No, it didn't. We have the email. We have a Russian operative asking Jr. if he was interested in dirt about the Clintons. We have Jr. responding to the email "I love it".
The e-mail with Jr. was not from a Russian operative.
What I know is that Trump's campaign at least conspired with an unfriendly foreign power to affect election results.
But they didn't conspire and it didn't affect the election results.
No, we're not. Only nutjobs are going down that path. Seriously can you people do anything greater than regurgitate Fox news? It's just sad at this point.
That story got debunked hard. The Russian lawyer was magnitsky act lobbyist, and it was a setup. Both Jr. and the Lawyer were lied to about the meeting. Also, it's not actually collusion or illegal to receive information from foreign nationals about political opponents. What's illegal is paying for it.
Not to mention the links that Natalia Veselnitskaya has with Fusion GPS, which brings us to... You know... the DNC and Clinton campaign paying for the Steele Dossier from Fusion GPS. Why do you think nothing ever came out of the Russian Lawyer meeting ?
If anything, we're discovering that any and all collusion in the election goes through Fusion GPS. And it all ties back to the DNC.
Michael Oâ(TM)Rielly was nominated for a seat on the Federal Communications Commission by President Barack Obama on August 1, 2013 and was confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate on October 29, 2013. He was sworn into office on November 4, 2013. On January 29, 2015, he was sworn into office for a new term, following his re-nomination by the President and confirmation by the United States Senate.
But but... That was changed! They are lying! Ok. Let's try :
I'm looking at RT.com's front page right now. Everything looks semi-normal, no glaring "FAKE!" story, at least stories that go completely counter to what Western media is spouting. Taking a particular piece, about Lebanon's Hariri and the whole "quitting from Saudi Arabia" debacle of the last week :
So... what's the issue with RT.com's coverage ? Only the fact that it's state sponsered ? But by that token, so is PBS, BBC, CBC, ABC (the Australian ABC, not the American one!)... This all seems rather unfair and lacking any actual substance. It seems to be... actual anti-Russian propaganda in a way. Maybe if Alphabet were a bit more transparent about their findings that led up to this decision. I mean, surely they're not just doing this based on the "Russian meddling" narrative, that's based on a report from a private firm like Crowdstrike... or worse... the Steele Dossier that's been proven false in many regards. And why are they not blocking Buzzfeed news ? Let's be real. Buzzfeed.
fuck internet growth. Whatever happened to happy customers, and human rights?
Internet growth is human rights and happy customers. It is about building infrastructure in more rural areas and providing service to more people that currently cannot have access in a meaningful manner. Without growth, new people cannot be connected as infrastructure simply doesn't span the entire globe, in every region or connect every human yet.
We can say "enough growth" when every human on the planet has access to the Internet in some fashion.
This was enacted in 2015. You can read Micheal Orielly's dissent, but most important is this part:
The FCC "fact" sheet promised bright line rules, but the reality is that the bulk of this rulemaking will be conducted through case-by-case adjudication, mostly at the Bureau level and in the courts. To be sure, there are three bright line rules: no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. But those are mere needles in a Title II haystack.
Before you lob accusations of Michael being a Trump crony, you need to read up on him. He's the Obama appointed FCC Commissioner, and was appointed in 2013, 2 years before Title II was applied as a form of "Net Neutrality" that just isn't Net Neutrality. It's government overreach.
Michael, the commisionner of the FCC, wants the same thing we all want. 3 simple guiding principals. I don't know why people are mad and revolting that the FCC is attempting to correct a mistake it made in 2015. If anything, reading the actual opinions of people involved, it seems they do want actual Net Neutrality.
Are you really opposed to the 3 guiding principals of "no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization" ? Because that's what I want in Net Neutrality. Title II does not give us that.
I'm saying *SIMPLER* rules, as pointed out by Micheal Orielly in his dissent to Title II, would be serve the users, and actually be what we've been asking for since day 1.
Title II was an abomination of government overreach and bureaucracy gone wrong.
