Slashdot Mirror


Google's Schmidt Drew Up Draft Plan For Clinton In 2014 (itwire.com)

New submitter troublemaker_23 writes: Eric Schmidt, the chairman of Google's parent company Alphabet, submitted a detailed draft to a key Clinton aide on April 15, 2014, outlining his ideas for a possible run for the presidency and stressing that "The key is the development of a single record for a voter that aggregates all that is known about them." The ideas, in an email released by the whistleblower website WikiLeaks, were sent to Cheryl Mills, former deputy White House counsel to Bill Clinton. Mills forwarded it to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, campaign manager Robby Mook and Barack Obama's 2012 campaign manager David Plouffe. The email is one of a trove from Podesta's gmail account that was obtained by WikiLeaks. About two weeks prior to this, Podesta wrote to Mook that he had met Schmidt and that he (Schmidt) was keen to be the "top outside adviser." In the April 15, 2014 email, Schmidt emphasized that what he was putting forward was a draft, writing, "Here are some comments and observations based on what we saw in the 2012 campaign. If we get started soon, we will be in a very strong position to execute well for 2016." It was titled "Notes for a 2016 Democratic campaign." He divided his comments into categories such as size, structure and timing; location; the pieces of a campaign; the rules; and what he called the key things. With regard to size, structure and timing, Schmidt wrote: "Let's assume a total budget of about US$1.5 billion, with more than 5000 paid employees and million(s) of volunteers. The entire start-up ceases operation four days after 8 November 2016." As to location, he did not like the idea of using Washington DC as a base and was keen on low-paid workers. "The campaign headquarters will have about a thousand people, mostly young and hard-working and enthusiastic. It's important to have a very large hiring pool (such as Chicago or NYC) from which to choose enthusiastic, smart and low-paid permanent employees," he wrote. "DC is a poor choice as it's full of distractions and interruptions. Moving the location from DC elsewhere guarantees visitors have taken the time to travel and to help."

55 of 418 comments (clear)

  1. This is a good thing. by CajunArson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This plan of spying on voters and recording their life history is an excellent thing as long as it benefits a candidate with a (D) next to her name. It just shows that the Democrats are pro-science higher beings of pure energy that descended from a higher plane of existence for us to worship.

    If Trump had done that he'd be worse than Hitler (again).

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    1. Re:This is a good thing. by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only anti-intellectual is you. People had good reasons to support Brexit. Because you are upper middle class and white you don't understand those reasons. But that is ignorance on your part.

    2. Re:This is a good thing. by 110010001000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is a good reason to be fearful. That is why you guys don't understand: fear is a damn good reason, especially when you are near the bottom of the economic latter. People like you and AmiJojo are spoiled. You don't know what it is like to live in fear for your future. You are the spoiled upper middle class.

    3. Re:This is a good thing. by CajunArson · · Score: 2, Funny

      Fascinating how your butthurt over Brexit somehow makes you the only person qualified to comment on an election in a completely different country than the U.K.

      Did you miss that part of elementary school where they taught you that the U.S. is an independent country?

      --
      AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    4. Re:This is a good thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Call me pessimistic, but the war against privacy (and the "prove your innocence" movement in general) is exactly why I've given up caring about the future of humanity. What we are seeing today is only the tip of the iceberg. It's going to be far worse than we think. The future of humanity will be defined by a top-down hierarchy of power and complete lack of respect for individuality -- not unlike the military. The fact that even the subject class is now effectively chanting "privacy is dead" says it all. There's going to be no place for a person like me who believes in individual sovereignty.

    5. Re:This is a good thing. by 110010001000 · · Score: 2, Redundant

      I never said fear was a good thing. I said fear was a damn good reason to make decisions. Not the only reason, but should be taken into consideration when making decisions. It is only human. Go ahead and attack me, but you are the one out of touch. Have some empathy for others who aren't as well off as you are.

    6. Re:This is a good thing. by smallfries · · Score: 2, Informative

      You've proven his point quite well. Thank you.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    7. Re:This is a good thing. by Jawnn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's going to be no place for a person like me who believes in individual sovereignty.

