The context doesn't change the meaning. Your goal in using the word zealous is to defend the status quo by denigrating the people who think the status quo needs to be changed. That's basically name-calling and is an intellectually bankrupt argument.
First off, I'm not the one who originally described Greenpeace supporters as "zealots." phantomfive, the poster to whom I replied, essentially made the argument that Lego had to choose between supporting one of the two groups (either Shell by continuing the advertising contract, or Greenpeace by not continuing it), and that the only people who would care either way were the zealotsin support of Greenpeace or the zealots in support of Shell.
phantom's argument is intellectually bankrupt because it fails to differentiate between "pro-Shell zealots" and "just against Greenpeace harassing people." I'm not saying that Lego did the wrong thing by terminating the contract because Greenpeace threatened them. However, that doesn't make it right for Greenpeace to be harassing them. Greenpeace is 100% in the wrong here, and you, phantom, and Slashdot shouldn't be pretending otherwise.
If you want to argue that it is a matter of degree, then there are whole lot more extreme actions than making a protest video and posting it youtube. The day you see greenpeace beheading shell employees and posting that video to youtube is the day you can honestly use the word zealous to describe them
I have no idea what you're babbling about here. Let me say for the record that although Greenpeace may be a bunch of crazy leftists, they're not as crazy, bloodthirsty, or prone to behead their enemies as the Reign of Terror-era French leftists. Happy now?
It's zealous of you to pick that sentence out of context, dick. Not everyone is equally correct in this scenario, for reasons I explained in the part of the post that you didn't quote.
The advantage of withdrawing support is that only zealots care either way. There are relatively few zealots to get offended, and because most people can understand what it means to try to avoid an argument.
Shell is paying for product placement. That isn't zealotry. Hell, Shell's agreement didn't even specify that ALL Lego gas stations/fueling equipment is Shell branded. (The vast majority of Lego gas/fuel branding is from the fictional company Octan.)
The zealots are all on the other side. Lego didn't "stay out of an argument," like you and the Slashdot summary claim. Lego caved to threats from outside zealots. I'm not calling for a boycott of Lego, or even necessarily saying that it's a bad business decision. But let's not kid ourselves about what's going on here.
The VB that Office does is VBA, which is essentially VB6. The language that they're predicting will die out is VB.Net, which has a very different syntax.
Of course the color matters. Which would you rather eat, a raw potato or a fresh apple?
Raw potatoes and "fresh apples" (which are also raw) are the same color on the inside... Also, baking a potato does not change the color of the inside.
Obama hasn't gone after anyone who didn't leak national security secrets
That's an incredibly misleading "fact." Executive Branch employees have retaliated against whistleblowers in the VA scandal, the Fast and Furious scandal, and the Benghazi scandal, to name a few.
Obama's whistleblower protection initiatives don't seem to be doing the job.
Generally speaking, engineers that work for the Federal Government fall under civil service laws and do not belong to unions. These laws, which are intended to prevent a Democrat president from firing all the Republicans when they take office, and then four years later having the new Republican president fire all the Democrats, make it generally hard to fire government employees or to degrade working conditions so much that they quit. Government Engineers are also almost uniformly on the General Schedule (GS scale), which means that their pay and promotion procedures are set by law for the entire GS system, rather than individuals being able to advocate for their own salaries like you'd see in private industry.
Union contracts are written with the same protections for the workers as goals, so the conditions are similar to what you'd see in a union. However, with a union, there's an organization which you're supposed join and pay dues to. Among government engineers, you see similar conditions, but there's no organization to which you pay dues.
New Jersey has a law that kicks in when a smart gun becomes available for sale in the US.
My home state is stupid for having this law. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING good to be said about a law that mandates the use of a technology that hasn't been thoroughly studied, and can't possibly have been because the law was created before the technology was.
That said, California also has this law. Not just New Jersey. Great company, guys.
The reason Belichick was struggling with this is because of an NFL rules change this year. In the past, (like, say, in 2008), teams weren't allowed to use imagery from the game currently in progress, but were allowed to use still photos of previous games.
The NFL has changed the rules so now you are allowed to use still images and video of previous games (by watching it on your Microsoft Surface, The Official Tablet of the NFL) but still not photographs or video from the game in progress. The league controls the game day tablets (rather than the teams) and imposes access controls to prevent teams from circumventing it.
Belichick was struggling with the tablet last Sunday because he was trying to get the video of last Sunday's game, and he hasn't figured out how to get past the access controls yet.
