The reason is ostensibly Comey's mishandling of the Clinton email investigation. Is that explanation convincing to anyone?
Very convincing to me, I was surprised that it didn't happen months ago. Given how poorly Comey handled it, Obama could even have fired him. His blunders made that whole situation extremely messy.
Apparently I'm now hearing that the number of Clinton emails on Weiner's computer was 12. With 12 he could have gone over them in an hour or two, gotten the results and secretly given it to Congress and not made the mess in late October.
What I find even worse than this, was in Comey's press release about the laptop he made it clear they hadn't scanned it and didn't know what was on it. It was basically "Hey! We think there could be incriminating emails from Clinton on here! Maybe!" Then there wasn't anything they didn't already had, and the release turned to "we didn't find anything, sorry."
I actually feel a little pity for the GOP right now. They backed Trump because in their eyes any other choice was worse, and I'm sure they thought they could control him adequately via being his 'advisers', since he's new to politics, but what they got instead is like a demented self-driving clown car with the throttle jammed wide open and a full tank of gas: can't control it, can't really stop it without completely destroying it, and guaranteed to end up in the ER for their trouble.
On the other hand, the Republican faithful really like what he's been doing. The GOP might wish that his house was a little more stable, but they're pretty happy with what he's been doing. Don't make the mistake of thinking they're wringing their hands and saying "god, this fucking guy. What are we going to do?" I doubt they're even doing that behind the scenes.
No one is that loyal. It's almost certain that Nixon would have been removed from office if he'd clung on to power long enough for the impeachment proceedings.
That was forty years ago, and the parties require much more loyalty now. The amount of polarization between two distinct camps is so strong, I'm not sure that the Republicans are interested in opening hearings, regardless of whether there's evidence of anything. I don't think Democrats would have allowed hearings for emails or the Clinton Foundation, etcetc.
No, Trump grabbed a T-shirt the same color as the GOP's jersey, spray painted '00' on the back, then snuck into the Team party, and when asked who invited him, pointed to the guy that just left the room to use the can, then scurried away to talk to someone else before anyone could question him. By the end of the night everyone thought everyone else invited him.
I think it's a little more like.. you can show up at the party as long as you hold up your hand at the doorway and pledge not to trash the place. No one needs invites, and when people saw him, they rolled their eyes and said "oh god, that guy's here too? Why couldn't he have stayed home? He's a total party ruiner."
He lobbed the "voter attention redirection" handgrenade 11 days before the election, which had the effect of making non-committal swing voters think "damn, the person I'm thinking of voting for is probably a criminal - the FBI is investigating her."
And in particular, it didn't affect her "unfavorable rating" much, but her "favorable rating" took a dip. That resulted in many Democrats staying home because they didn't want to vote for Clinton, so they didn't vote for anyone.
I, for one, made the same observation immediately. That's pretty poor payback. I don't think Comey got him elected singlehandedly, the DNC did most of it, but still
Comey got himself fired for basically, being bad at being Director of the FBI. I'm surprised it didn't happen earlier, but I would guess that Trump felt he had to dangle this idiot around a little longer until much of the Russia conversation passed, then he got shit-canned.
What was Oliver's blind spot for this net neutrality segment? He didn't even mention party affiliation.
I suspect Rakarra doesn't like Mr Oliver or his show or his opinions, and therefore Mr Oliver is one-eyed and biased. If he agreed with Rakarra, then he would be unbiased. So it appears.
I actually like John Oliver, but I appreciate his segments on a particular topic (like Net Neutrality) far more than his monologues. I thought his recent segment on and explanation of redistricting and gerrymandering was pretty good, for instance.