      Why do you think that is? Could it be because so many so-called "conservatives" have abdicated that sovereignty so willingly every time the governing class told a scary story? "OMG! Same sex marriage?! Let's have the government decide who can be married and who can't. OMG! Women can choose what to do with their own bodies? That's not right. We need the government to step in and take that right away. OMG! Teh terrorists! Please make us safe. We don't care if you piss all over The Bill of Rights, just make us feel like you're doing something that matters."
      And no, you libertarians don't get off the hook, because you tools have aligned yourselves with the Conservatives far more often than not. The result is that your rights, as a citizen, have been supplanted by corporate power.

    8. Re:This is a good thing. by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 2

      This is a valid point. All of these reactionary movements are being driven by fear. Fear is being prompted by economic uncertainty and hardship. Hardship comes from the lack of living wages and also meaningful, rewarding (not just financially) work.

      I think it was this site that had an article a while back that said a significant portion of UK residents felt their jobs were meaningless.

      Mostly it's hardship. We have a top-heavy economic system that is simply not delivering wealth and prosperity to the average person. We also have a system of socialism (to differing degrees in the UK or USA) to make sure that those who are unable to find work do not starve to death in the streets, but it provides the bare minimum and strips the recipients of dignity. Plus, for people with jobs, if one is fed up with one's job, frustrated, burned out, and just sick and tired of the daily grind, yearning for just one fucking chance to put your education and skills to work for yourself and really shine, how the hell do you become a recipient of this socialism? Not easily, and not without losing everything and becoming an undignified, unwanted ward of the state.

      This will continue to get worse and worse. There are no shiny, exciting, new jobs of the future for the average person. For the average Slashdotter, sure, we'll keep retraining and finding new, interesting things to do. And we'll do ok that way. The average person simply will not be able to participate in the economy of the future. The only thing they can look forward to is starvation, more hardship, and if they're lucky, perhaps some of that socialism along with a hefty moral guilt trip for being a worthless bum will come their way without needing to be homeless for too long.

      The best way I've seen this put is that while we talk about buggy whips, how did the horseless carriage work out for the horses? If you were an attractive, well-trained, and healthy horse, you probably did ok if you were lucky. The rest got made into glue.

      For now we can hate horses of a different color. Evolution didn't stop at the neck! Oh and those Moooooooooslim horses, well, Moooooooslim Isn't A Race so it's ok! And those fucking gays and all those transSEXuals raping girls in the bathroom! Faggot! Get 'em up against the wall! (Pink! Pink! Pink!)

      There has to be a better way.

    9. Re:This is a good thing. by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      100% correct. That is why I say most people on this website lack empathy. They have never had to live at the bottom, or even the lower middle. People are scared, and they have good reason to be. It hasn't affected most of the people on this website yet, but it could if things get bad enough.

    10. Re:This is a good thing. by L.+J.+Beauregard · · Score: 3, Funny

      SJW

      DRINK!

      --
      Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
      Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
    11. Re:This is a good thing. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Rational choice? Did the people who had been routinely screwed over by the Westminster Parliament for decades make a rational choice to give more power to Westminster and remove one of its most significant checks? Did people close to the poverty line make a rational choice to vote for an increase in food prices (or was it the nice £200m overnight bonus for Rupert Murdoch's brother in law's investments that they were making their rational choice for)?

      The entire reason that we have a representative democracy is that issues are complex and very few people have the time to be sufficiently well informed to make good choices. We elect people who are supposed to work full time to understand the issues and make the rational choices for us that we would have made if we had time to investigate the issues.

      No one in the Brexit referendum made a rational choice because we weren't given two rational options to pick. Remain wasn't too bad: it was a vote for the status quo, which has both good and bad aspects. Leave was a vote for some totally unspecified other thing - is it better, is it worse? No one knew because no one actually stated what the other thing was and even three months later it looks as if we still don't know.

      The only sad thing is all of the people who thought they were voting against the establishment when they voted leave.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    12. Re:This is a good thing. by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      One thing in common with the "Remain" people: they all say the reason they lost is because of ignorance. The disdain for the commoners is palpable.