The way to make that diversity matter less is not to push it to the forefront and create an "Oppression Hierarchy" where you promote some opinions over others based on the physical attributes of the person uttering said opinion.
AKA : You don't promote a pure meritocracy by using affirmative action.
Or you end up being what you despise, aka, someone who thinks that people of a certain skin tone that is pale should be silenced and removed from public discourse for being the "nation's" problem.
You call me bad nerd and then say we didn't have traffic shaping circa the Quake era ?
I was working at a ISP circa 1998-2002. We did have traffic shaping tech back then. We did use it. It did screw our users. We stopped because it was screwing our users and wasn't in the best interest of the company and basically hurt the service and thus our corporate image.
Maybe you're just not old enough to remember this stuff ? The point is not that the FCC Title II rules are from 2015, it's that they are way too complex and don't actually promote an open Internet at all. Read the entire Dissent section of the document I listed.
Because that's what is actually happening. Rules that even the Obama appointed FCC chairman said were overreaching and would stiffle Internet growth, while not doing what Net Neutrality proponents were even asking for.
If anything, the industry and community are far less respectful to the only diversity that matters : Diversity of opinion.
We're moving more and more towards being a bunch of different colored automatons that simply repeat the same spiel, rather than having actual diversity of goals, thoughts and experiences.
Part of Micheal Orielly's dissent to this (he's an Obama appointee for anyone thinking this is a Trump thing), the part relevant to framing our understanding of old vs new Net Neutrality, is as follows (see page 399):
The FCC "fact" sheet promised bright line rules, but the reality is that the bulk of this rulemaking will be conducted through case-by-case adjudication, mostly at the Bureau level and in the courts. To be sure, there are three bright line rules: no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. But those are mere needles in a Title II haystack.
Essentially, Title II is too vast, to burdensome and basically serves as a stiffling mechanism to Internet growth, while failing to promote the 3 essential rules of Net Neutrality we've fought a decade and more for. How anyone just wants to hang out to a 2 year old set of rules that are simply too heavy handed and do not serve our goals is beyond me. It's not like we're discussing repealing 2 decade old rules here. We didn't have Title II prior to 2015 and the Internet was just fine.
True Net Neutrality would be simple as Mr. Orielly points out.
Oh look, the Cultural Marxists and Reeeegressives are flooding the thread, a day late, hoping to get the last word!
On a pedantic technicality, tha tis true. I practice, no it's no the place to go hitting on people. Perhaps if you get on well, exchange contact details and so on then yeah ask that person on a date or something.
"Oh hey charming person, we're really hitting it off, but let's put all this on hold until a time we're not at some kind of event that others have deemed inappropriate for meeting each other"
Always works right ? Trying to artificially put the brakes on to human interactions that are often spur of the moment is a good way to not end up very alone. The other person could change their view of you entirely in that moment, as you come off as lacking confidence or overly prude. Of course, this will depend on every person. A good tip when hitting it off with a person : Stop caring what others think. All that matters is what the person in front of you and yourself think.
No he's not. The fact that you don't understand the difference between "hitting on" and "meeting your future SO" leads me to believe you're likely to wind up on the wrong side of these things.
Because asking people out is literally sexual assault in your mind maybe ? I guess it works if you have that mind set. Too bad that's not how human interactions work. The other person is free to say "No" if they are not interested. Also before you go there, no need to be lewd or indecent, when a simple "Wanna go up to my room for a private chat" or "Wanna go get a bite just the two of us" is perfectly viable way to asking someone out.
If you're at a hacker convention that is not the appropriate time to hit on a women (or a man). That's why the good Lord made singles bars. You're professional environment is not a dating site. How hard is that to understand?
There is literally no right or wrong time to meet a significant other. In fact, a convention where people of similar interest gather, is probably a time when you'll meet people, exchange with them, and form bonds. Some of the those bonds could lead to friendships and more. Dating and meeting people is not an activity in and of itself. It happens organically during social activities of all sorts, of which your job, schooling, shopping are all a part of. To try and paint any non-professional bonds that happen in professional settings as wrong is simply to ignore human nature.