I'm an independent, but I probably have close to a similar amount of dislike for Donald Trump as most Democrats do. I find him loathsome as a person, capricious, and utterly narcissistic. He hasn't driven us over the abyss yet, but I find myself sighing at both his executive actions and Twitter nonsense spouting. That said, when watching Oliver's show, I can reduce about 3/4 of it down to: "Isn't Donald Trump the worst? I hate Donald Trump. Don't you hate him like any reasonable person does? Isn't it sad that we have a horrible person like this as President? Donald Trump is an idiot and a liar. Donald Trump just surrounds himself with the worst people. Would you like me to tell you how stupid the thing that Trump tweeted today was? I'll take the tweet, put it in the wrong context, and then attack the shit out of it. Fucking Donald Trump. I know a lot happens in the world, but on our half-hour once a week show, we're going to talk about what an asshole Donald Trump is. Don't you hate Donald Trump? Isn't it great being a part of the resistance to Donald Trump? We have to help the Democrats resist and oppose Donald Trump. Elect Democrats in 2018 and 2020, that will help in the fight against Donald Trump! Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump. Fuck Donald Trump."
It has a very distinctive 'preaching to the faithful' feeling, rallying all the good little Democrats like a left-wing version of the O'Reilly Factor or whatever show Hannity is on. Is that the sort of polemic we want? Is that what is really good for us, politically? Hey, it works. It absolutely works. But if you're more centrist (even by non-US standards) than hard-left, the show has been particularly grating since Trump took office.
That would only work if they could permanently stop people from making unfavorable comments. The fact that they announced that there was a DDOS, turns it into the Streisand effect causing more people to go to the site and make comments.
You don't need to permanently stop people from making unfavorable comments. Just stop them from doing so during the official comment period. No one gives a shit after the comment period has expired.
Con: Microsoft has complete control over what can be installed on your computer, so they can bilk you for every last cent.
Or more importantly, so they can control the computing environment. They can stifle or ban competition to their own products like Apple does, under the guise of "reducing the number of duplicate/redundant apps," thus lessening the chance that a competitor can even get wide-spread adoption for a superior product. Sure, bilking you for every cent is nice, but the biggest win is in preventing the rise of other companies and products that could compete. Sure, everything thought the Microsoft vs Netscape situation was horrible, but how many would have been as outraged if Netscape had simply not been able to rise in the first place? Preventing competition by being the gatekeeper lets you get what you want while lessening the chance of outrage, because you don't know what you're missing. Lost opportunity is wonderfully invisible and intangible.
The rise of and health of the PC market came about because of its openness. The rise of the Internet happened entirely because you didn't need the Big Boys' permission to network computers. You can look to Prodigy, Genie, AOL, and Compuserve for how the corporate powers that be wanted people to communicate and chat.
Except that comedy news shows actually tend to be rather intelligent and their humor is often quite smart.
They are only sometimes intelligent. Jon Stewart had some sizable blind spots, and John Oliver's blind spots are greater than his. I do worry that people watch his segments and try to formulate what -actually- happens in politics from that.
checking out the comment section as suggested on the show for an automated botnet DDOS attack kind of just paints the FCC leadership as technoramouses (contraction of "technology ignoramous").
Why are we just leaping to the conclusion that it couldn't actually be a DDOS? We have no idea. We're just assuming it was heavy traffic and saying "herp derp, FCC are dullards." It's just impossible that someone might have watched the John Oliver segment and took it as an opportunity to launch a DDOS?
1a) Hardware switches need to come back into fashion. CUT THE WIRES. Since physical switches have an irritating habit of failing, they need to be easily replaceable, so they need to plug in and touch contact points, not be soldered in.
But then you would have to increase the thickness of the phone by 0.5mm, and that would be a FUCKING DISASTER.
I'd agree but the keyboard layout is *terrible* for a programmer. All the important keys are in the wrong place.
I'd rather have Linux on quality PC hardware - like a Lenovo T460s - than a Mac any day. The mistake people make with PCs is buying bargain basement quality hardware because you can - they should be looking for Maclike quality - and they'll probably end up spending less.
I'll admit the keyboard on a macbook pro is far, FAR superior than ANY pc laptop keyboard I've ever used. Holy smokes, it's a keyboard you can type well on, rather than the horrible crappy ones I still have to deal with. Nothing beats a standalone keyboard, but I'll take a macbook keyboard, even for programming, over any pc laptop.
