A few tasteless emails does not in any way support the idea of a conspiracy.
What's the exact number of emails required to support the idea of a conspiracy? We can leave out subjective adjectives describing the emails for the purpose of counting them.
Here's one, that email is sent to the DNC's finance director describing half a million or so dollars in checks that are coming in, and where they should be allocated, with a request for a confirmation of their arrival. The DNC's national finance director replies with "Don't send me an email like this again." That seems like a strange response from a finance director to an email about funds that are about to be received.
There is zero chance Bernie would have won with different DNC leadership.
Last election there were 26 debates in the Democratic primary, this time there were originally 6, with 3 more added. There is every chance that Bernie would have done better if he received the same level of support as Clinton, and if the DNC were interested in exposing the candidates as much as possible instead of sheltering them so that Hillary wouldn't be challenged.
If fact, he would have done worse because we will be getting rid of caucuses as we modernize. They are a horrible idea that force people to not want to vote in the primary, It's not wonder the high energized Sanders fans did well there.
Bernie did well when more people voted. If caucuses made people not want to vote, then it stands to reason that Bernie would have done better without caucuses.
Sanders also did significantly worse among blacks and hispanics and much of the south.
Isn't that strange? A guy who has a 50+ year record of fighting for civil rights does worse with black people than a woman whose husband signed a bill that incarcerated so many of them. It's almost as if the black people didn't realize the qualifications of the two candidates. If only the candidates had more exposure and more media coverage. If only there was a way to do that.
Hillary had the same 15-20 point lead on Trump that Sanders had.
Sanders consistently did better than Clinton versus Trump. Several polls showed Trump beating Clinton, for a long time.
The difference is nobody thought Sander's would win
The 13+ million people who voted for him did. The people who were convinced that he wasn't going to win are some of the people who just resigned. Here is DWS convincing the rest of the people at the DNC that he's not going to win.
Just be glad Sander did that good.
Go fuck yourself, we could have had real substantive change and instead we got shafted, again, by the same people and the same system that has been shafting us for years, and now they're trying to tell us how much we need to vote for them. They can go fuck themselves, they aren't going to nominate the second most disliked candidate in the history of presidential polling and then whine to me how I need to vote for her just because she's facing the most disliked candidate. It was their choice to railroad her through the process, that wasn't my choice. I'm not voting for that bullshit, I'm not going to validate that by putting my stamp on it. I'm not going to vote for a party that only looks out for itself.
If you don't then you will just destroy any chance of Sander's platform not being forgotten and replaced with another name.. since it's just the generic Democratic platform.
Do you really believe that? Do you really believe that Clinton will honor
in order to invalidate the primary you would have to coordinate a revote across 50 states AND run a campaign for presidency.
Not necessarily, you could just disqualify her and give it to the next person (the guy who consistently beat Trump in polls). But there's no reason to come in for the easy win when you can install the person who's going to pay you back.
He's dishonest in the way that he has no integrity. He'll say one thing one day (possibly meaning it), and then say the complete opposite the next day (again, possibly meaning it). He has no positions on anything, he just says what he thinks people want to hear at that particular point. Whatever it takes for him to win that moment, regardless of what comes after. Worst case, he'll just outright state that he didn't say what he said the day before (which would be dishonest only if he didn't convince himself that he actually didn't say what he said).
yet Hillary doesn't even get questioned for actively praising and promoting a fraudulent, dishonest, manipulator.
Have you looked at any of the emails? When the DNC got called out by the media, the DNC would respond by calling the owners of those networks and letting them hear it. What do you think happens when MSNBC or CNN criticizes Clinton? How many people do you think they hear from?
Pity the fool that wastes it in an American voting booth.
