If people are gonna use 'First Amendment' to claim that someone else has no right to block them, anybody who knows better would be fully qualified to educate their sorry asses. Something you didn't even disagree w/ in your attempted ad hominem.
I've seen responses to his tweets. Plenty of which are completely off-topic & irrelevant to the posts at hand, but which clutter and cover relevant responses. Which is why it's perfectly legit for him or Dan Scavino to block those. He can't ban anyone, since he's not Twitter. If anything, Twitter is pretty much opposed to him politically - something obvious from browsing their sources pages.
Just don't use those things for that purpose. For anything I do anonymously, I either use this TrueOS laptop, or I use my MotoX (which has no phone# connected to it) and w/ anonymous accounts. On that thing, nothing identifies me as the owner or user of that phone.
I only use my iPad to access my iCloud email: anything else gets accessed from this TrueOS laptop. I have one iPhone, one Lumia, one iPad, one Verizon Ellipsis, one MotoX and 2 laptops. I use the laptops for emails, so don't access those from the iPad. I use the Ellipsis for Gmail, and all my personal stuff - banking, credit cards & so on. I use the iPhone to FaceTime w/ family, iPad for games (actually, it gets used more by the kids), Lumia for any office calls (and checking my hotmail email) and MotoX for any social media (w/ an imaginary/assumed name, and no phone#). That way, I don't have all my accounts everywhere.
How many people even actually know what Net Neutrality really is? We know that most Republicans don't, since they seem to confuse it w/ the Fairness Doctrine, but what about the public? Do they think that Net Neutrality means that if you are a Left leaning site, you have to carry Right wing opinions (and vice versa), or do they know that it means that you can legally watch CNN, FNC, et al via your internet connection w/o signing up w/ any TV service provider?
Time has come to yank government out of the business of money, since that's where it derives its subversive power from. Toss it all out to cryptocurrencies, and let that become the basis of all transactions
One great justification: once everyone can mine bitcoins or other cryptocurrencies, it will fill in the demand of universal basic income, and let people w/o jobs make the money they need to live, and more.
If anything, cryptocurrencies should replace national currencies, that are usually manipulated by their governments via their central banks
Again, genius, First Amendment has NOTHING to do w/ access to the president! He can fill up that room w/ FNC, Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, Townhall.com, WND, Breitbart and all his fans, and yank the press credentials of CNN, *NBC, ABC, PBS, NPR, et al. None of the latter would have lost their First Amendment rights as a result
His personal account has more followers, which is why he uses that to tweet official stuff that followers who don't follow @POTUS can get. One thing interesting: while the media covers his tweets about Russia, Comey, Fake News and so on, they rarely cover his other tweets about the policies of the government, such as the new bill on Air Traffic Control, or meetings w/ heads of state, or things of that nature.
@RealDonaldTrump is his personal account, and he can block whoever he damn well likes. Had the 2 snowflakes complained about @POTUS blocking them, they might have had a point. Albeit a very precarious one
Fully agree w/ this. It would be one thing if they didn't want to be blocked from @POTUS, but even that is fine. But @RealDonaldTrump is the president's personal handle, and he can block anyone he likes.
Recap for all Left wing self-styled First Amendment 'experts': the first amendment only prevents the government from censoring free speech. It doesn't compel them to provide one w/ a listening board. Neither Trump, nor anyone, is obligated to allow people who they deem annoying to keep trolling them
Fully agree on this one. I could understand it in the old days when guys like IBM charged by the number of CPUs. However now, in this age of Linux & BSD, where there are no limits on how many CPUs/cores/sockets/whatever it can run on, it seems ridiculous to restrict the capacity of the OS.
Same w/ the memory limits. This is a 64-bit OS, ain't it? In which case, it should allow logical memory & hard drive capacities up to 2^60 - allow for 16 variations of memory and I/O.
If Podesta's password was 'password', it doesn't take Russian hackers or Wikileaks hackers to break into his email. People argue that Russians can break into accounts just like Russians can slip polonium tablets into somebody's tea. Except that whereas one has to have SVR agents physically there to do the latter, the former can be done by any well informed kid in his mom's basement w/ a good gaming PC.
It's important to remember why Trump hired Manafort: it was to deliver him the delegates and prevent Ted Cruz or the GOP establishment from denying him a victory in the primaries by hijacking unpledged delegates. Later, due to the rift w/ Lewandowski, he became the sole campaign head. In this case, in hindsight, Trump would have done well to let go of Manafort when he threatened to leave if Lewandowski didn't, and just add on Steve Bannon and Kellyanne Conway.
Manafort did have ties w/ Viktor Yanukovich, who was Putin's choice in Kyiv. However, that didn't make Manafort himself a Russian agent, as people allege.
On the Russian disputes w/ Ukraine. Moscow has a legitimate case about Crimea, particularly Sevastopol. It was a part of the Russian Federation until 1964, when Nikita Kryushchyev just gifted it to the Ukraine w/o asking the Crimeans what they wanted. On the Donbass, Russia is more clearly in the wrong: both Donetz and Luhansk have split populations b/w Russian and Ukrainian, so Russia can't legitimately just grab that area, and should resolve w/ Kyiv the aspirations of the people involved. Besides, Russia doesn't have a lebensraum issue, so if there are Russians in Ukraine unhappy about Ukrainian becoming the sole official language, Moscow should relocate them to, say, Western Siberia, since it does have a major population shortage in its Asian part.
Not just that, the secret lines of communications that Obama opened w/ Iran and having a flight ship unmarked bank notes there as ransom for hostages would be more akin to treason than anything Michael Flynn did, including his lobbying for Turkey
I would trust Putin over Obama's intel agents, given what they've tried to do to him every step of the way - from leaking his private conversations w/ leaders of Australia & Mexico to leaking the intel on the Manchester bombers. Trump needs to purge all these agencies of Obamaniks. There was nothing illegal in what Michael Flynn did in talking to the Russians: the only issues post facto was him retroactively registering as a lobbyist for Turkey, which was deplorable. The intel agencies had no business leaking what Flynn was up to.
A good deal of the monitoring of Russia extends beyond the United States, and certainly the British intelligence community has its own suspicions about Trump.
That British agency that was thought to spy on Trump denied it to the point that even FNC retracted the story & benched Judge Neopolitano for a few days. In fact, if they did do anything like it, the Trump administration would be well within its rights to embargo the UK for interfering in the domestic affairs of the US. After all, there is nothing in the statutes that says that it's not okay for hostile countries like Russia to interfere, but okay for friendly countries like Britain to do it. So the same aggressiveness that's shown against Lt Gen Michael Flynn can just as legitimately be used by whoever the Obama administration's contact was w/ the British spy agency
The only 3 data collection agencies are the CIA, FBI and the NSA. All the other agencies just analyze the data from different scopes. So one would have to look at the raw data and determine whether Russia hacked, or whether Wikileaks hacked and passed on the info to Russia
If that's your use case, then while working on the flight would be out of the question, a better idea would be to leave your main computer online & connected to the office (if it's not there already), take the remote laptop, securely login to your main computer and work from there.
Whatever happened to teleconferencing: WebEx, Join.me, GoToMeeting, et al? I recall during the Clinton or Bush administrations, when the Indian Prime Minister (then a chief minister) Modi was denied a visa to the US despite being invited, he attended the session via teleconference, thereby neither violating any laws, but at the same time satisfying his would be hosts. For conferences that are about sharing presentations & documents, it should be relatively trivial to set up a network connection via VPNs and then let both sides present and talk to each other. Granted, they don't get to see each other, shake hands, visit the deli together or sleep together, but other than that, everything else that's a goal of the conference would be achieved. Icing on the cake: taking fewer flights helps reduce greenhouse gases and global warming, and also helps put evil airlines like United out of business.
Slashdot Mirror
If people are gonna use 'First Amendment' to claim that someone else has no right to block them, anybody who knows better would be fully qualified to educate their sorry asses. Something you didn't even disagree w/ in your attempted ad hominem.
I've seen responses to his tweets. Plenty of which are completely off-topic & irrelevant to the posts at hand, but which clutter and cover relevant responses. Which is why it's perfectly legit for him or Dan Scavino to block those. He can't ban anyone, since he's not Twitter. If anything, Twitter is pretty much opposed to him politically - something obvious from browsing their sources pages.
Petitioning the government != Government listening to the petitioners
Just don't use those things for that purpose. For anything I do anonymously, I either use this TrueOS laptop, or I use my MotoX (which has no phone# connected to it) and w/ anonymous accounts. On that thing, nothing identifies me as the owner or user of that phone.
I only use my iPad to access my iCloud email: anything else gets accessed from this TrueOS laptop. I have one iPhone, one Lumia, one iPad, one Verizon Ellipsis, one MotoX and 2 laptops. I use the laptops for emails, so don't access those from the iPad. I use the Ellipsis for Gmail, and all my personal stuff - banking, credit cards & so on. I use the iPhone to FaceTime w/ family, iPad for games (actually, it gets used more by the kids), Lumia for any office calls (and checking my hotmail email) and MotoX for any social media (w/ an imaginary/assumed name, and no phone#). That way, I don't have all my accounts everywhere.
I have an iPhone AND an iPad, so such a solution would work for me
How many people even actually know what Net Neutrality really is? We know that most Republicans don't, since they seem to confuse it w/ the Fairness Doctrine, but what about the public? Do they think that Net Neutrality means that if you are a Left leaning site, you have to carry Right wing opinions (and vice versa), or do they know that it means that you can legally watch CNN, FNC, et al via your internet connection w/o signing up w/ any TV service provider?
Time has come to yank government out of the business of money, since that's where it derives its subversive power from. Toss it all out to cryptocurrencies, and let that become the basis of all transactions
One great justification: once everyone can mine bitcoins or other cryptocurrencies, it will fill in the demand of universal basic income, and let people w/o jobs make the money they need to live, and more.
If anything, cryptocurrencies should replace national currencies, that are usually manipulated by their governments via their central banks
Again, genius, First Amendment has NOTHING to do w/ access to the president! He can fill up that room w/ FNC, Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, Townhall.com, WND, Breitbart and all his fans, and yank the press credentials of CNN, *NBC, ABC, PBS, NPR, et al. None of the latter would have lost their First Amendment rights as a result
His personal account has more followers, which is why he uses that to tweet official stuff that followers who don't follow @POTUS can get. One thing interesting: while the media covers his tweets about Russia, Comey, Fake News and so on, they rarely cover his other tweets about the policies of the government, such as the new bill on Air Traffic Control, or meetings w/ heads of state, or things of that nature.
Except that the White House just said that those are official statements.
Irrelevant. Access to the president ain't a part of the First Amendment
@RealDonaldTrump is his personal account, and he can block whoever he damn well likes. Had the 2 snowflakes complained about @POTUS blocking them, they might have had a point. Albeit a very precarious one
Yeah, ever since EditorDavid, Beau, Msmash et al got to the helm. Today's Slashdot is to /. what SGI was to Silicon Graphics
Fully agree w/ this. It would be one thing if they didn't want to be blocked from @POTUS, but even that is fine. But @RealDonaldTrump is the president's personal handle, and he can block anyone he likes.
Recap for all Left wing self-styled First Amendment 'experts': the first amendment only prevents the government from censoring free speech. It doesn't compel them to provide one w/ a listening board. Neither Trump, nor anyone, is obligated to allow people who they deem annoying to keep trolling them
So El Salvadorian is American now? Or are you one of those other retards who use the term 'USian'?
Fully agree on this one. I could understand it in the old days when guys like IBM charged by the number of CPUs. However now, in this age of Linux & BSD, where there are no limits on how many CPUs/cores/sockets/whatever it can run on, it seems ridiculous to restrict the capacity of the OS.
Same w/ the memory limits. This is a 64-bit OS, ain't it? In which case, it should allow logical memory & hard drive capacities up to 2^60 - allow for 16 variations of memory and I/O.
If Podesta's password was 'password', it doesn't take Russian hackers or Wikileaks hackers to break into his email. People argue that Russians can break into accounts just like Russians can slip polonium tablets into somebody's tea. Except that whereas one has to have SVR agents physically there to do the latter, the former can be done by any well informed kid in his mom's basement w/ a good gaming PC.
It's important to remember why Trump hired Manafort: it was to deliver him the delegates and prevent Ted Cruz or the GOP establishment from denying him a victory in the primaries by hijacking unpledged delegates. Later, due to the rift w/ Lewandowski, he became the sole campaign head. In this case, in hindsight, Trump would have done well to let go of Manafort when he threatened to leave if Lewandowski didn't, and just add on Steve Bannon and Kellyanne Conway.
Manafort did have ties w/ Viktor Yanukovich, who was Putin's choice in Kyiv. However, that didn't make Manafort himself a Russian agent, as people allege.
On the Russian disputes w/ Ukraine. Moscow has a legitimate case about Crimea, particularly Sevastopol. It was a part of the Russian Federation until 1964, when Nikita Kryushchyev just gifted it to the Ukraine w/o asking the Crimeans what they wanted. On the Donbass, Russia is more clearly in the wrong: both Donetz and Luhansk have split populations b/w Russian and Ukrainian, so Russia can't legitimately just grab that area, and should resolve w/ Kyiv the aspirations of the people involved. Besides, Russia doesn't have a lebensraum issue, so if there are Russians in Ukraine unhappy about Ukrainian becoming the sole official language, Moscow should relocate them to, say, Western Siberia, since it does have a major population shortage in its Asian part.
Not just that, the secret lines of communications that Obama opened w/ Iran and having a flight ship unmarked bank notes there as ransom for hostages would be more akin to treason than anything Michael Flynn did, including his lobbying for Turkey
I would trust Putin over Obama's intel agents, given what they've tried to do to him every step of the way - from leaking his private conversations w/ leaders of Australia & Mexico to leaking the intel on the Manchester bombers. Trump needs to purge all these agencies of Obamaniks. There was nothing illegal in what Michael Flynn did in talking to the Russians: the only issues post facto was him retroactively registering as a lobbyist for Turkey, which was deplorable. The intel agencies had no business leaking what Flynn was up to.
Globalists can be anything - Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, et al. Nothing that makes them exclusively Jews
A good deal of the monitoring of Russia extends beyond the United States, and certainly the British intelligence community has its own suspicions about Trump.
That British agency that was thought to spy on Trump denied it to the point that even FNC retracted the story & benched Judge Neopolitano for a few days. In fact, if they did do anything like it, the Trump administration would be well within its rights to embargo the UK for interfering in the domestic affairs of the US. After all, there is nothing in the statutes that says that it's not okay for hostile countries like Russia to interfere, but okay for friendly countries like Britain to do it. So the same aggressiveness that's shown against Lt Gen Michael Flynn can just as legitimately be used by whoever the Obama administration's contact was w/ the British spy agency
The only 3 data collection agencies are the CIA, FBI and the NSA. All the other agencies just analyze the data from different scopes. So one would have to look at the raw data and determine whether Russia hacked, or whether Wikileaks hacked and passed on the info to Russia
If that's your use case, then while working on the flight would be out of the question, a better idea would be to leave your main computer online & connected to the office (if it's not there already), take the remote laptop, securely login to your main computer and work from there.
Whatever happened to teleconferencing: WebEx, Join.me, GoToMeeting, et al? I recall during the Clinton or Bush administrations, when the Indian Prime Minister (then a chief minister) Modi was denied a visa to the US despite being invited, he attended the session via teleconference, thereby neither violating any laws, but at the same time satisfying his would be hosts. For conferences that are about sharing presentations & documents, it should be relatively trivial to set up a network connection via VPNs and then let both sides present and talk to each other. Granted, they don't get to see each other, shake hands, visit the deli together or sleep together, but other than that, everything else that's a goal of the conference would be achieved. Icing on the cake: taking fewer flights helps reduce greenhouse gases and global warming, and also helps put evil airlines like United out of business.