    13. Re:This is a good thing. by argStyopa · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yesterday, I heard on NPR (I believe it was a climate forum) one of the talking "experts" opined "well, basically, white people are the problem" followed by chuckles and murmurs of assent.

      I'm curious in what context such a statement (changing any other ethnicity, or special interest group) could be uttered without the speaker immediately (& rightly) being castigated and socially outcast?

      "well, basically, black people are the problem".
      "well, basically, gays are the problem".
      "well, basically, jews are the problem".

      EDIT: aha found it.
      http://www.mprnews.org/story/2...
      "Climate One program at the Commonwealth Club of California, recorded Oct. 21, 2016. Greg Dalton, moderator." 7:58+
      "Truthfully...white people are the problem"

      And damn you all for making me listen to that crap AGAIN to find it.

      --
      -Styopa
    14. Re:This is a good thing. by Orgasmatron · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just FYI, the anti-abortion position is not about controlling the bodies of women. It is about stopping murder. And the pro-abortion position is not about freedom for the bodies of women, it is about murder too.

      See, for example, the pro-abortion camp's reaction to a proposal in Italy not long ago to replace third trimester abortions with surgical delivery, incubation, and when successful, adoption. I'll give you a hint, the pro-abortion camp was absolutely fucking outraged that anyone would suggest that we try to end a pregnancy (freedom for the mother's body) without killing the baby.

      If you don't believe me, find one of your pro-abortion friends and ask them what they think of the idea. If they haven't heard of it before, you'll get to enjoy several seconds of stunned silence while their brains reboot, followed by angry sputtering (from most of them; a few think it is a great idea).

      And you are absolutely right about conservativism. It is dead, though the corpse hasn't stopped twitching yet. Reagan's amnesty was the fatal blow, though Kennedy's immigration reform in 1965 was already festering badly by then and would certainly have finished the job unaided, eventually, and if left untreated. Amnesty '86 all but assured that whites would, within a generation, start to develop racial awareness and then a national identity in the generation that followed. (Note: The generations in question are roughly, Gen-X and Millennial. Also note that nation is not a synonym of country.) Once upon a time, it was possible to view libertarianism as the destination that conservatism wanted to take us towards. Now both the road and the end are closed, and a new right is forming, one that the left will find much less easy to push around.

      We truly are blessed to live in such amazing times.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    15. Re:This is a good thing. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      After all, they subscribe to the idea that "ideas outside of the groupthink" is fascism.

      Ah it's "Mashiki makes shit up day" today, otherwise known as [checks calendar] Tuesday. Basically the bulk of your debating tactic is to make up stuff that people have done, get very cross about it, then post random links to irrelevant things when challenged.

      I now invite you to post some links to support your arguments.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    16. Re:This is a good thing. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Funny

      SJWs

      DRINK AGAIN!

      Bloody hell, that guy who started the "SWJ drinking game upthread" is going to have a lot to answer for.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    17. Re:This is a good thing. by ranton · · Score: 2

      Ah, yes the old "they had no idea what that meant". "They are ignorant". But of course YOUR SIDE was well informed and enlightened. Disgusting.

      You keep saying this like one side could never be more informed than the other. I laid out an actual argument for why one side is more informed, but instead of either refuting it or acknowledging its accuracy, you fall back on claiming I have bias without supporting arguments. And then you throw in inflamatory language such as "disgusting" thinking this can substitute for an actual argument.

      There is a difference between voters who vote for a platform with actual concrete plans, and voters who vote based on platitudes and fear mongering. Calling out the latter is the responsible thing to do, not a disgusting display of bias.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  2. that's pretty evil by TimothyHollins · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What the fuck happened to "Don't be evil" ?

    This is a return to McCarthyism plain and simple.

    1. Re:that's pretty evil by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      What the fuck happened to "Don't be evil" ?

      This is a return to McCarthyism plain and simple.

      The same thing that happens to most people when they believe they have unbelievable amounts of power. They use it for their own personal gain, and fuck everyone else over to gain more of it. Google has long since said fuck you to everyone else, especially the "plebs" who don't follow their ideology. Now get down on bended knee and kiss the ring, follow their ideology, support their 63 genders and whatever else. Or they'll use that information to destroy you.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:that's pretty evil by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What happened was money.

