This is nothing more than a stupid-ass canard that Trump and his alt-right goonsquad are clinging to in order to distract from the real issues and the fact that they have no answers and their entire campaign is built around racism, misogyny, and xenophobic isolationism.
Actually, Comey should drop out of the investigation, and someone else at the FBI should take over from him. He is either stupid, or compromised, or both.
Wouldn't matter. Apparently everyone on the investigation *except* Comey wanted her indicted:
The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved claiming that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged.
“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute — it was a top-down decision,” said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.
Tesla changes their accounting methods. Dumb money is excited that TSLA is profitable. Smart money has no idea what to make of these numbers but know something smells musky.
As far as I can tell (Yes, I am a forensic accountant) they sold a lot of now-obsolete cars at a big discount and did some other tricks to prop up sales and push Q4 revenue into Q3, Q3 expenses into Q4, etc.
Now, it really doesn't matter if they're profitable or not because they have plenty of money in the bank and $22 million is a rounding error. Except Tesla is trying to buy Solar City. Why? Basically to bail out Elon Musk since Solar City is a turd circling the drain and Elon has a lot of money tied up in it (directly and indirectly through his other company, Space X). A lot of Tesla stock holders recognize this shit for what it is. But if Tesla can eek out a profit, dumb money thinks Elon is a fucking genius and let him buy up Solar City.
I just want to point out that the OP is:
1) Claiming to be a forensic accountant 2) online 3) as AC. 4) Framing his position in emotional terms (dumb money, smart money) 5) While showing no specifics. (Tesla changed accounting methods? Using nebulously-defined "tricks"?) 6) For a company whose analysis is largely partisan.
I don't know why people bother reading up on Tesla, news and analysis is all over the map. Price points from $150 to $400 per share, negative/positive outlooks, baldfaced lies about specs, dangers, and recalls, and all absolutely certain of their analysis.
It's almost as if there are large groups of people who would personally benefit from Tesla's success or failure, and who are willing to lie and mislead to bring about that result.
The other problem is what a do-gooder hacker could do once they took over the botnet. The options are: brick the devices, making them completely unusable; change the default passwords, locking out even their legitimate owners; or try to fix their firmware to make them more resistant to future hack attempts, and also still perfectly functioning.
I say brick them. Perhaps when bad security starts costing ordinary people time and money, they'll take it more seriously.
If I understand the process correctly, most hacked IoT devices aren't firmware hacked, the exploits live in volatile memory while the device is powered. The exploit can't get into the firmware because that's much more difficult, and in many cases the firmware is read-only.
Power cycling the device will clear the hack, but it can be taken over again using the same exploit.
Bricking the device, or perhaps making the device access an online site intended to catch the owner's attention(*) seems like a reasonable solution when used in concert with all the other solutions - going after the perpetrators legally, going after the device manufacturers, changing net rules to disallow IP address spoofing, and so on.
(*) Lead to a website with a landing page alerting the owner of the issue, or (for cameras) upload video to the user's account alerting the owner to the issue, and so on.
Twitter used to be free speech, but now it seems to be banning people right and left with the excuse "hate speech". In many cases the speech contains no insults whatsoever, and in many cases the speech is using clear terms in a non-insulting way to put forth a political view.
I think people are starting to realize that twitter's war on free speech makes it less interesting. When a celebrity with 9 million followers gets banned, that's 9 million customers who get put off and go somewhere else.
And I think that wikileaks will eventually be the answer. There's been no public announcement, but it's entirely possible that wikileaks *is* working on a twitter replacement, and of course it would be completely free speech.
By catering to the censors and thought police, twitter is digging its own grave and will get replaced by someone who's not afraid to stand up for free speech.
In a year or two, twitter will be on the cupboard of history, alongside companies (such as Google+) that restricted and pissed off its customers.
1) TruePundit is not a real news website. 2) It's much simpler than that. Julian Assange is a right-winger - a self-described fan of Ron Paul, anti-abortion, and with a long history of supporting authoritarian leaders worldwide.
Both candidates have specific, well-laid-out proposals which anyone can find.
Yes, except Trump's proposals are all to women he's trying to feel up.
Do you know Trump's well-laid-out plan for international trade? Do you know his well-though-out plan for dealing with the deficit? Can you name a single bit of legislation that Trump said he would push besides term limits?
Is this discussion about *me*? (*BLUSH*)
Trump is a fraud of a fake of a fugazi [...]
Ah, I see it now. You want me to do all the work, just so you can throw an insult in response.
Here you go, Latin lover: "Salus populi suprema lex esto".
Wikileaks published the diplomatic leaks in three large chunks, which included the "collateral murder" video.
At the time, Julian was surprised at how little impact the releases caused. He thought at the time that a huge drop would cause a huge response, but that turned out not to be the case(*). The news cycle quickly moved on to other issues.