That being said, harassment and assault should not be tolerated. But you're saying that flirting, or simply having a nice chat with someone you feel you're connecting with should be banned, which is downright ludicrous.
We now know that it was the DNC and the Clinton campaign that colluded with Russia through Manafort working for the Podesta Group and paying Steele for the fake dossier.
Don't try to deflect. It's over. Trump won. Clinton colluded, cheated and still loss, proving how much of a failure of a candidate she was.
Slashdot used to be a good site for technically minded people - over the past year or two it's degenerated into yet another cesspool of bigotry and hatred - whether it be based on religion, women, gun control, Brexit or US politics.
You`re right, Slashdot has become bigoted. People like you refuse to tolerate other people's opinion.
Such much bigotry in the quoted sentence.
*sigh*. At least learn what the word bigot means if you're going to try to use it. The problem is that Slashdot articles have increasingly focused on things like politics, religion or gender, not that comments have become more "bigoted" as you put it. The bigotry comes from the side that says "any post that disagrees with me is Hate Speech".
Look, we can say the wage gap is a myth based off incomplete data, and that's not bigotry or hate speech, no matter how much you don't like Facts and Truth. Don't want to hear about it ? Ask Slashdot to stop posting about an imaginary wage gap, it's not news for nerds or stuff that matters to this forum's audience.
the Republican party have a much worse record on race.
Yeah, those pesky Republicans who ended slavery in the United States, and then proceeded to massively outvote Democrats on the Civil Rights act of 1964.
Yeah, much worse record... Like do you people ever do any research or do you just regurgitate media talking points ?
Not being American
Oh nvm, just an uneducated twit with no knowledge of what he speaks of.
because the company's understanding of Russian activity was too speculative
Good on them to value fact based reporting! Those people should be congratulated and promoted.
We need less narrative pushing and more fact based analysis. The whole "Russia!" scare the MSM and Democrats are pushing is really embarassing at this point and is only serving to distract officials from conducting actual government and intelligence work, while they continue on this wild goose chase, or witch hunt, or whatever you want to call it.
Where is the original, unedited video? If they have nothing to hide then there is no problem posting it for us to examine.
From reading your reply, I am now still unconvinced the Veritas stuff is debunked, as you have provided no debunking yet. Also, do you ask CNN for unedited material too ? Or do you just take their stuff at face value.
Both are actually good examples of radicals. We could simply sum it up with "Radicals are people that resort to violence to solve disagreements" though even that mostly ignores pacifists who are radical in their ideology ("Healthcare must be free and paid for by the government for all living organism in the universe" would be a radical position for instance).
Depends if you think radical is a synonym for extremist or absolutist, or if you want radical to stand on its own.
No, but having liked a page and then participated in the events can show premeditation and probably conspiracy. The DOJ probably wants the info to bolster charges or increase current charges against suspects.
If you don't want to be deported, there's an easy way : Don't enter the country illegally and while if in said country illegally, don't commit a felony.
Otherwise, you absolutely should be deported, and resisting being deported after committing a crime should be ridiculed, not lauded and praised.
Or are you actually just resisting Law and Order ? Would you prefer to live in anarchy ? I don't think you'd like actual anarchy.
Slashdot Mirror
New York's northernmost borough is the city's most diverse, has the lowest income per household
But go right ahead and tell me how this is a race thing. Next up, learn how mysoginy means only mothers are expected to breastfeed their children!
No, it didn't. We have the email. We have a Russian operative asking Jr. if he was interested in dirt about the Clintons. We have Jr. responding to the email "I love it".
The e-mail with Jr. was not from a Russian operative.
What I know is that Trump's campaign at least conspired with an unfriendly foreign power to affect election results.
But they didn't conspire and it didn't affect the election results.
No, we're not. Only nutjobs are going down that path. Seriously can you people do anything greater than regurgitate Fox news? It's just sad at this point.