It got a bad rep BEFORE RELEASE due to group think. It was mostly "WOMEN ghostbusters? What a stupid idea, I hate this SJW shit."
It got a bad rep AFTER RELEASE due to people seeing it and thinking "huh, that was kindof a bad movie." It had it's briefly funny moments, but it was actually the worst kind of movie you can release: the bland, boring one. Not bad enough for you to laugh at it, but not funny enough for you to actually laugh at it. It was just pale and forgettable, and the only memorable thing about the whole situation was how much people foamed at the mouth at the mere mention of it.
The free market is a myth and so is freedom of choice
Freedom of choice exists. What the average Slashdot nerd often fails to acknowledge is that most people do not share their priorities about what is important. They do not consider your problems with Valve to be actual problems that they'd care about -- certainly nothing to organize a boycott around. Instead, most people who love Steam like the way that Steam organizes and updates game libraries because they remember the haphazard shitty ways such things have done in the past. They don't ever use the phrase "holding games hostage" because they'll never run into those situations.
The USPS is exorbitantly expensive for any sort of guaranteed delivery. It is also overpriced for packages over a pound. They have weird pricing, like "media mail" where the postage varies, not just by weight and destination, but by the content of the package. So it may be cheap to mail a book, but expensive to mail a t-shirt.
On the other hand, they sometimes handle international deliveries a lot better. USPS's website quoted around $30 to deliver a 5"x5"x6" 10-oz package to a friend in Canada. I hoofed to to the nearby UPS store (because their web site is USELESS if you're not setting up or representing a business), and they told me it would cost $96 to ship this small package worth $50 to British Columbia. Fuuuuuuuck that.
Yamato 2nd largest home delivery very short handed and just got dinged for over working staff
Then again, a flying battleship is absolutely overkill for package delivery, even if it is completely awesome. At least they can fight off space pirates trying to steal the packages.
They do make some pretty impressive deliveries, like radiation and fallout absorbers, but their most important delivery.. is love.
Around where I live, lots/garages don't happen (including in SF), for two reasons:
1) Why would we build a parking lot when we could get so much more money from another business front/mixed used building? 2) Wait, a parking garage? We don't want to ENCOURAGE driving, cars are evil. This isn't the suburbs, make parking difficult and people will take transit/bike instead.
There might be screenplays written, however. That's happened in the past. Not that releasing the plot would necessarily harm "New Girl," it's a show that thrives more on the journey than the destination. "OMG, what's going to happen" is not an attitude the show cultivates.
Maybe the companies just decided that the extortionist was probably going to leak the videos anyway. Once the ransom is paid, there is absolutely nothing preventing him from releasing it. It's not like he has any morals whatsoever that might prevent him from double-crossing them.
Sure, he probably doesn't have morals, but the question is whether he thought he could do this a second time. An extortionist has to be able to dangle a plausible carrot of hope in order for an extortion to be paid, otherwise the next person he tries to extort won't give him a penny. Conversely, the extortionist also has to back up his threats if his victim won't pay, otherwise he has no credibility. If you want to successfully extort more than one person, you need to be honest about what you'll do whether someone pays or doesn't pay.
If the company is going to lose regardless, then why would they strike any deal? But if he requests a price and then upholds the bargain he demanded, the company could see that as a business cost, something they might actually go through with. Something many companies HAVE done while trying to keep hush-hush about.
Extorting a business and then going back on the deal is, from a criminal standpoint, short-sighted. What would he actually have to gain by releasing the files if Netflix paid up?
Slashdot Mirror
Your hatred of Russia is getting pretty close to ... xenophobic.
Dislike for Russia's government actions is not xenophobia.
The reason is ostensibly Comey's mishandling of the Clinton email investigation. Is that explanation convincing to anyone?
