The term "October Surprise" exists for a reason. If I were Assange, I would leak in the 24 hours before a debate, or in the 72 hours before the election. We'll see what he does.
Baloo has replaced nepomuk and is much better behaved. Akonadi and Telepathy are frequent sources of frustration for me though. Also, the Network Manager can crash all Plasma widgets and window decorations, which is very annoying—I don't know if this is an OpenSuse or KDE bug.
As I mentioned a couple months ago (modded +5!), it remains the least annoying DE for me.
"Editorial review" is not just redacting or withholding of certain documents, it is also choosing the time and context of the release. I'll also point out the obvious:that they almost certainly withhold documents harmful to Wikileaks
Assange has a professed his dislike of Hillary Clinton, and his timing of releases is clearly intended to harm her campaign. Information transparency is not their cause, otherwise they would have been more honest about today's fundraiser. Instead they hyped it as the end of the Clinton campaign.
There is so much wrong with this post in light of its being modded up. First, as every/.er but you and the moduppers know: believing "sic hoc ergo propter hoc" is a hell of a way to go through life. A DNC staffer was murdered, but there is no reason to believe that he was in a position to know anything about the leaks—let alone that he was murdered because of them. Assange himself has refused to confirm that the murdered staffer was in any way connected to the leaks—and this would be a yuuuuge blockbuster. Given Assange's obvious cherrypicking and anti-Clinton agenda, it is fair to say that there is no "there" there.
The notion that the DNC conspired to keep Sanders out of the race, or that they were "busted" doing so, is pure BS and not backed up by the emails or voicemails released by Assange. The DNC insiders were not happy about a non-Democrat fringe candidate from a tiny state potentially winning the nomination, but they didn't actually do anything to top him (except that before he or anyone but Clinton was a serious candidate they set the schedule up to benefit Clinton).
So the AC below is correct: go back to Breitbart, troll.
I think people should be able to limit the use of their personal information by private companies, but this sounds like a dumb law and unconstitutional as well. I hope the state does not spend too much money defending it, and I hope that the decision declaring the law unconstitutional does not make less-dumb legislation impossible.
You really do not seem to have a strong grasp of any of this. Trump has literally said we should "knock the hell out of them and take the oil." I think that provides a pretty good basis for knowing what he would do with the most powerful military on earth. You are also wrong when you say:
Do you think corrupting American elections is not fucking-over America? Hell, if the Russians did as much as telling the truth to change the election results that is seem as bad. What about cheating on the elections and stripping the American people from the candidate they apparently wanted?
Russia's "telling the truth" as you put it (that is, hacking and releasing emails) do not indicate that there was "cheating and stripping." Clinton won the popular vote by several million votes. The allegations of corruption, such as they are, are that the DNC put its thumb on the scale in her favor. That thumb didn't help much against Obama, and Clinton beat Sanders by millions more votes than Obama beat her in 2008.
Isn't Libya and Syria to fuck the globe over? What about the recent weapons selling to the UAE, that are currently bombing civilians in Yemen?
Libya, Syria, and Yemen are humanitarian disasters, but these disasters are, at worst, exacerbated by outside powers. The intervening great and regional powers envision "least bad" outcomes and take steps to bring about this outcomes. It sounds like you think the US's "least bad" outcome is bad. Don't you think Trump's open imperialism is worse?
"Bernie and Clinton won popular votes by roughly the ratio of their campaign spending, so the extra $60 million made a huge difference."
This article indicates that Clinton almost invariably spent less than Sanders on TV ads: https://www.publicintegrity.or... isn't the only form of spending, but it is a big one.
It is worth reminding people that Clinton won the popular vote by several million votes. The popular vote total is here: http://www.realclearpolitics.c...!
I disagree with your belief that it is corrupt for an organisation to try to control who runs under its banner. The caucuses that Sanders did so well in are predicated on the belief that the engaged, core-members of the party should be able to decide what the party does; the superdelegates that Sanders urged to switch votes are based on the same premise.
Clinton won the popular vote and the superdelegate (elite vote) and therefore won the nomination. Now if Sanders had convinced the superdelegates to switch to him, and thereby overruled the popular vote, you may have a case that Sanders victory was illegitimate.
However, if this happened, I would not hesitate to "reward" Sanders in the general election because many of my policy preferences jibe with Sanders' and because Trump is—as the lady said—deplorable.
But really what did the DNC do do Sanders (who was not a Democrat prior to trying to run for President as one)?
They said mean things in private? They stacked the deck for her prior to Bernie running? And you think it is worth fucking-over America (the globe even!) so that she is not "rewarded"?
It will make a yuuuuge difference whether HRC or Trump wins. Remember that people were saying there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between Bush and Gore. Does anyone on Earth think that Gore would have been as bad in policy or implementation on any issue?
