Not quite. From the article linked: "The agency says it does have data logs on the attack but can't release those for privacy reasons."
So, it's not that it "has no documentation"-- it's that it can't (or won't) release documentation.
Not the same thing.
It's about the size of the lie.
Saying "it happened but we can't release any details". Is consistent with both a real DDOS and "well some IT staff thought it was a DDOS so we just kinda assumed they were right". Even if they're deliberately lying they haven't said enough to get in trouble.
Now, to release a paper trail means you're either releasing doctored evidence or evidence that is clearly wrong. Either way it's a lot easier to hold someone accountable. That's why the media pushes for these kinds of documents, because it holds officials accountable in a way that public statements can't.
Now, the attorney in question has been there since 2011, so she's not a Trump appointee and is probably legit... But Trump's appointees have had a few months to start asserting their authority. I'm not saying you shouldn't have been sceptical of official statements from Government organizations previously, but whatever scepticism you did have you should increase about 10-fold.
There is a final twist to this, if you're talking about evidence of a DDOS there is a legit concern about how easily you can anonymize it, even if you do strip out IPs some enterprising admin might recognize some timestamps from their own logs.
I used to work at a drug manufacturer that did stability testing required by the FDA.
From each lot that's manufactured, they put some of the tablets in a bottle and leave the bottle in a large closet with controlled humidity and temperature. Then every couple months someone goes in, gets the bottle, and performs an assay on a bunch of tablets. This keeps going on schedule until the expiration date, when they stop doing the testing and throw the bottle out. In general that's all that an expiration date is- nobody's doing stability tests on that lot of tablets anymore.
Thank you for the detail. There is an outstanding question.
Exactly how does the drug company initially determine an expiration date?
From your explanation, it is not based on testing or science at all. This merely suggests that Greed determines how long an expiration date is. Not that I'm surprised mind you. This is the Big Pharma we're talking about here. Part of the United States Medical Industrial Complex. Greed is part of their Creed.
I make no argument that pharma is super greedy.
But there might be a more logical explanation, such as you can't ship the drug until you give it an expiration date.
I'm really not convinced by these arguments that our ancestors were somehow multi marathon fit and could run down anything on the plain. No native peoples today do that - they wound first with spears or arrows then follow it until it dies, they don't wear it down physically!
Of course, how common a strategy that is an open question, but the average male in those populations clearly has the capability, and I suspect an average European male could do the same if raised in those environments.
As for running down a horse, you must be joking. Horses can gallop then trot for hours, long after even the fittest marathon runner would be in a sweaty heap on the ground panting like dog. And unless you're a first class tracker you're never going to find that horse that has probably put 10 miles between you and him in the first hour.
One of the keys to persistence hunting, running the antelope to exhaustion wasn't done by beating the antelope in a well paced marathon, it was done by running a very efficient pace and forcing the antelope into repeated sprints.
Running down a horse with a rider, who can simply pick a pace slightly faster than the runner and take off in the opposite direction, would be quite difficult.
Running down a wild horse, who is going to repeatedly spook, launch into an inefficient gallop, and then stop as soon as you're well out of sight, would be comparatively easy.
I would think larger animals are either hunters or veg eaters. Huge scavengers might have a hard time finding enough food to fulfill their needs.
Maybe there were enough large dead or injured things lying around, but I would expect scavengers to be on the smaller side.
If T. Rex had a big nose and hung around herds there may have been a lot of opportunity to scavenge. Basically every kill that happens in the neighbourhood is yours for the taking.
As for size, a bunch of smaller predators are fast and can use teamwork to bring down a big herbivore, but once that meal is on the ground they don't have the size to defend the kill from a big carnivore. Doesn't matter who brought it down, once they T. Rex shows up it's the T. Rex's meal.
People used to think that hyenas were scavengers, stealing lion kills, but it turned out to be the other way around.
The greatest reaction, by far, was the plain rice cake. That person had the greatest rise in blood sugar followed by a greater drop and actually got a little shaky.
The point of the experiment was to show some misconceptions. Everyone thought the rice cake was healthy and the candy bar and fatty ham was unhealthy.
Insulin gets unfairly demonized, if you're not diabetic I don't think that's a problem,
That's why restaurants like to start you off with bread while you're perusing the menu. It ain't just being hospitable. They want your blood sugar to be plummeting when you order.
They give you bread because bread is a cheap filler.
They don't want you hungry and pissed off while waiting for the food, and once the meal comes if it isn't quite enough they want still want you going away with a satisfied appetite.
Now the guy might be lying and the autopilot was never engage, but, if we're to assume he's being honest the autopilot might still be at fault.
But in an email sent Monday afternoon to the sheriff's office, Clark said he was confused in the moments after the crash. After discussing the crash with his fellow passengers, he now believes that he disengaged Autopilot by stepping on the accelerator before the crash.
"I then remember looking up and seeing the sharp left turn which I was accelerating into. I believe we started to make the turn but then felt the car give way and lose its footing like we hit loose gravel," Clark wrote in the email.
The biggest problem with Tesla's partial autopilot is that there's a lot of situations where it's extremely difficult to switch back and forth safely. Assuming he's being truthful it sounds like this is exactly what happened, that he accidentally disengaged the autopilot at the wrong time and didn't realize he was in control of the vehicle.
