More specifically, the responsible person is the one who takes classified information out of a secure system. If for example, Hillary Clinton had received classified material and forwarded it that would not be illegal (unless she were aware of it's classification status). This is why she was not and could not be prosecuted. All the classified information found in her emails was received by her.
what really counts is being able to answer yes to the question "Would I want to spend 8 hours sitting next to this person on an airplane seat?"
That's not at the top of my requirements. They have to be professional but they don't have to be friendly. I don't need to personally like someone to work with them.
I don't think Slashdot recognizes the damage they are doing to their brand by chasing the lowest common denominator. They keep publishing on the same provocative subjects. That drives a spike in readership but it pushes away people who are more sophisticated. Thoughtless people push up thoughtless comments. And Slashdot needs to start trimming their stories. Really, we don't need another story on autonomous vehicles. They also need to stop publishing stories on the weekend. The rating system just does not work without a certain mass of readers.
if we're only judging by which corporation makes the most money then Apple isn't running away with the game. Google doesn't make their money off of the hardware. They make money from advertising and services.
Actually the Constitution resulted from the failure of the original Confederation. The founders decided that they needed to form a Federation rather than a Confederation because there was a need to centralize some power.
The Founders felt so strongly that each state have an equal vote in the Senate independent of the population of the state that the ONLY thing that can't be amended in the Constitution with approval of ¾ of the states
Actually, the one thing all the founders agreed on was that the structure of the electoral college was not ideal, but acceptable. The southern states put forward the Virginia plan, which would have given representation based on population. Northern states put forward the New Jersey plan, which would have given the same number of representatives to each state regardless of population. They settled for the Connecticut Compromise which resulted in our bicameral legislature and the electoral college as it's formed today.
It's kind of funny that you seem to think the rural states could survive today without the urban states. If Illinois and New York formed their own country while the other 48 states split off, the two state union might survive. The 48 state union would not. New York by itself could probably form a functioning city state. No modern country today can prosper without a strong financial center.
Hillary Clinton won 300 counties while Trump won 5000. If you think that the election of a nation should be swayed by a handful of cities while the rest of the nation is completely ignored, well, you're an idiot.
Those 300 counties represent 51 percent of the voters while the 5000 counties represent 49 percent. That handful of cities is the majority of Americans. So, on behalf of most American's let me just say, you're an idiot.
I don't agree that she should have no standing, just no more standing than any other citizen. As I understand it that's the difference between res publicae and res communes. Res communes is for the enjoyment of all. Res publicae is owned by all the citizens. The image is property of the public. Any citizen should have standing when a private entity claims ownership of the public's property.
Although your examples may not be valid it is true that there are and were false posts targeted at both sides, just more targeted at conservative readers. And it's not just false information, it's misleading information.
Here's an example targeted at liberals today: The Secret Service is opening an office in Trump Towers because Trump's family won't be living at the White House. This implies that it's the Secret Service is doing something unusual and that Trump is misusing government resources. It's not true. Typically Presidents will have a home away from the White House. George H. W. Bush went to Kennibunkport. IIRC Clinton went to the Hamptons. George W. Bush had his farm in Texas. In each case the Secret Service had to do whatever it is they do to keep the President and his family safe. If anything Trump Tower is probably easier to secure because of it's location.
But anyway this isn't a pissing contest. We aren't blaming the right, we're recognizing that people are being manipulated. These posts need to be stopped whether they're targeted at liberal or conservative voters.
I forgot to mention. I don't mind when commentators advocate for conservative positions. In fact I think it's critically important that they do. I do however mind when someone like Rush Limbaugh takes no responsibility for telling the truth. He has been confronted time and again for making false statements. His answer is that he's an entertainer and not a reporter.
Also, people on the left don't describe themselves as socialist or communist because they are not either. They shy away from the liberal label because it has come to imply a more radical position than most on the left hold. The fact is that the most radical left wing politician today is to the right of the most conservative Republicans of the 1970's. How many people remember when Republicans were voting for welfare and public housing? When is the last time you heard a Democrat argue for welfare? Bernie Sander's is the first politician in 25 years to openly support socialism. Did you see the party rally around him? No, the Blue Dog Democrats smashed him like a bug.