Trump is Bush with more bankruptcies, less military service, and no discernible interest in anything about the job other than power.
I sincerely hope it is only Theilatans modding you up.
In order to function as a deterrent the penalty against something must make the crime unappealing. If you pirate a $10 movie and the maximum penalty is $20 then it is economically rational to pirate a movie if you have only a 50% chance of being caught.
The chance of being prosecuted for torrenting is, I bet, about 0.0000001. So to deter people, the penalty has to be much more severe to make the crime economically irrational.
And economic self interest is the the baseline for an effective penalty, not the ceiling.
Could you provide a link to the actual emails in question? Is the violation more or less serious than Trump soliciting contributions from foreign officials? Has anyone every been prosecuted for the violation?
TIA
Default is when the defendant hasn't replied. An MSJ asks the court to give you a . . . summary judgment that you win, because it is the only conclusion possible under the agreed upon facts. I would think the documents are on PACER and possibly free through https://free.law/recap/.
I no longer follow Aaron Siego's blog or planetkde very closely, but KDE seems to be improving and remains the least annoying DE for me. However, the curb appeal is an issue and Konqueror does indeed seem dead and I don't think there are enough developers who want it working to revive it.
I think most of the problems are from the heavy redevelopment for Plasma 5+ combined with the lack of a major distro to underwrite it. We see Gnome flailing around and paying developers to do the things users hate, and a small contingent of hobbiests and grantees keeping Mate going. KDE is trying to push things forward with a similarly small developer base. I don't think there are many users who want to return to KDE 3.5 (as good as it was).
Kontact/Kmail is retro looking, but only marginally compared to the Evolution screenshots I just looked at. The problem with Kmail is the backend, Akonadi, which frequently misbehaves and offers no practical advantage (except to developers, who could access the unified backend if they were working on PIM programs, which they aren't.)
"There are just too many bodies in the Clintons' past to say it's all coincidence."
This is obviously untrue: the validity of one allegation has nothing to do with the others. Ordinarily it is fair to assume that "where there is smoke there is fire." But as with the 4 examples above, often the smoke is imagined or made up by people who really, really want the Clintons caught doing *something*.
Snopes has pretty good explanations of the other "Arkancide victims." I know it has become fashionable on the right to dismiss Snopes as leftist, especially since the whole Obama Birth Certificate thing. Accepting this as true, at least you have facts that you can verify yourself, rather than swallowing falsehoods wholesale, and assuming that because X% must be true, the Clintons are as bad as the mafia.
Meh. Nobody is saying that Trump was running Russia and OP isn't saying that Russia hacked in for Trump. Russian hackers (or hackers from Russia, if you prefer) got into the DNC because they could, and they have since used the info to serve their ends. It is a bonus from their perspective that they get to help Trump--rather than a non Putinista like Rubio or Cruz-but not a prerequisite.
In order for it to look like a conspiracy you need to make up a whole bunch of stuff. For example, with Rich, people made up the FBI meeting and the leak to provide a motive for his being shot. There is no evidence for either.
John Ashe: People made up that he was going to testify against HRC in his bribery trial-there is no reason to believe he was going to do so other than to connect his suicide to HRC. My guess is that it was an unprovable suicide (choked by a barbell) to avoid conviction and allow his family to collect life insurance.
Victor Thorne: Holocaust denialist conspiracy theorist, said mean things about the Clintons. This is a fringe author's fringe author, who is more famous dead than alive. I have a hard time believing that he managed to lean anything worth killing for. Plus he appears to have committed suicide.
Shawn Lucas, a process server (not lead attorney!) in a lawsuit going nowhere against the DNC. The conspiracy mongers had to lie (rather than just BS) because even they know that a process server would not have confidential information and killing a process server would accomplish nothing.
But to many the lack of evidence just shows how deep the conspiracy runs...
Indeed. Assange merely hinting suggests that he is trying to mislead: outrage would be the appropriate response. Surely outing the leak after he has been killed for leaking does no harm and helps expose his murderers. Instead we get innuendo from an advocate for radical transparency.
Aren't the emails just people talking about a story about astroturf on Fox News? I haven't read them, but does talking about a story prove it is 100% true?
And of course the stories about Russians (100% proven to astroturf BTW—and not always with ACs) are because the Russians are widely believed to have supplied the info to wikileaks.
Where did you hear this? Maybe they got the price difference, or maybe the telephone company settled, but I've never heard of a small claims court being able to force anyone (telephone company) to do anything (provide service).
There is a difference between breaking a law with the hopes of directly profiting from it, and committing civil disobedience in the hopes of having a law perceived as unjust changed.