  3. I forget, why is this relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, a private citizen supported a candidate and offered free advice? Shocking. How many big corporations out there donate money because "they are people too"? There is nothing of interest here other than to have a bunch of Trump supporters try to claim that the election is rigged and this is proof that Google is rigging it for "Crooked Hillary". It amazes me that people are so gullible they can be spoon fed any piece of information that fits the party's agenda. I'm voting for Clinton because she is the better of my two choices (and the other one is a moron). End of story. This crap does nothing but fire up the base.

    1. Re:I forget, why is this relevant? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2

      What made the advice free ass-hole. Why do you think Wall Street donates money to political campaigns and pay "speakers" to give "talks."

    2. Re:I forget, why is this relevant? by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A couple of observations:

      1. Wait. I thought Republicans were the party of big business. Schmidt must have gotten confused, right?

      2. Wait. He's wanting "low paid workers". I though the Democrats were all about paying more? And making sure women had pay equity with men, right? $15 minimum wage? I mean, he wants to pay above minimum wage, right?

      You're the one who's been spoon-fed the party's agenda, as usual.

    3. Re:I forget, why is this relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Before you vote for Clinton, google Whitehouse Travel office. The Clintons destroyed the life of a long time government employee to try to benefit their cronies. If you are good with this type of action, by all means vote Clinton.

    4. Re:I forget, why is this relevant? by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 2

      1) You seem confused. Democrats are not anti-big business. What do you think, that breaking up big businesses into medium and small business is part of democrat's agenda? There are big corporations that support democrats, and heads of big corporations too (Buffett is one of the prominents, Schmidt too), and it is not because they hate themselves. They are just fine with nullifying Citizens United and measures that seem anti-corporation to republicans, because it is the sane thing to do and it wouldnt hurt them a lot. Big corporations do support that, as much as you cant believe it. Schmidt likes the Democratic platform.

      2) He does support raising minimum wage. He wants low wages, but liveable wages. Buffett is more open about this, than Schmidt. Lot of "big business"-es have come in favor of it. Sorry if this broke your perception of democratic agenda.

    5. Re:I forget, why is this relevant? by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      I don't think much of the tech industry grew up in Northern California, tbh. Eric Schmidt grew up in Virginia.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:I forget, why is this relevant? by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 2

      Much of the tech industry leadership leans Democratic, mostly because they grew up in northern California.

      It's not relevant - most industry leadership leans Democrat. They offer the most bang for the buck.

      With Clinton as the Democrat candidate for POTUS I think we can drop the pretense that the Democrats aren't the party of big business.

  4. SQUIRREL!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, don't pay attention to the emails of the lying crook Hillary!

    Go chase that RUSSIAN SQUIRREL!!!!

    It's RUSSIAN!!!!!

    Gawd, how much more evidence do you need to figure out what the Democrat Party thinks of its voters? Screwing Bernie over wasn't enough?

  5. Why not just outsource it to China by p51d007 · · Score: 2

    "low paid workers" Schmidt should have just imported a bunch of H1B visa types to do this. Cheap skate.

  6. and yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    And yet when you get down to it, it's always the progressives and liberals who turn violent when they don't get their way.

    Every time.

    1. Re:and yet... by Jawnn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And yet when you get down to it, it's always the progressives and liberals who turn violent when they don't get their way.

      Every time.

      [citation needed]
      (Good fucking luck with that.)

    2. Re:and yet... by knightghost · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Don't be evil", amirite?

      Silicon Valley is no longer part of the USA. They are billionaires that make money off the backs of visas, fail to pay taxes, and destroy American jobs. No different than Wall Street, which has bought off Clinton.

    3. Re:and yet... by rickb928 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, if you are paying attention, the GOP Establishment/NeoConservative Leadership is much more inclined to go along with the Democrat leadership. It's;

      - Simpler. So hard to have to make your point in a hostile media environment, and social media just isn't useful when you are trying to 'explain'.

      - Effective. If you're facing non-citizen voters in states that are already pro-Left, then why bother?