The Surface tablets that the NFL uses are in giant ass cases (necessary because games are played in the elements) that say MICROSOFT SURFACE on them in giant letters. It was clearly visible while Dilfer, at least, was talking.The commentators who screwed this up think iPad and "tablet" mean the same thing.
[The government doing what AT&T wanted is] the exact opposite of "heavy handed regulation" - that's the government rolling over to everything a corporation wanted.
The government enforcing AT&T's monopoly was heavy-handed regulation of everybody EXCEPT AT&T. If the government allowed competing telecommunication services, AT&T wouldn't have been able to stifle technology the way the previous poster was complaining about.
The fact is, the government will use its power to help its friends (AT&T in this case) and hurt its enemies (potential competitors.) This is why we should have as small a government as it takes to fulfill the roles delegated to the National government in the Constitution.
The Constitution doesn't actually say that the Supreme Court is supposed to be the arbiter of Constitutional disputes. That comes from Supreme Court caselaw.
Magnetic tape recording wouldn't return to America until WWII, with German equipment.
That wasn't the only technology AT&T suppressed that could have changed our world, simply because the managers involved either couldn't see a profit in it, or felt it was directly competing with their own telephone service. Since AT&T had a monopoly on phone service, they kept anyone else from utilizing these inventions as well. Fiber optics, mobile telephones, digital subscriber lines (DSL), fax machines, speakerphones.. all developed or envisioned much earlier than you assume, and all suppressed as being dangers to AT&T's business model.
AT&T's monopoly was imposed by the federal government. Government using a lighter touch in telecom regulation in the 1930s would have allowed all those products to market under somebody else's banner. AT&T being an abusive monopoly until they were broken up in the '80s is NOT an example of "We need government because the free market is horrible."
If that's the only line you're drawing, I agree with you on governments having specific, limited powers rather than rights. What you said was still confusing.
You're obscuring the issue. The FCC tried to enforce Net Neutrality on the Internet, and the courts said that they can only enforce it if Congress grants them the power to do so. The FCC then went to Congress and asked them for the power to regulate the Internet, and Congress told them that they are not allowed to do so.
Under current law, the FCC does NOT have the POWER to regulate the Internet.
The FCC's job is to make sure nobody broadcasts on a frequency other than the one they are allotted. Somebody has to do this, because the RF spectrum is limited in capacity by the laws of physics. The Internet does not have a similar limitation. You can add capacity to it by running additional lines. Since they wouldn't be helping everyone not interfere with each other on the radio spectrum, regulating the Internet would be out of scope.
Implies bias based on her nationality. Usually, you would expect to see "Federal Judge Rejects..." unless the judge happened to be well known.
Lucy Koh is well known to people who have been following the Apple vs. Samsung litigation, which has been going on for awhile now.
Also, Koh is American, and has made some pretty laughable rulings in favor of the American company. The fact that not even Lucy Koh buys Apple's bullshit is what makes this newsworthy.
I'm confused why the FCC and the administration are looking for wifi specifically in schools. If students are going to be rough on whatever technology equipment you have, you should be getting them PCs, which are easier to repair than tablets. PCs are also suitable for some kinds of work that tablets simply aren't, notably the computer science classes that are all the rage right now. If you're getting PCs for classrooms, it makes more sense to wire them into the network directly. It's cheaper, it enables more types of learning, and you don't have to worry about kids dicking around on their personally owned iPhones instead of learning.
Given these factors, why are we trying to upgrade to next generation wifi specifically? I'd imagine that some schools would want to upgrade their CAT 5 based networks. Why are we not enabling that?
I didn't say it does. The Democratic and Republican parties agree, as their official positions, that the United States should be governed as a democratic republic. (Note the small letters on both adjectives.) No shit the Democrats are "in favor of democracy" and the Republicans are "in favor of republicanism." However, the Democrats are ALSO "in favor of republicanism" and the Republicans are ALSO "in favor of democracy." To an outside observer from a country whose political parties have more meaningful names, this isn't necessarily obvious. In the UK (where the parent poster seems to be from), some of the more major parties have more meaningful names. (For example, the "Labour" party picked their name because they claims to support policies that are better for "Labourers" than business owners.) That's the contrast I was drawing.
I believe, the Green Party (with 1 MP) has an official policy of republicanism, so technically there is at least one. I gather a few other MPs support this as well. Of course this is a pedantic reinterpretation of what republicanism means.