Very convincing to me, I was surprised that it didn't happen months ago. Given how poorly Comey handled it, Obama could even have fired him. His blunders made that whole situation extremely messy.
Apparently I'm now hearing that the number of Clinton emails on Weiner's computer was 12. With 12 he could have gone over them in an hour or two, gotten the results and secretly given it to Congress and not made the mess in late October.
What I find even worse than this, was in Comey's press release about the laptop he made it clear they hadn't scanned it and didn't know what was on it. It was basically "Hey! We think there could be incriminating emails from Clinton on here! Maybe!" Then there wasn't anything they didn't already had, and the release turned to "we didn't find anything, sorry."
I actually feel a little pity for the GOP right now. They backed Trump because in their eyes any other choice was worse, and I'm sure they thought they could control him adequately via being his 'advisers', since he's new to politics, but what they got instead is like a demented self-driving clown car with the throttle jammed wide open and a full tank of gas: can't control it, can't really stop it without completely destroying it, and guaranteed to end up in the ER for their trouble.
On the other hand, the Republican faithful really like what he's been doing. The GOP might wish that his house was a little more stable, but they're pretty happy with what he's been doing. Don't make the mistake of thinking they're wringing their hands and saying "god, this fucking guy. What are we going to do?" I doubt they're even doing that behind the scenes.
No one is that loyal. It's almost certain that Nixon would have been removed from office if he'd clung on to power long enough for the impeachment proceedings.
That was forty years ago, and the parties require much more loyalty now. The amount of polarization between two distinct camps is so strong, I'm not sure that the Republicans are interested in opening hearings, regardless of whether there's evidence of anything. I don't think Democrats would have allowed hearings for emails or the Clinton Foundation, etcetc.
No, Trump grabbed a T-shirt the same color as the GOP's jersey, spray painted '00' on the back, then snuck into the Team party, and when asked who invited him, pointed to the guy that just left the room to use the can, then scurried away to talk to someone else before anyone could question him. By the end of the night everyone thought everyone else invited him.
I think it's a little more like.. you can show up at the party as long as you hold up your hand at the doorway and pledge not to trash the place. No one needs invites, and when people saw him, they rolled their eyes and said "oh god, that guy's here too? Why couldn't he have stayed home? He's a total party ruiner."
He lobbed the "voter attention redirection" handgrenade 11 days before the election, which had the effect of making non-committal swing voters think "damn, the person I'm thinking of voting for is probably a criminal - the FBI is investigating her."
And in particular, it didn't affect her "unfavorable rating" much, but her "favorable rating" took a dip. That resulted in many Democrats staying home because they didn't want to vote for Clinton, so they didn't vote for anyone.
I, for one, made the same observation immediately. That's pretty poor payback. I don't think Comey got him elected singlehandedly, the DNC did most of it, but still
Comey got himself fired for basically, being bad at being Director of the FBI. I'm surprised it didn't happen earlier, but I would guess that Trump felt he had to dangle this idiot around a little longer until much of the Russia conversation passed, then he got shit-canned.
What was Oliver's blind spot for this net neutrality segment? He didn't even mention party affiliation.
I suspect Rakarra doesn't like Mr Oliver or his show or his opinions, and therefore Mr Oliver is one-eyed and biased. If he agreed with Rakarra, then he would be unbiased. So it appears.
I actually like John Oliver, but I appreciate his segments on a particular topic (like Net Neutrality) far more than his monologues. I thought his recent segment on and explanation of redistricting and gerrymandering was pretty good, for instance.
