God, if only we could figure out some way to represent a conversation with replies in a chronological order. Too bad no one's ever thought of that before.
Skipping out halfway through a connection can also cause increased costs
Man, I feel so bad for them. Maybe they can help their profits if they go standing-room only, no seats at all. Maybe they can double the fee many of them charge for bags. Maybe they can cut out free snacks and charge for your 4oz of soda and handful of pretzels. Maybe they can charge people to use the bathroom.
Seriously, if airlines want sympathy for their bottom line, they're going about it the wrong way. They squeeze every cent they can out of passengers. 2 months ago I took a flight that had only about a third of the seats purchased, and the seats were reserved. Every person was sitting in the back of the plane, because no one wanted to pay an extra $20 - $50 for a "better" seat farther up or near a window or whatever. That's what they do, they give the worst third of the seats for free (sorry, for no additional cost beyond the ticket), and if you want to sit anywhere else you're paying more. Want to board sooner? Great, they'll let you pay them to do that too. They'll let you pay for all kinds of shit that you'd think should be free, like sitting in any open seat.
Last time I flew up from Brazil, the seats on the 777 were packed so tightly that my attempts to get comfortable enough to sleep and twisting around ended up factory resetting the (powered-off) phone in my pocket. So, my options are to either deal with that bullshit, where I can't even have my legs straight in front of me because my knees hit the seat in front, or I can (surprise!) pay more for something other than the cattle car seats.
So, really, suing their customers for finding lower-priced tickets is really the wrong way to approach this. If their pricing is that arbitrary, then people will do whatever they need to do to get a better deal.
More than that, why did he have any phones at all in the room while taking a secret deposition?
Why did he have a computer capable of recording audio during a deposition? Well, if you think real hard you could probably figure that out.
Whether it was smart to use an audio-recording device which is also obviously known for transmitting audio and video is another question. Maybe he felt that he had a reasonable expectation that the device would not transmit the audio and video without his knowledge.
His article would tend to suggest otherwise. The terminology he is using does not make him sound intelligent.
Are you the person the article is about? Do you refer to Microsoft Excel as a spreadsheet, or a program (or software)? It's not a spreadsheet, it is an application to produce spreadsheets. Powerpoint is not a slideshow, and Word is not a document. These are all programs, they are software.
If you understand all of that, and I can't imagine that you wouldn't, then how did the questions that I quoted make it in to the article? Are those the questions he actually asked you, or were they edited for publication?
I mean, the question "is there such a thing as a valuable spreadsheet" is an absurd question. Every spreadsheet is valuable to whoever created it, right? But that's not what he's asking about, he's asking about whether particular versions of software would be considered highly sought-after for a software collector. Which is a completely different question than asking if a spreadsheet can be valuable.
This almost sounds like the software equivalent of the old cliche of journalists not knowing that every rifle is not an AK-47, like he's talking to a gun collector (who might not even own an AK-47) and asking questions like "how many AK-47s do you have? Are AK-47s valuable? When did you start collecting AK-47s?"
That's what I was going to say: accidental nuclear weapon detonation. We've tried, and almost succeeded a few times, but so far it hasn't happened yet.
The person who wrote this article does not know what a spreadsheet is. What he has collected is about 800 copies of various versions of applications that create spreadsheets.
The person who wrote the article gets it correct once:
Fischman collects spreadsheet software - boxes full of disks, manuals, and other accoutrements that were standard fare in every office until we started downloading most of our apps.
It goes downhill from there:
Why don’t we start with the most obvious question. Why spreadsheets? Once one sets out to collect spreadsheets, where does one get them? How many spreadsheets do you have? Is there such a thing as a valuable spreadsheet? VisiCalc, the PC spreadsheet that started it all.
Let's not forget about the witness tampering, because referring to The Godfather when you're trying to instruct people how to testify, and threating to take away someone's therapy dog when you learned they didn't lie for you, are totally things that innocent people do.
Yet again, they busted somebody for a "crime" the witch hunters created themselves... "lying" to investigators
Are you really trying to suggest that perjury, lying to Congress, and lying to the FBI were created just for this investigation? No, those have been crimes for a long, long time. And, for some reason, a lot of people around Trump decided to lie about what they were doing. For some reason. If it's not illegal and not morally questionable, why lie in the first place? If all they're doing is opposition research, why lie about that? Especially when lying is a felony, why is that the lesser evil that these people have chosen?