In fairness, the US's Democratic party has an official policy of republicanism. Every Democrat elected official from President Obama on down was, tautologically, either elected by individual voters, or selected in some manner to fill an unexpired term. In either case, the Democrat elected official is charged with voting on behalf of their constituents; their constituents don't get to vote themselves.
Also of note, the US's Republican party has an official policy of support for a democratic system of government. Republicans believe that the best way to select elected officials is generally in a "one man, one vote" style election (the exceptions are for things like unexpired terms.)
TLDR: The US is a democratic republic. The two primary political parties picked pleasant sounding names that have never had anything to do with issues they support.
The State of the Union address is normally in English on the four "broadcast*" networks, plus the three cable news channels. I haven't checked, but I bet there's at least one channel in my cable package simulcasting it in Spanish as well.
*In an affluent neighborhood, the broadcast networks will probably be coming in by cable or satellite too. If I understand correctly that makes them immune from this attack.
There wouldn't be any bribery. What there would (eventually) be is a State that is able to demand censorship. You can use Comcast's DNS to find sites criticizing Comcast because if Comcast blocked the site but Time Warner didn't, people would be able to tell the difference.
Right now, when a site is ordered off the Internet, everyone who cares finds out about it immediately, largely because of the fact that the ISPs don't implement the order simultaneously.
As a result, the government only does this rarely, and they only do it to people who they are accusing of crimes (generally piracy.) They don't do it to critics of the government.
The FCC's job is to silence people who aren't speaking correctly. Thst's what the rules against using a HAM radio to transmit on the FM bands are. That's what the rules against cell phone jammers are. That's what the Fairness doctrine was.
Now, the radio spectrum is constrained by physics. There is an absolutely finite capacity of information that can be transmitted over it in a given time span. There is a legitimate purpose in keeping users of the radio spectrum transmitting in their own blocks.
The Internet, though, has a theoretically infinite capacity. (If we need more bandwidth, we could run more fiber without running up against the laws of physics.) Sine one person's Internet transmissions don't interfere with anyone else's (from a physics standpoint) there is no legitimate role for the government to dictate the terms of anyone's Internet speech.
The FCC's job is to regulate the terms of people's speech. It would be wildly inappropriate for them to regulate the terms of speech of a newspaper, which is why the FCC doesn't regulate newspapers. It would be wildly inappropriate for them to regulate the terms of speech of a cabele television channels, which is why they don't regulate cable TV. It would be wildly inappropriate for the FCC to regulate the tems of speech of the Internet, so the FCC should stay out of regulating the Internet.
[People calling for an investigation into the Benghazi attack and coverup should] know that most people have moved on from the tragedy, considering [Hillary Clinton] accepted the blame for it a year and a half ago. It's not even clear what they want out of continually harping on this other than simply smearing her name.
But the GP's point, and the key point in the Democrats' defense on this in general, is yelling "THIS IS OLD NEWS!!!111!!!1 YOU REALLY DON'T THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT!!!!!111" at people who want an investigation. That's why Clinton said "What difference, at this point, does it make?" ("At this point" was two months after the attacks.) That's been the answer from the State Department, the White House, and the media. And it's exactly what the GP said, and it's what I responded to.
Was Bengahzi a problem, yes, four people died. Was it a big enough problem to justify the level of discourse about it, and let's be honest here, it was only if you want to discredit Hilary Clinton in case she runs for office. The irony of the situation is that anyone that would be swayed by arguments about Benghazi would be in the group of people that wouldn't vote for her anyway.
Benghazi is two problems. The State Department, at the time led by Hillary Clinton, was allegedly negligent in not taking proper security precautions to prevent the attack. It also led a coverup to prevent the attack from hurting President Obama politically.
If Hillary Clinton was so negligent that her subordinates did not take the proper security precautions, she is responsible, through negligence, for the deaths of four Americans. Certainly there's an amount of negligence which would immediately disqualify Clinton from being voted for. If she gets the nomination, each voter will have to draw that line for themselves.
But was she negligent to that level? Were her subordinates? Was the President? I don't know, and very few other people do either, which is exactly why we need the investigation. Whether or not Clinton was negligent in preventing the attack is material to whether she deserves to be President, so the American people deserve to know what happened before they decide whether or not to vote for her.
