Comey is the one who brought up the emails a week or two before the election
And now we know why. He HAD to, to cover the greater crime of obstruction of Justice in order to prevent the full revelation of what was found on Anthony Weiner's laptop, under the investigation of a human trafficking case and involving minor girls, by Hillary's Right Hand Lady, Huma's husband.
They call it a swamp, but that is polite way of calling a cesspool. The Gators aren't even swimming in that crap.
Why should the government be involved in economic anything? How good is the government at most things, and now you're adding in economic modeling?
And oh, BTW, the "haggle" model is still in full effect, especially on healthcare prices. Insurance companies pay a completely different rate for just about everything, and if you pay cash, you can't even begin to get that price. Which IMHO is partly why the healthcare industry is inefficient. Standardized pricing is very efficient.
VPN link isn't the same as network isolation. Network isolation means you can't get from there to here. That's why you have multiple firewalls, networks routers and DMZ and so on between IOT devices and your critical infrastructure.
Here at my work, we have a VPN tunnel that takes us right into critical networks. It makes me cringe as we have no control over it. I've mentioned it a number of times, but someone (one guy) insists he can't do his job without it. It is bullshit, because he and I have the same duties, and I manage. But the boss says "leave it up, he needs it", and i cry bullshit every time.
It is convenience for security. Or as the boss calls it "usability", because convenience sounds bad.
Taking of wealth to redistribute is using to power of the state (biggest group) to take from the individual. THAT is the basis of socialism. So, no socialism isn't about protecting the rights of the individual.
Does this person just get completed erased from the internet
This is actually a brilliant idea. You want to be forgotten, fine, society doesn't know anything about you, you don't exist. Now, you've been forgotten.
Unintended consequences are a great way to learn stupid lessons.
brand someone as a criminal forever has its origins in Jim Crow laws.
This is patently false and borderline racist bullshit. NOT every thing is tied to "Jim Crow". Branding (literally, and figuratively) criminals goes WAY back further than 200 years, and isn't a particularly western phenomena either, as cultures around the world did it.
Read a book or two outside your own worldview, and expand your insight and stop listening to the stupid professors who haven't taught you how to think.
First off, this is pretty much about as wrong as it can possibly be, but exposes how leftwing your thought actually are. EVERYONE ought to perform a service, and to live in a community most people DO perform services for the purposes of earning a living.
The result you're unwittingly are suggesting, is that bigots should be on the public dole and supported by the community at large. Or worse, that we should give welfare to ONLY those that are approved in their societal views.
You'd be right. Except you aren't. Where is the outrage by the left against discrimination (is mute at the moment) when Bank of America refuses to do business with gun manufacturers.
Keep in mind, that arms are a protected right enumerated (not granted) in the Constitution.
Either both are equal(where is the outrage??) or I'm right, and consistent.;)
You can excuse one and not the other I'm sure. But that is just justified hypocrisy.
Actually yes. But not because I am a racist, but rather because I believe that in a free economy someone else will. Remember, the real problem with Jim Crow wasn't that they were racist (they were!), but rather because that racism was enforced by government guns, FORCING the free market to bend to racist ideals.
The STATE should refrain from Group identity, because nothing is more inherently bigoted than that.
The left CLAIMS to protect the weak from the strong. But uses strongman tactics for any slight (real or imaginary). Take for example the Left wanting to ban Diamond and Silk from Facebook for being a "danger" to our social structure. Or rioting over speakers on college campuses because they view the speakers as "evil" for simply having a different framework of thought. Or forcing a baker to the will of the state sponsored group think. Taking from one group and giving to another without regard the force required to do so.
The whole group identity politics (intersectionality) of the left thing is by definition bigoted. And yes, I am a racist, homophobe, sexist.. because that is the only way group think can handle rational thought.
Libertarian is neither Left or Right. Both the left and right views social ills as something that can be solved by the State exercising power. The focus is just different.
The Libertarian (ultimately) understands the purpose of the state isn't to control people, but rather to protect the individual from the abuses of the group. This is why Democracies always degrade into tyrannies, because those with power use that power to accumulate more power, rather than distributing that power back to the individual person.