Imagine if we had banned Science and Math outright early on in our history because of the potential for what it could be used for.
We would still be living in caves and hunting with spears.
Imagine if we hadn't enacted some bans and regulation on Nuclear technology.
We might be living in caves and hunting with spears.
The only thing we do know about strong AI is it does have the potential to be extremely dangerous, because we know intelligent things can be extremely dangerous. We don't know how far we are from creating strong AI, but it's not too early to start figuring out how to mitigate the risk.
>They've been in complete denial of the scientific consensus of climate change
I see you forgot about global warming.
So climate change is wrong because scientists used to use a different term to communicate it to the public??
Thats pretty convenient, because the climate always changes, so tell me again about this science of climate change and runaway warming as we enter the grand solar minimum, and galactic cosmic rays cause atmospheric compression events which result in deluges of precipitation, the likes of which haven't been seen in damn near a hundred years.
You have a google machine, I'm not going to even bother to debunk this.
Skiing in august in California for instance.
Oh year, that drought that climate experts said was going to last 'forever' is also over, and the oroville dam almost collapsed because they were betting on the 'climate change orthodoxy' which makes you into a 'denier' if you disagree. Looks like the orthodoxy was dead wrong about California.
Also, winter wheat crops were devastated this year. Something like 25-35% losses.
As we go further into the grand solar minimum the climate is going to change drastically, but not in any way like has been predicted.
Short term regional predictions are irrelevant to the validity of climate change.
Science isn't done on a 'denier'/'believer' basis, and the left if it really does love science will stop using terms like that.
No it isn't, because the deniers aren't doing science.
If you read the article, you would have seen that a mistake was made in the website. It was not a malicious act. Yet, you and other posters act like this is some vast conspiracy against privacy.
Not exactly a malicious act, instead it's a mix of incompetency and a complete lack of concern about things like privacy.
When you take a incompetent people, and give them a checklist of rules they don't care about, they're going to violate those rules. That's why the Trump administration keeps having scandals.
The otter convient fact is that the voter roles are being looked into because there are wide scale voter fraud.
Just how many fraudulent voters do you think the left has? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions?
Don't you find it interesting that the left can apparently organize a small army of illegal voters and no one comes forward to spill the beans? Seriously, can you find a single reputable person who claims to be part of this massive fraud effort?
Meanwhile, Trump can't organize a meeting with a half-dozen people without it leaking to the press.
I disagree somewhat with both you and the person you're responding to. I don't think it's explicitly the engineering or math that is upsetting them, and I don't think it's "brainwashing". The real problem is that, when you get a broad education and actually learn about the world we live in, modern Republican ideology is revealed to be complete insanity.
I think that misses the underlying causes.
Both Leftism and Conservatism are fundamentally about identity, which is social. People don't care about economics they way they do social issues, economics only determines how much money you have, but social policies determine which tribe is winning.
Conservatism is fundamentally about creating a peaceful safe community, that's why they tend to be more supportive of law enforcement, more outwardly patriotic, and less tolerant of diversity, they want a strong unified community. The idea of Conservatism is people should be be free to do whatever they want, and the way to ensure that is a strong community that ensures that people only want things that are good for the community.
Leftism champions individual liberty so that you're free to truly express yourself, that means that law enforcement should only be used as a last resort, group identities are viewed with suspicion, and people should only be part of the communities they want.
Universities are about learning and research, and those work best when people are free to experiment and push intellectual boundaries, ie leftism. That's why Universities will always have a tendency to lean left.
Boy that's some fancy quote chopping going on there. In a sentence on the specific issues Melvin has, consisting of 32 words, 10 of them are actual words spoken by Melvin. The rest are the reporter's words. Not saying the guy isn't an idiot, he might be for all I know (I'm not in AZ). But whenever I see that much quote chopping and editing in an article, I'm immediately suspicious that some one is being made to say something very different from what they actually said.
Possible, but reputable reporters typically don't do that.
More likely the quote chopping was required to a) distill a larger conversation (that no one wants to read in it's entirely) into a series of quotes that give an accurate overview, and b) the guy is an idiot and some editing is required to make the statements readable (just read Trump's speeches, he can't really communicate without the benefit of body language, inflection, and pacing).
Your straw man conception of modern Republican ideology was written by vox and think progress. It's not anywhere close to reality.
Have you been paying attention the last 8 years?
They've been in complete denial of the scientific consensus of climate change, explaining away scientific consensus with outlandish claims of mass international conspiracies.
They're convinced of massive widescale voter fraud without any evidence, I don't even mean Trump's crazy millions, even the endless claims of thousands of illegal voters never amount anything more than a couple people confused non-citizens.
Large portions of the party were convinced that Barak Obama was an illegal alien.
They spent 8 years of campaigning again a Republican healthcare bill (ie, Obamacare), and after getting in power they're now realizing they've made a series of completely contradictory promises, came up with an absolutely awful bill, and are still trying to ram it through. What do they even expect to accomplish if they do pass it? Do they think people won't notice when the individual health care market explodes?
This is not the action of a rational party.
I won't dispute for a second that intelligent rational conservatism exists, but the GOP is not it.
... who must grope for ways to measure the success of a given program and wonder if they're getting paid enough...
In other words, "They're making money and I'm not getting any." Or really, they might be making money and not giving it to me.
I can almost see some justification for actors; their reputation is affected by how many people see their performance.
In some sense this may be more just. Right now when a TV show takes off it's the actors that get all the money because they're the hardest to replace, but realistically the writers and show runners were just as important in creating whatever was so compelling.
The question to me is where does this extra money go now? To the writers? Directors? Crews? Actors on less successful shows? Raises for middle management?
If the Trump administration seems to be a driving force behind the regulation it would be pretty easy to draw a link between that and the threats Trump made to punish Amazon for negative coverage from the Washington Post.
That would seem to be good application of the 1st amendment, I wonder if Amazon would have a good shot at prevailing in a court case.
I don't think that's going to work. The White House and most if not all Senators and Congressmen have web pages for many years and have never given up the right to control what goes on them.
I don't see how that's relevant (unless you mean things like Facebook).
Free speech does not mean that the government has to publish whatever you want to say. When the president gives a speech he does not have to give up the microphone to you.
No, but if he creates a bulletin board for people to post comments about his speech he can't take down all the ones he disagrees with.
Further, if this actually got to court they could point out that the plaintiffs have multiple other avenues to having their voiced heard. There is no constitutional reason it has to be on the president's twitter feed.
Big Meh
The first amendment doesn't work like that, you can't do viewpoint discrimination just because the person could publish their views somewhere else.
That being said I'm still not convinced Twitter does qualify as a public forum. I find the claims about being barred from reading the Tweets to be unconvincing (it's pretty easy to view the tweets even if blocked), but being unable to reply is another matter. Being unable to reply to @RealDonaldTrump really does affect your ability to participate in the public dialogue.
There's also a lot of Politicians who have Facebook pages, I don't see why a ruling on Trump's Twitter account wouldn't apply to their Facebook pages as well.
See subject: Know WHO makes the best defenders? The most skilled OFFENDERS (this IS my racket, the defense side & was my job on several levels (code, network defense etc.) for decades)).
APK
P.S.=> It happens & Mitnick? He wasn't even very good to be straight up about it. Today's 'hacker/cracker'? WORLDS above his level... apk
Those were done AFTER they switched sides.
A company who uses a reformed black-hat hacker to penetration test their network is daring and innovative.
A company who uses an active black-hat hacker to penetration test their network is bloody moronic.
I'd be more concerned that there WAS dirt to get on Hillary than who it came from.
In this case, according to Trump Jr. at least, there was no dirt, it was a dead end.
Who cares who gave it to them?
The FBI, seeking material assistance from a foreign government for a political campaign is illegal. If Trump Jr. is telling the truth then he broke the law.
The whole "Russia" thing continues to be a giant nothingburger than the left won't stop trying to push. No one cares.
The whole "Russia" thing is steadily getting worse. Though in one sense this news is slightly good news for Trump. The fact they sought out this lawyer in an effect to conspire with the Russian government suggests that at that time there were not (yet?) conspiring with the Russian government (otherwise why not ask their FSB contact directly?).
One legitimately inaccurate story but what stories about the dossier or any other Trump/Russia illegal connection have been found true? None. It's not about just CNN either, but the entire mainstream media. The entire mainstream media machine has been derelict in their duty to verify news before reporting it.
Multiple news organizations knew about the dossier before the election and didn't print because they couldn't verify it. If it hadn't been for Buzzfeed breaking with journalistic practices and publishing you still wouldn't know about the contents!
The alternative is that the entire mainstream media machine is so blind/inept that they mistakenly published story after story that has turned out to be false about Trump collusion with Russia. So what has this administration ACTUALLY done that warrants this behavior?
Trump's team removing language against Russia from the GOP platform. Hiring multiple people with close connections to Russia. Hiring a campaign manager who worked for Russian puppets and choosing an Attorney General who lied in his confirmation hearing about meeting with the Russian ambassador. Hiring a national security advisor who hid payments from Russia, and then contacted the Russian ambassador to assure him that Trump would drop sanctions while Obama was still President. And then when that advisor lied to the media and the VP about the meeting he still kept that advisor until then press found out.
And then he fired the head of the FBI for refusing to drop a Russia related investigation. Oh, and every intelligence agency agreeing that Putin was trying to help Trump in the election.
And these are just the publicly confirmed things. There's no smoking gun, but there's more than enough for a full congressional investigation.
I didn't approve of many of the things Obama did, but there was NEVER this level of excoriation of Obama by the mainstream media and that includes Fox News. Despite Obama popping off incorrectly on the Harvard professor and blaming the cops, or encouraging the divide in race in our country by saying Treyvon Martin is what his son would look like despite the legal evidence showing no crime was committed. Obama did more to purposely divide the country than any president before him or likely will after him.
I love how in 8 years of Obama this was the best evidence you could find of his malfeasance.
He hasn't actually done what is stated in this article. Unnamed "White House advisers" and "source familiar with President Trump’s thinking". Yes, it is common for news agencies to report based on anonymous sources, but given the lack of journalistic integrity that has plagued coverage of Trump, shit like this has no place in headlines without verifiable sources. When I see any story about anybody that has it's sole source for such a damning quote being an anonymous source with nothing else to back it up, I immediately dismiss it.
Which, in the case of this administration, would have lead to you dismissing a lot of accurate news reports. Anonymous sources should be treated with caution yes, but not immediate dismissal.
Doesn't matter if it's Trump, Obama, someone I love, or someone I hate. Literally none of the Trump connections to Russia in the formerly "earth shattering" Russia Dossier have been proven true.
Which is why CNN only reported on the existence of the dossier, they didn't break it.
Yet it was bandied about like it was Trump's death sentence. Where are all the retractions?
Because there's nothing to retract, it hasn't been falsified. Of course the explosive claims are hard to falsify, which is one of the reasons CNN, despite having access to the dossier, deliberately held back the actual contents (until Buzzfeed broke them, an act most media organizations disagreed with).
Three people at CNN fired? That's it? Bullshit. They just double down and go after the next fake story.
CNN published one legitimately inaccurate story, and fired everyone involved.
Can you imagine if Breitbart or even Fox News was held to that standard? Would Sean Spicer even last through a single press conference?
I'm always interested in the opinions of folks if any article, regardless of the media source, replaced Trump with Obama in the article.
[John]
If Obama had threatened regulatory action against Fox unless Fox News ditched Roger Ailes or some pundit then it would rightfully be a major political scandal.
I don't think it would quite reach the level of impeachment, but it would easily have been the worst thing Obama did as a President.
That is on CNN. I don't know how else to take their reaction to a meme. Threatening a doxx and blackmailing some random jackass on the internet because he made a gif at CNN's expense.
First, I do agree that considering a doxx was a bad thing to do, but not at all out of line with how the media generally works. But there was never any blackmailing, it was the jackass who took the initiative of claiming remorse to successfully convince the reporter to leave him anonymous.
And he did more than make a gif at CNN's expense, he was primarily newsworthy because of all the racist crap he posted and the racist forums he participated in.
There are only so many ways to read "CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change." given the context and timeline of events. Sure, they have that right. Just like the mobster has the right out someone gay knowing it will ruin their life. Oh look at that, the guy did something the mobster wanted... Totally fine.
I would have more respect for CNN if they had just let a meme be a meme instead of their next click-bait headline.
The problem with the blackmail theory is CNN has no motive for blackmailing, nor a reason to publish the blackmail.
Consider the far more plausible series of events. As a reporter there are people who's identities it's appropriate to publish, and people's who identities it's inappropriate to publish. While doing a story someone you thought was category #1 convinces you they're really category #2, you're not sure if it's the right call (or if they're screwing with you) so you decide to mention that in the story in a really dumb way.
This happens over and over. Trump does something absolutely reprehensible and indefensible, but one of the accusers did something slightly wrong, and Trump and all his lackeys start obsessing over the minor misdeed so that people stop talking about Trump's problem.
Trump spends months going after Muslims and Mexicans and is greeted with joy by white supremacists. Then Clinton (fairly accurately) calls about half of his supporters deplorable and gets pilloried by the right for stereotyping.
Trump is accused of multiple sexual assaults and rapes, so starts talking about Clinton's husband's misdeeds.
Comey testifies how Trump tried to extract a loyalty pledge from him and asked him to stop investigating Flynn, so Trump and allies start talking about the non-issue of Comey leaking his own private memos to a newspaper.
Now Trump is again caught repeating stuff that originated with racists, and so obligingly everyone is throwing up the smokescreen of the circumstances under which the racist apologized.
It doesn't matter.
Trump, once again, is repeating information that started out with some pretty reprehensible racists. If your buddy starts repeating a bunch of Hitler quotes your response shouldn't be "well he's not repeating the nasty stuff about Jews so I guess it's fine", you should be "WFT? Has he been talking to NAZIs? What's he got into his head that he's smart enough not to repeat to me?!?"
If you're an American then far-right extremists are among your President's biggest influences, this is the thing that should concern you.
The guy apologized and retracted before CNN talked to him.
Oh, you mean he received an email from CNN outing him and then he called them to try and keep his anonymity... Hmmmmm I wonder if he was under duress when he made the apology under the threat to be outed by CNN to their audience and would say anything to ensure he wouldn't be. But if he says the wrong thing... CNN gonna get 'em.
Wow.
I admit I got the order of operations wrong. But it's still critical that there's no indication that the reporter was trying to extract an apology out of him. There is absolutely no motive for CNN to do so.
if you're going to blackmail someone why would you literally publish your threat in a news article
Because they think they are on the moral high ground and think Trump is Hitler waging a war on the media through Twitter because journalistic integrity is a thing of the past. Ethics? Those are just adorable CNN is a business after all.
Even if CNN is going to war with Trump that still doesn't explain why they'd try to get this dude to retract. Exposing him and having him repudiate his actions on camera (in an effort to salvage his reputation) would be a far more effective attack.
There's an obvious explanation as to how this played out, and you're simply not getting it because of your insistence that CNN look as bad as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Not quite. From the article linked:
"The agency says it does have data logs on the attack but can't release those for privacy reasons."
So, it's not that it "has no documentation"-- it's that it can't (or won't) release documentation.
Not the same thing.
It's about the size of the lie.
Saying "it happened but we can't release any details". Is consistent with both a real DDOS and "well some IT staff thought it was a DDOS so we just kinda assumed they were right". Even if they're deliberately lying they haven't said enough to get in trouble.
Now, to release a paper trail means you're either releasing doctored evidence or evidence that is clearly wrong. Either way it's a lot easier to hold someone accountable. That's why the media pushes for these kinds of documents, because it holds officials accountable in a way that public statements can't.
Now, the attorney in question has been there since 2011, so she's not a Trump appointee and is probably legit... But Trump's appointees have had a few months to start asserting their authority. I'm not saying you shouldn't have been sceptical of official statements from Government organizations previously, but whatever scepticism you did have you should increase about 10-fold.
There is a final twist to this, if you're talking about evidence of a DDOS there is a legit concern about how easily you can anonymize it, even if you do strip out IPs some enterprising admin might recognize some timestamps from their own logs.
I used to work at a drug manufacturer that did stability testing required by the FDA.
From each lot that's manufactured, they put some of the tablets in a bottle and leave the bottle in a large closet with controlled humidity and temperature. Then every couple months someone goes in, gets the bottle, and performs an assay on a bunch of tablets. This keeps going on schedule until the expiration date, when they stop doing the testing and throw the bottle out. In general that's all that an expiration date is- nobody's doing stability tests on that lot of tablets anymore.
Thank you for the detail. There is an outstanding question.
Exactly how does the drug company initially determine an expiration date?
From your explanation, it is not based on testing or science at all. This merely suggests that Greed determines how long an expiration date is. Not that I'm surprised mind you. This is the Big Pharma we're talking about here. Part of the United States Medical Industrial Complex. Greed is part of their Creed.
I make no argument that pharma is super greedy.
But there might be a more logical explanation, such as you can't ship the drug until you give it an expiration date.
I'm really not convinced by these arguments that our ancestors were somehow multi marathon fit and could run down anything on the plain. No native peoples today do that - they wound first with spears or arrows then follow it until it dies, they don't wear it down physically!
Yes they do.
Of course, how common a strategy that is an open question, but the average male in those populations clearly has the capability, and I suspect an average European male could do the same if raised in those environments.
As for running down a horse, you must be joking. Horses can gallop then trot for hours, long after even the fittest marathon runner would be in a sweaty heap on the ground panting like dog. And unless you're a first class tracker you're never going to find that horse that has probably put 10 miles between you and him in the first hour.
One of the keys to persistence hunting, running the antelope to exhaustion wasn't done by beating the antelope in a well paced marathon, it was done by running a very efficient pace and forcing the antelope into repeated sprints.
Running down a horse with a rider, who can simply pick a pace slightly faster than the runner and take off in the opposite direction, would be quite difficult.
Running down a wild horse, who is going to repeatedly spook, launch into an inefficient gallop, and then stop as soon as you're well out of sight, would be comparatively easy.
I would think larger animals are either hunters or veg eaters. Huge scavengers might have a hard time finding enough food to fulfill their needs.
Maybe there were enough large dead or injured things lying around, but I would expect scavengers to be on the smaller side.
If T. Rex had a big nose and hung around herds there may have been a lot of opportunity to scavenge. Basically every kill that happens in the neighbourhood is yours for the taking.
As for size, a bunch of smaller predators are fast and can use teamwork to bring down a big herbivore, but once that meal is on the ground they don't have the size to defend the kill from a big carnivore. Doesn't matter who brought it down, once they T. Rex shows up it's the T. Rex's meal.
People used to think that hyenas were scavengers, stealing lion kills, but it turned out to be the other way around.
The greatest reaction, by far, was the plain rice cake. That person had the greatest rise in blood sugar followed by a greater drop and actually got a little shaky.
The point of the experiment was to show some misconceptions. Everyone thought the rice cake was healthy and the candy bar and fatty ham was unhealthy.
Insulin gets unfairly demonized, if you're not diabetic I don't think that's a problem,
That's why restaurants like to start you off with bread while you're perusing the menu. It ain't just being hospitable. They want your blood sugar to be plummeting when you order.
They give you bread because bread is a cheap filler.
They don't want you hungry and pissed off while waiting for the food, and once the meal comes if it isn't quite enough they want still want you going away with a satisfied appetite.
Now the guy might be lying and the autopilot was never engage, but, if we're to assume he's being honest the autopilot might still be at fault.
But in an email sent Monday afternoon to the sheriff's office, Clark said he was confused in the moments after the crash. After discussing the crash with his fellow passengers, he now believes that he disengaged Autopilot by stepping on the accelerator before the crash.
"I then remember looking up and seeing the sharp left turn which I was accelerating into. I believe we started to make the turn but then felt the car give way and lose its footing like we hit loose gravel," Clark wrote in the email.
The biggest problem with Tesla's partial autopilot is that there's a lot of situations where it's extremely difficult to switch back and forth safely. Assuming he's being truthful it sounds like this is exactly what happened, that he accidentally disengaged the autopilot at the wrong time and didn't realize he was in control of the vehicle.
Imagine if we had banned Science and Math outright early on in our history because of the potential for what it could be used for.
We would still be living in caves and hunting with spears.
Imagine if we hadn't enacted some bans and regulation on Nuclear technology.
We might be living in caves and hunting with spears.
The only thing we do know about strong AI is it does have the potential to be extremely dangerous, because we know intelligent things can be extremely dangerous. We don't know how far we are from creating strong AI, but it's not too early to start figuring out how to mitigate the risk.
>They've been in complete denial of the scientific consensus of climate change
I see you forgot about global warming.
So climate change is wrong because scientists used to use a different term to communicate it to the public??
Thats pretty convenient, because the climate always changes, so tell me again about this science of climate change and runaway warming as we enter the grand solar minimum, and galactic cosmic rays cause atmospheric compression events which result in deluges of precipitation, the likes of which haven't been seen in damn near a hundred years.
You have a google machine, I'm not going to even bother to debunk this.
Skiing in august in California for instance.
Oh year, that drought that climate experts said was going to last 'forever' is also over, and the oroville dam almost collapsed because they were betting on the 'climate change orthodoxy' which makes you into a 'denier' if you disagree. Looks like the orthodoxy was dead wrong about California.
Also, winter wheat crops were devastated this year. Something like 25-35% losses.
As we go further into the grand solar minimum the climate is going to change drastically, but not in any way like has been predicted.
Short term regional predictions are irrelevant to the validity of climate change.
Science isn't done on a 'denier'/'believer' basis, and the left if it really does love science will stop using terms like that.
No it isn't, because the deniers aren't doing science.
If you read the article, you would have seen that a mistake was made in the website. It was not a malicious act. Yet, you and other posters act like this is some vast conspiracy against privacy.
Not exactly a malicious act, instead it's a mix of incompetency and a complete lack of concern about things like privacy.
When you take a incompetent people, and give them a checklist of rules they don't care about, they're going to violate those rules. That's why the Trump administration keeps having scandals.
The otter convient fact is that the voter roles are being looked into because there are wide scale voter fraud.
Just how many fraudulent voters do you think the left has? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions?
Don't you find it interesting that the left can apparently organize a small army of illegal voters and no one comes forward to spill the beans? Seriously, can you find a single reputable person who claims to be part of this massive fraud effort?
Meanwhile, Trump can't organize a meeting with a half-dozen people without it leaking to the press.
I disagree somewhat with both you and the person you're responding to. I don't think it's explicitly the engineering or math that is upsetting them, and I don't think it's "brainwashing". The real problem is that, when you get a broad education and actually learn about the world we live in, modern Republican ideology is revealed to be complete insanity.
I think that misses the underlying causes.
Both Leftism and Conservatism are fundamentally about identity, which is social. People don't care about economics they way they do social issues, economics only determines how much money you have, but social policies determine which tribe is winning.
Conservatism is fundamentally about creating a peaceful safe community, that's why they tend to be more supportive of law enforcement, more outwardly patriotic, and less tolerant of diversity, they want a strong unified community. The idea of Conservatism is people should be be free to do whatever they want, and the way to ensure that is a strong community that ensures that people only want things that are good for the community.
Leftism champions individual liberty so that you're free to truly express yourself, that means that law enforcement should only be used as a last resort, group identities are viewed with suspicion, and people should only be part of the communities they want.
Universities are about learning and research, and those work best when people are free to experiment and push intellectual boundaries, ie leftism. That's why Universities will always have a tendency to lean left.
Boy that's some fancy quote chopping going on there. In a sentence on the specific issues Melvin has, consisting of 32 words, 10 of them are actual words spoken by Melvin. The rest are the reporter's words. Not saying the guy isn't an idiot, he might be for all I know (I'm not in AZ). But whenever I see that much quote chopping and editing in an article, I'm immediately suspicious that some one is being made to say something very different from what they actually said.
Possible, but reputable reporters typically don't do that.
More likely the quote chopping was required to a) distill a larger conversation (that no one wants to read in it's entirely) into a series of quotes that give an accurate overview, and b) the guy is an idiot and some editing is required to make the statements readable (just read Trump's speeches, he can't really communicate without the benefit of body language, inflection, and pacing).
Your straw man conception of modern Republican ideology was written by vox and think progress. It's not anywhere close to reality.
Have you been paying attention the last 8 years?
They've been in complete denial of the scientific consensus of climate change, explaining away scientific consensus with outlandish claims of mass international conspiracies.
They're convinced of massive widescale voter fraud without any evidence, I don't even mean Trump's crazy millions, even the endless claims of thousands of illegal voters never amount anything more than a couple people confused non-citizens.
Large portions of the party were convinced that Barak Obama was an illegal alien.
They spent 8 years of campaigning again a Republican healthcare bill (ie, Obamacare), and after getting in power they're now realizing they've made a series of completely contradictory promises, came up with an absolutely awful bill, and are still trying to ram it through. What do they even expect to accomplish if they do pass it? Do they think people won't notice when the individual health care market explodes?
This is not the action of a rational party.
I won't dispute for a second that intelligent rational conservatism exists, but the GOP is not it.
In other words, "They're making money and I'm not getting any."
Or really, they might be making money and not giving it to me.
I can almost see some justification for actors; their reputation is affected by how many people see their performance.
In some sense this may be more just. Right now when a TV show takes off it's the actors that get all the money because they're the hardest to replace, but realistically the writers and show runners were just as important in creating whatever was so compelling.
The question to me is where does this extra money go now? To the writers? Directors? Crews? Actors on less successful shows? Raises for middle management?
If the Trump administration seems to be a driving force behind the regulation it would be pretty easy to draw a link between that and the threats Trump made to punish Amazon for negative coverage from the Washington Post.
That would seem to be good application of the 1st amendment, I wonder if Amazon would have a good shot at prevailing in a court case.
I don't think that's going to work. The White House and most if not all Senators and Congressmen have web pages for many years and have never given up the right to control what goes on them.
I don't see how that's relevant (unless you mean things like Facebook).
Free speech does not mean that the government has to publish whatever you want to say. When the president gives a speech he does not have to give up the microphone to you.
No, but if he creates a bulletin board for people to post comments about his speech he can't take down all the ones he disagrees with.
Further, if this actually got to court they could point out that the plaintiffs have multiple other avenues to having their voiced heard. There is no constitutional reason it has to be on the president's twitter feed.
Big Meh
The first amendment doesn't work like that, you can't do viewpoint discrimination just because the person could publish their views somewhere else.
That being said I'm still not convinced Twitter does qualify as a public forum. I find the claims about being barred from reading the Tweets to be unconvincing (it's pretty easy to view the tweets even if blocked), but being unable to reply is another matter. Being unable to reply to @RealDonaldTrump really does affect your ability to participate in the public dialogue.
There's also a lot of Politicians who have Facebook pages, I don't see why a ruling on Trump's Twitter account wouldn't apply to their Facebook pages as well.
See subject: Know WHO makes the best defenders? The most skilled OFFENDERS (this IS my racket, the defense side & was my job on several levels (code, network defense etc.) for decades)).
APK
P.S.=> It happens & Mitnick? He wasn't even very good to be straight up about it. Today's 'hacker/cracker'? WORLDS above his level... apk
Those were done AFTER they switched sides.
A company who uses a reformed black-hat hacker to penetration test their network is daring and innovative.
A company who uses an active black-hat hacker to penetration test their network is bloody moronic.
I'd be more concerned that there WAS dirt to get on Hillary than who it came from.
In this case, according to Trump Jr. at least, there was no dirt, it was a dead end.
Who cares who gave it to them?
The FBI, seeking material assistance from a foreign government for a political campaign is illegal. If Trump Jr. is telling the truth then he broke the law.
The whole "Russia" thing continues to be a giant nothingburger than the left won't stop trying to push. No one cares.
The whole "Russia" thing is steadily getting worse. Though in one sense this news is slightly good news for Trump. The fact they sought out this lawyer in an effect to conspire with the Russian government suggests that at that time there were not (yet?) conspiring with the Russian government (otherwise why not ask their FSB contact directly?).
One legitimately inaccurate story but what stories about the dossier or any other Trump/Russia illegal connection have been found true? None. It's not about just CNN either, but the entire mainstream media. The entire mainstream media machine has been derelict in their duty to verify news before reporting it.
Multiple news organizations knew about the dossier before the election and didn't print because they couldn't verify it. If it hadn't been for Buzzfeed breaking with journalistic practices and publishing you still wouldn't know about the contents!
The alternative is that the entire mainstream media machine is so blind/inept that they mistakenly published story after story that has turned out to be false about Trump collusion with Russia. So what has this administration ACTUALLY done that warrants this behavior?
Trump's team removing language against Russia from the GOP platform. Hiring multiple people with close connections to Russia. Hiring a campaign manager who worked for Russian puppets and choosing an Attorney General who lied in his confirmation hearing about meeting with the Russian ambassador. Hiring a national security advisor who hid payments from Russia, and then contacted the Russian ambassador to assure him that Trump would drop sanctions while Obama was still President. And then when that advisor lied to the media and the VP about the meeting he still kept that advisor until then press found out.
And then he fired the head of the FBI for refusing to drop a Russia related investigation. Oh, and every intelligence agency agreeing that Putin was trying to help Trump in the election.
And these are just the publicly confirmed things. There's no smoking gun, but there's more than enough for a full congressional investigation.
I didn't approve of many of the things Obama did, but there was NEVER this level of excoriation of Obama by the mainstream media and that includes Fox News. Despite Obama popping off incorrectly on the Harvard professor and blaming the cops, or encouraging the divide in race in our country by saying Treyvon Martin is what his son would look like despite the legal evidence showing no crime was committed. Obama did more to purposely divide the country than any president before him or likely will after him.
I love how in 8 years of Obama this was the best evidence you could find of his malfeasance.
He hasn't actually done what is stated in this article. Unnamed "White House advisers" and "source familiar with President Trump’s thinking". Yes, it is common for news agencies to report based on anonymous sources, but given the lack of journalistic integrity that has plagued coverage of Trump, shit like this has no place in headlines without verifiable sources. When I see any story about anybody that has it's sole source for such a damning quote being an anonymous source with nothing else to back it up, I immediately dismiss it.
Which, in the case of this administration, would have lead to you dismissing a lot of accurate news reports. Anonymous sources should be treated with caution yes, but not immediate dismissal.
Doesn't matter if it's Trump, Obama, someone I love, or someone I hate. Literally none of the Trump connections to Russia in the formerly "earth shattering" Russia Dossier have been proven true.
Which is why CNN only reported on the existence of the dossier, they didn't break it.
Yet it was bandied about like it was Trump's death sentence. Where are all the retractions?
Because there's nothing to retract, it hasn't been falsified. Of course the explosive claims are hard to falsify, which is one of the reasons CNN, despite having access to the dossier, deliberately held back the actual contents (until Buzzfeed broke them, an act most media organizations disagreed with).
Three people at CNN fired? That's it? Bullshit. They just double down and go after the next fake story.
CNN published one legitimately inaccurate story, and fired everyone involved.
Can you imagine if Breitbart or even Fox News was held to that standard? Would Sean Spicer even last through a single press conference?
I'm always interested in the opinions of folks if any article, regardless of the media source, replaced Trump with Obama in the article.
[John]
If Obama had threatened regulatory action against Fox unless Fox News ditched Roger Ailes or some pundit then it would rightfully be a major political scandal.
I don't think it would quite reach the level of impeachment, but it would easily have been the worst thing Obama did as a President.
your insistence that CNN look as bad as possible
That is on CNN. I don't know how else to take their reaction to a meme. Threatening a doxx and blackmailing some random jackass on the internet because he made a gif at CNN's expense.
First, I do agree that considering a doxx was a bad thing to do, but not at all out of line with how the media generally works. But there was never any blackmailing, it was the jackass who took the initiative of claiming remorse to successfully convince the reporter to leave him anonymous.
And he did more than make a gif at CNN's expense, he was primarily newsworthy because of all the racist crap he posted and the racist forums he participated in.
There are only so many ways to read "CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change." given the context and timeline of events. Sure, they have that right. Just like the mobster has the right out someone gay knowing it will ruin their life. Oh look at that, the guy did something the mobster wanted... Totally fine.
I would have more respect for CNN if they had just let a meme be a meme instead of their next click-bait headline.
The problem with the blackmail theory is CNN has no motive for blackmailing, nor a reason to publish the blackmail.
Consider the far more plausible series of events. As a reporter there are people who's identities it's appropriate to publish, and people's who identities it's inappropriate to publish. While doing a story someone you thought was category #1 convinces you they're really category #2, you're not sure if it's the right call (or if they're screwing with you) so you decide to mention that in the story in a really dumb way.
This happens over and over. Trump does something absolutely reprehensible and indefensible, but one of the accusers did something slightly wrong, and Trump and all his lackeys start obsessing over the minor misdeed so that people stop talking about Trump's problem.
Trump spends months going after Muslims and Mexicans and is greeted with joy by white supremacists. Then Clinton (fairly accurately) calls about half of his supporters deplorable and gets pilloried by the right for stereotyping.
Trump is accused of multiple sexual assaults and rapes, so starts talking about Clinton's husband's misdeeds.
Comey testifies how Trump tried to extract a loyalty pledge from him and asked him to stop investigating Flynn, so Trump and allies start talking about the non-issue of Comey leaking his own private memos to a newspaper.
Now Trump is again caught repeating stuff that originated with racists, and so obligingly everyone is throwing up the smokescreen of the circumstances under which the racist apologized.
It doesn't matter.
Trump, once again, is repeating information that started out with some pretty reprehensible racists. If your buddy starts repeating a bunch of Hitler quotes your response shouldn't be "well he's not repeating the nasty stuff about Jews so I guess it's fine", you should be "WFT? Has he been talking to NAZIs? What's he got into his head that he's smart enough not to repeat to me?!?"
If you're an American then far-right extremists are among your President's biggest influences, this is the thing that should concern you.
Trump is once again posting memes that originate with unabashed racists.
And Bernie is inspiring another Bernie Bro to go on another Killing spree, but I doubt you'll recognize that.
Because it's stupid.
The difference is, the left is infatuated with Bernie, and therefore excuses his hate speech calling for revolution, when people act on it.
"Do whatever it takes" ... just days after the last Bernie Bro shot up a bunch of people.
I was never infatuated with Bernie, and feel a lot of his rhetoric was over the top and unrealistic. But there's absolutely nothing violent about it.
The rhetoric used by the right is far more aggressive and violent. Trump literally asked his supporters to punch protesters.
The guy apologized and retracted before CNN talked to him.
Oh, you mean he received an email from CNN outing him and then he called them to try and keep his anonymity... Hmmmmm I wonder if he was under duress when he made the apology under the threat to be outed by CNN to their audience and would say anything to ensure he wouldn't be. But if he says the wrong thing... CNN gonna get 'em.
Wow.
I admit I got the order of operations wrong. But it's still critical that there's no indication that the reporter was trying to extract an apology out of him. There is absolutely no motive for CNN to do so.
if you're going to blackmail someone why would you literally publish your threat in a news article
Because they think they are on the moral high ground and think Trump is Hitler waging a war on the media through Twitter because journalistic integrity is a thing of the past. Ethics? Those are just adorable CNN is a business after all.
Even if CNN is going to war with Trump that still doesn't explain why they'd try to get this dude to retract. Exposing him and having him repudiate his actions on camera (in an effort to salvage his reputation) would be a far more effective attack.
There's an obvious explanation as to how this played out, and you're simply not getting it because of your insistence that CNN look as bad as possible.
Well, CNN never actually doxxed the guy.
No, that would have been better...
They THREATENED to do it, which is a felony... blackmail or extortion is a really serious crime...
Are you sure that's a standard you want to live by?