The second issue is the coverup. We now know that Federal Government NEVER believed that a YouTube video was the cause for the Al Qaeda attack on the Benghazi consulate. The reason that the YouTube video spin was propagated in the first place was to prevent questions about whether the Obama administration's foreign policy was succeeding at preventing terrorism by hiding the fact that a US consulate was attacked by Al Qaeda.
Just like with the attack itself, if Hillary Clinton was responsible for a lie being told to the American people, that will disqualify her from being elected in the eyes of many people. Just how many depends people depends on just how responsible Hillary Clinton was. Because every voter has to draw that line for themselves, the American people need to know exactly what happened before they decide whether or not to vote for her.
Well, the GP's premise was that people were claiming that "Benghazi is more important than..." whatever issue they were commenting on in comments on news sites. I was on topic, relative to GP, when I asserted that Benghazi is a bigger deal than he makes sound like.
The Slashdot topic is about Google's alleged ability to influence who people vote for. Relative to the Slashdot topic, the GP shoehorned a bullshit attack on calls to investigate the Benghazi attacks into a topic that had nothing to do with it. Kind of like what you just accused me of doing.
Slashdot Mirror
The context doesn't change the meaning. Your goal in using the word zealous is to defend the status quo by denigrating the people who think the status quo needs to be changed. That's basically name-calling and is an intellectually bankrupt argument.
First off, I'm not the one who originally described Greenpeace supporters as "zealots." phantomfive, the poster to whom I replied, essentially made the argument that Lego had to choose between supporting one of the two groups (either Shell by continuing the advertising contract, or Greenpeace by not continuing it), and that the only people who would care either way were the zealotsin support of Greenpeace or the zealots in support of Shell.
phantom's argument is intellectually bankrupt because it fails to differentiate between "pro-Shell zealots" and "just against Greenpeace harassing people." I'm not saying that Lego did the wrong thing by terminating the contract because Greenpeace threatened them. However, that doesn't make it right for Greenpeace to be harassing them. Greenpeace is 100% in the wrong here, and you, phantom, and Slashdot shouldn't be pretending otherwise.
If you want to argue that it is a matter of degree, then there are whole lot more extreme actions than making a protest video and posting it youtube. The day you see greenpeace beheading shell employees and posting that video to youtube is the day you can honestly use the word zealous to describe them
I have no idea what you're babbling about here. Let me say for the record that although Greenpeace may be a bunch of crazy leftists, they're not as crazy, bloodthirsty, or prone to behead their enemies as the Reign of Terror-era French leftists. Happy now?
The zealots are all on the other side.
It's very zealous of you to say that.
It's zealous of you to pick that sentence out of context, dick. Not everyone is equally correct in this scenario, for reasons I explained in the part of the post that you didn't quote.
The advantage of withdrawing support is that only zealots care either way. There are relatively few zealots to get offended, and because most people can understand what it means to try to avoid an argument.
Shell is paying for product placement. That isn't zealotry. Hell, Shell's agreement didn't even specify that ALL Lego gas stations/fueling equipment is Shell branded. (The vast majority of Lego gas/fuel branding is from the fictional company Octan.)
The zealots are all on the other side. Lego didn't "stay out of an argument," like you and the Slashdot summary claim. Lego caved to threats from outside zealots. I'm not calling for a boycott of Lego, or even necessarily saying that it's a bad business decision. But let's not kid ourselves about what's going on here.
The VB that Office does is VBA, which is essentially VB6. The language that they're predicting will die out is VB.Net, which has a very different syntax.
Of course the color matters. Which would you rather eat, a raw potato or a fresh apple?
Raw potatoes and "fresh apples" (which are also raw) are the same color on the inside... Also, baking a potato does not change the color of the inside.
Obama's whistleblower protection initiatives don't seem to be doing the job.
Union contracts are written with the same protections for the workers as goals, so the conditions are similar to what you'd see in a union. However, with a union, there's an organization which you're supposed join and pay dues to. Among government engineers, you see similar conditions, but there's no organization to which you pay dues.
New Jersey has a law that kicks in when a smart gun becomes available for sale in the US.
My home state is stupid for having this law. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING good to be said about a law that mandates the use of a technology that hasn't been thoroughly studied, and can't possibly have been because the law was created before the technology was.
That said, California also has this law. Not just New Jersey. Great company, guys.
The NFL has changed the rules so now you are allowed to use still images and video of previous games (by watching it on your Microsoft Surface, The Official Tablet of the NFL) but still not photographs or video from the game in progress. The league controls the game day tablets (rather than the teams) and imposes access controls to prevent teams from circumventing it.