I mean, at this point there has been no evidence, zilch
The indictments against multiple Russian officials and military members of the GRU would tend to suggest that there is evidence. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Trump lies about anything and everything that he thinks may benefit him. Really, go through the thousands of documented lies he has if you want examples, there's no reason to list them here.
If you're wondering why Stone wasn't charged with anything else, the answer is because they will only charge him with things that are easily proven, and they will not release information that they still may need to use in their investigation. No reason to show their hand when they're not even playing for the big pot. Yet.
I'm making assumption by only going with the evidence to date. That's an interesting interpretation of "assumptions".:-)
Saying that Stone was not involved with the Russians is an assumption based on incomplete evidence. You're trying to assert a conclusion that you can't know yet. He very well might have been involved with the Russians, maybe he even directed them to dump to WikiLeaks. I'm not assuming that's true, just pointing out that we don't know and we can't say what he did or did not do at this point.
Hillary was under investigation over the last two years? Did they just have no evidence and dropped the charges against her? What happened with the investigation into Hillary that was conducted over the first two years of Trump's administration? I missed that story, please fill me in. Because when they controlled the WH and Congress, it really seems like they would have followed through on all of those "lock her up" chants if they could. I must have missed the story though, I thought she just faded into oblivion and released a shitty book.
If you're wondering why this is all they are charging Stone with, it's because Stone is not Mueller's target. Individual 1 is Mueller's target. Stone is the next rung on the ladder that Mueller has been climbing to get to Individual 1. And, again, we haven't seen the iceberg, only what Mueller needs to release to charge the other people on the ladder.
I don't believe the content of the actual discussions with WikiLeaks has been made public, so there's a good reason you don't understand what it's about. Patience.
He is charged with lying about the contact at all, there is nothing in the documents about what they actually spoke about. Mueller knows though, don't worry.
He's accused of trying to find out what Wikileaks had - just like everyone else did at the time - is that really a crime?
First, that's not what he's accused of, he's accused of obstructing a proceeding, 5 counts of lying to Congress/FBI, and witness tampering. And secondly, yes, those are crimes. That's why they charged him with crimes.
No, it is not. Mueller has, very obviously, and very deliberately, not released any information that he has but that he does not need to release yet. And, exactly like during every other release, when everyone is quick to jump on the fact that this is not proof of Trump colluding with Russia, I will, once again remind people that we have not seen the iceberg yet.
Patience, my young padawan. Mueller has prosecuted organized crime before. This is not his first rodeo. You start at the bottom rung of the ladder and work your way up.
No, he has not yet charged Individual 1 with any crime. That does not mean that he does not have evidence of crimes done by Individual 1, and it does not mean that he will never charge Individual 1.
This is stuff that will get Roger Stone convicted. Poor guy, what a shame.
Cool. If you've got evidence that Clinton committed a federal crime, make sure you forward it to the appropriate people. Otherwise, don't expect me to stop you from beating the dead horse if that's what you want to do. Personally, I think that Clinton has already been destroyed, her legacy is shit and her ego is deflated. Hopefully the last chapter of her story is losing to the single most-disliked candidate in the history of presidential polling. She's not actively damaging the country at this point so I don't really care what happens to her, she can rot for all I care. If you want to spend your time worrying about her and thinking about her, you go right ahead. Good luck with your investigation.
Just keep in mind that for 2 years Republicans controlled the White House and both chambers of Congress and they didn't do shit. Maybe you think that's because they're all her friends. Maybe there's another reason why she is currently un-indicted. All of those Benghazi hearings, and not a single indictment. Maybe they just need one more chance. Anyway, if that's what you want to spend your time thinking about, go ahead. Others are going to spend their time on issues which actually affect the country.
Well, you're making certain assumptions based on only what Mueller has revealed so far. There's a lot which he knows that we don't know yet. Anything that he's released is something that he no longer needs to keep secret in his investigation. Keep in mind that his original mandate was to determine the nature and extent of cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russia, plus investigate any crimes he found along the way.
