"Back To"? It had never stopped. The Russian Spy system may had slowed down after the fall of Communism, but that was mostly because everything else in Russia was failing.
It isn't because we are the good guys, it is because we are the toughest guys. The actions of a nation are the equivalent of 8 year old in a school yard. All the kids wants to play a different game, however the biggest kid makes the final choice what to play. Many will join the game. Some will go with the next biggest kid and play their game. Then you get few kids on the swing set pretending not to feel lonely.
Now the two big kids, if they disagree or want to use their stuff, will find ways to get it. Be sneaky pretending to play the other game, then run off with the ball to play their game, then they would have a counter measure, or they will just outwardly fight each other.
It isn't about right or wrong, it is just about asserting power over the others. And being part of the more powerful group.
AKA "might is right". The opposing viewpoint is that it doesn't have to be. Humans have become more civilized over the millennia, and we could and probably will progress further. Some monkeys have done away with murder, it's not impossible. The key seems to be the entire group has to attack the aggressor.
Lololol. Yosimite Sam, is that you? I'm driving from Houston to Austin today, and I'm the wind is really kickin in the city even. I wonder how much those turbines did with the storms we had last night.
Texas is primarily powered by natural gas and coal, with a bit of highly subsidized wind.
I applaud the good link, that's an interesting map. Tiny opposition to your point is it does mention TX is #1 in wind.
However, while gas+wind may reduce emissions some, it is incapable of scaling to replace fossil, and will forever be dependent on it.
True. This is probably just a difference on emphasis - I'd emphasize that it can be minimized. I'm also a proponent of nuclear power, but that's a different convo.
The cost of wind today is deceptively low because it pushes the subsidies and required backup generation into another column. No one is suggesting coal as the alternative; just be realistic about expectations. Nor does most of the world have such conveniently co-located wind+gas resources.
I do agree, we should be realistic. I bring up Germany, and the real results of them leading the solar industry in the 90's, and it rocking their stock market. Solar was profitable for them, not because it saved costs of electricity generation, but because they developed technology and sold it. A lot of your solar power converters are still German. I say real estate boom because all of a sudden, the roof Germans already owned made their house more valuable, almost instantly. There are so many secondary effects of green policy that actually make it profitable in the long run. Sustainable practices cost less than non-sustainable ones, is that not a realistic statement? How much money would we save if there was less air pollution and asthma occurrence dropped? Lung cancer. I often wonder what pollution has to do with my stupid allergies. It's hard to imagine the costs of the worst possible effects of this ocean current stuff.
Greens making money isn't the goal; decarbonization is. Germany provides a fine example of how expending enormous resources building renewables is not making effective progress toward this goal.
Again, that link is an impressive map. I have to admit it's taking me a while to absorb all the info in it. But why can't there be 2 goals? Make money and save the planet? If the goal is decarbonization, it's much easier to accomplish the goal if we make it profitable. Germany proved it can be done. They did it with solar, and this is a country that gets as little sun as Portland. Yes they invested some money and worked hard, but they ended up with a smarter grid than us, and some days they have to pay everyone on the gird to use electricity. The horror.
Wind/solar/battery technology will progress until it solves all our problems; all we need is faith, a bit of time, and mountains of money. Maybe. That physical reality and math impose limitations is not something that most people are equipped to understand.
Wind is so much cheaper than coal that a bunch of conservative republicans in texas have converted to wind. They're doing it because of the math. Solar progresses rapidly, and battery, with it's slow progress, is being proven already today, so it's not going anywhere.
Here's a thought: at least try to follow the math of people who have taken the time to lay it out simply. Sure it is easier to remain an ignorant tool, comfortably ensconced within the green herd, but if you aren't headed in the right direction, you will never reach your destination. Reality has the final say, and you will pay the price for your foolishness.
Doh, you're right. I hereby give up my good wind turbine job, and will immediately look for the first coal mine to dive into. Follow the money!
Ok, seriously, nobody is saying tech will solve all the problems. But greens are saying you can make money with green tech, and doing so helps with the problem. Why not do that a lot more? Sell our tech to the rest of the world. Germany did it in the 90's, and made tons of money, sparked a run on their stock market, boom in real estate, and generally worked great until China started undercutting them. What happened to the US? We invented solar. Why in the world didn't we make some money on it? I'm not talking about manufacturing, I'm talking about innovation. What's the next thing? Let's not give up the money after we invent it just because of coal and oil lobyists.
The facebook contributions, while so much political contributions feel slimey, seems to have been done legally through reporting to the US federal election commission.
Lol, over 100 charges so far. I don't think "falling apart" means what you think it means.
The full list of known indictments and plea deals in Mueller’s probe
1) George Papadopoulos, former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, pleaded guilty in October to making false statements to the FBI.
2) Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, pleaded guilty in December to making false statements to the FBI.
3) Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chair, was indicted in October in Washington, DC on charges of conspiracy, money laundering, false statements, and failure to disclose foreign assets — all related to his work for Ukrainian politicians before he joined the Trump campaign. He’s pleaded not guilty on all counts. Then, in February, Mueller filed a new case against him in Virginia, with tax, financial, and bank fraud charges.
4) Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign aide and Manafort’s longtime junior business partner, was indicted on similar charges to Manafort. But he has now agreed to a plea deal with Mueller’s team, pleading guilty to just one false statements charge and one conspiracy charge.
5-20) 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies were indicted on conspiracy charges, with some also being accused of identity theft. The charges related to a Russian propaganda effort designed to interfere with the 2016 campaign. The companies involved are the Internet Research Agency, often described as a “Russian troll farm,” and two other companies that helped finance it. The Russian nationals indicted include 12 of the agency’s employees and its alleged financier, Yevgeny Prigozhin.
21) Richard Pinedo: This California man pleaded guilty to an identity theft charge in connection with the Russian indictments, and has agreed to cooperate with Mueller.
22) Alex van der Zwaan: This London lawyer pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with Rick Gates and another unnamed person based in Ukraine.
Two ex-Trump advisers lied to the FBI about their contacts with Russians
Michael Flynn Mario Tama/Getty
So far, no Trump associates have been specifically charged with any crimes relating to helping Russia interfere with the 2016 election.
The closest we’ve come to that is that both Papadopoulos and Flynn both now admit that they lied to the FBI about their contacts with people connected to the Russian government. (Papadopoulos’s contacts took place before the election, and Flynn’s after it.)
Papadopoulos: Back in April 2016, Papadopoulos got a tip from a foreign professor he understood to have Russian government connections that the Russians had “dirt” on Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails.” He then proceeded to have extensive contacts with the professor and a Russian woman, during which he tried to plan a Trump campaign trip to Russia.
But when the FBI interviewed Papadopoulos about all this in January 2017, he repeatedly lied about what happened, he now admits. So he was arrested in July, and later agreed to plead guilty to a false statements charge and start cooperating with Mueller’s probe.
Flynn: In December 2016, during the transition, Flynn spoke to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about sanctions that President Barack Obama had just placed on Russia, and about a planned United Nations Security Council vote condemning Israeli settlements.
But when FBI agents interviewed him about all this in January 2017, Flynn lied to them about what his talks with Kislyak entailed, he now admits. In December 2017, Flynn pleaded guilty to a false statements charge and began cooperating with Mueller’s investigation.
So the firm [Cambridge Analytica] harvested private information from the Facebook profiles of more than 50 million users without their permission, according to former Cambridge employees, associates and documents, making it one of the largest data leaks in the social network’s history.
In the United States, Mr. Mercer’s daughter, Rebekah, a board member, Mr. Bannon and Mr. Nix received warnings from their lawyer that it was illegal to employ foreigners in political campaigns, according to company documents and former employees.
documents viewed by The Times indicate that the firm’s British affiliate claims to have worked in Russia and Ukraine. And the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, disclosed in October that Mr. Nix had reached out to him during the campaign in hopes of obtaining private emails belonging to Mr. Trump’s Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.
All Hilary had to do was take him seriously and campaign properly (or at all) in the swing states.
... Seems they were pretty serious. The thing is... no matter how much money you spend buying makeup for a pig, it's still going to be a pig.
This passes for argument? She's a pig, that's why she lost? How about she was, and is, hated. And why? What do people around her say?
Yet, among those who know Mrs Clinton, even critics praise her integrity. She is a politician, therefore self-interested and cynical at times—yet driven, they say, by an overarching desire to improve America.
I think the real reason everyone hates her is because negative ads work in politics. She's been in the political eye for 20 years, and for 20 years, republicans have been deathly afraid of such a conservative dem. Here's one article that touches on it:
For more than two years, Republicans did more than demonize her—they criminalized her, first through the Benghazi hearings (a congressional boondoggle if ever there was one), and later, by representing her use of a personal email server—a politically unwise decision, but one that resulted in not a single felony or misdemeanor charge—as a national emergency.
It created a toxic environment and false narrative that may have led especially gullible voters to believe that Clinton, if elected, would face imminent impeachment, removal and imprisonment. In its pursuit of this scorched-earth project, the GOP was aided by mainstream journalists who covered the email story far out of proportion to its legal consequence; bad actors who exploited today’s fractured media environment; and the Russian government.
Slashdot Mirror
"Back To"? It had never stopped. The Russian Spy system may had slowed down after the fall of Communism, but that was mostly because everything else in Russia was failing.