Belichick was struggling with the tablet last Sunday because he was trying to get the video of last Sunday's game, and he hasn't figured out how to get past the access controls yet.
The Surface tablets that the NFL uses are in giant ass cases (necessary because games are played in the elements) that say MICROSOFT SURFACE on them in giant letters. It was clearly visible while Dilfer, at least, was talking.The commentators who screwed this up think iPad and "tablet" mean the same thing.
[The government doing what AT&T wanted is] the exact opposite of "heavy handed regulation" - that's the government rolling over to everything a corporation wanted.
The government enforcing AT&T's monopoly was heavy-handed regulation of everybody EXCEPT AT&T. If the government allowed competing telecommunication services, AT&T wouldn't have been able to stifle technology the way the previous poster was complaining about.
The fact is, the government will use its power to help its friends (AT&T in this case) and hurt its enemies (potential competitors.) This is why we should have as small a government as it takes to fulfill the roles delegated to the National government in the Constitution.
The Constitution doesn't actually say that the Supreme Court is supposed to be the arbiter of Constitutional disputes. That comes from Supreme Court caselaw.
Magnetic tape recording wouldn't return to America until WWII, with German equipment.
That wasn't the only technology AT&T suppressed that could have changed our world, simply because the managers involved either couldn't see a profit in it, or felt it was directly competing with their own telephone service. Since AT&T had a monopoly on phone service, they kept anyone else from utilizing these inventions as well. Fiber optics, mobile telephones, digital subscriber lines (DSL), fax machines, speakerphones.. all developed or envisioned much earlier than you assume, and all suppressed as being dangers to AT&T's business model.
AT&T's monopoly was imposed by the federal government. Government using a lighter touch in telecom regulation in the 1930s would have allowed all those products to market under somebody else's banner. AT&T being an abusive monopoly until they were broken up in the '80s is NOT an example of "We need government because the free market is horrible."
If that's the only line you're drawing, I agree with you on governments having specific, limited powers rather than rights. What you said was still confusing.
Under current law, the FCC does NOT have the POWER to regulate the Internet.
The FCC's job is to make sure nobody broadcasts on a frequency other than the one they are allotted. Somebody has to do this, because the RF spectrum is limited in capacity by the laws of physics. The Internet does not have a similar limitation. You can add capacity to it by running additional lines. Since they wouldn't be helping everyone not interfere with each other on the radio spectrum, regulating the Internet would be out of scope.
Implies bias based on her nationality. Usually, you would expect to see "Federal Judge Rejects..." unless the judge happened to be well known.
Lucy Koh is well known to people who have been following the Apple vs. Samsung litigation, which has been going on for awhile now.
Also, Koh is American, and has made some pretty laughable rulings in favor of the American company. The fact that not even Lucy Koh buys Apple's bullshit is what makes this newsworthy.
The headsets have been a Motorola sponsorship for a while
Given these factors, why are we trying to upgrade to next generation wifi specifically? I'd imagine that some schools would want to upgrade their CAT 5 based networks. Why are we not enabling that?
I didn't say it does. The Democratic and Republican parties agree, as their official positions, that the United States should be governed as a democratic republic. (Note the small letters on both adjectives.) No shit the Democrats are "in favor of democracy" and the Republicans are "in favor of republicanism." However, the Democrats are ALSO "in favor of republicanism" and the Republicans are ALSO "in favor of democracy." To an outside observer from a country whose political parties have more meaningful names, this isn't necessarily obvious. In the UK (where the parent poster seems to be from), some of the more major parties have more meaningful names. (For example, the "Labour" party picked their name because they claims to support policies that are better for "Labourers" than business owners.) That's the contrast I was drawing.
I believe, the Green Party (with 1 MP) has an official policy of republicanism, so technically there is at least one. I gather a few other MPs support this as well. Of course this is a pedantic reinterpretation of what republicanism means.
In fairness, the US's Democratic party has an official policy of republicanism. Every Democrat elected official from President Obama on down was, tautologically, either elected by individual voters, or selected in some manner to fill an unexpired term. In either case, the Democrat elected official is charged with voting on behalf of their constituents; their constituents don't get to vote themselves.
Also of note, the US's Republican party has an official policy of support for a democratic system of government. Republicans believe that the best way to select elected officials is generally in a "one man, one vote" style election (the exceptions are for things like unexpired terms.)