I'm an independent, but I probably have close to a similar amount of dislike for Donald Trump as most Democrats do. I find him loathsome as a person, capricious, and utterly narcissistic. He hasn't driven us over the abyss yet, but I find myself sighing at both his executive actions and Twitter nonsense spouting. That said, when watching Oliver's show, I can reduce about 3/4 of it down to: "Isn't Donald Trump the worst? I hate Donald Trump. Don't you hate him like any reasonable person does? Isn't it sad that we have a horrible person like this as President? Donald Trump is an idiot and a liar. Donald Trump just surrounds himself with the worst people. Would you like me to tell you how stupid the thing that Trump tweeted today was? I'll take the tweet, put it in the wrong context, and then attack the shit out of it. Fucking Donald Trump. I know a lot happens in the world, but on our half-hour once a week show, we're going to talk about what an asshole Donald Trump is. Don't you hate Donald Trump? Isn't it great being a part of the resistance to Donald Trump? We have to help the Democrats resist and oppose Donald Trump. Elect Democrats in 2018 and 2020, that will help in the fight against Donald Trump! Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump. Fuck Donald Trump."
It has a very distinctive 'preaching to the faithful' feeling, rallying all the good little Democrats like a left-wing version of the O'Reilly Factor or whatever show Hannity is on. Is that the sort of polemic we want? Is that what is really good for us, politically? Hey, it works. It absolutely works. But if you're more centrist (even by non-US standards) than hard-left, the show has been particularly grating since Trump took office.
That would only work if they could permanently stop people from making unfavorable comments. The fact that they announced that there was a DDOS, turns it into the Streisand effect causing more people to go to the site and make comments.
You don't need to permanently stop people from making unfavorable comments. Just stop them from doing so during the official comment period. No one gives a shit after the comment period has expired.
Con: Microsoft has complete control over what can be installed on your computer, so they can bilk you for every last cent.
Or more importantly, so they can control the computing environment. They can stifle or ban competition to their own products like Apple does, under the guise of "reducing the number of duplicate/redundant apps," thus lessening the chance that a competitor can even get wide-spread adoption for a superior product. Sure, bilking you for every cent is nice, but the biggest win is in preventing the rise of other companies and products that could compete. Sure, everything thought the Microsoft vs Netscape situation was horrible, but how many would have been as outraged if Netscape had simply not been able to rise in the first place? Preventing competition by being the gatekeeper lets you get what you want while lessening the chance of outrage, because you don't know what you're missing. Lost opportunity is wonderfully invisible and intangible.
The rise of and health of the PC market came about because of its openness. The rise of the Internet happened entirely because you didn't need the Big Boys' permission to network computers. You can look to Prodigy, Genie, AOL, and Compuserve for how the corporate powers that be wanted people to communicate and chat.
Except that comedy news shows actually tend to be rather intelligent and their humor is often quite smart.
They are only sometimes intelligent. Jon Stewart had some sizable blind spots, and John Oliver's blind spots are greater than his. I do worry that people watch his segments and try to formulate what -actually- happens in politics from that.
checking out the comment section as suggested on the show for an automated botnet DDOS attack kind of just paints the FCC leadership as technoramouses (contraction of "technology ignoramous").
Why are we just leaping to the conclusion that it couldn't actually be a DDOS?
We have no idea. We're just assuming it was heavy traffic and saying "herp derp, FCC are dullards."
It's just impossible that someone might have watched the John Oliver segment and took it as an opportunity to launch a DDOS?
1a) Hardware switches need to come back into fashion. CUT THE WIRES. Since physical switches have an irritating habit of failing, they need to be easily replaceable, so they need to plug in and touch contact points, not be soldered in.
But then you would have to increase the thickness of the phone by 0.5mm, and that would be a FUCKING DISASTER.
I'd agree but the keyboard layout is *terrible* for a programmer. All the important keys are in the wrong place.
I'd rather have Linux on quality PC hardware - like a Lenovo T460s - than a Mac any day. The mistake people make with PCs is buying bargain basement quality hardware because you can - they should be looking for Maclike quality - and they'll probably end up spending less.
I'll admit the keyboard on a macbook pro is far, FAR superior than ANY pc laptop keyboard I've ever used. Holy smokes, it's a keyboard you can type well on, rather than the horrible crappy ones I still have to deal with. Nothing beats a standalone keyboard, but I'll take a macbook keyboard, even for programming, over any pc laptop.