Congress are nut jobs ?
https://www.reuters.com/articl...
You must just watch CNN.
That story got debunked hard. The Russian lawyer was magnitsky act lobbyist, and it was a setup. Both Jr. and the Lawyer were lied to about the meeting. Also, it's not actually collusion or illegal to receive information from foreign nationals about political opponents. What's illegal is paying for it.
Not to mention the links that Natalia Veselnitskaya has with Fusion GPS, which brings us to ... You know... the DNC and Clinton campaign paying for the Steele Dossier from Fusion GPS. Why do you think nothing ever came out of the Russian Lawyer meeting ?
If anything, we're discovering that any and all collusion in the election goes through Fusion GPS. And it all ties back to the DNC.
Neither Michael Orielly or Ajit Pai are "Obama appointed chairman".
https://www.fcc.gov/about/lead...
Michael Oâ(TM)Rielly was nominated for a seat on the Federal Communications Commission by President Barack Obama on August 1, 2013 and was confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate on October 29, 2013. He was sworn into office on November 4, 2013. On January 29, 2015, he was sworn into office for a new term, following his re-nomination by the President and confirmation by the United States Senate.
But but... That was changed! They are lying! Ok. Let's try :
https://techcrunch.com/2014/12...
Want something to wash down that crow there buddy ? ^_^
I'm looking at RT.com's front page right now. Everything looks semi-normal, no glaring "FAKE!" story, at least stories that go completely counter to what Western media is spouting. Taking a particular piece, about Lebanon's Hariri and the whole "quitting from Saudi Arabia" debacle of the last week :
https://www.rt.com/news/410561...
Comparing said story with the Washington Post's story on the same event shows near identical facts being stated by both outlets :
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
So... what's the issue with RT.com's coverage ? Only the fact that it's state sponsered ? But by that token, so is PBS, BBC, CBC, ABC (the Australian ABC, not the American one!)... This all seems rather unfair and lacking any actual substance. It seems to be ... actual anti-Russian propaganda in a way. Maybe if Alphabet were a bit more transparent about their findings that led up to this decision. I mean, surely they're not just doing this based on the "Russian meddling" narrative, that's based on a report from a private firm like Crowdstrike... or worse... the Steele Dossier that's been proven false in many regards. And why are they not blocking Buzzfeed news ? Let's be real. Buzzfeed.
fuck internet growth. Whatever happened to happy customers, and human rights?
Internet growth is human rights and happy customers. It is about building infrastructure in more rural areas and providing service to more people that currently cannot have access in a meaningful manner. Without growth, new people cannot be connected as infrastructure simply doesn't span the entire globe, in every region or connect every human yet.
We can say "enough growth" when every human on the planet has access to the Internet in some fashion.
[Citation needed]
None of what you said is true.
Except it is true. What is being discussed here is the following policy :
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub...
This was enacted in 2015. You can read Micheal Orielly's dissent, but most important is this part :
The FCC "fact" sheet promised bright line rules, but the reality is that the bulk of this rulemaking
will be conducted through case-by-case adjudication, mostly at the Bureau level and in the courts. To be
sure, there are three bright line rules: no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. But those are
mere needles in a Title II haystack.
Before you lob accusations of Michael being a Trump crony, you need to read up on him. He's the Obama appointed FCC Commissioner, and was appointed in 2013, 2 years before Title II was applied as a form of "Net Neutrality" that just isn't Net Neutrality. It's government overreach.
Michael, the commisionner of the FCC, wants the same thing we all want. 3 simple guiding principals. I don't know why people are mad and revolting that the FCC is attempting to correct a mistake it made in 2015. If anything, reading the actual opinions of people involved, it seems they do want actual Net Neutrality.
Are you really opposed to the 3 guiding principals of "no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization" ? Because that's what I want in Net Neutrality. Title II does not give us that.
What "next democratic administration"?
Websites run by critics of the current administration will simply fail to load. From now on the Republican Party is the only party.