I'm a libertarian. I don't think like that, not by a long shot. But then again, I'm a fringe element that views Statism (both left and right) with a vile contempt, and abuser of liberties for the purposes of control.
Liberty is messy, and dangerous. I just want people to recognize safety is not something worth giving up liberty for.
Because that is what Facebook deemed "Diamond and Silk". They are a threat, of ideas, to the community. Facebook was caught, and the excuses Zuck was peddling ("miscategorized") doesn't solve the problem. The problem is, you have a group of censors, that are eggshelled snowflakes who are "threatened" by people that do not fit their views. They want Facebook to be just like college, and offer safe space for the echo chamber, so Diamond and Silk (and anyone like them) are a "Dangerous Threat to the Community".
Meahwhile, David Hogg calling everyone that disagrees with him a "murderer" and "child killers" is fine though. While I personally find him a threat to civil liberties outlined (not granted) in the Constitution.
You see my point? He who defines "threat" defines who can speak.
But it is what the Government said, when forcing the baker to bake a wedding cake. The gay people didn't use private businesses to shout their cause, they used government force.
This is how government is going to regulate freedom of religion. You're free to have your religion, as long as nobody gets to see it, and you'll be arrested, jailed, fined, executed by those that wish to avoid all religions.
And do not say it hasn't happened before. It is happening now, in a number of places. It can happen, it is happening, it will happen here unless someone stands up for those that are being oppressed by government guns.
Nursery Rhymes "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me"
It wasn't a platitude, it was instruction. If you allow people calling you names to hurt you, that is as much a reflection of your own eggshell existence as it is on their hardheartedness. If and when you remove yourself from the equation, then it only is a reflection of the name caller.
I bet you can produce a person or two (maybe more) that can verify that you are who you say your are. That kind of "information" is based on "trust", not trusting that someone who can produce a list of facts is you. I doubt that a Russian can prove he is you if he also has to provide a number of people who are known associates of you, with their own list of associations.
I have all sorts of documentation of my relationships with other people, spanning decades. That kind of information is much harder to forge than knowing a bunch of publicly known facts about me.
Unless you're Hillary. The whole Clinton Foundation thing while SoS was a criminal endeavor pay to play, legalized bribery. Funny how the Clinton Foundation donations have all but disappeared now that she and Bill have no chance at power.
And no, I didn't vote for Donald. It is amazing how people are still excusing their candidate because someone else won. Two Criminals, by Two Criminal Organization called political parties. Pretending it would be better under "Not Trump" Hillary is why the country is going to shit.
And Bernie isn't trustworthy, he and his wife are under criminal investigation for fraud. But he's a good socialist so lets ignore that.
Not according to Hillary and the left, who keep reminding those of us who didn't vote for her that she "won the popular vote", as if that is some sort of consolation prize.
You'll only be permanently identifiable for the rest of your life
Go live in a cave for the rest of your life. Then nobody will have to identify you, and you won't have to prove your identity to anyone.
Or, you can realize that identity is proof of who you are (and not someone else). The problem ISN'T identity theft, that is just a symptom of the problem. The REAL problem is that we have systems that make your identity your problem when you have no control over that information. A bank giving a loan out to someone who is not you, in your name, without your knowledge or consent shouldn't be YOUR problem, it should be theirs. They failed to do due diligence in ascertaining the person they gave $25,000 in credit isn't you.
All of this is because we've reduced identity to knowledge of facts, and not personal references. It is much harder to prove that you are me, if you also have to come up with fake people who pretend to be my known associates. This is why Identity should be based on web of trust, and not publicly identifiable traits.
We've given up security for convenience, and the ramifications are really bad.
Slashdot Mirror
Comey is the one who brought up the emails a week or two before the election
And now we know why. He HAD to, to cover the greater crime of obstruction of Justice in order to prevent the full revelation of what was found on Anthony Weiner's laptop, under the investigation of a human trafficking case and involving minor girls, by Hillary's Right Hand Lady, Huma's husband.
They call it a swamp, but that is polite way of calling a cesspool. The Gators aren't even swimming in that crap.