      - Avoids dealing with your own party rank and file. If you're unable to corral your own party's representatives to pass legislation, why bother? Just go along.

      - Preserves your power and influence. the risk of taking a stand on principle is that those who disagree with you may choose some other candidate to support. Running a serious primary campaign is just so hard. Much easier and less risky to spend that time punishing your enemies and rewarding your allies. On both sides of the aisle.

      But to your point, I'm unaware of Right/Conservative/GOP violence, but then I rely on non-mainstream media for some of my news, so I miss a lot of propaganda. So other than FBI conspiracies and KKK (AKA Democrats)

      As a self-identified Republican, I no longer support the Republican legislative leadership. Priebus I support because he's been doing his job, perhaps with little enthusiasm, but doing it. Trump is the cure to the Republican leadership failure, which began in 1981 with Reagan's takeover of the Conservative movement, then GHW Bush's failed re-election, and has continued despite presidential election successes intervening. 35 years of failed GOP leadership has left us with a party that is led by and populated with elected officials that prefer to go along with the opposition for a variety of reasons, but largely because they have no vision for our nation nor their own political movement. and they have not considered the Conservative wing of the GOP to be a 'movement' for a long time. They have caved, fearing an immigrant swell that could lead to an insurmountable Democrat majority for the foreseeable future, a hostile media that will never be placated by surrender, and a transition to a social media dominated culture that concentrates real media power in corporations that can hide behind algorithms and opaque business practices, the subject of this thread, and wield overwhelming influence without their users recognizing their near-absolute control over the hearts and minds of most of the population.

      I expect Trump to burn down the GOP house. It needs to be renewed, and with fire and water, not long knives and moves in the dark. And our nation needs a wakeup. We are changing, and in the midst of a soft revolution. There are changes being made that should be discussed and approved, but the forces for those changes do not care for law and justice, save for their own self-defined goals, which they change at their whims. You may agree with them, and I understand, but my caution to you is this - Today it's to your favor. Tomorrow, it may not be, and you will be bulldozed by the same forces that you applaud today. No rules, no justice.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    4. Re:and yet... by rickb928 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not any more. "Don't get caught" is the new mantra.

      And as they find the insurgents that expose them, the algorithms will be tuned to crush opposition.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    5. Re:and yet... by CaptainLard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the Republican leadership failure, which began in 1981 with Reagan's takeover of the Conservative movement,

      wtf!? When was this talking point memo - that invalidates every other talking point from the past 3 decades - circulated for dissemination on rightwing talk shows?

    6. Re:and yet... by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Informative

      [citation needed]
      (Good fucking luck with that.)

      Environmentalists? ALF? ELF? Sea Shepard? Earth First? Well that's a start. Then we can move onto the political groups. FLQ, Weather underground(WUO), more modern stuff like Antifa, BLM, to just name a few. Then we can get into the various flavors of the anarchist groups that put those claims. Then there's the agent provocateur stuff, that if you've been paying attention to in the current US election...which has come from "arms reach" liberal organizations. Haven't even touched on the ones in Europe that are still all over the place. FYI: They're all left-wing groups, they've all at one point claimed some form of progressive identity or liberal identity. They've all had directly or indirectly funding from big name progressive or liberal or communist groups or people who claim those identities directly. We'll leave the non-affiliated individuals like the crazy lady who tried to firebomb a group of pro-life protesters outside an abortion clinic out of it though, just to make it easy.

      Good enough?

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    7. Re:and yet... by multi+io · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Don't be evil", amirite?

      I'm not sure what would be "evil" about supporting a particular party or candidate. What did YOU think happens when a political campaign is started? What did you think the people involved communicate to each other? Only dates and addresses and cookie recipes for blue or red colored cookies?

    8. Re:and yet... by Beeftopia · · Score: 2

      There are two common threads running through politics:

      1) Making the population easier to govern.
      2) Retaining incumbent power.

        Focusing on divisive issues (important/necessary though they may be) makes the natives restless and more difficult to govern, thus undermining 1 above.
        Divisive issues forces incumbents to pick a side which might cause them to lose votes ("I was for it before I was against it"), thus undermining 2 above.