Scenario: Dad asks child if mom gave permission to have a friend over. Child says yes, but doesn't tell dad that mom changed her mind after the child got in trouble. Did the child tell the truth?
This is exactly the type of manipulation that Fox News uses all day every day. Just look at the scrolling news alerts. How many are questions that imply an answer?
There are thousands of radio stations, television stations, newspapers and magazines published in the US. The fact that the New York Times leans liberal does not mean all media in the US are liberal. I could claim the opposite because Fox News exists. Either claim would be absurd.
And there's the difference. Publishers can be held accountable. Journalists who lie can be held accountable. Dan Rather got caught lying. He lost his job and his reputation.
When a statement is propagated that is demonstrably false it should be possible to challenge it. That isn't possible with today's social media. If I challenge the truthfulness of a post only a small number of people will see it. That is an important difference between a publisher and a commenter on social media. If the Washington Post publishes something that's demonstrably untrue it can be challenged.
I do think it's important to find a solution that allows people to continue speaking freely. I may disagree with my right-wing friends but I don't want to silence them. Here's the solution I've been mulling over specifically for Facebook. Facebook is the only social media site I use so I can't suggest how this could work for other sites.
It should be possible for readers to flag a post as being untruthful. If enough readers challenge the post, Facebook could add a notice to all the threads it got forwarded to. Challenges could be counter-challenged as well. If that happens another notice would be added. If an accountable publisher writes about the post, a link can be included as well. Once people recognize that other people have questioned the authenticity of a claim they can decide for themselves whether it's true.
I've long thought it interesting just how much the American right learned from Soviet propaganda techniques. I mean, the Heritage Foundations "Accuracy in Media" group was responsible for promoting the myth of "the liberal media". It was a blatant propaganda campaign that was at one time available to read on their website. And then we have Fox's "fair and balanced" news. They took that straight out of the Communist play book. The Soviet Union named their propaganda newspaper Truth.
The actual article is much more straight forward. Note these lines:
He had technicians secretly install an Internet connection in his Pentagon office, even though it was forbidden.
he gave classified information to NATO allies without approval
There's nothing ambiguous there. But while I think it's unlikely he damaged national security with his flouting of the rules, the following paragraph is more disconcerting.
Flynn was one of the few high-ranking officers who disdained the Army’s culture of conformity. But McChrystal also knew he had to protect Flynn from that same culture. He “boxed him in,” someone who had worked with both men told me last week, by encouraging Flynn to keep his outbursts in check and surrounding him with subordinates who would challenge the unsubstantiated theories he tended to indulge.
And then there's this:
His subordinates started a list of what they called “Flynn facts,” things he would say that weren’t true, like when he asserted that three-quarters of all new cell phones were bought by Africans or, later, that Iran had killed more Americans than Al Qaeda.
This is the man who will be advising our president on issues pertaining to national security. A man who indulges in unsubstantiated theories.
Yet another article reinforcing the idea that "the media" is liberal and biased against right wing views. This isn't a list of fake news stories., it's a list of journalists. There's no specific claim even made and the "source" is a link to wikileaks. Not to a document on wikieaks, just to the website. the "list" doesn't mention John Podesta's name and it doesn't even suggest that these journalists conspired with anyone.
It's a misunderstanding. He was appointed because the Nazi party was the largest party in the Reichstag. Although Hitler was not elected he did use the democratic process to take power.
Some of us are putting a great deal of energy into understanding what we as a party did wrong. I noted a few problems during the election.
1. There was a lot of talk about how Trump was getting support from uneducated people. It was dismissive and insulting.
2. Hillary Clinton was positioned to be the candidate. Despite years of experience in government she actually has very little experience campaigning. She always appeared polished. Her hair was just right. Her clothes were always immaculate. All of that contributed to a disconnect between the candidate and the voter.
3. She never gave people a reason to vote for her. She counted on people voting against her opponent.
4. As a party we've built a big umbrella. Somehow the one group we failed to bring in was the straight white male.
5. Which brings me to the most damning failure of all. There's a huge block of ex-union people that used to be solid Democratic Party voters. Trump took a lot of those votes. How did we let this happen?