Almighty pedantic nerd, different averages have different meanings. You are just using a different method of average than he intended.
In this case, you BOTH are correct. And you missed the joke. I fee bad that I had to explain this to you. Do you happen to work in government?
Why should the government be involved in economic anything? How good is the government at most things, and now you're adding in economic modeling?
And oh, BTW, the "haggle" model is still in full effect, especially on healthcare prices. Insurance companies pay a completely different rate for just about everything, and if you pay cash, you can't even begin to get that price. Which IMHO is partly why the healthcare industry is inefficient. Standardized pricing is very efficient.
VPN link isn't the same as network isolation. Network isolation means you can't get from there to here. That's why you have multiple firewalls, networks routers and DMZ and so on between IOT devices and your critical infrastructure.
Here at my work, we have a VPN tunnel that takes us right into critical networks. It makes me cringe as we have no control over it. I've mentioned it a number of times, but someone (one guy) insists he can't do his job without it. It is bullshit, because he and I have the same duties, and I manage. But the boss says "leave it up, he needs it", and i cry bullshit every time.
It is convenience for security. Or as the boss calls it "usability", because convenience sounds bad.
Taking of wealth to redistribute is using to power of the state (biggest group) to take from the individual. THAT is the basis of socialism. So, no socialism isn't about protecting the rights of the individual.
Does this person just get completed erased from the internet
This is actually a brilliant idea. You want to be forgotten, fine, society doesn't know anything about you, you don't exist. Now, you've been forgotten.
Unintended consequences are a great way to learn stupid lessons.
brand someone as a criminal forever has its origins in Jim Crow laws.
This is patently false and borderline racist bullshit. NOT every thing is tied to "Jim Crow". Branding (literally, and figuratively) criminals goes WAY back further than 200 years, and isn't a particularly western phenomena either, as cultures around the world did it.
Read a book or two outside your own worldview, and expand your insight and stop listening to the stupid professors who haven't taught you how to think.
No 'person' has to perform a service
First off, this is pretty much about as wrong as it can possibly be, but exposes how leftwing your thought actually are. EVERYONE ought to perform a service, and to live in a community most people DO perform services for the purposes of earning a living.
The result you're unwittingly are suggesting, is that bigots should be on the public dole and supported by the community at large. Or worse, that we should give welfare to ONLY those that are approved in their societal views.
You'd be right. Except you aren't. Where is the outrage by the left against discrimination (is mute at the moment) when Bank of America refuses to do business with gun manufacturers.
Keep in mind, that arms are a protected right enumerated (not granted) in the Constitution.
Either both are equal(where is the outrage??) or I'm right, and consistent. ;)
You can excuse one and not the other I'm sure. But that is just justified hypocrisy.
Free association isn't free if one is force to associate with others for any reason.
Actually yes. But not because I am a racist, but rather because I believe that in a free economy someone else will. Remember, the real problem with Jim Crow wasn't that they were racist (they were!), but rather because that racism was enforced by government guns, FORCING the free market to bend to racist ideals.
The STATE should refrain from Group identity, because nothing is more inherently bigoted than that.
The left CLAIMS to protect the weak from the strong. But uses strongman tactics for any slight (real or imaginary). Take for example the Left wanting to ban Diamond and Silk from Facebook for being a "danger" to our social structure. Or rioting over speakers on college campuses because they view the speakers as "evil" for simply having a different framework of thought. Or forcing a baker to the will of the state sponsored group think. Taking from one group and giving to another without regard the force required to do so.
The whole group identity politics (intersectionality) of the left thing is by definition bigoted. And yes, I am a racist, homophobe, sexist .. because that is the only way group think can handle rational thought.
Libertarian is neither Left or Right. Both the left and right views social ills as something that can be solved by the State exercising power. The focus is just different.
The Libertarian (ultimately) understands the purpose of the state isn't to control people, but rather to protect the individual from the abuses of the group. This is why Democracies always degrade into tyrannies, because those with power use that power to accumulate more power, rather than distributing that power back to the individual person.