It's entirely possible that the whole reason that Russia dumped everything onto WikiLeaks is because they were asked to do it that way. I'm not suggesting that's true, just keep in mind that there's a whole iceberg that we haven't seen yet. It sounds like you're wondering how many men need to be in the middle before it's no longer considered collusion or cooperation, and that's probably still up for debate. That's why it's so difficult to prosecute heads of organized crime. Which, incidentally, Mueller has done. That's why he's indicting one after the other up the ladder.
Stone was lying about the collusion, or whatever you want to call it. Russians steal docs, give to WikiLeaks, Stone and others act as intermediaries to communicate with WikiLeaks about what they have and when they'll release it. There are enough people in the middle to be able to say "Trump did not communicate directly with the Russians", but that's what it's about. There are just a lot of middle men.
Frankly, until the same standards of justice are applied equally, nobody gives a fuck about these indictments.
You don't speak for anyone else.
Why should we care if Roger Stone lies?
Because doing it was a crime. Try to keep up. The indictment is only 24 pages.
Oh, that's right, that will never happen, because they are not under investigation
2 years of Republican controlled White House and Congress, and no Democrats under investigation. It must be because Mitch McConnell and Trump and his buds are willing to let the Democrats break the law and get away with it. Yeah, that's the most obvious answer. Because they're such great friends.
Sure, he could realize that dying in prison might not be great and start singing. They were just suggesting that, up until now, he gets no credit for cooperating.
I'll just stick to the facts, thanks. Facts like the DNC announced that Russians were responsible for attacking them (unless you're trying to assert that the DNC was never hacked in the first place, in which case good luck explaining away all of that evidence), facts like the numerous Russians who have been indicted or sanctioned by the US, facts like Ms. Butina being charged here after attempting to infiltrate various conservative groups (with mountains of evidence), etc.
Keep your conspiracy theories to yourself, you don't speak for me.
Slashdot Mirror
God, if only we could figure out some way to represent a conversation with replies in a chronological order. Too bad no one's ever thought of that before.
Skipping out halfway through a connection can also cause increased costs
Man, I feel so bad for them. Maybe they can help their profits if they go standing-room only, no seats at all. Maybe they can double the fee many of them charge for bags. Maybe they can cut out free snacks and charge for your 4oz of soda and handful of pretzels. Maybe they can charge people to use the bathroom.
Seriously, if airlines want sympathy for their bottom line, they're going about it the wrong way. They squeeze every cent they can out of passengers. 2 months ago I took a flight that had only about a third of the seats purchased, and the seats were reserved. Every person was sitting in the back of the plane, because no one wanted to pay an extra $20 - $50 for a "better" seat farther up or near a window or whatever. That's what they do, they give the worst third of the seats for free (sorry, for no additional cost beyond the ticket), and if you want to sit anywhere else you're paying more. Want to board sooner? Great, they'll let you pay them to do that too. They'll let you pay for all kinds of shit that you'd think should be free, like sitting in any open seat.
Last time I flew up from Brazil, the seats on the 777 were packed so tightly that my attempts to get comfortable enough to sleep and twisting around ended up factory resetting the (powered-off) phone in my pocket. So, my options are to either deal with that bullshit, where I can't even have my legs straight in front of me because my knees hit the seat in front, or I can (surprise!) pay more for something other than the cattle car seats.
So, really, suing their customers for finding lower-priced tickets is really the wrong way to approach this. If their pricing is that arbitrary, then people will do whatever they need to do to get a better deal.
More than that, why did he have any phones at all in the room while taking a secret deposition?
Why did he have a computer capable of recording audio during a deposition? Well, if you think real hard you could probably figure that out.
Whether it was smart to use an audio-recording device which is also obviously known for transmitting audio and video is another question. Maybe he felt that he had a reasonable expectation that the device would not transmit the audio and video without his knowledge.
His article would tend to suggest otherwise. The terminology he is using does not make him sound intelligent.
Are you the person the article is about? Do you refer to Microsoft Excel as a spreadsheet, or a program (or software)? It's not a spreadsheet, it is an application to produce spreadsheets. Powerpoint is not a slideshow, and Word is not a document. These are all programs, they are software.
