Look, just throw the stupid document on a copier and they're gone.
This isn't rocket science. What sort of a moron would print a document IN THE NSA and then hand that original to a reporter?
She needs to go to prison for the maximum span. I personally believe Snowden should be pardoned, and they should stop pursuing Assange, but not every leak is sacrosanct, nor is every leaker a saint. She clearly did this as a political act, despite signing documents affirming she would keep information confidential.
Basically, leaking info is like using a legally-carried handgun: you should do it only if you accept that the consequences of not using it are worse than the punishment you'll receive, and be perfectly ok with that result.
Look, I've taken a fair amount of copyrighted content down the TPB myself. There's no way in hell I'd have paid for most of it, so for the producers to cry that it's "lost revenue" is bullshit - if I'd even decided it was worth the trouble I'd have waited for Netflix or Hulu or Netflix DVD and watched it.
Further, I think the draconian copyright laws, and copyright ad eternium is ridiculous and frankly unconstitutional.
But for TPB to cry "we've lost the internet" is very much like Blackbeard crying "I've lost my freedom of the seas!" - true as far as it goes, but let's understand that your PRIME activity was copying crap that was for sale and essentially giving it away for free without authorization. You're not the "good guys" here.
At least as far as how the BBC presented it this morning, she could form with DUP and be basically fine. Doesn't sound like DUP is that far from May's base anyway.
I'm from the US, but I think it's a bigger story that SNP got their asses kicked - it turns out that Ms Sturgeon being an arrogant prick (her actual gender notwithstanding) is *not* a successful strategy.
You've never heard of nihilism? I liken the Trump votes very much to a form of it:
- it's *all* corrupt; the other available candidate (Hilary) was the worst possible example - no matter which side wins, I have no real say in what happens. It's generally going to suck for me. What can I do to harm the system itself as much as possible? - we've heard the ever-increasing mantra from the left, in our schools (which are dominated by liberal teachers) and finally the last 8 years president that 'anything white men do is bad'. Here's a candidate that's white, male, and not the slightest bit apologetic for those unfortunate characteristics.
cf the Gracchi in Rome. The story is almost exactly the same (minus the identity politics,but that's a quibble).
It's not at all "let me show you how stupid I am" so much as "you don't need me? you don't want me? if you think everything white men have done is so terrible, let's wreck it."
I heard almost that exact statement in one of the brutally leftist Gender and Womens Sexuality Studies class at the U of MN - the teacher, an ardent left wing feminist was maundering on and on about how the unfair world was built "by and for hetero white men". The (amusing, but a little scary) muttered response amongst some of the white males in class (who had been more or less compelled to be there by social-engineering distribution requirements for a liberal arts degree) was "Fine, let's burn it all to the ground and start over. When shit hits the fan, you're not going to run to a Lesbian Studies professor in dreadlocks to rebuild society, are you?"
"He's more likely to have read John le Carre than John Locke." And this is the sort of snide bullshit that illustrates why he resonates with voters, but the intelligentsia despises him.
I've read both le Carre and Locke, and I'd agree, le Carre is a FUCKTON more readable.
And frankly, I doubt Mr Trump reads. Much of anything. Again, putting him in the same camp as 90% of Americans.
My point was to illustrate that this was hardly a 'neutral' pool - they were a pool of enthusiastic internet users who (likely, as they regularly want to participate in polls) are probably unemployed.
Hm, really? An ONLINE poll collected from SELF-SELECTED volunteers through an ONLINE panel of people who like to take polls (WTF?) and who are then culled according to: "Suppliers who meet the following criteria are deemed Acceptable (meaning we continue our recruitment efforts with them): - Responsive panelists (with high response rates, click/conversion rates) - High volume and low percentage of duplicate/bad data - High compositions of demographics that our panel is lacking" https://www.ipsos.com/sites/de...
You probably mean to say "we'll pay to put people in prison, but we won't actually PUNISH them", right?
Because $75,000 is *not* what it costs for an individual to live in a cement cell in the ground, get served shitty food, and work on a chain gang 365 days a year.
...of the sort of ceaseless whinging that is ALREADY getting Trump votes for 2020.
Seriously, when the Russia "investigation" determines that yes, some members of the administration did talk to Russians before the election (like Hilary's team did), but that no, there's no actual "there" there, the frothing, insensate masses of the Left will have to pause for at least a moment and realize they've given him 4 more years.