The fact that we have a lot to account for doesn't mean there aren't other factors. Voter suppression worked. The voter ID laws discouraged a lot of people from voting even if they actually didn't have to show ID. And social media did play a part. Facebook especially has been flooded with political posts that are false or misleading. It's impossible to challenge so much misinformation.
Slashdot Mirror
More specifically, the responsible person is the one who takes classified information out of a secure system. If for example, Hillary Clinton had received classified material and forwarded it that would not be illegal (unless she were aware of it's classification status). This is why she was not and could not be prosecuted. All the classified information found in her emails was received by her.
what really counts is being able to answer yes to the question "Would I want to spend 8 hours sitting next to this person on an airplane seat?"
That's not at the top of my requirements. They have to be professional but they don't have to be friendly. I don't need to personally like someone to work with them.
I don't think Slashdot recognizes the damage they are doing to their brand by chasing the lowest common denominator. They keep publishing on the same provocative subjects. That drives a spike in readership but it pushes away people who are more sophisticated. Thoughtless people push up thoughtless comments. And Slashdot needs to start trimming their stories. Really, we don't need another story on autonomous vehicles. They also need to stop publishing stories on the weekend. The rating system just does not work without a certain mass of readers.
we like our news sources salted with tales of baby ducks being rescued from storm drains.
Link please?
Sorry, you were saying..?
if we're only judging by which corporation makes the most money then Apple isn't running away with the game. Google doesn't make their money off of the hardware. They make money from advertising and services.
Actually the Constitution resulted from the failure of the original Confederation. The founders decided that they needed to form a Federation rather than a Confederation because there was a need to centralize some power.
The Founders felt so strongly that each state have an equal vote in the Senate independent of the population of the state that the ONLY thing that can't be amended in the Constitution with approval of ¾ of the states
Actually, the one thing all the founders agreed on was that the structure of the electoral college was not ideal, but acceptable. The southern states put forward the Virginia plan, which would have given representation based on population. Northern states put forward the New Jersey plan, which would have given the same number of representatives to each state regardless of population. They settled for the Connecticut Compromise which resulted in our bicameral legislature and the electoral college as it's formed today.
It's kind of funny that you seem to think the rural states could survive today without the urban states. If Illinois and New York formed their own country while the other 48 states split off, the two state union might survive. The 48 state union would not. New York by itself could probably form a functioning city state. No modern country today can prosper without a strong financial center.
Hillary Clinton won 300 counties while Trump won 5000. If you think that the election of a nation should be swayed by a handful of cities while the rest of the nation is completely ignored, well, you're an idiot.
Those 300 counties represent 51 percent of the voters while the 5000 counties represent 49 percent. That handful of cities is the majority of Americans. So, on behalf of most American's let me just say, you're an idiot.
I don't agree that she should have no standing, just no more standing than any other citizen. As I understand it that's the difference between res publicae and res communes. Res communes is for the enjoyment of all. Res publicae is owned by all the citizens. The image is property of the public. Any citizen should have standing when a private entity claims ownership of the public's property.
Although your examples may not be valid it is true that there are and were false posts targeted at both sides, just more targeted at conservative readers. And it's not just false information, it's misleading information.
Here's an example targeted at liberals today: The Secret Service is opening an office in Trump Towers because Trump's family won't be living at the White House. This implies that it's the Secret Service is doing something unusual and that Trump is misusing government resources. It's not true. Typically Presidents will have a home away from the White House. George H. W. Bush went to Kennibunkport. IIRC Clinton went to the Hamptons. George W. Bush had his farm in Texas. In each case the Secret Service had to do whatever it is they do to keep the President and his family safe. If anything Trump Tower is probably easier to secure because of it's location.
But anyway this isn't a pissing contest. We aren't blaming the right, we're recognizing that people are being manipulated. These posts need to be stopped whether they're targeted at liberal or conservative voters.
LOL. I see this got modded down. Sometimes those mods have to be taken with pride :-)
I forgot to mention. I don't mind when commentators advocate for conservative positions. In fact I think it's critically important that they do. I do however mind when someone like Rush Limbaugh takes no responsibility for telling the truth. He has been confronted time and again for making false statements. His answer is that he's an entertainer and not a reporter.