Someone selling knockoff sandals is not taking a stand, they are trying to ride the coattails of brand recognition and consumer credulity for fun and profit and people can condemn that behavior while supporting people who peacefully break other laws as a form of protest.
Blocking freeways is several kinds of dumb and counterproductive, but people understand that the protesters were doing it to make a point, rather than shorten their trip from one side of the freeway to the other.
Slashdot Mirror
The term "October Surprise" exists for a reason. If I were Assange, I would leak in the 24 hours before a debate, or in the 72 hours before the election. We'll see what he does.
Baloo has replaced nepomuk and is much better behaved. Akonadi and Telepathy are frequent sources of frustration for me though. Also, the Network Manager can crash all Plasma widgets and window decorations, which is very annoying—I don't know if this is an OpenSuse or KDE bug. As I mentioned a couple months ago (modded +5!), it remains the least annoying DE for me.
"Editorial review" is not just redacting or withholding of certain documents, it is also choosing the time and context of the release. I'll also point out the obvious:that they almost certainly withhold documents harmful to Wikileaks
Assange has a professed his dislike of Hillary Clinton, and his timing of releases is clearly intended to harm her campaign. Information transparency is not their cause, otherwise they would have been more honest about today's fundraiser. Instead they hyped it as the end of the Clinton campaign.
Send in two résumés
There is so much wrong with this post in light of its being modded up. First, as every /.er but you and the moduppers know: believing "sic hoc ergo propter hoc" is a hell of a way to go through life. A DNC staffer was murdered, but there is no reason to believe that he was in a position to know anything about the leaks—let alone that he was murdered because of them. Assange himself has refused to confirm that the murdered staffer was in any way connected to the leaks—and this would be a yuuuuge blockbuster. Given Assange's obvious cherrypicking and anti-Clinton agenda, it is fair to say that there is no "there" there.
The notion that the DNC conspired to keep Sanders out of the race, or that they were "busted" doing so, is pure BS and not backed up by the emails or voicemails released by Assange. The DNC insiders were not happy about a non-Democrat fringe candidate from a tiny state potentially winning the nomination, but they didn't actually do anything to top him (except that before he or anyone but Clinton was a serious candidate they set the schedule up to benefit Clinton).
So the AC below is correct: go back to Breitbart, troll.
No I have not read TFL. Why do you ask?
Do you think corrupting American elections is not fucking-over America? Hell, if the Russians did as much as telling the truth to change the election results that is seem as bad. What about cheating on the elections and stripping the American people from the candidate they apparently wanted?
Russia's "telling the truth" as you put it (that is, hacking and releasing emails) do not indicate that there was "cheating and stripping." Clinton won the popular vote by several million votes. The allegations of corruption, such as they are, are that the DNC put its thumb on the scale in her favor. That thumb didn't help much against Obama, and Clinton beat Sanders by millions more votes than Obama beat her in 2008.
Isn't Libya and Syria to fuck the globe over? What about the recent weapons selling to the UAE, that are currently bombing civilians in Yemen?
Libya, Syria, and Yemen are humanitarian disasters, but these disasters are, at worst, exacerbated by outside powers. The intervening great and regional powers envision "least bad" outcomes and take steps to bring about this outcomes. It sounds like you think the US's "least bad" outcome is bad. Don't you think Trump's open imperialism is worse?
This article indicates that Clinton almost invariably spent less than Sanders on TV ads: https://www.publicintegrity.or... isn't the only form of spending, but it is a big one.
It is worth reminding people that Clinton won the popular vote by several million votes. The popular vote total is here: http://www.realclearpolitics.c...!
I disagree with your belief that it is corrupt for an organisation to try to control who runs under its banner. The caucuses that Sanders did so well in are predicated on the belief that the engaged, core-members of the party should be able to decide what the party does; the superdelegates that Sanders urged to switch votes are based on the same premise.
Clinton won the popular vote and the superdelegate (elite vote) and therefore won the nomination. Now if Sanders had convinced the superdelegates to switch to him, and thereby overruled the popular vote, you may have a case that Sanders victory was illegitimate.
However, if this happened, I would not hesitate to "reward" Sanders in the general election because many of my policy preferences jibe with Sanders' and because Trump is—as the lady said—deplorable.
Hitler is dead. But I think Godwin still lives.
They said mean things in private? They stacked the deck for her prior to Bernie running? And you think it is worth fucking-over America (the globe even!) so that she is not "rewarded"?
It will make a yuuuuge difference whether HRC or Trump wins. Remember that people were saying there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between Bush and Gore. Does anyone on Earth think that Gore would have been as bad in policy or implementation on any issue?
Trump is Bush with more bankruptcies, less military service, and no discernible interest in anything about the job other than power.