I sometimes wonder how interesting it would be to 'audit' some of the freshman level sociology and 'soapbox' courses as an adult student, so that the teachers wouldn't have exclusive access to these earnest little tabula-rasa sponges to deliver their anti-white, anti-western, anti-male screed unobjected. I have to imagine they wouldn't like having another adult in the room (especially one not inclined to their flavor of kool aide) at ALL.
Then I realized that 1) raising ANY objections, no matter how carefully justified and logical, would simply cater to their message (look, the old white male doesn't want me teaching you this) and, more importantly 2) I simply don't give that much of a shit.
I still may do it just for entertainment, once I'm retired - many local colleges let seniors audit courses for free.
I think there is actually supposed to be SOMETHING to prosecute.
Intent != crime.
So far, I haven't seen a single actual thing that was a result of this astonishingly inept (yet continuous?) collusion. Just...an administration communicating with the country's main geopolitical opponent (or one of them).
*that is, aside from the actual millions of dollars deposited with the Clinton Foundation immediately before Ms Clinton as Sec'y of State approved the massive sale of US uranium reserves?
"Trump Organization lawyer Michael Cohen and business associate Felix Sater partner with a Ukrainian lawmaker on a proposal for easing Russian-Ukrainian tensions, which is delivered to FlynnÃfs office. (NYT, Feb. 19, 2017)."
And this is treasonous how, again? It made your (exhaustive) list of events, yet seems to be the sort of thing we'd like to see an administration actually doing.
Do you feel the same ire and suspicion for the uranium rights sale during Ms Clintons stint as secretary of state, for which there is an actual transfer of million$ to the Clinton foundation? If not, why not?
What's still missing for me in this laundry list is why? What's the actually treasonous act that was or is to be the result of all this communication? Are we selling Alaska back? Did Trump get some massive payment? Collusion implies an act or result as the product of such collusion: what is that product here? Simply getting Trump elected?
While the open-sourcing (for critical purposes) of such an algorithm is all well and good in theory, the fact is it would then be gamed for advantage.
If, for example, there is a statistically-significant correlation between a defendant showing up at a trial with a facial tattoo re-committing later, any intelligent defense attorney is going to either cover it with make up or get it removed.
If this was such a critically important Treaty, then perhaps the President at the time should have actually dealt with it legally as a TREATY - ie get the ratification of congress?
The fact is, he chose not to, making its repeal simply a matter of the whim of a subsequent president.
Liberals will cry "he didn't send it to congress because they'd have just blocked it anyway". Well sure, if your idea of 'compromise' is "JUST DO IT MY WAY AND WE'LL BE HAPPY", it wouldn't have gotten far. But our three-branch government is built on negotiated compromise: giving something to get something.
If this treaty was so/critically/ important to the future of the human species as is being asserted, then one might logically believe that Mr Obama would have been willing to give up something substantial in order to get it ratified. That's how it works. I guarantee you if he'd been willing to, I dunno, shelve Obamacare, he would have easily picked up enough GOP votes to pass this into Law.
He did not make any such offer.
3 part government means that compromises require sacrifice. If you choose to rule by fiat, understand that you can be undone by the same method.
...quick question: did this numbskull ACTUALLY GET FIRED?
Because what I'm finding in our firm's dealing with government and contractors is that very, very few people are ever *actually* held accountable for fuckups.
And I'm talking about people from congresscritters and senior presidential staff on down.
They want to 'lead' that shitshow, they can be our guests.
And that shitshow can get a taste of what non-US leadership is like. I'm going to guess that your new Chinese masters won't be quite as benign as the US has been for nearly 75 years.
Slashdot Mirror
...the US is leaving according to the appropriate rules, and formal departure will actually take some time.
So why are so many of you shitting yourselves with anguish over it?
Look, just throw the stupid document on a copier and they're gone.
This isn't rocket science. What sort of a moron would print a document IN THE NSA and then hand that original to a reporter?
She needs to go to prison for the maximum span.
I personally believe Snowden should be pardoned, and they should stop pursuing Assange, but not every leak is sacrosanct, nor is every leaker a saint.
She clearly did this as a political act, despite signing documents affirming she would keep information confidential.
Basically, leaking info is like using a legally-carried handgun: you should do it only if you accept that the consequences of not using it are worse than the punishment you'll receive, and be perfectly ok with that result.
Look, I've taken a fair amount of copyrighted content down the TPB myself.