Everyone thinks that, not just leftists
I'm a libertarian. I don't think like that, not by a long shot. But then again, I'm a fringe element that views Statism (both left and right) with a vile contempt, and abuser of liberties for the purposes of control.
Liberty is messy, and dangerous. I just want people to recognize safety is not something worth giving up liberty for.
Define "threat"?
Because that is what Facebook deemed "Diamond and Silk". They are a threat, of ideas, to the community. Facebook was caught, and the excuses Zuck was peddling ("miscategorized") doesn't solve the problem. The problem is, you have a group of censors, that are eggshelled snowflakes who are "threatened" by people that do not fit their views. They want Facebook to be just like college, and offer safe space for the echo chamber, so Diamond and Silk (and anyone like them) are a "Dangerous Threat to the Community".
Meahwhile, David Hogg calling everyone that disagrees with him a "murderer" and "child killers" is fine though. While I personally find him a threat to civil liberties outlined (not granted) in the Constitution.
You see my point? He who defines "threat" defines who can speak.
But it is what the Government said, when forcing the baker to bake a wedding cake. The gay people didn't use private businesses to shout their cause, they used government force.
This is how government is going to regulate freedom of religion. You're free to have your religion, as long as nobody gets to see it, and you'll be arrested, jailed, fined, executed by those that wish to avoid all religions.
And do not say it hasn't happened before. It is happening now, in a number of places. It can happen, it is happening, it will happen here unless someone stands up for those that are being oppressed by government guns.
Nursery Rhymes "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me"
It wasn't a platitude, it was instruction. If you allow people calling you names to hurt you, that is as much a reflection of your own eggshell existence as it is on their hardheartedness. If and when you remove yourself from the equation, then it only is a reflection of the name caller.
Unless you're a baker. Then the government can force you to use your artistic skills against your own first amendment rights.
But that is okay.
I bet you can produce a person or two (maybe more) that can verify that you are who you say your are. That kind of "information" is based on "trust", not trusting that someone who can produce a list of facts is you. I doubt that a Russian can prove he is you if he also has to provide a number of people who are known associates of you, with their own list of associations.
I have all sorts of documentation of my relationships with other people, spanning decades. That kind of information is much harder to forge than knowing a bunch of publicly known facts about me.
Treason doesn't pay.
Unless you're Hillary. The whole Clinton Foundation thing while SoS was a criminal endeavor pay to play, legalized bribery. Funny how the Clinton Foundation donations have all but disappeared now that she and Bill have no chance at power.
And no, I didn't vote for Donald. It is amazing how people are still excusing their candidate because someone else won. Two Criminals, by Two Criminal Organization called political parties. Pretending it would be better under "Not Trump" Hillary is why the country is going to shit.
And Bernie isn't trustworthy, he and his wife are under criminal investigation for fraud. But he's a good socialist so lets ignore that.
I think this article explains what you're suggesting. I could be wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Dude, Hillary lost.
Not according to Hillary and the left, who keep reminding those of us who didn't vote for her that she "won the popular vote", as if that is some sort of consolation prize.
No. Most of the Republicans are chickenshit and scared of their own shadow. When push comes to shove, they'll always side with the democrats.
Can people be this idiotic?
Yes. And it is probably even worse than that.
You'll only be permanently identifiable for the rest of your life
Go live in a cave for the rest of your life. Then nobody will have to identify you, and you won't have to prove your identity to anyone.
Or, you can realize that identity is proof of who you are (and not someone else). The problem ISN'T identity theft, that is just a symptom of the problem. The REAL problem is that we have systems that make your identity your problem when you have no control over that information. A bank giving a loan out to someone who is not you, in your name, without your knowledge or consent shouldn't be YOUR problem, it should be theirs. They failed to do due diligence in ascertaining the person they gave $25,000 in credit isn't you.
All of this is because we've reduced identity to knowledge of facts, and not personal references. It is much harder to prove that you are me, if you also have to come up with fake people who pretend to be my known associates. This is why Identity should be based on web of trust, and not publicly identifiable traits.
We've given up security for convenience, and the ramifications are really bad.