Also, people on the left don't describe themselves as socialist or communist because they are not either. They shy away from the liberal label because it has come to imply a more radical position than most on the left hold. The fact is that the most radical left wing politician today is to the right of the most conservative Republicans of the 1970's. How many people remember when Republicans were voting for welfare and public housing? When is the last time you heard a Democrat argue for welfare? Bernie Sander's is the first politician in 25 years to openly support socialism. Did you see the party rally around him? No, the Blue Dog Democrats smashed him like a bug.
Truth is not absolute.
Scenario: Dad asks child if mom gave permission to have a friend over. Child says yes, but doesn't tell dad that mom changed her mind after the child got in trouble. Did the child tell the truth?
This is exactly the type of manipulation that Fox News uses all day every day. Just look at the scrolling news alerts. How many are questions that imply an answer?
There are thousands of radio stations, television stations, newspapers and magazines published in the US. The fact that the New York Times leans liberal does not mean all media in the US are liberal. I could claim the opposite because Fox News exists. Either claim would be absurd.
And there's the difference. Publishers can be held accountable. Journalists who lie can be held accountable. Dan Rather got caught lying. He lost his job and his reputation.
When a statement is propagated that is demonstrably false it should be possible to challenge it. That isn't possible with today's social media. If I challenge the truthfulness of a post only a small number of people will see it. That is an important difference between a publisher and a commenter on social media. If the Washington Post publishes something that's demonstrably untrue it can be challenged.
I do think it's important to find a solution that allows people to continue speaking freely. I may disagree with my right-wing friends but I don't want to silence them. Here's the solution I've been mulling over specifically for Facebook. Facebook is the only social media site I use so I can't suggest how this could work for other sites.
It should be possible for readers to flag a post as being untruthful. If enough readers challenge the post, Facebook could add a notice to all the threads it got forwarded to. Challenges could be counter-challenged as well. If that happens another notice would be added. If an accountable publisher writes about the post, a link can be included as well. Once people recognize that other people have questioned the authenticity of a claim they can decide for themselves whether it's true.
I've long thought it interesting just how much the American right learned from Soviet propaganda techniques. I mean, the Heritage Foundations "Accuracy in Media" group was responsible for promoting the myth of "the liberal media". It was a blatant propaganda campaign that was at one time available to read on their website. And then we have Fox's "fair and balanced" news. They took that straight out of the Communist play book. The Soviet Union named their propaganda newspaper Truth.
The actual article is much more straight forward. Note these lines:
He had technicians secretly install an Internet connection in his Pentagon office, even though it was forbidden.
he gave classified information to NATO allies without approval
There's nothing ambiguous there. But while I think it's unlikely he damaged national security with his flouting of the rules, the following paragraph is more disconcerting.
Flynn was one of the few high-ranking officers who disdained the Army’s culture of conformity. But McChrystal also knew he had to protect Flynn from that same culture. He “boxed him in,” someone who had worked with both men told me last week, by encouraging Flynn to keep his outbursts in check and surrounding him with subordinates who would challenge the unsubstantiated theories he tended to indulge.
And then there's this:
His subordinates started a list of what they called “Flynn facts,” things he would say that weren’t true, like when he asserted that three-quarters of all new cell phones were bought by Africans or, later, that Iran had killed more Americans than Al Qaeda.
This is the man who will be advising our president on issues pertaining to national security. A man who indulges in unsubstantiated theories .
Yet another article reinforcing the idea that "the media" is liberal and biased against right wing views. This isn't a list of fake news stories., it's a list of journalists. There's no specific claim even made and the "source" is a link to wikileaks. Not to a document on wikieaks, just to the website. the "list" doesn't mention John Podesta's name and it doesn't even suggest that these journalists conspired with anyone.
why spend money to make the hired helps lives easier ?
Yeah, and what's with all those washers and dryers? The staff can do that too!
It's a misunderstanding. He was appointed because the Nazi party was the largest party in the Reichstag. Although Hitler was not elected he did use the democratic process to take power.
The fact that we have a lot to account for doesn't mean there aren't other factors. Voter suppression worked. The voter ID laws discouraged a lot of people from voting even if they actually didn't have to show ID. And social media did play a part. Facebook especially has been flooded with political posts that are false or misleading. It's impossible to challenge so much misinformation.
Why were conservatives interested in his opinion last week? The week before he was treated like he was a traitor.