    9. Re:and yet... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you're facing non-citizen voters in states that are already pro-Left, then why bother?

      "Non-citizen voters" is an oxymoron. And please, no snarks about undocumented immigrants going to the polls. The last thing they want to do is something that could reveal their lack of status. Besides, voter fraud is nowhere near the problem some claim it to be.

      I rely on non-mainstream media for some of my news, so I miss a lot of propaganda.

      From the rest of your post, it sounds like you have marinated in propaganda, just from an alt source.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    10. Re:and yet... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Bread and Circuses.

      Not exactly a new idea.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    11. Re:and yet... by ausekilis · · Score: 4, Informative

      I agree that the GOP has had piss poor leadership for decades. The latest batch of in-breds in particular seem to be so far out of touch with today's society it's almost like they've been living in a GOP bio-dome fed propaganda for 20 years before they are allowed to step up to a podium.

      However, they most certainly don't "just go with the opposition". Congress has managed to do far less since 2011 due to all of the infighting. Have you not seen the headlines about the Republican house trying to cut funding to the Democratic majority FCC? What about the Republican house trying their damnedest to pass laws that have side-notes to cut funding to Obamacare?

      "If it's something Obama supports, we must stop it!" has been the GOP mantra for 8 years now.

  7. Re:Like fear of the brown people... by 110010001000 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Unfortunately for people like AmiMoJo (and most on this website), they have never really had fear, or economic uncertainty. If you are a lower/middle class person in the UK, you are fearful of unchecked immigration as it affects you and your family directly. The SJW just chant "racism" but it is about economics, not racism. People are scared, and they should be scared. AmiMojo hasn't been scared yet, but he might if things get bad enough.

  8. Re:Like fear of the brown people... by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

    If you were smart you WOULD care about Brexit as it has repercussions for all of us. But I suppose ignorance is bliss.

  9. This is news? by wiredog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Obama was doing this in 2008, and the Republicans have their own big data operations, too.

  10. Is that the best we get from Wikileaks? by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Everyone is talking about this as if Eric Schmidt's involvement in this was somehow equivalent to Google being involved. Yes, Google is an ad company, and whatever else it may be, running for President is an ad campaign. I would hope Schmidt had some good experience with that. From what I can see the plan doesn't look appreciably different than what the Democrats fielded in 2012. Perhaps it's a little heavier on the profiling aspects, but there's no reason to believe they were talking about acquiring that data illicitly, or that anything actually happened as a result of this proposal. It looks like it would be an effective strategy. Maybe it's too effective or too intrusive to the point where we need some law prohibiting the mass collection of data, and maybe that would even be possible. At the moment however, there seems to be little reason to froth about this.

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    1. Re:Is that the best we get from Wikileaks? by tomhath · · Score: 2
      FTFA:

      "key is the development of a single record for a voter that aggregates all that is known about them".

      If you don't think that data would come from Google you might be interested in a bridge I have for sale.

  11. The fate of Brendan Eich becons for Schmidt by mi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When Brendan Eich's backing of a popular, but ultimately-losing political movement came to light, Mozilla — undoubtedly pressured by Google, who provides 90% of its moneyforced the inventor of Javascript to voluntarily step down.

    The ongoing collapsing of Her Beautiful Wickedness is no dissimilar — although reasonably popular and, some would say, even with a reasonable chance of getting the same 52% of the vote that Brendan-backed Proposition 8 has gathered, Hillary may lose on legal grounds.

    To avoid being seen as a hypocrite, Mr. Schmidt — who didn't merely donate some money, but was actively helping her — ought to resign soon.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  12. Recommendations on big data by Kirgin · · Score: 2

    His recommendations are for resolving issues that come up with the existing data collection that Democrats (and replubicans) have already been engaging in for decades. He isn't talking about using his company to divulge personal information about users, but to use existing and accepted practices for mining the data. That being said, his advice weighs a lot more than the average advisor's. It's like Mike Tyson coaching your son's elementary school boxing program.

