Slashdot Mirror

>Got any facts on that?

He left the facts right next to the evidence on all the Weapons of Mass Destruction....

Well, there's this, for starters: "...multiple independent and bipartisan reports before and after the war have established beyond any doubt that Hussein was deeply enmeshed with terrorist activity from the time he took power in the late 1970s until the eve of his last war." Of course, you have to consider that the Washington Post may be stretching the truth a bit, if you think they may have an agenda here.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/01/09/the-percent-of-employed-people-working-for-the-federal-government-is-at-the-lowest-level-on-record/

GOP has already been totally defaced. Rumor has it that it was an inside job.

Or...

Out of the 200+ Clintonian conspiracy theories floating around, this is my favorite.

The money has been squandered on a perpetual war that began in 2001. As of 2013, the combined costs of the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were estimated at $4 trillion. That money equally divided amongst all Americans amounts to roughly $1000 / person / year.

Yes and no. It's not like we air-dropped 4 trillion dollar bills over Iraq and Afghanistan; that money got spend on the salaries of Americans and contracting companies. Sure, there was a lot wasted, but a lot of that money was recycled back into the economy.

The money has been squandered on a perpetual war that began in 2001. As of 2013, the combined costs of the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were estimated at $4 trillion. That money equally divided amongst all Americans amounts to roughly $1000 / person / year.

That is the question, isn't it?

We know that the NSA hunts SysAdmins in order to gain control over the systems and networks they manage. With that level of access inside Juniper, the NSA could easily have added these features themselves. In that case, kudos to Juniper for discovering the features and fixing them. Now they need to discover how they were added and what level of access the NSA has inside their systems.

We also know that the NSA receives voluntary cooperation from numerous network providers. This could have allowed them access to Juniper credentials, or they might even have had the cooperation of Juniper management or turned Juniper admins.

Or it may have been honest bugs.

I imagine that with the "most transparent administration in history" we may never know, unless we get more whistleblowers and better whistleblower protections.

They were already deploying drones that looked like dragonflies 9 years ago: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

You used to have to take possession of a commodity before you could sell/trade in it.

That wasn't true in 1976, when I was looking into commodities. At the time I could buy a railroad car of honey with delivery in six months for 20% down (I forget the exact margin), in hopes the price would go up. If it went up 5% then I would make 25% on my investment. If it went down, I could lose my shirt.

AFAIK it was never true. The whole point of commodities trading is for companies like General Foods to have a predictable price for their raw materials well in advance of needing them, and farmers to have a predictable price for their crop before it's grown. In between are the market makers and speculators. Overall the commodities market is remarkably good at stabilizing prices for both the materials and the products made from them. Another example - airlines also buy fuel for up to five years in advance.

You can also buy and sell options - I could buy an option to buy the honey, and if the price goes down then all I lost is the price I paid for the option (i.e. I lose 100% of my investment but not more than 100%). If it goes up, I might make eight or 10 times my investment. In 1978 Hillary Clinton, at the time 'First Lady' of Arkansas, famously made out on one of these deals. One of the Clinton buddies was the head of Tyson Foods, the company that pretty much runs Arkansas. One day, HC "on a whim" opened an options account at a commodities trading firm, and a day or two later bought ten options on chicken for $12,000 (even though there was only $1,000 in her account). The trade was closed a few days later for a $6300 profit - i.e. 630% profit in a couple of days. Over the next 10 months this investment, through ongoing trades, magically turned into over $100,000. The guy who ran her trades was an executive at Tyson Foods. Source: Washington Post - note other versions of this story are much less 'soft'.

*cough*

More severely retarded politicians get into government and make their populations vulnerable by refusing to see blatant cause-effect relationships between a global terrorism movement and the ideology driving it. All across Europe and North America there are politicians so desperate to prove their own tolerance that they are rapidly importing into their societies people who despise the principles those societies were built upon. Then when the imported persons commiot violent acts, these same know-nothing elites lie their asses off about what happened and hide evidence, even denying basic facts after the public becomes aware.

Just look at the German government. They imported this stuff into Germany and on New Years as over a thousand German women were raped or molested by immigrants the Germena governemt exercised more effort covering it up than protecting its own people.

Look at France, where it has now been found that the French government hid the details of the tortures that happened at the Bataclan massacre.

Look at the Obama administration that tries to re-paint every Muslim terrorist attack as "gun violence", "man-caused disaster", "workplace violence" and so forth. This very same administration rushed to the nearest microphone to denounce any opponent as a racist or bigot (as long as he/she is NOT Muslim).

The truly voluntarily-menatlly-crippled are the ones that refuse to see the obvious connection between a belief system that teaches that anybody who disagrees must be subjugated or killed, that no man-made law is valid, that a woman is 1/2 or 1/4 the value of a man depending on if she is testifying in court or exercising any other right, etc. and the violent terrorism its adherents have been carrying out all over the globe. The idiots are the ones who have no solution as the bodies pile up like wood at a sawmill and who only get exercised when somebody points out that the emperor is naked (i.e. Islam is as its name indicates: a religion of SUBMISSION, not "peace") and that it has a centuries-long reputation for violent jihad pricisely because it's "prophet" specifically taugh and practised violent jihad. The complete horse posteriors are the people who would denounce somebody like Gingrich who ties cause to effect, who whine about how mean he is, or what a jerk he is, while having absolutely no solution to the problem of muslims who can, at any moment, decide to become serious Muslims and faithfully carry out the commands of their prophet to go on a killing spree.

The US Marine Corps was created by the Continental Congress in November 1775, even before the US was officially an independent nation. Marines are called "leathernecks" for a reason: they had leather collars on their uniforms to make it harder to behead them. They were originally sent into two struggles: (a) the fight against the British, and (b) the fight against the Barbary Pirates (Muslims who were taking American merchants as hostages) which is where the leather collars came into the story. The Marine Corps sing about the "shores of Tripoli" in memory of those early fights in Libya rescuing Americans from Muslim pirates.

The Christian Crusades started in response the the Islamic take-over of the Biblical Holy Lands and the subjugation of the Christians there and the sacking of Christian churches.

Islam has a demonstrated history of wave after wave of bloody massacres and violence ever since it was founded about 7 centuries after Christianity arose. History teaches that it

Just remember BLM is all about peaceful protests ... wait, weren't they targeting police officers and throwing things like bottles, rocks, etc. at them in recent protests.

As for WaPo as a reliable news source ... LOL! They're as good at manipulating the new to server their narrative, just like FauxNews and HuffPo. It's mostly fun to troll frequent users there. They've now flip-flopped on the whole racism issue.

Hillary was SECRETARY OF STATE while she and Obama were ACTUALLY droning civilians to death according to the Obama administration's OWN REPORT which almost certainly puts the most-positive spin possible onto the matter.

There's a certain insanity that seems to ravage the brains of Obama and Hillary supporters who will rant that Trump has SAID he will do things even as their preferred candidates actually have DONE the same or worse.

As for "torture": Are you one of those who says Trump would be evil to splash water on the face of a couple terrorists at Gitmo with doctors standing by to make sure they are not actually harmed, but who is fine with Obama and Hillary blowing the same people to bits with missiles?????

As for killing the families of terrorists: are you one of the morons who rants that Trump would be guilty of a terrible war crime for killing the Bin Ladens, but who things it was great to win WWII in part by killing hundreds of thousands of civilan familiy members of NAZI soldiers as the allies bombed German cities rather than only attacking German tanks on battlefields????? Are all the heroes of WWII actually war criminals in your book? Should Hitler have been allowed to win?

Just how bizarrely selective is your moral indignation? Just what on Earth are your moral standards tethered to? Oh and please, no more Biblical references that make it clear you've never actually read the book. There are web sites and propagandists who cherry-pick sentences out of context from the Bible for use by liberals in political arguments. They and their fans seem to think that citing individual versus is like putting a coin into a gumball machine - that it will automatically win an argument with a Christian. The problem for you is that serious people (Christian or not) who read entire books (like you're SUPPOSED TO do with those things called "books") see right through these scams and recognize the people using them for the dishonest or stupid people they are. I'm betting you reject the Bible on many subjects (homesexuality? marriage? divorce? not eating if you do not work?) but just want to use it (falsely) here, pretending it is authoratative when you yourself actually reject it. FYI: The very same Bible that contains verses about love and forgiveness also has the ancient Hebrews being ordered to massacre all the civilians in certain specific war situations (incidentally: very unlike the Koranic call to do many violent things at all times to all opponents), which seems contradictory to people who've never read the entire book but is perfectly rational and consistent in-context. Same thing with WWII. There are situations in war against a supremely evil enemy when policies aimed at protecting innocent civilians are not to be employed to protect the not-so-innocent civilians.