The Government just *ELIMINATED* government oversight of the Internet. And you believe that to mean they have taken control of it ?
The Mental Gymnastics are reaching beyond Olympic levels here.
I'm saying *SIMPLER* rules, as pointed out by Micheal Orielly in his dissent to Title II, would be serve the users, and actually be what we've been asking for since day 1.
Title II was an abomination of government overreach and bureaucracy gone wrong.
The way to make that diversity matter less is not to push it to the forefront and create an "Oppression Hierarchy" where you promote some opinions over others based on the physical attributes of the person uttering said opinion.
AKA : You don't promote a pure meritocracy by using affirmative action.
Or you end up being what you despise, aka, someone who thinks that people of a certain skin tone that is pale should be silenced and removed from public discourse for being the "nation's" problem.
Get it ?
You call me bad nerd and then say we didn't have traffic shaping circa the Quake era ?
I was working at a ISP circa 1998-2002. We did have traffic shaping tech back then. We did use it. It did screw our users. We stopped because it was screwing our users and wasn't in the best interest of the company and basically hurt the service and thus our corporate image.
Maybe you're just not old enough to remember this stuff ? The point is not that the FCC Title II rules are from 2015, it's that they are way too complex and don't actually promote an open Internet at all. Read the entire Dissent section of the document I listed.
Because that's what is actually happening. Rules that even the Obama appointed FCC chairman said were overreaching and would stiffle Internet growth, while not doing what Net Neutrality proponents were even asking for.
respectful of a more diverse population.
If anything, the industry and community are far less respectful to the only diversity that matters : Diversity of opinion.
We're moving more and more towards being a bunch of different colored automatons that simply repeat the same spiel, rather than having actual diversity of goals, thoughts and experiences.
Net Neutrality today is not what Net Neutrality was back in the days. These days, we're actually discussing 2015's FCC Title II rules. See :
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub...
Part of Micheal Orielly's dissent to this (he's an Obama appointee for anyone thinking this is a Trump thing), the part relevant to framing our understanding of old vs new Net Neutrality, is as follows (see page 399) :
The FCC "fact" sheet promised bright line rules, but the reality is that the bulk of this rulemaking
will be conducted through case-by-case adjudication, mostly at the Bureau level and in the courts. To be
sure, there are three bright line rules: no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. But those are
mere needles in a Title II haystack.
Essentially, Title II is too vast, to burdensome and basically serves as a stiffling mechanism to Internet growth, while failing to promote the 3 essential rules of Net Neutrality we've fought a decade and more for. How anyone just wants to hang out to a 2 year old set of rules that are simply too heavy handed and do not serve our goals is beyond me. It's not like we're discussing repealing 2 decade old rules here. We didn't have Title II prior to 2015 and the Internet was just fine.
True Net Neutrality would be simple as Mr. Orielly points out.
Oh look, the Cultural Marxists and Reeeegressives are flooding the thread, a day late, hoping to get the last word!
On a pedantic technicality, tha tis true. I practice, no it's no the place to go hitting on people. Perhaps if you get on well, exchange contact details and so on then yeah ask that person on a date or something.
"Oh hey charming person, we're really hitting it off, but let's put all this on hold until a time we're not at some kind of event that others have deemed inappropriate for meeting each other"
Always works right ? Trying to artificially put the brakes on to human interactions that are often spur of the moment is a good way to not end up very alone. The other person could change their view of you entirely in that moment, as you come off as lacking confidence or overly prude. Of course, this will depend on every person. A good tip when hitting it off with a person : Stop caring what others think. All that matters is what the person in front of you and yourself think.
No he's not. The fact that you don't understand the difference between "hitting on" and "meeting your future SO" leads me to believe you're likely to wind up on the wrong side of these things.
Because asking people out is literally sexual assault in your mind maybe ? I guess it works if you have that mind set. Too bad that's not how human interactions work. The other person is free to say "No" if they are not interested. Also before you go there, no need to be lewd or indecent, when a simple "Wanna go up to my room for a private chat" or "Wanna go get a bite just the two of us" is perfectly viable way to asking someone out.
If you're at a hacker convention that is not the appropriate time to hit on a women (or a man). That's why the good Lord made singles bars. You're professional environment is not a dating site. How hard is that to understand?
There is literally no right or wrong time to meet a significant other. In fact, a convention where people of similar interest gather, is probably a time when you'll meet people, exchange with them, and form bonds. Some of the those bonds could lead to friendships and more. Dating and meeting people is not an activity in and of itself. It happens organically during social activities of all sorts, of which your job, schooling, shopping are all a part of. To try and paint any non-professional bonds that happen in professional settings as wrong is simply to ignore human nature.
That being said, harassment and assault should not be tolerated. But you're saying that flirting, or simply having a nice chat with someone you feel you're connecting with should be banned, which is downright ludicrous.
We now know that it was the DNC and the Clinton campaign that colluded with Russia through Manafort working for the Podesta Group and paying Steele for the fake dossier.
Don't try to deflect. It's over. Trump won. Clinton colluded, cheated and still loss, proving how much of a failure of a candidate she was.
Slashdot used to be a good site for technically minded people - over the past year or two it's degenerated into yet another cesspool of bigotry and hatred - whether it be based on religion, women, gun control, Brexit or US politics.
You`re right, Slashdot has become bigoted. People like you refuse to tolerate other people's opinion.
Such much bigotry in the quoted sentence.
*sigh*. At least learn what the word bigot means if you're going to try to use it. The problem is that Slashdot articles have increasingly focused on things like politics, religion or gender, not that comments have become more "bigoted" as you put it. The bigotry comes from the side that says "any post that disagrees with me is Hate Speech".
Look, we can say the wage gap is a myth based off incomplete data, and that's not bigotry or hate speech, no matter how much you don't like Facts and Truth. Don't want to hear about it ? Ask Slashdot to stop posting about an imaginary wage gap, it's not news for nerds or stuff that matters to this forum's audience.
-- Some Religious newsletter probably
the Republican party have a much worse record on race.
Yeah, those pesky Republicans who ended slavery in the United States, and then proceeded to massively outvote Democrats on the Civil Rights act of 1964.
Yeah, much worse record... Like do you people ever do any research or do you just regurgitate media talking points ?
Not being American
Oh nvm, just an uneducated twit with no knowledge of what he speaks of.
because the company's understanding of Russian activity was too speculative
Good on them to value fact based reporting! Those people should be congratulated and promoted.
We need less narrative pushing and more fact based analysis. The whole "Russia!" scare the MSM and Democrats are pushing is really embarassing at this point and is only serving to distract officials from conducting actual government and intelligence work, while they continue on this wild goose chase, or witch hunt, or whatever you want to call it.
Where is the original, unedited video? If they have nothing to hide then there is no problem posting it for us to examine.
From reading your reply, I am now still unconvinced the Veritas stuff is debunked, as you have provided no debunking yet. Also, do you ask CNN for unedited material too ? Or do you just take their stuff at face value.
Both are actually good examples of radicals. We could simply sum it up with "Radicals are people that resort to violence to solve disagreements" though even that mostly ignores pacifists who are radical in their ideology ("Healthcare must be free and paid for by the government for all living organism in the universe" would be a radical position for instance).
Depends if you think radical is a synonym for extremist or absolutist, or if you want radical to stand on its own.
No, but having liked a page and then participated in the events can show premeditation and probably conspiracy. The DOJ probably wants the info to bolster charges or increase current charges against suspects.
If you don't want to be deported, there's an easy way : Don't enter the country illegally and while if in said country illegally, don't commit a felony.
Otherwise, you absolutely should be deported, and resisting being deported after committing a crime should be ridiculed, not lauded and praised.
Or are you actually just resisting Law and Order ? Would you prefer to live in anarchy ? I don't think you'd like actual anarchy.