How about instead of being an idiot, you vote for whoever you think represents your interests the most? How about instead of laying down and admitting defeat in the same game that both major parties play every year you look at one of the smaller parties and figures out who deserves your vote, and refuse to be part of the status quo by giving up your right to vote (which other rights are you interested in giving up?) or voting against someone you dislike? If you actually want the system to change, then vote for something different. Don't sit there acting like not voting is you being so damn smart, or like you know how everything works, and all these other people voting are wasting their time. You're the only one wasting your time. So, if you want, go play tennis, and leave the work of shaping the country to people who give a shit about it. Just don't start your bitching and moaning when the country isn't what you wanted it to be.
If you don't know what "cold storage" means, it means "not RAID".
Well, it would be fantastic if they would mention that in one place or another. Instead I get lines like this:
Enjoy peace of mind with a drive engineered for 24×7 workloads of 180TB per year Store your data faster with a SATA 6Gb/s interface that optimizes burst performance Have confidence with a drive that provides reliable, low-power data retrieval based on Shingled Magnetic Recording (SMR) technology
Yes, this sounds like exactly what I'm looking for when I store my backups. I don't need to write to them often, really only once a day. Reliable retrieval sure would be nice though.
learn how these affordable, high density drives can meet your needs for long-term, cold storage that's quickly and readily available online.
That's great, I would like my long-term backups quickly and readily available online when needed.
Seagate Archive HDD has won the "Product Award of 2015" in the 3.5" segment by Kakaku.com
Ah, sounds like they thought it was the best 3.5" drive.
...one of the best all around hard drives on the market.
That's good, I'd like one of the best all around hard drives on the market.
Seagate Archive HDD 8TB: A lot of TBs for a relatively small investment.
Yes, I need a lot of TBs.
The Seagate Archive HDD 8TB is a high capacity, energy efficient, and lower cost hard drive for active archive purposes.
Active archive sounds like backup storage. This must be for me.
The drives are intended for use in large-scale data centers where density, power consumption, data integrity and data retrieval are paramount.
That's good, because I'm going to put these in a large-scale data center where data integrity and data retrieval are paramount.
Best fit applications:
Online archiving Large data object storage Big data cold storage Cloud active archive Web-scale archiving
All of those buzzwords sure sound similar to "where you put your backups".
Delivering absolute lowest cost/TB along with the performance and reliability required for massive scale applications, the new 8TB HDD is ideal for meeting the needs of our enterprise and service provider customers who demand optimized hardware and the cost structure needed for massive scale out.
Yes, massive scale, like you would find in a redundant array of disks.
But, if I pull up the data sheet, then it includes this footnote which is missing from the same section on the web page:
Archive HDDs are not intended for surveillance or NAS applications, and you may experience lower performance in these environments.
By "may experience lower performance", I'm guessing they mean that if I put these in a RAID array and point my servers there as a backup location, then I can expect a 50% failure rate in 24 hours.
I've got a cool story, bro. We put a NAS device online in our new data center with 4 Seagate Archive 8000 drives in it, and 2 of them died within 24 hours, trashing the RAID array. Thankfully, since it was a new NAS, it wasn't a big deal.
You linked to the wrong page, that page is just a series of pictures of a lake from space for part of December 2013 through April 2014. That obviously has nothing to do with global average temperatures in either 2008 or 2015. That site has a post from this month that you can use to compare the averages in 2008 with 2015.
You talk about bringing new things to the table and then list a bunch of features from other games? I think the major selling points are that the universe and music are procedurally generated, and that you can travel between space and planets without loading.
I searched for the game to check the release date (Aug. 9, FYI), and it sounds like the response from the developer isn't for this particular video. Apparently some people got ahold of "leaked" copies of the game (one person paid $1300 for it on eBay), and they are showing a lot of footage including reaching the center of the galaxy (apparently a major plot point or something). I think the developer is referring to those kinds of spoilers rather than this particular video.
Obviously, you wouldn't, but I provided an example to show that AdBlock does not block all of those. Like I said, I have 4 different ways to block content and all of them are blocking certain pieces. I don't know if all of them are injected via Javascript, but it would be trivial for OP to install Ghostery and determine whether or not it found anything to block.
I've considered installing Ghostery but I'm not sure what it would bring to the table.
Tracking, privacy, etc. All of those third party domains that have a tracking pixel or some other thing to track you across web sites. If you install Ghostery and configure it you'll see that it has sections for Advertising, Analytics, Beacons, Privacy, and Widgets (Facebook, Twitter, etc). It's blocking over 2,000 items for me. Right now I've got a recent version of Opera with the built-in ad blocking turned on, plus Ghostery, AdBlock, and Privacy Badger, and even here on Slashdot all of them are blocking something (Ghostery 7 items, AdBlock 5, Privacy Badger 2, and Opera is still natively blocking 10 items).
How about selling 20% of the nations Uranium reserves for 1 million dollars in speaking fees. Is that treason?
Selling to whom? An enemy of the United States? If so, then that might qualify. If the buyer is not an enemy of the United States, then no.
How about not controlling the borders of the United States and allowing a foreign army to invade the USA selling drugs, raping it's citizens, and spreading disease. Is that treason?
Which nation's armed forces are you referring to? Are they an enemy of the United States? Is there an actual specific act of providing aid and/or comfort to them? If not, then no, that's not treason either. If the army of another nation simply invades our country then people are not automatically guilty of treason simply for not being able to keep them out. A soldier who is unable to repel an enemy advance, for example, is not guilty of treason. A soldier who aids an enemy advance is.
I do not believe any of these things would in your mind rise to the level of treason.
Well, the Constitution is pretty clear. You're welcome to start up a debate about terms like "enemy", "aid", and "comfort" if you'd like to, though.
However if we turn the tables, and said that a tribe of Algonquin indians did the exact same thing, except it was not South Americans spreading disease, drugs and crime, but white Europeans, you would say that was deffinately treason, and that whatever Chief decided not to fight those evil whites was indeed guilty of a crime.
Does this tribe of Algonquin indians have a legally-binding document which specifically and narrowly defines the crime of treason, or is this just an exercise in mental masturbation?
I would also say that if it was the Bush family tradin with the Nazi in WWII you would say it was treason
If the United States was at war with Nazi Germany and a US citizen was engaged in trade with them for profit (and thereby aiding the Nazis), then yes, I believe that would be treason. If that occurred before we declared war, then no, that would not be treason at that point. Are you beginning to understand the distinction or do you want to ask a few more hypotheticals?
Seriously, this isn't difficult. Treason is specifically defined, and it's not a long definition. I'm not trying to suggest that anyone is not guilty of committing a crime, I'm trying to suggest that Hillary is not guilty of treason, specifically. I'm sure there is a long list of crimes which she is in fact guilty of, but I don't think that treason is one of them.
He's running as a Democrat, and deserves the support of the party as outlined in their rules. If they don't want to follow their own rules then they shouldn't have them, or they should not have accepted him as a candidate. Instead they simply ignore their own rules. Which actually is not a huge surprise.
But, I agree, Bernie and the Democrats do not belong together. For example, I support Bernie, but I don't support the Democratic party or their nominee. In fact, by many accounts, fewer than half of Americans feel that one of the two major parties represents them. That would suggest that no more than 25% of Americans are in fact Democrats. Like every other political party, they are a minority. Hopefully the people who vote for them figure out that the party doesn't represent them and the Democrats can go the way of the Whigs. I'm hopeful that people will decide to look elsewhere for someone who represents them once Hillary gets into office and predictably does an about-face on all of the things that she claimed to support in order to get the gullible to vote for her.
I hope that you're able to detect the sarcasm in my post. Regardless, when the information in question is classified, and therefore access to it is restricted by law, what really is the substantive difference between releasing it to a journalist for publication and putting it on a server that wasn't adequately protected? In both cases it's going to get out there (assuming, of course, that the server's existence is known). In both cases there was a failure to secure and protect the classified information. It could be argued that in only one of those cases was the information deliberately released. The person that I was replying to was trying to suggest that in the case that it was deliberately released, it is a non-issue (i.e., willful and intentional disclosure of classified information is a non-issue), and that in the case that incompetence was involved and an attempt was made to secure the information, which failed, and resulted in its possible disclosure, that this was a major problem. I'm suggesting that both of them are major problems, that neither of them is a non-issue, and that trying to politicize this crap by suggesting that one party is blameless and the other is not is a stupid argument.