The "far right" oppose all this crap, which is why John McCain called these people in his own party "whacko birds" when they opposed all this junk and at one point said he'd be more comfortable with Hillary in the White House than with the right wingers from his own party. Hillary's perfectly fine with spying on everybody else while she deletes all her own stuff to keep others from seeing it.

Remember: in the 1990s Bill and Hillary hired a bar bouncer, gave him White House credentials, sent him over to the FBI to get the FBI raw background files on all the Republicans in DC, then fired him and claimed they did not know how he ever got on the White House payroll (but they kept the FBI records).

The Clintons are HUGE fans of spying, and they have been spying, lying, and hiding stuff for 30+ years.

Sharpton may or may not be a racist, but a lot of respectable people publicly engage with him

He is a racist — there is no "may or may not" about this. That "a lot of respectable people" engage with him despite this is exactly the hypocrisy I'm decrying here.

this is where the difference in media attention comes from

The difference comes from the vast majority of journalists being Democrats.

And now to recall — Trump did not seek Duke's endorsement, and didn't campaign with him, whereas Hillary has done both with figures far more negative.

Yesterday we learned the State Department destroyed public records concerning the illegal use of US government funds to campaign against Netanyahu. We are, once again, expected to believe that State Department officials are somehow blithely ignorant of their obligations to retain government records. We are expected to believe the correlation between deleted messages and illegal activity is purely coincidental. Just saving a little space in the inbox.

Yesterday we learned the State Department destroyed public records concerning the illegal use of US government funds to campaign against Netanyahu. We are, once again, expected to believe that State Department officials are somehow blithely ignorant of their obligations to retain government records. We are expected to believe the correlation between deleted messages and illegal activity is purely coincidental. Just saving a little space in the inbox.

He was a fucking congressman in the 90's for god sake

Oh, that's a good point. So was Charles Rangel. Oh, wait, he still is a Congressman, unlike Mr. Duke.

Now, unlike Duke, Representative Rangel's was cited for 11 ethics violations — yet Hillary Clinton not only wouldn't "repudiate" him upon learning of his endorsement, she actively campaigned with him in NYC.

But, at least, for all his faults and crookedness, Charles Rangel does not seem to be a racist personally. Unlike Al Sharpton, for another example — who is as bona-fide anti-Semitic as one can get in America. The riots he encouraged and personally participated in led to an actual killing of at least one man. And yet, Hillary Clinton not only welcomed Al Sharpton's support this year, she gave a speech at his organization.

A well deserved storm because it's not often that presidential candidate defends probably the most famous racist in the country

Maybe, if Trump went to give a speech at a KKK-organized conference — and campaigned together with Mr. Duke on the streets — it would've been comparable... As things are, you can't even see your own hypocrisy jumping in front of you and screaming into your ear...

I seem to remember, Donald Trump being called "racist" over an unsolicited endorsement from a former "KKK"-member. For a while every interviewer kept asking him to "repudiate" it...

Meanwhile the Democratic Party is getting not mere endorsements, but hefty donations from convicted criminals — without anybody asking the inconvenient questions about repudiation. Yeah, they eventually refunded the monies he got for them — but only after the man was convicted — despite "weeks of reports about Hsu's controversial history and murky business practices" and a 15 year-old outstanding warrant for him...

Imagine Trump pointing out, David Duke has never been convicted of any crime — only he did not even know, who the man was... No, he was supposed to know all about David Duke (who, it turns out, quit KKK in 1980).

(Should you choose to reply insisting, Trump really is racist, be sure, your response condemns "Black Lives Matter" as an inherently racist idea, which started with a lie.)

I seem to remember, Donald Trump being called "racist" over an unsolicited endorsement from a former "KKK"-member. For a while every interviewer kept asking him to "repudiate" it...

Meanwhile the Democratic Party is getting not mere endorsements, but hefty donations from convicted criminals — without anybody asking the inconvenient questions about repudiation. Yeah, they eventually refunded the monies he got for them — but only after the man was convicted — despite "weeks of reports about Hsu's controversial history and murky business practices" and a 15 year-old outstanding warrant for him...

Imagine Trump pointing out, David Duke has never been convicted of any crime — only he did not even know, who the man was... No, he was supposed to know all about David Duke (who, it turns out, quit KKK in 1980).

(Should you choose to reply insisting, Trump really is racist, be sure, your response condemns "Black Lives Matter" as an inherently racist idea, which started with a lie.)

https://shadowproof.com/2016/0...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/as-encryption-spreads-us-worries-about-access-to-data-for-investigations/2015/04/10/7c1c7518-d401-11e4-a62f-ee745911a4ff_story.html
have you been in a coma the last decade?

I don't have any evidence of Trump naming or implying any race at any time with any of his various immigration comments.

That's clearly because you are not looking.

Tell me, how does being a Trump supporter go down with your Microsoft colleagues?

All the money in the world couldn't get me to a third-world country like India. The honor killings, mobs murdering people suspected of eating beef, thousands being tortured and executed on suspicion of being a witch, 80% of their rivers choked with raw, untreated sewage, rampant corruption, modern slavery, and their prime minister is a nutter are all things I try to avoid.

All the money in the world couldn't get me to a third-world country like India. The honor killings, mobs murdering people suspected of eating beef, thousands being tortured and executed on suspicion of being a witch, 80% of their rivers choked with raw, untreated sewage, rampant corruption, modern slavery, and their prime minister is a nutter are all things I try to avoid.

What's your backing for that assertion?

I ask this because I notice you've cited nothing backing up your claim, and it's quite a claim. And because people on /. make comparably grand assertions of people not caring about the Snowden revelations despite evidence to the contrary, and it's a good idea to back up one's statements from something substantial.

Glenn Greenwald, Edward Snowden, and Noam Chomsky addressed this at a recent talk on privacy and spent some time debunking the notion that the public doesn't care about privacy or that Snowden's revelations weren't a big deal.

The host says around 32m44s that after Snowden's revelations were published by international news "Pew Internet Life Research shows that people were modifying their behavior -- they were self-censoring, they were curtailing their own speech.". Around 38m the host questions the point directly asking "Do people in general care?" to which we get variations on the theme of "Yes" ranging from Snowden's point that whether people care "isn't really that material even if it is the case [because] rights don't exist for the majority; rights exist to protect the minority against the majority.". He then explains that he thinks increasingly people do care because they only recently learned of the threat to their privacy and then he explains that threat in plain language.

Greenwald, by this time in the discussion, had already debunked the notion that people who say they have no secrets and therefore don't care: He offered them his email address and told them to send him the credentials of every personal (as opposed to work) account they have including the sensitive ones (I interpreted this to mean an account on, say, a cheat-on-one's-spouse site). To date, he said, nobody's taken him up on his offer. Here he points out that contrary to the naysayers who dismissed the Snowden revelations as a flash-in-the-pan that would go away in a few days, these documents have been headline stories "not just in the United States but in dozens of countries in multiple continents around the world precisely because people were so angry and offended at the intrusion into their privacy including people who might have said in the past 'I don't really care'." (43m43s). He cites a "massive increase in the number of people around the world who are now using encryption to protect the privacy of their communications, to the number of people who put pressure on the US Government in both parties to enact legislation limiting these programs [the NSA spying programs] but maybe the best evidence of all of how much people care about privacy is the behavioral change in Silicon Valley companies. The biggest ones -- Yahoo, Facebook, Apple, and Google, and Microsoft -- when I first read the archive that Ed gave me, one of the things that struck me the most is what full-scale collaborators these companies were in the surveillance state that the NSA had created. They were not only complying [and a Snowden leaked document from the NSA showing "Dates When PRISM Collection Began For Each Provider"] [...] to the extent the law required but even went beyond that." including building backdoors into their non-free, user-subjugating, proprietary software. Greenwald concludes, "And the reason they were such full-scale collaborators is because nobody knew they were doing it completely in the dark, nobody knew they were doing it, and there was no cost." (45m18s). Once this became known these companies changed their behavior due to fear of being seen as the collaborators they have been for so long. They know the pressures of their customer base and that they are seen standing up to the FBI, being "seen as aides and abettors of ISIS", etc. People won't use these companies' products and services if they know their privacy won't be upheld.

Noam Chomsky reflected on this from a historical p

Todd Simmons, a spokesman for Oregon State University, said Mohamud graduated from high school in Portland and began attending the university as a non-degree student last fall. He has not been enrolled since Oct. 6.

Mohamud told the FBI that he became radicalized at age 15 and had been thinking about violent jihad ever since, documents said. According to the affidavit, he began taking action last year when he exchanged e-mails with a co-conspirator who had terrorist ties and was in Pakistan's northwest province, a haven for radical groups. An FBI undercover operative sent Mohamud an e-mail in June saying he was an associate of that co-conspirator.

An elaborate set of encounters ensued, in which Mohamud met with two FBI operatives. At the first meeting in Portland, in July, Mohamud said he wanted to carry out an "explosion" but needed help, court papers said.

At a second meeting, in August, he identified the square as a target, the documents said. Over the past three months, Mohamud worked closely with the operatives and gave them a thumb drive with detailed instructions for the attack, officials said.

On Nov. 4, Mohamud and his FBI collaborators detonated a bomb concealed in a backpack in a remote Oregon location as a trial run. That same day, he recorded a video, wearing a white robe and white and red headdress, in which he offered his rationale for the attack, court documents said. "Explode on these (infidels),'' he concluded, according to the documents. "Alleviate our pain.''

Many (most?) US cops are poorly trained cowards. That's why they keep shooting people who aren't real threats. That's why they pepper spray people indiscriminately. That's why they grenade babies. That's why SWATing is actually dangerous in the USA. And that's why suicide by cop is actually viable in the USA (even if you change your mind they may shoot you anyway: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... ).

If firefighters were as cowardly as US cops they'd refuse to go into any burning building to save lives and just spray at it from a safe distance.

In the USA if you were trying to save someone who was suicidal, calling the cops may result in that person getting killed ( https://www.washingtonpost.com... ). Better to call others like the fire brigade.

How many other places in the world do the cops destroy and empty building? http://www.policestateusa.com/...

I'm a coward too but I didn't apply to be a police officer. Those cops are not fit to be cops.

This is what happens when you're a criminal. Don't want to be shot? Don't be a criminal.

Tell that to Philando Castille.

I call BS on professional airline pilot. Pilot in general, sure, due to general aviation. But no way on commercial aviation.

You can call BS all you want.

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

http://time.com/4326676/danger...

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/12...

These are statistics from three different years. And being a police officer is still less dangerous than being a taxi driver or janitor.

If you don't like the statistics, you can call and complain to the Washington Post, Time Magazine, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and CNBC.

The mathematician was taken off the plane and questioned. The flight took off two hours late because of a crazy Trump supporter, acting the fool.

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

but I actually count her gender in her favor

Her gender is irrelevant. I don't like her because I don't trust her. Neither do 57% of our countryman. You can't attribute all of that to sexism, the "vast right-wing conspiracy," or whatever other excuse the Clintons may point to.

Watch that TDS clip. She lied. It's very obvious and straightforward. As I said many posts ago, hubris. Bill and Hillary have it to a degree that's shocking even by Washington standards.

Unfortunately, as you say, the alternative can't be contemplated. As it stands now I fear that he may well win; I would not have that fear if he was running against Sanders, Biden, or almost any other Democrat. I wish the Democrats had gone with almost anybody else. Or that the Republicans had nominated one of the sane candidates. Alas, that was not to be.

We quite literally get to pick between the douche and the turd. The frightening thing is that the world is a very dangerous place right now; never have our problems been so big while our leaders were so small. *sigh*

Here's the source of the DoJ stat:

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub...

Unfortunately, there aren't really any consistent and nation-wide statistics on the race of people killed by police (no national database with consistent reporting), but here are some stats:

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub... (Table 5, pg 22)
2003-2009, 2011: whites make up a bigger percentage (47.8%) of deaths than blacks (28.4%)

https://www.washingtonpost.com...
2015: 990 people shot by police. 494 (49.9%) white, 258 (26.1%) black, 172 (17.4%) hispanic, 38 other, 28 unknown

https://www.washingtonpost.com...
2016 so far: 509 total. 238 (46.8%) white, 123 (24.2%) black
we are 190 days into this year, which is a leap year (190/366 ... 52% through the year)
If you forward-project based on the current average, there will be 978 police shootings in 2016, 458 white and 237 black

http://www.theguardian.com/us-...
The Guardian has different numbers: 569 total. 279 whites. 137 black
If you use per-million numbers: 3.25 blacks/million, 1.41 whites/million

Here's the source of the DoJ stat:

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub...

Unfortunately, there aren't really any consistent and nation-wide statistics on the race of people killed by police (no national database with consistent reporting), but here are some stats:

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub... (Table 5, pg 22)
2003-2009, 2011: whites make up a bigger percentage (47.8%) of deaths than blacks (28.4%)

https://www.washingtonpost.com...
2015: 990 people shot by police. 494 (49.9%) white, 258 (26.1%) black, 172 (17.4%) hispanic, 38 other, 28 unknown

https://www.washingtonpost.com...
2016 so far: 509 total. 238 (46.8%) white, 123 (24.2%) black
we are 190 days into this year, which is a leap year (190/366 ... 52% through the year)
If you forward-project based on the current average, there will be 978 police shootings in 2016, 458 white and 237 black

http://www.theguardian.com/us-...
The Guardian has different numbers: 569 total. 279 whites. 137 black
If you use per-million numbers: 3.25 blacks/million, 1.41 whites/million

How about some numbers:
Number of law enforcement officers in the US: 765,000
Number of LEO related deaths last year: 1,000
Deaths/LEO:.1%

Number of blacks in the US: 37,685,840
Number of black gang members in the US: 279,000
Blacks that are gang members: .74%

Number of gang related deaths last year: 2000
Number caused by blacks: 600 (This assumes the same ratio of total gang members vs black gang members, 31%)
Deaths/gang member: .2%

I'm not sure the point I was trying to make, but numbers are interesting, nonetheless. (I was going to just not post this, after forgetting what my point was, but I wasted too much time digging through the internet for numbers) WP has a good article analyzing the all police involved shootings in 2015: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Yes I understand that hence the quotes. I really wish that for the dog alerting that it wasn't considered to be probabal cause unless the dog had a substantially higher true positive rate than false positive rate. I would also like to know about their true negative and false negative rates as well.

Does he anecdotally know anyone? Probably not. There are literally millions of people with clearances and, as his response notes, cleared individuals are reminded annually that doing what Hillary did will land them in jail along with stiff fines. What's almost amusing is that the videos show missteps like Hillary because they're so comically wrong that it's obvious ("send all of my official work to my private email server, which is running in a bathroom" -- this is literally what happened!!!!).

But, since you specifically asked about someone being convicted without intent for perform espionage: yes, it happens. That was an example of solely gross negligence. And what's great is that he was a random reservist who would never be on anyone's radar. However, Hillary was the Secretary of State and very likely had people consistently attempting espionage.

And, for an even more pathetic example, here is a Major in the USMC being charged with sending a classified email about a corrupt Afghan Police Chief (who effectively went on to kill 3 Americans less than 3 weeks later!) using his personal account. Somehow the government decided there was a prosecutor willing to prosecute that case though.

It all comes back to Comey's quote during the FBI announcement that it won't seek prosecution:

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

There are those of us that will be punished: you, me, and every normal person. And then there's Hillary, who has the money and power to escape prosecution. If that doesn't terrify you in terms of the rule of law, then I honestly have no idea what does. Anyone that votes her is literally voting for a caste system in the US.

I suppose the shame is that Trump is her competitor and people will feel obliged to vote against him, but I'd sooner not vote than vote for an actual criminal. But honestly, I don't really think it's about Trump. I think a lot of people will use that excuse to knowingly vote for a criminal to become our next President.

Have you forgotten the Chinese donations to Bill Clinton, just before he approved the transfer of satellite technology to the Chinese? Citation Bill Clinton also threw the Arkansas taxpayers and environment under the bus to further his political career. Citation

I don't think that's what the FBI statement is saying at all, and I think you're looking at something that's not the statement...

It's very clear that the FBI found that classified information was exposed, but not "in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice." The FBI characterization of what was done is "extremely careless." This is interesting wording because that is not a legal term associated with disclosure of classified material; "grossly negligent" is the legal term associated with the threshold for felony mishandling of classified information.

The FBI statement is also very clear on the security classification of what they found, which is why I think you're reading something else.

110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.

That's pretty darn specific. If it was just the confidential stuff, I think your implication that the government classifies everything and this isn't a big deal would be very strong. Multiple accidental Top Secret information leaks is a bit different, though. In the last 15 years, we have sent many government workers to jail for leaking information like this, or even just having it stored at their house.

• Trump Under Fire For Soliciting Donations From Icelandic MPs And Others
• Foreign politicians getting fundraising emails from Trump
• Foreign Politicians to Donald Trump: Stop Begging Us for Money
• Trump Under Fire For Soliciting Donations From Icelandic MPs And Others

A member of Australia's parliament tweeted a screenshot: https://twitter.com/TimWattsMP...

It was Clinton guy Sandy Burger who smuggled documents out of the National Archives to be hidden/destroyed (post 9-11 and probably dealing with the Clinton admin's handling of Bin Laden... but we will never know because he was only caught on his last visit).

General Petraeus allowed his biographer Paula Broadwell (herself an Army officer with a security clearance) access to classified docs. There was no allegation that Petraeus or Broadwell leaked those docs any further nor that they placed them in an unsecure location where others might gain access. Petraues was nailed by Obama's justice department for this and for the sexual affair with Broadwell with while legal for civilians is illegal under the UCMJ (the legal code that applies to military personnel)

In short: What Hillary did was FAR worse and was explicitly illegal in that the particular statute she violated carries no requirement of "intent" and makes even the unintentional exposure of such materials to third parties a felony. The fact that Comey, who works for Lynch, who was appointed first by Bill Clinton and later by Barack Obama and currently works for Obama and has been promised a job by Hillary has tried to pretend that Hillary should not be charged because of lack of proof of intent is proof-positive of massive political corruption at the DoJ

Don't all of those articles support the Clinton decision? The lawyers in each of the cases basically say, the normal punishment: "almost always dealt with through what the military calls "nonjudicial punishment" or Captain's Mast. Those involved were demoted and docked some pay, but didn't face a felony record or the prospect of years behind bars, the retired sailor said."

Petraeus was trading confidential information for considerations, nothing of the same was shown for Hillary. In both of the military examples the people were shown to have lost control of the information because those who shouldn't have had access, did access the information, that couldn't be shown for Clinton. For her another had access, but found no evidence anyone accessed any information they weren't allowed.

Look up CIA Director John Deutch.

Did Rice and Powell also use their private email server while their eponymous foundation accepted hundreds of millions of donations from foreign governments during their tenure at the State Department?

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

http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballo...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/new...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08...

The "lower-level staff member" who helped set up Clinton's email server assisted the FBI in their investigation in exchange for immunity against prosecution. He knew how serious a breach of protocol this was, and took steps to cover his ass.

Or maybe not. There are 1.4 million people with top secret clearances in 2013. One third of those were contractors. So unless the entire military has top secret clearances, most of the people with such clearances aren't military.

But even more seriously, folks, I think we need to rethink our entire philosophy of reproduction. There are evolutionary reasons that we are strongly driven to have as many children as possible.

Yeah, but who wants to spend time raising kids when you could be doing interesting things in VR?

Note that Japanese Fertility Rate is waaaay under the replacement rate.

Also, last I checked, US fertility was right at the replacement rate, but since then it has dropped off a cliff, largely due to the economy: people cannot afford to have children any more.

That, plus the male of the species is considered at the very best, a latent child molester and more likely assumed to actually be one.

http://madamenoire.com/205878/...

And if you follow the links in the story, you can see there is a lot of pre judgement of males. And I fear the problem will only get worse with time - in the meantime having children opens the lesser partner to a whole world of problems. So a prudent male will just save their money, stay single and childless. There are plenty of things to do in life besides having children.

But even more seriously, folks, I think we need to rethink our entire philosophy of reproduction. There are evolutionary reasons that we are strongly driven to have as many children as possible.

Yeah, but who wants to spend time raising kids when you could be doing interesting things in VR?

Note that Japanese Fertility Rate is waaaay under the replacement rate.

Also, last I checked, US fertility was right at the replacement rate, but since then it has dropped off a cliff, largely due to the economy: people cannot afford to have children any more.

Most people are superficial idiots, what are you going to do?

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

""This is not good," Musk said on an earnings call this week. "We'll put on some constraints on autopilot to minimize people doing crazy things with it."

It is absolutely clear in that article that the autopilot works as Tesla officially claims and that any reasonable person would expect

Google's latest monthly update on its driverless car project reported that at least one test driver turned around to look for something in the backseat while the computer was doing the driving â" at 65 mph on the freeway.

"We saw human nature at work," Google said in its report. "People trust technology very quickly once they see it works."

That's not some clueless idiot; that's a paid test driver who was trained to do his job. Human nature.

I'd pull the feature until it can drive itself.

I know that as does probably just about everyone on /. but do you remember how much of a deal the news media made about the terrorists using encrypt during their coverage of the attacks. It now looks like since the initial frenzy is over with that and people have it in their mind that it was because of encryption officials were unable to stop the attacks the media come out stating that they used unencrypted communication but that gets a lot less if any air play or only a brief mention in a small article buried on the inside.

It's almost as if they were all getting their stories from the same source... ;)

One should always hear both sides, and this article does exactly this with an update.

About the bashing of ‘Golden’ rice Greenpeace says:

Accusations that anyone is blocking genetically engineered ‘Golden’ rice are false. ‘Golden’ rice has failed as a solution and isn’t currently available for sale, even after more than 20 years of research. As admitted by the International Rice Research Institute, it has not been proven to actually address Vitamin A Deficiency. So to be clear, we are talking about something that doesn’t even exist.

It has only failed because people who should have no say are freaking out about it. It isn't available for sale because people who should have no say are freaking out about it. To be clear, we are talking about something that very much exists. It did take some 24 years to go from concept to result, however, because research like this hard work. It has only "not been proven" in the sense of it has not yet been rolled out in large numbers to subsistence farmers who's children are at risk of blindness due to malnutrition.

And about alternatives;

The only guaranteed solution to fix malnutrition is a diverse healthy diet. Providing people with real food based on ecological agriculture not only addresses malnutrition, but is also a scaleable solution to adapt to climate change.

Right. Don't give subsistence farmers the opportunity to grow healthier food for themselves. Don't let them live the lives they know. Force them to live the lives of other people, rich [by comparison] people. Just make these extremely poor people stop being extremely poor, or just give them all the good food they need. The solution is guaranteed to work, but nobody has figured out how to make the solution even happen. No solution that doesn't actually exist can be considered to be scaleable.

Accusations that anyone is blocking genetically engineered ‘Golden’ rice are false. ‘Golden’ rice has failed as a solution and isn’t currently available for sale, even after more than 20 years of research. As admitted by the International Rice Research Institute, it has not been proven to actually address Vitamin A Deficiency. So to be clear, we are talking about something that doesn’t even exist.

And about alternatives;

The only guaranteed solution to fix malnutrition is a diverse healthy diet. Providing people with real food based on ecological agriculture not only addresses malnutrition, but is also a scaleable solution to adapt to climate change.

Not racist. She's not Indian - https://www.washingtonpost.com... . Just another white liberal chick.

That makes her the racist. She should be required to leave the Senate over a lie like that.