I sincerely hope it is only Theilatans modding you up.
In order to function as a deterrent the penalty against something must make the crime unappealing. If you pirate a $10 movie and the maximum penalty is $20 then it is economically rational to pirate a movie if you have only a 50% chance of being caught. The chance of being prosecuted for torrenting is, I bet, about 0.0000001. So to deter people, the penalty has to be much more severe to make the crime economically irrational. And economic self interest is the the baseline for an effective penalty, not the ceiling.
Could you provide a link to the actual emails in question? Is the violation more or less serious than Trump soliciting contributions from foreign officials? Has anyone every been prosecuted for the violation? TIA
Default is when the defendant hasn't replied. An MSJ asks the court to give you a . . . summary judgment that you win, because it is the only conclusion possible under the agreed upon facts. I would think the documents are on PACER and possibly free through https://free.law/recap/.
They also effectively redact (or more properly edit) by not releasing things at all.
I no longer follow Aaron Siego's blog or planetkde very closely, but KDE seems to be improving and remains the least annoying DE for me. However, the curb appeal is an issue and Konqueror does indeed seem dead and I don't think there are enough developers who want it working to revive it. I think most of the problems are from the heavy redevelopment for Plasma 5+ combined with the lack of a major distro to underwrite it. We see Gnome flailing around and paying developers to do the things users hate, and a small contingent of hobbiests and grantees keeping Mate going. KDE is trying to push things forward with a similarly small developer base. I don't think there are many users who want to return to KDE 3.5 (as good as it was). Kontact/Kmail is retro looking, but only marginally compared to the Evolution screenshots I just looked at. The problem with Kmail is the backend, Akonadi, which frequently misbehaves and offers no practical advantage (except to developers, who could access the unified backend if they were working on PIM programs, which they aren't.)
This is obviously untrue: the validity of one allegation has nothing to do with the others. Ordinarily it is fair to assume that "where there is smoke there is fire." But as with the 4 examples above, often the smoke is imagined or made up by people who really, really want the Clintons caught doing *something*.
Snopes has pretty good explanations of the other "Arkancide victims." I know it has become fashionable on the right to dismiss Snopes as leftist, especially since the whole Obama Birth Certificate thing. Accepting this as true, at least you have facts that you can verify yourself, rather than swallowing falsehoods wholesale, and assuming that because X% must be true, the Clintons are as bad as the mafia.
Meh. Nobody is saying that Trump was running Russia and OP isn't saying that Russia hacked in for Trump. Russian hackers (or hackers from Russia, if you prefer) got into the DNC because they could, and they have since used the info to serve their ends. It is a bonus from their perspective that they get to help Trump--rather than a non Putinista like Rubio or Cruz-but not a prerequisite.
John Ashe: People made up that he was going to testify against HRC in his bribery trial-there is no reason to believe he was going to do so other than to connect his suicide to HRC. My guess is that it was an unprovable suicide (choked by a barbell) to avoid conviction and allow his family to collect life insurance.
Victor Thorne: Holocaust denialist conspiracy theorist, said mean things about the Clintons. This is a fringe author's fringe author, who is more famous dead than alive. I have a hard time believing that he managed to lean anything worth killing for. Plus he appears to have committed suicide.
Shawn Lucas, a process server (not lead attorney!) in a lawsuit going nowhere against the DNC. The conspiracy mongers had to lie (rather than just BS) because even they know that a process server would not have confidential information and killing a process server would accomplish nothing.
But to many the lack of evidence just shows how deep the conspiracy runs...
Indeed. Assange merely hinting suggests that he is trying to mislead: outrage would be the appropriate response. Surely outing the leak after he has been killed for leaking does no harm and helps expose his murderers. Instead we get innuendo from an advocate for radical transparency.
Aren't the emails just people talking about a story about astroturf on Fox News? I haven't read them, but does talking about a story prove it is 100% true? And of course the stories about Russians (100% proven to astroturf BTW—and not always with ACs) are because the Russians are widely believed to have supplied the info to wikileaks.
I'll bet you that 99.999% of non-Chinese companies are better off being sued outside China.
Where did you hear this? Maybe they got the price difference, or maybe the telephone company settled, but I've never heard of a small claims court being able to force anyone (telephone company) to do anything (provide service).
Someone selling knockoff sandals is not taking a stand, they are trying to ride the coattails of brand recognition and consumer credulity for fun and profit and people can condemn that behavior while supporting people who peacefully break other laws as a form of protest.
Blocking freeways is several kinds of dumb and counterproductive, but people understand that the protesters were doing it to make a point, rather than shorten their trip from one side of the freeway to the other.
If Aaron Schwartz hadn't killed himself he'd be alive too.
I don't think anyone in history has said that minimum == plenty.