TLDR: The US is a democratic republic. The two primary political parties picked pleasant sounding names that have never had anything to do with issues they support.
*In an affluent neighborhood, the broadcast networks will probably be coming in by cable or satellite too. If I understand correctly that makes them immune from this attack.
Right now, when a site is ordered off the Internet, everyone who cares finds out about it immediately, largely because of the fact that the ISPs don't implement the order simultaneously.
As a result, the government only does this rarely, and they only do it to people who they are accusing of crimes (generally piracy.) They don't do it to critics of the government.
The FCC's job is to silence people who aren't speaking correctly. Thst's what the rules against using a HAM radio to transmit on the FM bands are. That's what the rules against cell phone jammers are. That's what the Fairness doctrine was.
Now, the radio spectrum is constrained by physics. There is an absolutely finite capacity of information that can be transmitted over it in a given time span. There is a legitimate purpose in keeping users of the radio spectrum transmitting in their own blocks.
The Internet, though, has a theoretically infinite capacity. (If we need more bandwidth, we could run more fiber without running up against the laws of physics.) Sine one person's Internet transmissions don't interfere with anyone else's (from a physics standpoint) there is no legitimate role for the government to dictate the terms of anyone's Internet speech.
The FCC's job is to regulate the terms of people's speech. It would be wildly inappropriate for them to regulate the terms of speech of a newspaper, which is why the FCC doesn't regulate newspapers. It would be wildly inappropriate for them to regulate the terms of speech of a cabele television channels, which is why they don't regulate cable TV. It would be wildly inappropriate for the FCC to regulate the tems of speech of the Internet, so the FCC should stay out of regulating the Internet.
[People calling for an investigation into the Benghazi attack and coverup should] know that most people have moved on from the tragedy, considering [Hillary Clinton] accepted the blame for it a year and a half ago. It's not even clear what they want out of continually harping on this other than simply smearing her name.
But the GP's point, and the key point in the Democrats' defense on this in general, is yelling "THIS IS OLD NEWS!!!111!!!1 YOU REALLY DON'T THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT!!!!!111" at people who want an investigation. That's why Clinton said "What difference, at this point, does it make?" ("At this point" was two months after the attacks.) That's been the answer from the State Department, the White House, and the media. And it's exactly what the GP said, and it's what I responded to.
Was Bengahzi a problem, yes, four people died. Was it a big enough problem to justify the level of discourse about it, and let's be honest here, it was only if you want to discredit Hilary Clinton in case she runs for office. The irony of the situation is that anyone that would be swayed by arguments about Benghazi would be in the group of people that wouldn't vote for her anyway.
Benghazi is two problems. The State Department, at the time led by Hillary Clinton, was allegedly negligent in not taking proper security precautions to prevent the attack. It also led a coverup to prevent the attack from hurting President Obama politically.
If Hillary Clinton was so negligent that her subordinates did not take the proper security precautions, she is responsible, through negligence, for the deaths of four Americans. Certainly there's an amount of negligence which would immediately disqualify Clinton from being voted for. If she gets the nomination, each voter will have to draw that line for themselves.
But was she negligent to that level? Were her subordinates? Was the President? I don't know, and very few other people do either, which is exactly why we need the investigation. Whether or not Clinton was negligent in preventing the attack is material to whether she deserves to be President, so the American people deserve to know what happened before they decide whether or not to vote for her.
The second issue is the coverup. We now know that Federal Government NEVER believed that a YouTube video was the cause for the Al Qaeda attack on the Benghazi consulate. The reason that the YouTube video spin was propagated in the first place was to prevent questions about whether the Obama administration's foreign policy was succeeding at preventing terrorism by hiding the fact that a US consulate was attacked by Al Qaeda.
Just like with the attack itself, if Hillary Clinton was responsible for a lie being told to the American people, that will disqualify her from being elected in the eyes of many people. Just how many depends people depends on just how responsible Hillary Clinton was. Because every voter has to draw that line for themselves, the American people need to know exactly what happened before they decide whether or not to vote for her.
As an aside, before you bring up veterans dying to support ignoring an Obama administration coverup, you may want to check out what Veterans Administration Secretary Shinseki has been covering up.
The Slashdot topic is about Google's alleged ability to influence who people vote for. Relative to the Slashdot topic, the GP shoehorned a bullshit attack on calls to investigate the Benghazi attacks into a topic that had nothing to do with it. Kind of like what you just accused me of doing.