  13. Benjamin Franklin and American politics today. by MrKaos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Prior to the signing of the final draft of the American Constitution on the last day of the Constitutional Convention in September 1787, Franklin had a speech of his delivered, by James Wilson, because he was too ill at the time to deliver it himself. In the speech he protested the fallibility of the Constitution and of the document he said:

    In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.

    Keep in mind that Franklin probably didn't mean the people were criminal, only that some powerful segments of the population manipulating things to corrupt them, like reducing education, interfering with the press, sabotaging government functions so they are ineffective and many other things. Being a third party to these elections and effectively disinterested in the result I tend to wonder what damage is being done to the office of the President by the way the campaigns seem to tear each candidate into pieces and I wonder if that is the canary in the cage.

    Franklin seems to have been able to predict this moment, and please don't take that as a criticism of your country, however isn't that a sign to look to the type of things Franklin was trying to warn everyone about back when the US constitution was framed?

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  14. Young, low-paid by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    young and hard-working and enthusiastic...from which to choose enthusiastic, smart and low-paid permanent employees

    If there is any doubt about the reasons behind their H-1B desires, this should set it to rest.

  15. Natural outcome of high population by swb · · Score: 2

    I think this is ultimately the natural outcome of high populations.

    High populations create the need for ever more organized structures and ever more rigid discipline to enforce adherence to these structures. Resistance to these structures is also an inevitable outcome which feeds back into the increasing need for more more rigidity, surveillance and control features to prevent disruption to the organizational structure.

    Of course we've passed the point in many cases where the level of organization and organizational discipline is well-matched to human nature. Making matters worse, the organizational structures and discipline are used cynically for self-enrichment and power accumulation in addition to being applied unequally and unjustly among various groups, further increasing resistance, leading in turn, to more rigidity and discipline.

    I don't really see any way out of this long term without large reductions in population which reduce the amount of organizational structure needed.

  16. Horse shit by s.petry · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Stop trying to justify propaganda and propagandists. Schmidt has used the platform to attempt to sway the election. The same thing Twitter and Facebook have done, as well as main stream media. People are sick of it, and we can see the game being played all over.

    Google performing "Science" would require UNBIASED positioning, not purely biased in favor of Democrats. You can not by definition perform science with a one sided bias.

    Google search for months has provided biased results in search results and pre-fetching strings. Typing in "How do I vote" showed "For Hillary" as the top search entry for months, and Donald Trump did not show in the search results even if you typed in "for Donald" or "for Trump".

    I get it, you Progressive Leftists hate losing. You don't care that Donna Brazil is empty of morality and has no problem cheating as long as the candidate the party oligarchs wants is elected. The only reason she was fired from CNN was that she got caught, not that she was devoid of ethics. No problem with scum like Bob Creamer sending provocateurs to Sanders and Trump rallies because it makes their candidate look better and opponents look bad. That scumbag had 340+ visits to the White House and 50 visits with the President, and you refuse to question how much the President actually knows about the corruption. You have no problem with the Attorney General meeting a potential witness and husband of the subject of 18 separate USCs days before her Directory of the FBI decided not to allow prosecution of any charges, and have not demanded that the AG step down for malfeasance.

    You don't have a problem with it, but a huge number of the Public does. We do not support corrupt oligarchs and have no illusions that we somehow benefit from them. Trump burning down a huge portion of a corrupt Government is a solid option at this point. The alternative is to have a civil war, which we should all agree would be very bad for all of us.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  17. Re:Like fear of the brown people... by Rockoon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's interesting that you feel able to pigeon-hole most people on this web site

    To be fair, AmiMoJo pigeon-holed himself by spamming comments on SJW stories. We arent talking about 2 or 3 posts per SJW story here, we are talking 20 or 30.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  18. Re:As an an American... by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 2

    yet all that meddling has led to a society where many black families are even worse off than if government had not first enabled and then "reformed" all that racism in the first place.

    Blame the Nixon-era War on Drugs for the destruction of black family life. By incarcerating large swathes of young black men and forcing mothers to be sole income earners, black children grow up impoverished and lacking a paternal influence in their lives. They grow up to repeat the vicious cycle. No single thing has done more to erase decades of minorities' economic and social progress than the WoD. It's the new Jim Crow.

    --
    'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman