I remember the "Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama gave Russia 20 percent of our uranium" story.
The claim (by Donald Trump and others) is that Hillary Clinton approved a deal giving a Russian company named "Rosatom" 20 percent of our uranium.
But that's not true. The Clinton State Department had no power to veto or approve the Rosatom transaction, AKA "Uranium One". It could do neither. Here’s how it does work:
Uranium One is the name of a South Africa-based mining company.
Back in 2007 it merged with "Urasia Energy" based in Canada. And in 2010 the mining arm of the Russian nuclear agency Rosatom, bought controlling interest in the company. Among other places, that mining company had operations in Wyoming that amounted to what the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions or the NRC said was at the time was about 20% of the uranium production capacity in the U.S.
By law, when a foreign company wants to buy ANYTHING with potential national security implications, an interagency committee of the federal government must approve it. The committee was given a broad mandate under President Reagan to advise the president on foreign investment transactions.
That committee is called CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States). It includes nine department heads. The Secretary of the Treasury is the chair person. The rest are the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, Commerce, Defense, State and Energy, plus the Office of U.S. Trade Representative, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. That’s CFIUS. The nine department heads all approved the sale of Uranium One.
It was unanimous - not a Hillary Clinton approval.
Also, the State Department wasn't even represented by Hillary Clinton at CIFUS. The Assistant Secretary of State, Jose Fernando, represented the State Department on CFIUS, not Hillary Clinton. And Jose Fernando stated that Clinton never intervened.
Further, neither Secretary Clinton nor the committee as a whole could stop any deal of this kind, even if they wanted to.
The committee members evaluate the sale of anything potentially related to national security.
By law, if just one member objects, the president and only the president can veto such a transaction. No committee member of the nine objected.
The whole "Uranium One" accusation is predicated on the charge that "Secretary Clinton approved the sale". She did not, and more to the point, she couldn't because the as Secretary of State, she didn't have the power to do that.
This whole "Clinton and Obama gave away our uranium" thing is just plain bullshit.
Go ahead, think whatever you like. Don't take my word for it. These are the facts and you can verify all of them by spending a minute or two on Google.
That was just one example of a lie that was made up out of whole cloth to damage a candidate. Clinton wasn't the only one hit with these stories. Remember the "Ted Cruz's father was with Lee Harvey Oswald" story? It was pure bullshit too, and we all know it. Modify message
The Windows 'ecosystem' was a vast wasteland punctuated by the occasional pile of steaming horseshit.
You could every app except the one you actually wanted or needed. But Microsoft made up for it with lots and lots of "fart" and flashlight apps.
They had a calendar that couldn't make or set appointments, meetings, or add notes. You couldn't mark a day or set a reminder because it was a view-only calendar, period. It was both utterly worthless AND the #1 rated calendar app in the Windows app store.
"as best we can tell, only a small fraction of our overall online customer population could have been caught up in this... incident"
Lol, "as best we can tell"
TRANSLATION: "They got all your data, every bit of it, but we're going to reveal this in a series of press releases in order to desensitize you to the scope of the loss."
So 84 accounts out of 345 million registered? Nothing in other words.
If they found 84, given that there are 345 million accounts, it's almost a certainty that there are others they missed.
Did they miss 10? Did they miss 500? 1000?
We don't know, but we have seen that a relatively small number of vocal shills can stir the pot and make trouble on a scale that's waaaaaay out of proportion to their numbers.
Don't worry! If you communicate with anyone that does use Facebook on their phone, then you're all good. They have your info and they've made a shadow profile for you:)
I currently work for a major healthcare billing company. My team builds some very complex, enterprise-grade apps with a lot of bells and whistles. Our team has about 10 people on it, and there's roughly another dozen in a related group that does some of the software deployment and tooling.
I have no idea what we'd do with 100 engineers or employees, much less 3,000. That's almost 100 times the size of our entire combined team (although that's not counting all the people in other departments like sales, HR, research, etc).
How the hell could a craptastic piece of shit like Snapchat suck up 3,000 people? It's mind-boggling.
We hit "peak phone" quite a while ago, everything since then has been minor tweaks or adding bullshit "features" that practically no one uses.
For example, Samsung's "eye mode" where it keeps the screen on as long as you're looking at it. Whoopdedoo, how could I live without that?? Or their multiple on-screen swipable toolboxes and favorites and recently-used apps and blah blah blah blah blah. Or a configurable button that isn't allowed to do anything that I'd actually want it to do- it can't be assigned to anything worthwhile, so what's the point?
These gadgets/features are a sign of developers who are desperate to come up with something new but not necessarily useful.
Slashdot Mirror
Is It Time To Stop Using Social Media? YES.
I remember the "Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama gave Russia 20 percent of our uranium" story.
The claim (by Donald Trump and others) is that Hillary Clinton approved a deal giving a Russian company named "Rosatom" 20 percent of our uranium.
But that's not true. The Clinton State Department had no power to veto or approve the Rosatom transaction, AKA "Uranium One". It could do neither. Here’s how it does work:
Uranium One is the name of a South Africa-based mining company.
Back in 2007 it merged with "Urasia Energy" based in Canada. And in 2010 the mining arm of the Russian nuclear agency Rosatom, bought controlling interest in the company. Among other places, that mining company had operations in Wyoming that amounted to what the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions or the NRC said was at the time was about 20% of the uranium production capacity in the U.S.
By law, when a foreign company wants to buy ANYTHING with potential national security implications, an interagency committee of the federal government must approve it. The committee was given a broad mandate under President Reagan to advise the president on foreign investment transactions.
That committee is called CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States). It includes nine department heads. The Secretary of the Treasury is the chair person. The rest are the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, Commerce, Defense, State and Energy, plus the Office of U.S. Trade Representative, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. That’s CFIUS. The nine department heads all approved the sale of Uranium One.
It was unanimous - not a Hillary Clinton approval.
Also, the State Department wasn't even represented by Hillary Clinton at CIFUS. The Assistant Secretary of State, Jose Fernando, represented the State Department on CFIUS, not Hillary Clinton. And Jose Fernando stated that Clinton never intervened.
Further, neither Secretary Clinton nor the committee as a whole could stop any deal of this kind, even if they wanted to.
The committee members evaluate the sale of anything potentially related to national security.
By law, if just one member objects, the president and only the president can veto such a transaction. No committee member of the nine objected.
The whole "Uranium One" accusation is predicated on the charge that "Secretary Clinton approved the sale". She did not, and more to the point, she couldn't because the as Secretary of State, she didn't have the power to do that.
This whole "Clinton and Obama gave away our uranium" thing is just plain bullshit.
Go ahead, think whatever you like. Don't take my word for it. These are the facts and you can verify all of them by spending a minute or two on Google.
That was just one example of a lie that was made up out of whole cloth to damage a candidate. Clinton wasn't the only one hit with these stories. Remember the "Ted Cruz's father was with Lee Harvey Oswald" story? It was pure bullshit too, and we all know it.
Modify message
The Windows 'ecosystem' was a vast wasteland punctuated by the occasional pile of steaming horseshit.
You could every app except the one you actually wanted or needed. But Microsoft made up for it with lots and lots of "fart" and flashlight apps.
They had a calendar that couldn't make or set appointments, meetings, or add notes. You couldn't mark a day or set a reminder because it was a view-only calendar, period. It was both utterly worthless AND the #1 rated calendar app in the Windows app store.
No, I don't miss it. I didn't even miss it when it was alive.
This is completely worthless. Given their 'requirements', who couldn't fake an identity well enough to get a Facebook page?
It's ridiculous, just more security theater to try and placate people (including the government who might step in and regulate them).
"as best we can tell, only a small fraction of our overall online customer population could have been caught up in this... incident"
Lol, "as best we can tell"
TRANSLATION: "They got all your data, every bit of it, but we're going to reveal this in a series of press releases in order to desensitize you to the scope of the loss."
So 84 accounts out of 345 million registered? Nothing in other words.
If they found 84, given that there are 345 million accounts, it's almost a certainty that there are others they missed.
Did they miss 10? Did they miss 500? 1000?
We don't know, but we have seen that a relatively small number of vocal shills can stir the pot and make trouble on a scale that's waaaaaay out of proportion to their numbers.
Don't worry! If you communicate with anyone that does use Facebook on their phone, then you're all good. They have your info and they've made a shadow profile for you :)
I don't think I know anyone like that.
Damn it, I've never had a Facebork account, so I missed out on getting all my data harvested by shady companies.
Is there any way that I could send it to them in bulk so I can catch up?
This should be easy- just find a way to invalidate the basic laws of physics and mathematics, and voilà, you got it!
... if social media loses viral impact beyond kitty pics, their stock prices will sink into the abyss from whence it came.
If there was a Kickstarter I could donate to that would cause social media to fail spectacularly and disappear, I'd put in some money.
I confess I didn't even know that "stealing tweets" was a thing. O Brave New World...
Alrighty then, I guess I'll go yell at some kids to get off my lawn after Matlock is over.
Is it April 1st already?
Why are the tabs at the TOP of the window in the title bar? That's a HORRIBLE design.
Yes, and you'll learn to like it, Citizen. Next you'll be asking us to make it configurable, you ungrateful user!
Welcome to 2005 or thereabouts, we hope you enjoy your stay.
I currently work for a major healthcare billing company. My team builds some very complex, enterprise-grade apps with a lot of bells and whistles. Our team has about 10 people on it, and there's roughly another dozen in a related group that does some of the software deployment and tooling.
I have no idea what we'd do with 100 engineers or employees, much less 3,000. That's almost 100 times the size of our entire combined team (although that's not counting all the people in other departments like sales, HR, research, etc).
How the hell could a craptastic piece of shit like Snapchat suck up 3,000 people? It's mind-boggling.
Exactly my question....
"Snap reported roughly 3,000 employees as of the December quarter"
What in the world could they be doing to need 3,000 people?? WTF?
Thank you. I read the summary and noticed that the 'editor' hadn't bothered to include so much as a single word explaining what the lawsuit was about.
Early Nokias (and several other phones) had a small sliding shutter that covered the lens. This isn't new.
Reason #683,215,971 why I won't have anything to do with Facebook.
"Trust us, we just want to scan every file on your device to umm, errr...to keep you safe, yeah, that's the ticket!"
Because we know how much Facebook values your privacy and that they would never ever misuse your information...
I don't "prefer" any smart speaker...I don't want any of them in my home, period .
If others want a smart speak, fine, but it's just not for me.
We hit "peak phone" quite a while ago, everything since then has been minor tweaks or adding bullshit "features" that practically no one uses.
For example, Samsung's "eye mode" where it keeps the screen on as long as you're looking at it. Whoopdedoo, how could I live without that?? Or their multiple on-screen swipable toolboxes and favorites and recently-used apps and blah blah blah blah blah. Or a configurable button that isn't allowed to do anything that I'd actually want it to do- it can't be assigned to anything worthwhile, so what's the point?
These gadgets/features are a sign of developers who are desperate to come up with something new but not necessarily useful.
Thank you; my apologies if my response was rude or ill-considered. I'm sometimes a little more terse than I should be.
This isn't Youtube (like the website), it's a TV service (like Dish or DirecTV).
Double-yawn.
Errr, I mean "you're placing on the table wrong."