It got a bad rep BEFORE RELEASE due to group think. It was mostly "WOMEN ghostbusters? What a stupid idea, I hate this SJW shit."
It got a bad rep AFTER RELEASE due to people seeing it and thinking "huh, that was kindof a bad movie." It had it's briefly funny moments, but it was actually the worst kind of movie you can release: the bland, boring one. Not bad enough for you to laugh at it, but not funny enough for you to actually laugh at it. It was just pale and forgettable, and the only memorable thing about the whole situation was how much people foamed at the mouth at the mere mention of it.
The free market is a myth and so is freedom of choice
Freedom of choice exists. What the average Slashdot nerd often fails to acknowledge is that most people do not share their priorities about what is important. They do not consider your problems with Valve to be actual problems that they'd care about -- certainly nothing to organize a boycott around. Instead, most people who love Steam like the way that Steam organizes and updates game libraries because they remember the haphazard shitty ways such things have done in the past. They don't ever use the phrase "holding games hostage" because they'll never run into those situations.
Solution: super-long-range package catapults.
Works for food, too! Almost Live - "Burger Gun."
Otherwise they will wind up losing their tenants and being unable to rent out the property;
No one has ever moved out or refused to move in because "sometimes it's hard to get packages delivered to my doorstep."
The USPS is exorbitantly expensive for any sort of guaranteed delivery. It is also overpriced for packages over a pound. They have weird pricing, like "media mail" where the postage varies, not just by weight and destination, but by the content of the package. So it may be cheap to mail a book, but expensive to mail a t-shirt.
On the other hand, they sometimes handle international deliveries a lot better. USPS's website quoted around $30 to deliver a 5"x5"x6" 10-oz package to a friend in Canada. I hoofed to to the nearby UPS store (because their web site is USELESS if you're not setting up or representing a business), and they told me it would cost $96 to ship this small package worth $50 to British Columbia. Fuuuuuuuck that.
Yamato 2nd largest home delivery very short handed and just got dinged for over working staff
Then again, a flying battleship is absolutely overkill for package delivery, even if it is completely awesome. At least they can fight off space pirates trying to steal the packages.
They do make some pretty impressive deliveries, like radiation and fallout absorbers, but their most important delivery.. is love.
parking lots/garages should be for parking
Around where I live, lots/garages don't happen (including in SF), for two reasons:
1) Why would we build a parking lot when we could get so much more money from another business front/mixed used building?
2) Wait, a parking garage? We don't want to ENCOURAGE driving, cars are evil. This isn't the suburbs, make parking difficult and people will take transit/bike instead.
There might be screenplays written, however. That's happened in the past.
Not that releasing the plot would necessarily harm "New Girl," it's a show that thrives more on the journey than the destination. "OMG, what's going to happen" is not an attitude the show cultivates.
Maybe the companies just decided that the extortionist was probably going to leak the videos anyway. Once the ransom is paid, there is absolutely nothing preventing him from releasing it. It's not like he has any morals whatsoever that might prevent him from double-crossing them.
Sure, he probably doesn't have morals, but the question is whether he thought he could do this a second time.
An extortionist has to be able to dangle a plausible carrot of hope in order for an extortion to be paid, otherwise the next person he tries to extort won't give him a penny. Conversely, the extortionist also has to back up his threats if his victim won't pay, otherwise he has no credibility. If you want to successfully extort more than one person, you need to be honest about what you'll do whether someone pays or doesn't pay.
If the company is going to lose regardless, then why would they strike any deal? But if he requests a price and then upholds the bargain he demanded, the company could see that as a business cost, something they might actually go through with. Something many companies HAVE done while trying to keep hush-hush about.
Extorting a business and then going back on the deal is, from a criminal standpoint, short-sighted. What would he actually have to gain by releasing the files if Netflix paid up?
Bringing in the supernatural once you've painted yourself into a corner is lazy writing.
Isn't the entire premise of the series from the very first second based on the supernatural?