanism everywhere: "the main 'scapegoat' will be precisely the U.S."

In the United States:

Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements â" extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics."

And of course we found out that Russia had backed BLM and US separatist movements

https://slashdot.org/comments....

Oh that's hilarious. It's the Left that increasingly thinks communism is wonderful; you're the guys in bed with Russia if anyone.
You're the ones who want tight government control of everything and integration with the press. Just like Russia.

Here it is right from one of biggest leftist mouthpieces there is, the WaPo.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

LOL I'm guessing the same amount as they paid the Wall Street Journal and the the Washington Post.

I didn't know there were companies in the US that had the power to imprison a person for not complying with them.

Happy to google it for you... first link clicked says

On its website, CCA states that the company doesn’t lobby on policies that affect “the basis for or duration of an individual’s incarceration or detention.” Still, several reports have documented instances when private-prison companies have indirectly supported policies that put more Americans and immigrants behind bars – such as California’s three-strikes rule and Arizona’s highly controversial anti-illegal immigration law – by donating to politicians who support them, attending meetings with officials who back them, and lobbying for funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Showing just how important these policies are to the private prison industry, both GEO Group and Corrections Corporation of America have warned shareholders that changes in these policies would hurt their bottom lines.

!!

What Petraeus did was far more serious than what Clinton did. He set up a secret method of passing classified information to a person that he knew was not authorized to handle classified information.

Hillary Clinton engaged in a conspiracy to have secure data transferred to an insecure system. She had people who worked for her reading secure emails off the secure email system, and then typing a summary and emailing the summary to her personal server, so she could read the summaries on her BlackBerry. Later she said she never got anything that had been marked classified... which was technically true, as the typed summaries omitted any mention of classification.

She at least once had her maid go into the SCIF in her house and get a fax.

Her lawyer had possession of a USB "thumb drive" containing all of her emails.

This Politico article is a pretty friendly article to Hillary Clinton, trying to make the case that what she did wasn't all that big a deal, but it includes a section about the summaries of secure info being sent to insecure email address. The article claims it wasn't that big a deal because the State Department IT situation was so broken that people commonly did things like that just to get their jobs done.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-emails-2016-server-state-department-fbi-214307

For Clinton, she did not set up her server with a primary function of handling classified information, a comparatively small fraction of the documents on it were classified.

The only acceptable fraction is 0%. She had over 2000 email chains containing classified info, over 100 email chains that were classified at the time, over 20 of which were "Top Secret", and including things that any sensible person would know were secret like the satellite data. 22 emails were so sensitive that no part of them has been released to the public, not even redacted.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-clintons-email-scandal-took-root/2016/03/27/ee301168-e162-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html

Also, she had a duty to take care of secure info in a secure way, but in testimony she swore under oath that she had no idea what she was doing: she didn't know that the marking "(c)" might mean that a document was classified, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy#Classified_information_in_emails

And, most importantly, there was no evidence that she intended to pass classified information to unauthorized parties. Historically, there have been very different punishments handed out for people who miss-handled classified information, and those who conduct espionage. The difference is in the intent.

Note that Brian Nishimura was not found to have had any ill intent. He had copies of secure information on an insecure device, and that was game over for him. Yet he was treated far more harshly than Hillary Clinton was treated. Are you okay with that? I'm not.

Actually that South Korean stat was from before the age of tablets and phones. All the studies I read said they stayed inside too much and studied too much... even so far as to conclude that reduced sunlight exposure was the main cause of the nearsightedness.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/k...

https://naturalon.com/sun-expo...

https://www.marksdailyapple.co...

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

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

While I've got no idea whether this site is a reliable source for such information...

DefenseOne is owned by Atlantic Media, the 700-person company which also publishes The Atlantic magazine (and Quartz).

Hours after their story ran online it was confirmed by:

The Washington Post
The New York Post
Newsweek
Popular Mechanics.