You came in here talking shit about me & my program, so I CRUSHED YOU ON THAT MUCH + the fact YOU CANNOT SHOW YOU'VE DONE BETTER YOURSELF for giving users more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity online (but I can & have using what they already NATIVELY have that does more for less)... apk
In other words, the same tired argument you always try to trot out. Face it man, you're a spammer and if people don't want to use your software then they have alternatives. It's really that simple. No one deserves to be hounded and trolled by you for not wanting to use software that they see advertised in spam. And I didn't talk shit about your program, or you for that matter, I only pointed out that you were a spammer and that people don't need to use software published by spammers. Those are factual statements, not shit talking. I've already covered all of this, you keep going in circles, I have no desire to continue repeating myself. I'm sure you'll just continue to troll my other comments and continue to declare victory in your 1-player game (again, specifically and exactly what I predicted), but I have no desire to continue a discussion that only goes in circles.
Jesus, APK. Some things never change. Like your arguments. Next I'm sure you're going to claim that you don't post as people other than yourself, let's go back to that old classic.
Slashdot Mirror
A few tasteless emails does not in any way support the idea of a conspiracy.
What's the exact number of emails required to support the idea of a conspiracy? We can leave out subjective adjectives describing the emails for the purpose of counting them.
Here's one, that email is sent to the DNC's finance director describing half a million or so dollars in checks that are coming in, and where they should be allocated, with a request for a confirmation of their arrival. The DNC's national finance director replies with "Don't send me an email like this again." That seems like a strange response from a finance director to an email about funds that are about to be received.
There is zero chance Bernie would have won with different DNC leadership.
Last election there were 26 debates in the Democratic primary, this time there were originally 6, with 3 more added. There is every chance that Bernie would have done better if he received the same level of support as Clinton, and if the DNC were interested in exposing the candidates as much as possible instead of sheltering them so that Hillary wouldn't be challenged.
If fact, he would have done worse because we will be getting rid of caucuses as we modernize. They are a horrible idea that force people to not want to vote in the primary, It's not wonder the high energized Sanders fans did well there.
Bernie did well when more people voted. If caucuses made people not want to vote, then it stands to reason that Bernie would have done better without caucuses.
Sanders also did significantly worse among blacks and hispanics and much of the south.
Isn't that strange? A guy who has a 50+ year record of fighting for civil rights does worse with black people than a woman whose husband signed a bill that incarcerated so many of them. It's almost as if the black people didn't realize the qualifications of the two candidates. If only the candidates had more exposure and more media coverage. If only there was a way to do that.
Hillary had the same 15-20 point lead on Trump that Sanders had.
Sanders consistently did better than Clinton versus Trump. Several polls showed Trump beating Clinton, for a long time.
The difference is nobody thought Sander's would win
The 13+ million people who voted for him did. The people who were convinced that he wasn't going to win are some of the people who just resigned. Here is DWS convincing the rest of the people at the DNC that he's not going to win.
Just be glad Sander did that good.
Go fuck yourself, we could have had real substantive change and instead we got shafted, again, by the same people and the same system that has been shafting us for years, and now they're trying to tell us how much we need to vote for them. They can go fuck themselves, they aren't going to nominate the second most disliked candidate in the history of presidential polling and then whine to me how I need to vote for her just because she's facing the most disliked candidate. It was their choice to railroad her through the process, that wasn't my choice. I'm not voting for that bullshit, I'm not going to validate that by putting my stamp on it. I'm not going to vote for a party that only looks out for itself.
If you don't then you will just destroy any chance of Sander's platform not being forgotten and replaced with another name.. since it's just the generic Democratic platform.
Do you really believe that? Do you really believe that Clinton will honor
in order to invalidate the primary you would have to coordinate a revote across 50 states AND run a campaign for presidency.
Not necessarily, you could just disqualify her and give it to the next person (the guy who consistently beat Trump in polls). But there's no reason to come in for the easy win when you can install the person who's going to pay you back.
He's dishonest in the way that he has no integrity. He'll say one thing one day (possibly meaning it), and then say the complete opposite the next day (again, possibly meaning it). He has no positions on anything, he just says what he thinks people want to hear at that particular point. Whatever it takes for him to win that moment, regardless of what comes after. Worst case, he'll just outright state that he didn't say what he said the day before (which would be dishonest only if he didn't convince himself that he actually didn't say what he said).
yet Hillary doesn't even get questioned for actively praising and promoting a fraudulent, dishonest, manipulator.
Have you looked at any of the emails? When the DNC got called out by the media, the DNC would respond by calling the owners of those networks and letting them hear it. What do you think happens when MSNBC or CNN criticizes Clinton? How many people do you think they hear from?
both of them have defeated other opponents
Neither of them have ever defeated a candidate for president.
Hillary very nearly did beat Obama
I very nearly slept with Angelina Jolie. Really, it was close.
Pity the fool that wastes it in an American voting booth.
How about instead of being an idiot, you vote for whoever you think represents your interests the most? How about instead of laying down and admitting defeat in the same game that both major parties play every year you look at one of the smaller parties and figures out who deserves your vote, and refuse to be part of the status quo by giving up your right to vote (which other rights are you interested in giving up?) or voting against someone you dislike? If you actually want the system to change, then vote for something different. Don't sit there acting like not voting is you being so damn smart, or like you know how everything works, and all these other people voting are wasting their time. You're the only one wasting your time. So, if you want, go play tennis, and leave the work of shaping the country to people who give a shit about it. Just don't start your bitching and moaning when the country isn't what you wanted it to be.
If you don't know what "cold storage" means, it means "not RAID".
Well, it would be fantastic if they would mention that in one place or another. Instead I get lines like this:
Enjoy peace of mind with a drive engineered for 24×7 workloads of 180TB per year
Store your data faster with a SATA 6Gb/s interface that optimizes burst performance
Have confidence with a drive that provides reliable, low-power data retrieval based on Shingled Magnetic Recording (SMR) technology
Yes, this sounds like exactly what I'm looking for when I store my backups. I don't need to write to them often, really only once a day. Reliable retrieval sure would be nice though.
learn how these affordable, high density drives can meet your needs for long-term, cold storage that's quickly and readily available online.
That's great, I would like my long-term backups quickly and readily available online when needed.
Seagate Archive HDD has won the "Product Award of 2015" in the 3.5" segment by Kakaku.com
Ah, sounds like they thought it was the best 3.5" drive.
...one of the best all around hard drives on the market.
That's good, I'd like one of the best all around hard drives on the market.
Seagate Archive HDD 8TB: A lot of TBs for a relatively small investment.
Yes, I need a lot of TBs.
The Seagate Archive HDD 8TB is a high capacity, energy efficient, and lower cost hard drive for active archive purposes.
Active archive sounds like backup storage. This must be for me.
The drives are intended for use in large-scale data centers where density, power consumption, data integrity and data retrieval are paramount.
That's good, because I'm going to put these in a large-scale data center where data integrity and data retrieval are paramount.
Best fit applications:
Online archiving
Large data object storage
Big data cold storage
Cloud active archive
Web-scale archiving
All of those buzzwords sure sound similar to "where you put your backups".
Delivering absolute lowest cost/TB along with the performance and reliability required for massive scale applications, the new 8TB HDD is ideal for meeting the needs of our enterprise and service provider customers who demand optimized hardware and the cost structure needed for massive scale out.
Yes, massive scale, like you would find in a redundant array of disks.
But, if I pull up the data sheet, then it includes this footnote which is missing from the same section on the web page:
Archive HDDs are not intended for surveillance or NAS applications, and you may experience lower performance in these environments.
By "may experience lower performance", I'm guessing they mean that if I put these in a RAID array and point my servers there as a backup location, then I can expect a 50% failure rate in 24 hours.
I've got a cool story, bro. We put a NAS device online in our new data center with 4 Seagate Archive 8000 drives in it, and 2 of them died within 24 hours, trashing the RAID array. Thankfully, since it was a new NAS, it wasn't a big deal.
You linked to the wrong page, that page is just a series of pictures of a lake from space for part of December 2013 through April 2014. That obviously has nothing to do with global average temperatures in either 2008 or 2015. That site has a post from this month that you can use to compare the averages in 2008 with 2015.
I wouldn't say it "runs", Bob! Now every morning I get to do a hard reboot on my work laptop which refuses to come out of sleep/hibernate.
The Newtown school shooting was done by a guy who broke in and stole his mother's weapon (then killed her with it). He was not a "gun owner".
His mother was a "gun owner" once.
Once...
It's pretty hard to say which direction it is stepping at this point.
I guess it could be worse though, they could have taken the example of Elite: Dangerous and procedurally generated the title also.
You talk about bringing new things to the table and then list a bunch of features from other games? I think the major selling points are that the universe and music are procedurally generated, and that you can travel between space and planets without loading.
I searched for the game to check the release date (Aug. 9, FYI), and it sounds like the response from the developer isn't for this particular video. Apparently some people got ahold of "leaked" copies of the game (one person paid $1300 for it on eBay), and they are showing a lot of footage including reaching the center of the galaxy (apparently a major plot point or something). I think the developer is referring to those kinds of spoilers rather than this particular video.
Obviously, you wouldn't, but I provided an example to show that AdBlock does not block all of those. Like I said, I have 4 different ways to block content and all of them are blocking certain pieces. I don't know if all of them are injected via Javascript, but it would be trivial for OP to install Ghostery and determine whether or not it found anything to block.
I've considered installing Ghostery but I'm not sure what it would bring to the table.
Tracking, privacy, etc. All of those third party domains that have a tracking pixel or some other thing to track you across web sites. If you install Ghostery and configure it you'll see that it has sections for Advertising, Analytics, Beacons, Privacy, and Widgets (Facebook, Twitter, etc). It's blocking over 2,000 items for me. Right now I've got a recent version of Opera with the built-in ad blocking turned on, plus Ghostery, AdBlock, and Privacy Badger, and even here on Slashdot all of them are blocking something (Ghostery 7 items, AdBlock 5, Privacy Badger 2, and Opera is still natively blocking 10 items).
Troll more, APK. While you're at it, you should also link to another thread which shows how much of an idiot you are.
Wait, you already did that.
How about selling 20% of the nations Uranium reserves for 1 million dollars in speaking fees. Is that treason?
Selling to whom? An enemy of the United States? If so, then that might qualify. If the buyer is not an enemy of the United States, then no.
How about not controlling the borders of the United States and allowing a foreign army to invade the USA selling drugs, raping it's citizens, and spreading disease. Is that treason?
Which nation's armed forces are you referring to? Are they an enemy of the United States? Is there an actual specific act of providing aid and/or comfort to them? If not, then no, that's not treason either. If the army of another nation simply invades our country then people are not automatically guilty of treason simply for not being able to keep them out. A soldier who is unable to repel an enemy advance, for example, is not guilty of treason. A soldier who aids an enemy advance is.
I do not believe any of these things would in your mind rise to the level of treason.
Well, the Constitution is pretty clear. You're welcome to start up a debate about terms like "enemy", "aid", and "comfort" if you'd like to, though.
However if we turn the tables, and said that a tribe of Algonquin indians did the exact same thing, except it was not South Americans spreading disease, drugs and crime, but white Europeans, you would say that was deffinately treason, and that whatever Chief decided not to fight those evil whites was indeed guilty of a crime.
Does this tribe of Algonquin indians have a legally-binding document which specifically and narrowly defines the crime of treason, or is this just an exercise in mental masturbation?
I would also say that if it was the Bush family tradin with the Nazi in WWII you would say it was treason
If the United States was at war with Nazi Germany and a US citizen was engaged in trade with them for profit (and thereby aiding the Nazis), then yes, I believe that would be treason. If that occurred before we declared war, then no, that would not be treason at that point. Are you beginning to understand the distinction or do you want to ask a few more hypotheticals?
Seriously, this isn't difficult. Treason is specifically defined, and it's not a long definition. I'm not trying to suggest that anyone is not guilty of committing a crime, I'm trying to suggest that Hillary is not guilty of treason, specifically. I'm sure there is a long list of crimes which she is in fact guilty of, but I don't think that treason is one of them.
He's running as a Democrat, and deserves the support of the party as outlined in their rules. If they don't want to follow their own rules then they shouldn't have them, or they should not have accepted him as a candidate. Instead they simply ignore their own rules. Which actually is not a huge surprise.
But, I agree, Bernie and the Democrats do not belong together. For example, I support Bernie, but I don't support the Democratic party or their nominee. In fact, by many accounts, fewer than half of Americans feel that one of the two major parties represents them. That would suggest that no more than 25% of Americans are in fact Democrats. Like every other political party, they are a minority. Hopefully the people who vote for them figure out that the party doesn't represent them and the Democrats can go the way of the Whigs. I'm hopeful that people will decide to look elsewhere for someone who represents them once Hillary gets into office and predictably does an about-face on all of the things that she claimed to support in order to get the gullible to vote for her.
I hope that you're able to detect the sarcasm in my post. Regardless, when the information in question is classified, and therefore access to it is restricted by law, what really is the substantive difference between releasing it to a journalist for publication and putting it on a server that wasn't adequately protected? In both cases it's going to get out there (assuming, of course, that the server's existence is known). In both cases there was a failure to secure and protect the classified information. It could be argued that in only one of those cases was the information deliberately released. The person that I was replying to was trying to suggest that in the case that it was deliberately released, it is a non-issue (i.e., willful and intentional disclosure of classified information is a non-issue), and that in the case that incompetence was involved and an attempt was made to secure the information, which failed, and resulted in its possible disclosure, that this was a major problem. I'm suggesting that both of them are major problems, that neither of them is a non-issue, and that trying to politicize this crap by suggesting that one party is blameless and the other is not is a stupid argument.
Mozambique put it on their flag.
Looks like it's still there, too. Since 1975.
Congratulations man, it's not even possible to carry on this stupid thread in Slashdot because of the filters they have to stop you.
Here you go, like I said there, I'm done with this idiotic thread.
You came in here talking shit about me & my program, so I CRUSHED YOU ON THAT MUCH + the fact YOU CANNOT SHOW YOU'VE DONE BETTER YOURSELF for giving users more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity online (but I can & have using what they already NATIVELY have that does more for less)... apk
In other words, the same tired argument you always try to trot out. Face it man, you're a spammer and if people don't want to use your software then they have alternatives. It's really that simple. No one deserves to be hounded and trolled by you for not wanting to use software that they see advertised in spam. And I didn't talk shit about your program, or you for that matter, I only pointed out that you were a spammer and that people don't need to use software published by spammers. Those are factual statements, not shit talking. I've already covered all of this, you keep going in circles, I have no desire to continue repeating myself. I'm sure you'll just continue to troll my other comments and continue to declare victory in your 1-player game (again, specifically and exactly what I predicted), but I have no desire to continue a discussion that only goes in circles.
I'm sure we can come to an agreement. If the government rolls back the Patriot Act, for example, then maybe we look at rolling back encryption.
Jesus, APK. Some things never change. Like your arguments. Next I'm sure you're going to claim that you don't post as people other than yourself, let's go back to that old classic.
This is going nowhere. Like your life. Take care.