There's no way in hell I'd have paid for most of it, so for the producers to cry that it's "lost revenue" is bullshit - if I'd even decided it was worth the trouble I'd have waited for Netflix or Hulu or Netflix DVD and watched it.
Further, I think the draconian copyright laws, and copyright ad eternium is ridiculous and frankly unconstitutional.
But for TPB to cry "we've lost the internet" is very much like Blackbeard crying "I've lost my freedom of the seas!" - true as far as it goes, but let's understand that your PRIME activity was copying crap that was for sale and essentially giving it away for free without authorization. You're not the "good guys" here.
So they have the gobs and gobs of petro dollars needed to make the massive (subsidized) investment to gather those too?
At least as far as how the BBC presented it this morning, she could form with DUP and be basically fine. Doesn't sound like DUP is that far from May's base anyway.
I'm from the US, but I think it's a bigger story that SNP got their asses kicked - it turns out that Ms Sturgeon being an arrogant prick (her actual gender notwithstanding) is *not* a successful strategy.
"Apple's innovative power appears to be waning"
It's almost like the colossal asshole that was nevertheless a marketing genius and driving force behind the whole brand is no longer there?
You've never heard of nihilism? I liken the Trump votes very much to a form of it:
- it's *all* corrupt; the other available candidate (Hilary) was the worst possible example
- no matter which side wins, I have no real say in what happens. It's generally going to suck for me. What can I do to harm the system itself as much as possible?
- we've heard the ever-increasing mantra from the left, in our schools (which are dominated by liberal teachers) and finally the last 8 years president that 'anything white men do is bad'. Here's a candidate that's white, male, and not the slightest bit apologetic for those unfortunate characteristics.
cf the Gracchi in Rome. The story is almost exactly the same (minus the identity politics,but that's a quibble).
It's not at all "let me show you how stupid I am" so much as "you don't need me? you don't want me? if you think everything white men have done is so terrible, let's wreck it."
I heard almost that exact statement in one of the brutally leftist Gender and Womens Sexuality Studies class at the U of MN - the teacher, an ardent left wing feminist was maundering on and on about how the unfair world was built "by and for hetero white men".
The (amusing, but a little scary) muttered response amongst some of the white males in class (who had been more or less compelled to be there by social-engineering distribution requirements for a liberal arts degree) was "Fine, let's burn it all to the ground and start over. When shit hits the fan, you're not going to run to a Lesbian Studies professor in dreadlocks to rebuild society, are you?"
Curiously, not every country is an oil-rich petrostate awash in "free" hydropower, so much so that they export it.
So perhaps your model isn't one that will be entirely portable to the rest of the world?
"He's more likely to have read John le Carre than John Locke."
And this is the sort of snide bullshit that illustrates why he resonates with voters, but the intelligentsia despises him.
I've read both le Carre and Locke, and I'd agree, le Carre is a FUCKTON more readable.
And frankly, I doubt Mr Trump reads. Much of anything. Again, putting him in the same camp as 90% of Americans.
stupid pre 21st century shit-code slashdot.
My point was to illustrate that this was hardly a 'neutral' pool - they were a pool of enthusiastic internet users who (likely, as they regularly want to participate in polls) are probably unemployed.
Hm, really?
An ONLINE poll collected from SELF-SELECTED volunteers through an ONLINE panel of people who like to take polls (WTF?) and who are then culled according to:
"Suppliers who meet the following criteria are deemed Acceptable (meaning we continue our recruitment efforts with them):
- Responsive panelists (with high response rates, click/conversion rates)
- High volume and low percentage of duplicate/bad data
- High compositions of demographics that our panel is lacking" https://www.ipsos.com/sites/de...
You probably mean to say "we'll pay to put people in prison, but we won't actually PUNISH them", right?
Because $75,000 is *not* what it costs for an individual to live in a cement cell in the ground, get served shitty food, and work on a chain gang 365 days a year.
...of the sort of ceaseless whinging that is ALREADY getting Trump votes for 2020.
Seriously, when the Russia "investigation" determines that yes, some members of the administration did talk to Russians before the election (like Hilary's team did), but that no, there's no actual "there" there, the frothing, insensate masses of the Left will have to pause for at least a moment and realize they've given him 4 more years.
Been to a college class lately?
I sometimes wonder how interesting it would be to 'audit' some of the freshman level sociology and 'soapbox' courses as an adult student, so that the teachers wouldn't have exclusive access to these earnest little tabula-rasa sponges to deliver their anti-white, anti-western, anti-male screed unobjected. I have to imagine they wouldn't like having another adult in the room (especially one not inclined to their flavor of kool aide) at ALL.
Then I realized that
1) raising ANY objections, no matter how carefully justified and logical, would simply cater to their message (look, the old white male doesn't want me teaching you this) and, more importantly
2) I simply don't give that much of a shit.
I still may do it just for entertainment, once I'm retired - many local colleges let seniors audit courses for free.
I think there is actually supposed to be SOMETHING to prosecute.
Intent != crime.
So far, I haven't seen a single actual thing that was a result of this astonishingly inept (yet continuous?) collusion. Just...an administration communicating with the country's main geopolitical opponent (or one of them).
Because, you know Clinton's team met with Russians as well, right? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
*that is, aside from the actual millions of dollars deposited with the Clinton Foundation immediately before Ms Clinton as Sec'y of State approved the massive sale of US uranium reserves?
...the FAA's update has been called "the worst boondoggle ever", the (Iirc) 3rd failed update effort, eating tens of billions of dollars.
https://www.google.com/amp/amp...
I know the narrative is that "every trump idea is stupid" but this plan has worked several times in other countries quite well, including Canada...
Would you say the same thing to Kathy Griffin?
"Trump Organization lawyer Michael Cohen and business associate Felix Sater partner with a Ukrainian lawmaker on a proposal for easing Russian-Ukrainian tensions, which is delivered to FlynnÃfs office. (NYT, Feb. 19, 2017)."
And this is treasonous how, again? It made your (exhaustive) list of events, yet seems to be the sort of thing we'd like to see an administration actually doing.
Do you feel the same ire and suspicion for the uranium rights sale during Ms Clintons stint as secretary of state, for which there is an actual transfer of million$ to the Clinton foundation? If not, why not?
What's still missing for me in this laundry list is why? What's the actually treasonous act that was or is to be the result of all this communication? Are we selling Alaska back? Did Trump get some massive payment? Collusion implies an act or result as the product of such collusion: what is that product here? Simply getting Trump elected?
While the open-sourcing (for critical purposes) of such an algorithm is all well and good in theory, the fact is it would then be gamed for advantage.
If, for example, there is a statistically-significant correlation between a defendant showing up at a trial with a facial tattoo re-committing later, any intelligent defense attorney is going to either cover it with make up or get it removed.
That's an ironic reply when talking about Global Warming, er Climate Change.
If this was such a critically important Treaty, then perhaps the President at the time should have actually dealt with it legally as a TREATY - ie get the ratification of congress?
The fact is, he chose not to, making its repeal simply a matter of the whim of a subsequent president.
Liberals will cry "he didn't send it to congress because they'd have just blocked it anyway". Well sure, if your idea of 'compromise' is "JUST DO IT MY WAY AND WE'LL BE HAPPY", it wouldn't have gotten far. But our three-branch government is built on negotiated compromise: giving something to get something.
If this treaty was so /critically/ important to the future of the human species as is being asserted, then one might logically believe that Mr Obama would have been willing to give up something substantial in order to get it ratified. That's how it works. I guarantee you if he'd been willing to, I dunno, shelve Obamacare, he would have easily picked up enough GOP votes to pass this into Law.
He did not make any such offer.
3 part government means that compromises require sacrifice. If you choose to rule by fiat, understand that you can be undone by the same method.
...but abandoning the Paris accord doesn't prohibit any US individual, company, or state from pursuing greener policies. Not one.
The US federal government doesn't control its citizens behavior, to a large degree. In fact, what it does often is a negative driver of public action.
After all, the US is "officially" metric as well since the 1970s, see how much that official change made a difference?
...quick question: did this numbskull ACTUALLY GET FIRED?
Because what I'm finding in our firm's dealing with government and contractors is that very, very few people are ever *actually* held accountable for fuckups.
And I'm talking about people from congresscritters and senior presidential staff on down.
Have you /seen/ the rest of the world lately?
They want to 'lead' that shitshow, they can be our guests.
And that shitshow can get a taste of what non-US leadership is like. I'm going to guess that your new Chinese masters won't be quite as benign as the US has been for nearly 75 years.
...and it's not because I love work.
The simple fact is that if I'm gone for a day, the amount of work I come back to is more than a day's worth.