Assange said it wasn't a government actor. Others with connections to Wikileaks have said it was a leak from inside the DNC (which wouldn't be surprising, there are of course members in the DNC who get annoyed by corruption).
It's worth noting that there are several sets of emails, and keeping track of them all and where they came from can be confusing.
Or that's just the narrative that the Russian agent told the wikileaks rep when he handed over the USB drive.
I'm aware of three sets of emails.
1) Hillary Clinton's emails on her private server. Never hacked, the subject of legal investigation . 2) The DNC emails hacked and leaked by Russians. 3) Podesta's emails phished and leaked by Russians.
And we have really good evidence that the DNC emails were hacked by the Russians, not only do we have the digital forensic evidence, which if nothing else is inconsistent with a leak. But we have Russian agents telling a member of Trump's campaign about the emails well before they ever went public (and probably before they got to wikileaks). That alone is a very strong piece of evidence suggesting collusion.
The organizers would occasionally be ratted out by their co-conspirators or people they tried to recruit.
Organisers? What organizers, you silly git? Do you and all the people you know need organizwes to get you to the polls? Or do you just mosey on over and cast a ballot?
So you expect that tens of thousands of illegal aliens are successfully impersonating people at the polls without any assistance or outside prompting?
Yeah, because what else do illegal aliens have to do besides risk jail time and deportation to cast a statistically insignificant vote!
Which begs the obvious question, do you have the slightest bit of credible evidence that non U.S. Citizens voting in significant numbers is a problem?
That's a cute bit of sleight of hand: allow people to vote without letting anyone ask them for proof of citizenship, then complain that there's no proof that non-citizens are voting.
Actually no.
IF wide scale in-person voter impersonation were happening then requiring IDs would be the solution.
BUT, if wide scale in-person voter impersonation were happening we'd have a lot of other evidence that it were happening.
The organizers would occasionally be ratted out by their co-conspirators or people they tried to recruit. Impersonators would occasionally try to impersonate a person the volunteer recognized, and be quickly apprehended. Illegal aliens arrested for deportation would offer to rat out the illegal voting organizers in exchange for a reprieve. You'd get routine instances of legal voters going to the polls and finding out they'd voted elsewhere.
You realize how hard it is to carry out a conspiracy involving a half-dozen people? To influence a national election you need at least tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of people. That it's actually happening and the evidence isn't so overwhelming as to be common knowledge just isn't realistic.
Very true. If he didn't confess he was going to jail.
He'd spent over a million on legal and lost his house and they were saying they were going after his son next. The judge who presided is currently reviewing everything which is almost unheard of after a plea. I'm sure you are a good guy and all but I'm equally sure that if a Special Council looked through your life close enough they could put you away. I had this same conversation with a friend who was high up in the Bill Clinton campaign. He didn't believe me. I rattled off a bunch of laws that I suspected he'd broken and let him know that all those could send him to prison. He said: "Oh, I didn't know doing those was illegal".
This isn't a "oops, I didn't report that $20 my buddy gave to help him move", it's a "I deliberately lied to the FBI to conceal the secret arrangement I made with the Russian ambassador" and "I secretly lobbied on behalf on the Turkish government while being a member of a Presidential campaign and helping that campaign decide policy about the Turkish government".
Most people don't actually go around violating laws on that scale because they try to do the right thing, and when you do the right thing you usually end up following the rules.
Of course, when you're deeply dishonest and unethical, looking to exploit every loophole you can, you're bound to screw up and violate laws. This is a lesson Trump and his crew are quickly discovering.
But I know that if any of my friends that I grew up with in Los Alamos did that with our nuclear secrets there would be hell to pay.
Your friends should also realize there's a big difference between sharing what you know to be classified information and sharing information you think is unclassified.
Federal law however has some strong things to say about how the 'actual' election is supposed to be run.
Except the obvious rule that voters have to provide proof of U.S. Citizenship.
Which begs the obvious question, do you have the slightest bit of credible evidence that non U.S. Citizens voting in significant numbers is a problem?
I'm tired of Republicans pretending this is a legitimate concern and not a disingenuous ploy to prevent U.S. Citizens from legally voting because they don't have government issued IDs.
People on Slashdot keep claiming merging the two is what Apple is working towards. Perhaps this explicit statement from the CEO that users do not want it and Apple has no plans to do so are enough to quiet the minds of such people, for at least a little while.
Ahh I get it.
It's a conspiracy! Tim Cook is lulling us into a false sense of security and SuperKendall is in on it!!!
They're serving Wikileaks with discovery? Imagine what they'll find.
Discover will produce Nothing... Wikileaks has no presence in the USA so there is nothing within the jurisdiction of US law enforcement to discover. Same with the majority of the remaining defendants... There will be nothing to the court can do to force discovery.
Of course, that doesn't preclude Wikilieaks from providing information about this voluntarily. Assuage has already discussed how these E-mail's came into Wikileaks hands during a TV interview with Shawn Hannity, but I don't think the Democrats want that information out in the open because it pretty much ends this lawsuit.
Spare me. If they'd found a shred of evidence it would have been leaked already like they leaked everything else.
Has Mueller's team actually leaked anything?
AFAIK all the "leaks" having reporters drawing inferences based on unavoidably public records, ie who Mueller hired, and what charges he filed, or people whom Mueller interviewed then talking about their interviews.
This whole "investigation" has been a sham trial by media and now they're just trying to goad Trump into doing something they can use to extend the party...
And by "something" you mean fire Mueller because he's terrified of what the investigation will turn up?
You seem to have quite the low opinion of Trump, you think the investigation is a complete sham, yet you're still worried that Trump (who would be more aware than anyone that it was a sham) would still commit political suicide by firing Mueller.
It's like you're a parent yelling at a toddler not to stick that fork in the electrical socket.
And more importantly Democratic Party got caught red handed by our Russian hackers conspiring to rig the primaries.
Time to stop publicly funding the partisan primary system. We shouldn't be publicly subsidizing secret cabals of rich well connected people conspiring to get "their people" into our government.
And by "caught red handed" you mean a bunch of insiders tried to remain impartial despite strongly preferring Clinton, and a Democratic operative in CNN slipped Clinton's camp a debate question.
I'm not saying the process was perfect, it was far from perfect. But talking about imperfect biases process as "rigged by secret cabals" leads to you overlook the actual rigging at work.
Their Mueller investigation must truly be going poorly. It's been over a year and they haven't found anything that says Trump colluded. They've found wrong doing by various underlings but, considering the average person commits three felonies a day.... Now the Democrats want their own investigation where they themselves can run it and leak with impunity.
And he's gotten a bunch of guilty pleas, including from Flynn, Papadopoulos, Gates who were some fairly important campaign members. Not to mention having Manafort absolutely dead-to-rights on really serious money laundering. Cohen, Trump's lawyer/fixer, being under direct investigation and having his documents seized. Not to mention Kushner, Trump's son in law, is now being investigated for both his company's long history of fishy dealings (submitting fraudulent docs for renovation permits), not to mention the question of who gave Kushner 1.2 billion to bail out the family business and why?
You are correct that we don't have any public indictments connecting the Trump campaign with Russian intelligence, but the investigation is far from over, and Mueller isn't likely to show his hand until he's ready to charge someone.
For instance, there's already rumours that Mueller has evidence that Cohen made a secret trip to Prague, an major allegation from the Steele Dossier that Cohen has denied. But Mueller may not want to make that evidence public at this point in the investigation, nor may he want to do it in October when he might be accused of inappropriate interference like Comey did. But if that evidence doesn't come out till after the election it doesn't help Democrats till 2020, and if they don't win a house they won't be able to launch congressional investigations.
More likely the suit has 3 objectives. 1) See if they can use subpoenas to get their hands on any proof of collusion before the midterms. 2) Open a line of legal inquiry going that Trump can't pardon/fire his was out of. 3) Keep generating Trump-Russia news. As they learned from the Clinton emails once the narrative is established all you need to do it trigger the keywords to be effective.
In a way, old times are going back to how they used to be.
Up until 1949, the US movie industry was dominated by the "big five" movie studios, in something called the "studio system". In the studio system, the studios not only made the movies, they owned the movie theaters as well, exercising monopoly control over independent theaters by forcing them to purchase and show less popular movies. In an age before TV where almost everybody went to the movies every week, that was guaranteed profit.
That's kind of what Netflix does with its interface. It started as a content middleman, but it's using its control of the app in your smart TV to steer you toward Netflix original content, most of which, like the vast majority of Golden Age Hollywood movies, are mediocre. Strategic ownership of theaters in places where they can influence taste makers is consistent with that strategy. It makes little sense on its own, and it's not a long-term strategy, it's a short-to-mid term strategy to increase brain share. That's obviously Netflix's long term game.
Not just that. If you want an endless volume of ad-free streaming TV Netflix is still the only game in town, meaning they can remain dominant as long as they have enough watchable content, but that's not going to last.
Soon other players are going to have Netflix-sized catalogues of watchable content, which means that Netflix will need to shoot for high quality TV shows and movies.
They're getting close with TV shows, they have a bunch of hits but no GoT style breakout hit, but that's just a matter of quality. If you make a show good enough the audience will come.
But movies are one-offs, it doesn't matter how good your movie is, if it's going to get noticed you need a major marketing push. And people still think of big screen movies and better than TV screen movies.
If Netflix wants to draw viewers in the future it needs respect for its movies. And if Netflix wants respect for its movies it needs box-office numbers and awards.
I could see maybe using NFC for certain devices. Go to your doctor to have an update applied from inches away, but wi-fi or other long range comms is just begging for a disaster.
NFC would still be problematic, since someone on the bus or bumping into you on the street could still get close enough to interface.
In general, I think you do need a physical interface that requires some kind of surgical day procedure to update.
I remember working in a moving company in high school, some of the guys would make ridiculously racist jokes they'd be ashamed to repeat elsewhere.
I've been in a bar with skilled labour types, they made dumbass political statements that have no bearing on reality.
Every little subculture creates their own little reality, of course silicon valley folks are making statements among themselves that make sense in no other context. I don't think silicon valley is worse than any other culture in this regard. And outside of the occasional bad startup idea I don't think their weird quirks are really causing problems.
That's partly because automating all ships could generate a ridiculous amount of revenue. According to the United Nations, 90 percent of the world's trade is carried by sea and 10.3 billion tons of products were shipped in 2016. According to NOAA's National Ocean Service, ships transported $1.5 trillion worth of cargo through U.S. ports in 2016. The world's 325 or so deep-sea shipping companies have a combined revenue of $10 billion.
Notice how none of these statistics address, at all, how much money there is in automating ships? Besides the hand-waving, the article doesn't address it at all.
I mean, I'm sure that there's some, but just because most cargo goes by sea doesn't necessarily mean anything in relation to whether automating ships can save any money or increase revenue.
Assume you manage to make it so unbelievably good that you eliminate every pilot, at ~$200k each you're saving ~$250 million a year for a company with revenue of $28 billion. Is a best-case 1% cost savings really revolutionary? And remember volume increases with the cube while area the square, meaning that bigger ships are more efficient in every way possible and they'll continue to grow in size. The cost of pilot wage relative to cargo will only continue to drop.
The article mentions that an auto-pilot may be able to drive the ship more efficiently, if so I think there's massive revenue potential, but merely eliminating the position of pilot seems inconsequential.
More likely I'd expect a plane-like auto-pilot driving 95% of the time while the virtually free pilots are there on standby. Most likely they have that already and the article is hyping based on bad assumptions.
An inanimate object didn't kill those people, a crazy person did. If guns didn't exist she would have used something else. That's what crazy people do.
But please, keep blaming the inanimate object.
Sure if she were completely rational she could have found a way of killing people that was roughly as effective.
As could have all the school shooters, abusive spouses, unstable young men, and other perpetrators of gun violence. But they generally don't.
Because their objective isn't specifically to kill people, instead they're obsessed with that specific narrative of going in there with a gun because a gun carries a very heavy cultural legacy of being a tool for taking human lives.
Note, this explains why terrorists have started using cars and bombs while random nutjobs haven't. The terrorist is actually just trying to take lives and cause damage so they're happy to change methods. The random nutjobs want something that can only be delivered with a gun.
Not all of them. Many politicians don't have an excessive need for admiration. They do what they must in order to get votes, but that's it.
Don't get me wrong here....I agree that all politicians are evil.
I disagree with this thinking, I agree that there's a disproportionate number of "evil" politicians, and a bunch more who went in good and were corrupted by the system. But I think there's a lot more who, despite being ambitious, are also genuinely trying to do what they think to be the right thing with integrity.
I find the "all politicians are evil" to be really counter-productive. It lets the bad ones get away with anything since they're all assumed to be evil anyways. And the good ones aren't rewarded for being good since people assume ulterior motives.
I think that's one of the things that got Trump elected, he was ridiculously corrupt and dishonest but a lot of people couldn't really register it because they already assumed all politicians to be completely corrupt and dishonest. If anything they found him more trustworthy because the corruption and lies were so obvious people didn't feel deceived and he seemed more honest.
I subject my beliefs and sources of information to constant scrutiny.
..as long as they conform to my confirmation bias, you mean?
If you think leftist news sources like CNN, Thinkprogress, Media Matters, MSNBC, or HuffPost aren't propaganda machines,
MSNBC and moreso HuffPost I treat with some skepticism, CNN is generally decent, I don't read enough Thinkprogress or Media Matters to have an opinion.
BTW, the guy you're replying to originally cited the Washington Post, hardly a conservative or right wing publication.
No he didn't. He cited the Washington Times, aka "The Moonie Times" since it's owned by The Moonies. It can write proper news, it can also have ridiculous conservative propaganda.
How much do HBO invest because they've consistently produced watchable "content". Netflix, Disney... not really.
I don't know though their revenue is about $2 billion.
Note that HBO and Netflix have very different models, HBO is an add-on to an existing cable package. They aren't looking for mildly watchable content that's just good enough to temporarily distract you from the existential horror of your life after you finish dinner, they need to produce really high quality content so people who already have TV with a bunch of watchable content will go out of their way to purchase HBO with those awesome shows they want to see.
So they don't want 20 decent shows, they just need 5 or 6 great shows.
Netflix doesn't need amazing content, if people really needs something special they'll get HBO Go or go out to a movie. Netflix needs to make sure you never get bored, open your guide, and can't find anything interesting to watch.
It's weird how you only claim to have researched the reporter and not the actual facts. You know, the inconsistencies among his claims in his book, videotaped testimony, etc....
Yeah, while debunking a hyperbolic claims about Comey leaking classified information via memos it's weird that I didn't mention anything about a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with the actual topic being discussed.
This is a rhetorical pit trap. You've labelled some sources untrustworthy so you don't bother to look at their evidence--and there's plenty of evidence to look at here, it's not like his testimony was recorded on video or anything--so you don't even have to think. Oh, it's from X, I can just stop thinking now! No need to see whether recorded statements contradict each other. Certainly no need to see whether a bar complaint exists. ZeroHedge said it, so it can't be true.
What a convenient position you have. There's no way out of it because no evidence can penetrate!
You miss the part where I dug up and read the original news article (the ONLY source of the claim I found) and researched the history of the reporter who wrote it.
The Moonie Times, Zero Hedge, World Nut Daily, Daily Caller, The Blaze, etc, etc, the usual suspects.
What is the basis for this and why are no serious publications reporting on this lawsuit? Because Ty Clevenger's lawsuit has no basis and zero chance of succeeding.
But the article doesn't actually cover when the information was deemed classified, it could very well have been classified after the fact in an effort to tar Comey. It also doesn't give any indication whether Comey would have reasonably thought the information to be classified, in fact he explicitly testified that he prepared the memos to be unclassified.
Because Trump has Comey pretty dead to rights on some leaks of information he was not authorized to share with the press. Trump would have been well within his legal rights and authority to haul Sessions into his office and bluntly tell him to impanel a grand jury under the principle that if we're going to prosecute seamen for taking selfies, we ought to crucify the Director of the FBI for acting like leaks are his discretionary power.
Really? What information did he illegally disclose? What laws would you prosecute him under?
There's nothing intrinsically classified about a private conversation with the President. Even executive privilege only allows subordinates to resist subpoenas, it can't actually prevent them from wilful disclosure.
Not without knowing the criteria the Pentagon is using to brand an actor as a "troll".
That said, I doubt an increase in activity of that magnitude from state agents is feasible. You don't keep 95% of your workforce slack. So for this to be true, either they hired a lot of people in a hurry, or they moved a lot of their trolls off of other projects onto the anti-America beat. But the thing is, that takes specialized language skills and training for a Russian.
I don't doubt that paid Russian anti-American trolls are working overtime, but I very much doubt they've upped their output by 21x. We are very likely to be looking at an increase in activity by a mix of paid mindfuckers and Internet randos who are doing it for their own reasons.
I think it's two things.
1) Russian has a huge internal propaganda industry, there's probably enough of those folk with English skills that you can reassign a bunch to US/international propaganda when you need a boost. 2) There's a lot of ordinary Russians with English skills who love Putin and love to argue for Russian interests on US site. You have a few internal propagandists stir the pot in Russia and those ordinary Russians decide to spend an evening mixing it up online.
Slashdot Mirror
Assange said it wasn't a government actor. Others with connections to Wikileaks have said it was a leak from inside the DNC (which wouldn't be surprising, there are of course members in the DNC who get annoyed by corruption).
It's worth noting that there are several sets of emails, and keeping track of them all and where they came from can be confusing.
Or that's just the narrative that the Russian agent told the wikileaks rep when he handed over the USB drive.
I'm aware of three sets of emails.
1) Hillary Clinton's emails on her private server. Never hacked, the subject of legal investigation .
2) The DNC emails hacked and leaked by Russians.
3) Podesta's emails phished and leaked by Russians.
And we have really good evidence that the DNC emails were hacked by the Russians, not only do we have the digital forensic evidence, which if nothing else is inconsistent with a leak. But we have Russian agents telling a member of Trump's campaign about the emails well before they ever went public (and probably before they got to wikileaks). That alone is a very strong piece of evidence suggesting collusion.
The organizers would occasionally be ratted out by their co-conspirators or people they tried to recruit.
Organisers? What organizers, you silly git? Do you and all the people you know need organizwes to get you to the polls? Or do you just mosey on over and cast a ballot?
So you expect that tens of thousands of illegal aliens are successfully impersonating people at the polls without any assistance or outside prompting?
Yeah, because what else do illegal aliens have to do besides risk jail time and deportation to cast a statistically insignificant vote!
Which begs the obvious question, do you have the slightest bit of credible evidence that non U.S. Citizens voting in significant numbers is a problem?
That's a cute bit of sleight of hand: allow people to vote without letting anyone ask them for proof of citizenship, then complain that there's no proof that non-citizens are voting.
Actually no.
IF wide scale in-person voter impersonation were happening then requiring IDs would be the solution.
BUT, if wide scale in-person voter impersonation were happening we'd have a lot of other evidence that it were happening.
The organizers would occasionally be ratted out by their co-conspirators or people they tried to recruit. Impersonators would occasionally try to impersonate a person the volunteer recognized, and be quickly apprehended. Illegal aliens arrested for deportation would offer to rat out the illegal voting organizers in exchange for a reprieve. You'd get routine instances of legal voters going to the polls and finding out they'd voted elsewhere.
You realize how hard it is to carry out a conspiracy involving a half-dozen people? To influence a national election you need at least tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of people. That it's actually happening and the evidence isn't so overwhelming as to be common knowledge just isn't realistic.
Not necessarily. Flynn's confession was coerced.
Very true. If he didn't confess he was going to jail.
He'd spent over a million on legal and lost his house and they were saying they were going after his son next. The judge who presided is currently reviewing everything which is almost unheard of after a plea. I'm sure you are a good guy and all but I'm equally sure that if a Special Council looked through your life close enough they could put you away. I had this same conversation with a friend who was high up in the Bill Clinton campaign. He didn't believe me. I rattled off a bunch of laws that I suspected he'd broken and let him know that all those could send him to prison. He said: "Oh, I didn't know doing those was illegal".
This isn't a "oops, I didn't report that $20 my buddy gave to help him move", it's a "I deliberately lied to the FBI to conceal the secret arrangement I made with the Russian ambassador" and "I secretly lobbied on behalf on the Turkish government while being a member of a Presidential campaign and helping that campaign decide policy about the Turkish government".
Most people don't actually go around violating laws on that scale because they try to do the right thing, and when you do the right thing you usually end up following the rules.
Of course, when you're deeply dishonest and unethical, looking to exploit every loophole you can, you're bound to screw up and violate laws. This is a lesson Trump and his crew are quickly discovering.
But I know that if any of my friends that I grew up with in Los Alamos did that with our nuclear secrets there would be hell to pay.
Your friends should also realize there's a big difference between sharing what you know to be classified information and sharing information you think is unclassified.
Federal law however has some strong things to say about how the 'actual' election is supposed to be run.
Except the obvious rule that voters have to provide proof of U.S. Citizenship.
Which begs the obvious question, do you have the slightest bit of credible evidence that non U.S. Citizens voting in significant numbers is a problem?
I'm tired of Republicans pretending this is a legitimate concern and not a disingenuous ploy to prevent U.S. Citizens from legally voting because they don't have government issued IDs.
People on Slashdot keep claiming merging the two is what Apple is working towards. Perhaps this explicit statement from the CEO that users do not want it and Apple has no plans to do so are enough to quiet the minds of such people, for at least a little while.
Ahh I get it.
It's a conspiracy! Tim Cook is lulling us into a false sense of security and SuperKendall is in on it!!!
They're serving Wikileaks with discovery? Imagine what they'll find.
Discover will produce Nothing... Wikileaks has no presence in the USA so there is nothing within the jurisdiction of US law enforcement to discover. Same with the majority of the remaining defendants... There will be nothing to the court can do to force discovery.
Of course, that doesn't preclude Wikilieaks from providing information about this voluntarily. Assuage has already discussed how these E-mail's came into Wikileaks hands during a TV interview with Shawn Hannity, but I don't think the Democrats want that information out in the open because it pretty much ends this lawsuit.
Really? When did Assange claim to get the emails? Because a Russian asset told Papadoloulos found about them in March 2016, which if I have the timelines right was when the Russians were still in the system.
Spare me. If they'd found a shred of evidence it would have been leaked already like they leaked everything else.
Has Mueller's team actually leaked anything?
AFAIK all the "leaks" having reporters drawing inferences based on unavoidably public records, ie who Mueller hired, and what charges he filed, or people whom Mueller interviewed then talking about their interviews.
This whole "investigation" has been a sham trial by media and now they're just trying to goad Trump into doing something they can use to extend the party...
And by "something" you mean fire Mueller because he's terrified of what the investigation will turn up?
You seem to have quite the low opinion of Trump, you think the investigation is a complete sham, yet you're still worried that Trump (who would be more aware than anyone that it was a sham) would still commit political suicide by firing Mueller.
It's like you're a parent yelling at a toddler not to stick that fork in the electrical socket.
And more importantly Democratic Party got caught red handed by our Russian hackers conspiring to rig the primaries.
Time to stop publicly funding the partisan primary system. We shouldn't be publicly subsidizing secret cabals of rich well connected people conspiring to get "their people" into our government.
And by "caught red handed" you mean a bunch of insiders tried to remain impartial despite strongly preferring Clinton, and a Democratic operative in CNN slipped Clinton's camp a debate question.
I'm not saying the process was perfect, it was far from perfect. But talking about imperfect biases process as "rigged by secret cabals" leads to you overlook the actual rigging at work.
Their Mueller investigation must truly be going poorly. It's been over a year and they haven't found anything that says Trump colluded. They've found wrong doing by various underlings but, considering the average person commits three felonies a day.... Now the Democrats want their own investigation where they themselves can run it and leak with impunity.
On the contrary Mueller's investigation seems to be moving fairly quickly.
And he's gotten a bunch of guilty pleas, including from Flynn, Papadopoulos, Gates who were some fairly important campaign members. Not to mention having Manafort absolutely dead-to-rights on really serious money laundering. Cohen, Trump's lawyer/fixer, being under direct investigation and having his documents seized. Not to mention Kushner, Trump's son in law, is now being investigated for both his company's long history of fishy dealings (submitting fraudulent docs for renovation permits), not to mention the question of who gave Kushner 1.2 billion to bail out the family business and why?
You are correct that we don't have any public indictments connecting the Trump campaign with Russian intelligence, but the investigation is far from over, and Mueller isn't likely to show his hand until he's ready to charge someone.
For instance, there's already rumours that Mueller has evidence that Cohen made a secret trip to Prague, an major allegation from the Steele Dossier that Cohen has denied. But Mueller may not want to make that evidence public at this point in the investigation, nor may he want to do it in October when he might be accused of inappropriate interference like Comey did. But if that evidence doesn't come out till after the election it doesn't help Democrats till 2020, and if they don't win a house they won't be able to launch congressional investigations.
More likely the suit has 3 objectives.
1) See if they can use subpoenas to get their hands on any proof of collusion before the midterms.
2) Open a line of legal inquiry going that Trump can't pardon/fire his was out of.
3) Keep generating Trump-Russia news. As they learned from the Clinton emails once the narrative is established all you need to do it trigger the keywords to be effective.
In a way, old times are going back to how they used to be.
Up until 1949, the US movie industry was dominated by the "big five" movie studios, in something called the "studio system". In the studio system, the studios not only made the movies, they owned the movie theaters as well, exercising monopoly control over independent theaters by forcing them to purchase and show less popular movies. In an age before TV where almost everybody went to the movies every week, that was guaranteed profit.
That's kind of what Netflix does with its interface. It started as a content middleman, but it's using its control of the app in your smart TV to steer you toward Netflix original content, most of which, like the vast majority of Golden Age Hollywood movies, are mediocre. Strategic ownership of theaters in places where they can influence taste makers is consistent with that strategy. It makes little sense on its own, and it's not a long-term strategy, it's a short-to-mid term strategy to increase brain share. That's obviously Netflix's long term game.
Not just that. If you want an endless volume of ad-free streaming TV Netflix is still the only game in town, meaning they can remain dominant as long as they have enough watchable content, but that's not going to last.
Soon other players are going to have Netflix-sized catalogues of watchable content, which means that Netflix will need to shoot for high quality TV shows and movies.
They're getting close with TV shows, they have a bunch of hits but no GoT style breakout hit, but that's just a matter of quality. If you make a show good enough the audience will come.
But movies are one-offs, it doesn't matter how good your movie is, if it's going to get noticed you need a major marketing push. And people still think of big screen movies and better than TV screen movies.
If Netflix wants to draw viewers in the future it needs respect for its movies. And if Netflix wants respect for its movies it needs box-office numbers and awards.
I could see maybe using NFC for certain devices. Go to your doctor to have an update applied from inches away, but wi-fi or other long range comms is just begging for a disaster.
NFC would still be problematic, since someone on the bus or bumping into you on the street could still get close enough to interface.
In general, I think you do need a physical interface that requires some kind of surgical day procedure to update.
I remember working in a moving company in high school, some of the guys would make ridiculously racist jokes they'd be ashamed to repeat elsewhere.
I've been in a bar with skilled labour types, they made dumbass political statements that have no bearing on reality.
Every little subculture creates their own little reality, of course silicon valley folks are making statements among themselves that make sense in no other context. I don't think silicon valley is worse than any other culture in this regard. And outside of the occasional bad startup idea I don't think their weird quirks are really causing problems.
That's partly because automating all ships could generate a ridiculous amount of revenue. According to the United Nations, 90 percent of the world's trade is carried by sea and 10.3 billion tons of products were shipped in 2016. According to NOAA's National Ocean Service, ships transported $1.5 trillion worth of cargo through U.S. ports in 2016. The world's 325 or so deep-sea shipping companies have a combined revenue of $10 billion.
Notice how none of these statistics address, at all, how much money there is in automating ships? Besides the hand-waving, the article doesn't address it at all.
I mean, I'm sure that there's some, but just because most cargo goes by sea doesn't necessarily mean anything in relation to whether automating ships can save any money or increase revenue.
I agree entirely.
These ships already require crews of dozens and carry cargo worth tens? hundreds of millions? The world's 2nd largest shipping company has 471 vessels, assume 1200 of its 24000 employees are pilots.
Assume you manage to make it so unbelievably good that you eliminate every pilot, at ~$200k each you're saving ~$250 million a year for a company with revenue of $28 billion. Is a best-case 1% cost savings really revolutionary? And remember volume increases with the cube while area the square, meaning that bigger ships are more efficient in every way possible and they'll continue to grow in size. The cost of pilot wage relative to cargo will only continue to drop.
The article mentions that an auto-pilot may be able to drive the ship more efficiently, if so I think there's massive revenue potential, but merely eliminating the position of pilot seems inconsequential.
More likely I'd expect a plane-like auto-pilot driving 95% of the time while the virtually free pilots are there on standby. Most likely they have that already and the article is hyping based on bad assumptions.
An inanimate object didn't kill those people, a crazy person did. If guns didn't exist she would have used something else. That's what crazy people do.
But please, keep blaming the inanimate object.
Sure if she were completely rational she could have found a way of killing people that was roughly as effective.
As could have all the school shooters, abusive spouses, unstable young men, and other perpetrators of gun violence. But they generally don't.
Because their objective isn't specifically to kill people, instead they're obsessed with that specific narrative of going in there with a gun because a gun carries a very heavy cultural legacy of being a tool for taking human lives.
Note, this explains why terrorists have started using cars and bombs while random nutjobs haven't. The terrorist is actually just trying to take lives and cause damage so they're happy to change methods. The random nutjobs want something that can only be delivered with a gun.
Not all of them. Many politicians don't have an excessive need for admiration. They do what they must in order to get votes, but that's it.
Don't get me wrong here....I agree that all politicians are evil.
I disagree with this thinking, I agree that there's a disproportionate number of "evil" politicians, and a bunch more who went in good and were corrupted by the system. But I think there's a lot more who, despite being ambitious, are also genuinely trying to do what they think to be the right thing with integrity.
I find the "all politicians are evil" to be really counter-productive. It lets the bad ones get away with anything since they're all assumed to be evil anyways. And the good ones aren't rewarded for being good since people assume ulterior motives.
I think that's one of the things that got Trump elected, he was ridiculously corrupt and dishonest but a lot of people couldn't really register it because they already assumed all politicians to be completely corrupt and dishonest. If anything they found him more trustworthy because the corruption and lies were so obvious people didn't feel deceived and he seemed more honest.
I subject my beliefs and sources of information to constant scrutiny.
If you think leftist news sources like CNN, Thinkprogress, Media Matters, MSNBC, or HuffPost aren't propaganda machines,
MSNBC and moreso HuffPost I treat with some skepticism, CNN is generally decent, I don't read enough Thinkprogress or Media Matters to have an opinion.
BTW, the guy you're replying to originally cited the Washington Post, hardly a conservative or right wing publication.
No he didn't. He cited the Washington Times, aka "The Moonie Times" since it's owned by The Moonies. It can write proper news, it can also have ridiculous conservative propaganda.
How much do HBO invest because they've consistently produced watchable "content". Netflix, Disney... not really.
I don't know though their revenue is about $2 billion.
Note that HBO and Netflix have very different models, HBO is an add-on to an existing cable package. They aren't looking for mildly watchable content that's just good enough to temporarily distract you from the existential horror of your life after you finish dinner, they need to produce really high quality content so people who already have TV with a bunch of watchable content will go out of their way to purchase HBO with those awesome shows they want to see.
So they don't want 20 decent shows, they just need 5 or 6 great shows.
Netflix doesn't need amazing content, if people really needs something special they'll get HBO Go or go out to a movie. Netflix needs to make sure you never get bored, open your guide, and can't find anything interesting to watch.
It's weird how you only claim to have researched the reporter and not the actual facts. You know, the inconsistencies among his claims in his book, videotaped testimony, etc. ...
Yeah, while debunking a hyperbolic claims about Comey leaking classified information via memos it's weird that I didn't mention anything about a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with the actual topic being discussed.
This is a rhetorical pit trap. You've labelled some sources untrustworthy so you don't bother to look at their evidence--and there's plenty of evidence to look at here, it's not like his testimony was recorded on video or anything--so you don't even have to think. Oh, it's from X, I can just stop thinking now! No need to see whether recorded statements contradict each other. Certainly no need to see whether a bar complaint exists. ZeroHedge said it, so it can't be true.
What a convenient position you have. There's no way out of it because no evidence can penetrate!
You miss the part where I dug up and read the original news article (the ONLY source of the claim I found) and researched the history of the reporter who wrote it.
Odd how quickly you trust news stories that come from other biases only and from even less credible sources when you want them to be true.
How often do you put your own beliefs on news through the same process?
I subject my beliefs and sources of information to constant scrutiny.
But I'm under no obligation to treat the far-right propagandist cargo cults masquerading as news organizations with anything other than scorn.
Again with this one, I did my obligatory research, and in place of a fire I found clowns throwing smoke bombs.
So you don't think Comey lying under oath was a bad thing?
When did Comey lie under oath?
How about the leaks that could cost him is license to practice law?
Let's look for more information
The Moonie Times, Zero Hedge, World Nut Daily, Daily Caller, The Blaze, etc, etc, the usual suspects.
What is the basis for this and why are no serious publications reporting on this lawsuit? Because Ty Clevenger's lawsuit has no basis and zero chance of succeeding.
The whole thing is based on an article claiming that 4 out of 7 of Comey's memos had confidential information, and therefore he must have forwarded at least one classified memo to his law-school friend.
But the article doesn't actually cover when the information was deemed classified, it could very well have been classified after the fact in an effort to tar Comey. It also doesn't give any indication whether Comey would have reasonably thought the information to be classified, in fact he explicitly testified that he prepared the memos to be unclassified.
Not to mention the original reporter and only source I found has a history of inaccurate reporting, so we could be missing some crucial context.
Because Trump has Comey pretty dead to rights on some leaks of information he was not authorized to share with the press. Trump would have been well within his legal rights and authority to haul Sessions into his office and bluntly tell him to impanel a grand jury under the principle that if we're going to prosecute seamen for taking selfies, we ought to crucify the Director of the FBI for acting like leaks are his discretionary power.
Really? What information did he illegally disclose? What laws would you prosecute him under?
There's nothing intrinsically classified about a private conversation with the President. Even executive privilege only allows subordinates to resist subpoenas, it can't actually prevent them from wilful disclosure.
Not without knowing the criteria the Pentagon is using to brand an actor as a "troll".
That said, I doubt an increase in activity of that magnitude from state agents is feasible. You don't keep 95% of your workforce slack. So for this to be true, either they hired a lot of people in a hurry, or they moved a lot of their trolls off of other projects onto the anti-America beat. But the thing is, that takes specialized language skills and training for a Russian.
I don't doubt that paid Russian anti-American trolls are working overtime, but I very much doubt they've upped their output by 21x. We are very likely to be looking at an increase in activity by a mix of paid mindfuckers and Internet randos who are doing it for their own reasons.
I think it's two things.
1) Russian has a huge internal propaganda industry, there's probably enough of those folk with English skills that you can reassign a bunch to US/international propaganda when you need a boost.
2) There's a lot of ordinary Russians with English skills who love Putin and love to argue for Russian interests on US site. You have a few internal propagandists stir the pot in Russia and those ordinary Russians decide to spend an evening mixing it up online.