If you understand all of that, and I can't imagine that you wouldn't, then how did the questions that I quoted make it in to the article? Are those the questions he actually asked you, or were they edited for publication?
I mean, the question "is there such a thing as a valuable spreadsheet" is an absurd question. Every spreadsheet is valuable to whoever created it, right? But that's not what he's asking about, he's asking about whether particular versions of software would be considered highly sought-after for a software collector. Which is a completely different question than asking if a spreadsheet can be valuable.
This almost sounds like the software equivalent of the old cliche of journalists not knowing that every rifle is not an AK-47, like he's talking to a gun collector (who might not even own an AK-47) and asking questions like "how many AK-47s do you have? Are AK-47s valuable? When did you start collecting AK-47s?"
I'm sure you get my point.
A vaccine has never caused autism. Yet....
Note: the proper mod for this comment is "troll"
That's what I was going to say: accidental nuclear weapon detonation. We've tried, and almost succeeded a few times, but so far it hasn't happened yet.
I am not defending facebook at all. I am just saying this a bit of an over-reach on the part of Apple I think.
What exactly do you think the appropriate response should be in dealing with what you term a "malicious actor?"
The person who wrote this article does not know what a spreadsheet is. What he has collected is about 800 copies of various versions of applications that create spreadsheets.
The person who wrote the article gets it correct once:
Fischman collects spreadsheet software - boxes full of disks, manuals, and other accoutrements that were standard fare in every office until we started downloading most of our apps.
It goes downhill from there:
Why don’t we start with the most obvious question. Why spreadsheets?
Once one sets out to collect spreadsheets, where does one get them?
How many spreadsheets do you have?
Is there such a thing as a valuable spreadsheet?
VisiCalc, the PC spreadsheet that started it all.
Let's not forget about the witness tampering, because referring to The Godfather when you're trying to instruct people how to testify, and threating to take away someone's therapy dog when you learned they didn't lie for you, are totally things that innocent people do.
Yet again, they busted somebody for a "crime" the witch hunters created themselves... "lying" to investigators
Are you really trying to suggest that perjury, lying to Congress, and lying to the FBI were created just for this investigation? No, those have been crimes for a long, long time. And, for some reason, a lot of people around Trump decided to lie about what they were doing. For some reason. If it's not illegal and not morally questionable, why lie in the first place? If all they're doing is opposition research, why lie about that? Especially when lying is a felony, why is that the lesser evil that these people have chosen?
I mean, at this point there has been no evidence, zilch
The indictments against multiple Russian officials and military members of the GRU would tend to suggest that there is evidence. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Trump lies about anything and everything that he thinks may benefit him. Really, go through the thousands of documented lies he has if you want examples, there's no reason to list them here.
If you're wondering why Stone wasn't charged with anything else, the answer is because they will only charge him with things that are easily proven, and they will not release information that they still may need to use in their investigation. No reason to show their hand when they're not even playing for the big pot. Yet.
I'm making assumption by only going with the evidence to date. That's an interesting interpretation of "assumptions". :-)
Saying that Stone was not involved with the Russians is an assumption based on incomplete evidence. You're trying to assert a conclusion that you can't know yet. He very well might have been involved with the Russians, maybe he even directed them to dump to WikiLeaks. I'm not assuming that's true, just pointing out that we don't know and we can't say what he did or did not do at this point.
Sure does, even though they might try to obscure the chain with a bunch of middlemen. Like organized crime.
Hillary was under investigation over the last two years? Did they just have no evidence and dropped the charges against her? What happened with the investigation into Hillary that was conducted over the first two years of Trump's administration? I missed that story, please fill me in. Because when they controlled the WH and Congress, it really seems like they would have followed through on all of those "lock her up" chants if they could. I must have missed the story though, I thought she just faded into oblivion and released a shitty book.
If you're wondering why this is all they are charging Stone with, it's because Stone is not Mueller's target. Individual 1 is Mueller's target. Stone is the next rung on the ladder that Mueller has been climbing to get to Individual 1. And, again, we haven't seen the iceberg, only what Mueller needs to release to charge the other people on the ladder.
Too many analogies.
I don't believe the content of the actual discussions with WikiLeaks has been made public, so there's a good reason you don't understand what it's about. Patience.