It isn't because we are the good guys, it is because we are the toughest guys. The actions of a nation are the equivalent of 8 year old in a school yard. All the kids wants to play a different game, however the biggest kid makes the final choice what to play. Many will join the game. Some will go with the next biggest kid and play their game. Then you get few kids on the swing set pretending not to feel lonely. Now the two big kids, if they disagree or want to use their stuff, will find ways to get it. Be sneaky pretending to play the other game, then run off with the ball to play their game, then they would have a counter measure, or they will just outwardly fight each other.
It isn't about right or wrong, it is just about asserting power over the others. And being part of the more powerful group.
AKA "might is right". The opposing viewpoint is that it doesn't have to be. Humans have become more civilized over the millennia, and we could and probably will progress further. Some monkeys have done away with murder, it's not impossible. The key seems to be the entire group has to attack the aggressor.
Lololol. Yosimite Sam, is that you? I'm driving from Houston to Austin today, and I'm the wind is really kickin in the city even. I wonder how much those turbines did with the storms we had last night.
Texas is primarily powered by natural gas and coal, with a bit of highly subsidized wind.
I applaud the good link, that's an interesting map. Tiny opposition to your point is it does mention TX is #1 in wind.
However, while gas+wind may reduce emissions some, it is incapable of scaling to replace fossil, and will forever be dependent on it.
True. This is probably just a difference on emphasis - I'd emphasize that it can be minimized. I'm also a proponent of nuclear power, but that's a different convo.
The cost of wind today is deceptively low because it pushes the subsidies and required backup generation into another column. No one is suggesting coal as the alternative; just be realistic about expectations. Nor does most of the world have such conveniently co-located wind+gas resources.
I do agree, we should be realistic. I bring up Germany, and the real results of them leading the solar industry in the 90's, and it rocking their stock market. Solar was profitable for them, not because it saved costs of electricity generation, but because they developed technology and sold it. A lot of your solar power converters are still German. I say real estate boom because all of a sudden, the roof Germans already owned made their house more valuable, almost instantly. There are so many secondary effects of green policy that actually make it profitable in the long run. Sustainable practices cost less than non-sustainable ones, is that not a realistic statement? How much money would we save if there was less air pollution and asthma occurrence dropped? Lung cancer. I often wonder what pollution has to do with my stupid allergies. It's hard to imagine the costs of the worst possible effects of this ocean current stuff.
Greens making money isn't the goal; decarbonization is. Germany provides a fine example of how expending enormous resources building renewables is not making effective progress toward this goal.
Again, that link is an impressive map. I have to admit it's taking me a while to absorb all the info in it. But why can't there be 2 goals? Make money and save the planet? If the goal is decarbonization, it's much easier to accomplish the goal if we make it profitable. Germany proved it can be done. They did it with solar, and this is a country that gets as little sun as Portland. Yes they invested some money and worked hard, but they ended up with a smarter grid than us, and some days they have to pay everyone on the gird to use electricity. The horror.
Wind/solar/battery technology will progress until it solves all our problems; all we need is faith, a bit of time, and mountains of money. Maybe. That physical reality and math impose limitations is not something that most people are equipped to understand.
Wind is so much cheaper than coal that a bunch of conservative republicans in texas have converted to wind. They're doing it because of the math. Solar progresses rapidly, and battery, with it's slow progress, is being proven already today, so it's not going anywhere.
Here's a thought: at least try to follow the math of people who have taken the time to lay it out simply. Sure it is easier to remain an ignorant tool, comfortably ensconced within the green herd, but if you aren't headed in the right direction, you will never reach your destination. Reality has the final say, and you will pay the price for your foolishness.
Doh, you're right. I hereby give up my good wind turbine job, and will immediately look for the first coal mine to dive into. Follow the money!
Ok, seriously, nobody is saying tech will solve all the problems. But greens are saying you can make money with green tech, and doing so helps with the problem. Why not do that a lot more? Sell our tech to the rest of the world. Germany did it in the 90's, and made tons of money, sparked a run on their stock market, boom in real estate, and generally worked great until China started undercutting them. What happened to the US? We invented solar. Why in the world didn't we make some money on it? I'm not talking about manufacturing, I'm talking about innovation. What's the next thing? Let's not give up the money after we invent it just because of coal and oil lobyists.
Samsung raided in political corruption probe http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/busi...
among others...
False equivalence. The S. Korea scandal is about extortion, perjury, and money laundering in the billions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The facebook contributions, while so much political contributions feel slimey, seems to have been done legally through reporting to the US federal election commission.
The Russia narrative fell apart.
Lol, over 100 charges so far. I don't think "falling apart" means what you think it means.
The full list of known indictments and plea deals in Mueller’s probe
1) George Papadopoulos, former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, pleaded guilty in October to making false statements to the FBI.
2) Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, pleaded guilty in December to making false statements to the FBI.
3) Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chair, was indicted in October in Washington, DC on charges of conspiracy, money laundering, false statements, and failure to disclose foreign assets — all related to his work for Ukrainian politicians before he joined the Trump campaign. He’s pleaded not guilty on all counts. Then, in February, Mueller filed a new case against him in Virginia, with tax, financial, and bank fraud charges.
4) Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign aide and Manafort’s longtime junior business partner, was indicted on similar charges to Manafort. But he has now agreed to a plea deal with Mueller’s team, pleading guilty to just one false statements charge and one conspiracy charge.
5-20) 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies were indicted on conspiracy charges, with some also being accused of identity theft. The charges related to a Russian propaganda effort designed to interfere with the 2016 campaign. The companies involved are the Internet Research Agency, often described as a “Russian troll farm,” and two other companies that helped finance it. The Russian nationals indicted include 12 of the agency’s employees and its alleged financier, Yevgeny Prigozhin.
21) Richard Pinedo: This California man pleaded guilty to an identity theft charge in connection with the Russian indictments, and has agreed to cooperate with Mueller.
22) Alex van der Zwaan: This London lawyer pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with Rick Gates and another unnamed person based in Ukraine.
Two ex-Trump advisers lied to the FBI about their contacts with Russians
Michael Flynn Mario Tama/Getty So far, no Trump associates have been specifically charged with any crimes relating to helping Russia interfere with the 2016 election.
The closest we’ve come to that is that both Papadopoulos and Flynn both now admit that they lied to the FBI about their contacts with people connected to the Russian government. (Papadopoulos’s contacts took place before the election, and Flynn’s after it.)
Papadopoulos: Back in April 2016, Papadopoulos got a tip from a foreign professor he understood to have Russian government connections that the Russians had “dirt” on Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails.” He then proceeded to have extensive contacts with the professor and a Russian woman, during which he tried to plan a Trump campaign trip to Russia.
But when the FBI interviewed Papadopoulos about all this in January 2017, he repeatedly lied about what happened, he now admits. So he was arrested in July, and later agreed to plead guilty to a false statements charge and start cooperating with Mueller’s probe.
Flynn: In December 2016, during the transition, Flynn spoke to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about sanctions that President Barack Obama had just placed on Russia, and about a planned United Nations Security Council vote condemning Israeli settlements.
But when FBI agents interviewed him about all this in January 2017, Flynn lied to them about what his talks with Kislyak entailed, he now admits. In December 2017, Flynn pleaded guilty to a false statements charge and began cooperating with Mueller’s investigation.
Both Papadopoulos and
tl;dr: the republicans did to her image what Trump did to Trump's image.
ftfy
Backing up your post with link and quotes:
So the firm [Cambridge Analytica] harvested private information from the Facebook profiles of more than 50 million users without their permission, according to former Cambridge employees, associates and documents, making it one of the largest data leaks in the social network’s history.
In the United States, Mr. Mercer’s daughter, Rebekah, a board member, Mr. Bannon and Mr. Nix received warnings from their lawyer that it was illegal to employ foreigners in political campaigns, according to company documents and former employees.
documents viewed by The Times indicate that the firm’s British affiliate claims to have worked in Russia and Ukraine. And the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, disclosed in October that Mr. Nix had reached out to him during the campaign in hopes of obtaining private emails belonging to Mr. Trump’s Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.
All Hilary had to do was take him seriously and campaign properly (or at all) in the swing states.
... Seems they were pretty serious. The thing is ... no matter how much money you spend buying makeup for a pig, it's still going to be a pig.
This passes for argument? She's a pig, that's why she lost? How about she was, and is, hated. And why? What do people around her say?
Yet, among those who know Mrs Clinton, even critics praise her integrity. She is a politician, therefore self-interested and cynical at times—yet driven, they say, by an overarching desire to improve America.
I think the real reason everyone hates her is because negative ads work in politics. She's been in the political eye for 20 years, and for 20 years, republicans have been deathly afraid of such a conservative dem. Here's one article that touches on it:
For more than two years, Republicans did more than demonize her—they criminalized her, first through the Benghazi hearings (a congressional boondoggle if ever there was one), and later, by representing her use of a personal email server—a politically unwise decision, but one that resulted in not a single felony or misdemeanor charge—as a national emergency. It created a toxic environment and false narrative that may have led especially gullible voters to believe that Clinton, if elected, would face imminent impeachment, removal and imprisonment. In its pursuit of this scorched-earth project, the GOP was aided by mainstream journalists who covered the email story far out of proportion to its legal consequence; bad actors who exploited today’s fractured media environment; and the Russian government.