He is charged with lying about the contact at all, there is nothing in the documents about what they actually spoke about. Mueller knows though, don't worry.
He's accused of trying to find out what Wikileaks had - just like everyone else did at the time - is that really a crime?
First, that's not what he's accused of, he's accused of obstructing a proceeding, 5 counts of lying to Congress/FBI, and witness tampering. And secondly, yes, those are crimes. That's why they charged him with crimes.
No, it is not. Mueller has, very obviously, and very deliberately, not released any information that he has but that he does not need to release yet. And, exactly like during every other release, when everyone is quick to jump on the fact that this is not proof of Trump colluding with Russia, I will, once again remind people that we have not seen the iceberg yet.
Patience, my young padawan. Mueller has prosecuted organized crime before. This is not his first rodeo. You start at the bottom rung of the ladder and work your way up.
No, he has not yet charged Individual 1 with any crime. That does not mean that he does not have evidence of crimes done by Individual 1, and it does not mean that he will never charge Individual 1.
This is stuff that will get Roger Stone convicted. Poor guy, what a shame.
I really hope that's sarcasm.
Cool. If you've got evidence that Clinton committed a federal crime, make sure you forward it to the appropriate people. Otherwise, don't expect me to stop you from beating the dead horse if that's what you want to do. Personally, I think that Clinton has already been destroyed, her legacy is shit and her ego is deflated. Hopefully the last chapter of her story is losing to the single most-disliked candidate in the history of presidential polling. She's not actively damaging the country at this point so I don't really care what happens to her, she can rot for all I care. If you want to spend your time worrying about her and thinking about her, you go right ahead. Good luck with your investigation.
Just keep in mind that for 2 years Republicans controlled the White House and both chambers of Congress and they didn't do shit. Maybe you think that's because they're all her friends. Maybe there's another reason why she is currently un-indicted. All of those Benghazi hearings, and not a single indictment. Maybe they just need one more chance. Anyway, if that's what you want to spend your time thinking about, go ahead. Others are going to spend their time on issues which actually affect the country.
Well, you're making certain assumptions based on only what Mueller has revealed so far. There's a lot which he knows that we don't know yet. Anything that he's released is something that he no longer needs to keep secret in his investigation. Keep in mind that his original mandate was to determine the nature and extent of cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russia, plus investigate any crimes he found along the way.
It's entirely possible that the whole reason that Russia dumped everything onto WikiLeaks is because they were asked to do it that way. I'm not suggesting that's true, just keep in mind that there's a whole iceberg that we haven't seen yet. It sounds like you're wondering how many men need to be in the middle before it's no longer considered collusion or cooperation, and that's probably still up for debate. That's why it's so difficult to prosecute heads of organized crime. Which, incidentally, Mueller has done. That's why he's indicting one after the other up the ladder.
Stone was lying about the collusion, or whatever you want to call it. Russians steal docs, give to WikiLeaks, Stone and others act as intermediaries to communicate with WikiLeaks about what they have and when they'll release it. There are enough people in the middle to be able to say "Trump did not communicate directly with the Russians", but that's what it's about. There are just a lot of middle men.
Frankly, until the same standards of justice are applied equally, nobody gives a fuck about these indictments.
You don't speak for anyone else.
Why should we care if Roger Stone lies?
Because doing it was a crime. Try to keep up. The indictment is only 24 pages.
Oh, that's right, that will never happen, because they are not under investigation
2 years of Republican controlled White House and Congress, and no Democrats under investigation. It must be because Mitch McConnell and Trump and his buds are willing to let the Democrats break the law and get away with it. Yeah, that's the most obvious answer. Because they're such great friends.
Sure, he could realize that dying in prison might not be great and start singing. They were just suggesting that, up until now, he gets no credit for cooperating.
I'll just stick to the facts, thanks. Facts like the DNC announced that Russians were responsible for attacking them (unless you're trying to assert that the DNC was never hacked in the first place, in which case good luck explaining away all of that evidence), facts like the numerous Russians who have been indicted or sanctioned by the US, facts like Ms. Butina being charged here after attempting to infiltrate various conservative groups (with mountains of evidence), etc.
Keep your conspiracy theories to yourself, you don't speak for me.