He realized then that to get maximum effect you have to play the media a little.
So now he announces ahead of time that he has the data, then releases the data. He releases the data in smaller chunks, to spread the effect out, to keep the news cycle interested..
People see the "I have an interesting drop coming up" announcements as feeding his ego, but what he's *really* doing is getting everyone's attention.
And of course, a single monolithic drop is easy to counter with a juicy counter article. We saw that with the Trump "locker room" clip, which completely eclipsed the first of the recent Podesta E-mail drops. If Julian had released the entire tranch at that time, it would have been lost in the noise.
If Wikileaks had simply released everything at once after getting it, and not let Assange make his statements obviously made to be clear attacks on Clinton's campaign, you might have a point. But they didn't.
You're completely wrong on this point. Portioning out the drops gives the data maximum exposure, and helps to ensure that people notice and comment.
Julian is doing a good job, let's not lose sight of the sheer volume of corruption he's brought to light.
Wikileaks hadn't been pushing Trump leaks as hard as Clinton leaks. Now its supports are trying to take down US infrastructure. I used to think that Wikileaks is a neutral organisation promoting government transparency, but not any more. I kind of feel that they are up to no good.
What do you propose? Should Wikileaks hold off on Clinton until they have an equal amount on Trump?
Is that your definition of neutral? That they must expose corruption in equal amounts for both sides?
And none of that matters. You can try to spin this Clinton's way or Trump's way, but that's just partisanship.
The only issue of note is "change" versus "stay the course".
It's not one-sided, your candidate is not the best choice in all cases, stop trying to make her seem best for all people. Address the *issues*, not your wild guess of what their actions might be in some hypothetical situation.
Both candidates have specific, well-laid-out proposals which anyone can find.
Firstly, I don't put much stock in EQ, or AI as a valid way to measure EQ, or reports from hired companies using AI to assess EQ, as meaningful. As opposed to, for instance, peer-reviewed research.
That being said, it's no secret that Clinton is mostly "we're doing great" and Trump is "we need to change". That's the takeway from this report.
Now let's ask the American people: which sentiment resonates with you? Are you feeling mostly good about your situation, the economy, your job prospects, our internal security, our external policies?
Regardless of all the crap that's going on this election, that's the fundamental difference between the candidates. Clinton is saying "we're doing great", her public speeches say exactly that ("America is already great!"). Trump is saying that we have a host of problems, and we should fix them ("Make America great again!").
This is the intellectual discussion we should be having in this election - not locker room talk or rape allegations or anything less than the overall picture.
Take a moment and ask yourself, how do you *feel* about your situation in America right now, and whether the US government is benefitting you or not.
They are xenophobic views. Just because someone who identifies as a conservative has them, does not make them conservative themselves. They're pretty extremist, which defies the term conservative as it is.
These are not xenophobic views, they are completely practical views, and we need to debate and consider them as adults.
Carter imposed a temporary ban on Iranians entering the US, which is essentially what Trump wants. Below are Carter's exact words.
Also, banning immigration for any reason is not unconstitutional and has been held to not be unconstitutional by the supreme court in cases which were on point. I won't bother posting a link because explanations are easy to find on the net.
If, and I mean this literally, if you can state a clear case that allowing unfettered Muslim immigration from conflict areas (Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan et al) is good or bad, you should make it and convince the intellectuals who read this board of your position.
Just shouting racist! xenophobe! burn the witch! could result in crippling the country from terrorist attacks.
These are serious issues which should be discussed as adults, and not as Clinton supporters
If you have a case to make then make it, otherwise let the adults talk.
Let's let free speech have its moment.
Fourth, the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.
Is it interesting that the Clinton Foundation has no measurable results?
Most charities can say "we received $x amount of money, and spent $y on cancer research" or similar. The dollars can be traced to studies or hospitals or doctors' salaries or aid workers in conflict areas.
Not so with the Clinton Foundation. Their purpose is to "lobby" for good causes.
Totally unmeasurable, there is no way to judge whether a donation to the Clinton Foundation is more or less effective than a donation to the "Save the Children Foundation".
With "Save The Children", you know that 1 child is helped, you know how they are helped, and you see whether the help does any good over time.
[Scott Adams is a world class fucking idiot] As proof, please see your same link.
And this is why Slashdot seems to be pro-Trump.
Scott Adams is a trained hypnotist, and has had many insights into this election from that point of view. When he says people are brainwashed, he's speaking professionally with some background. And the posted article uses analogy and example to explain his point.
If you think he's wrong, just pasting a random insult ain't 'gonna do it.
Anyone can show pro-Clinton articles and posts on Slashdot, it only takes insight and background, which anyone could do.
Raw, unsupported insults simply aren't good enough.
I've been here through a couple of elections, and I can say definitively that this place goes to hell just prior.
About 6 weeks before an election this place starts to get crazy with spammers and sock puppets, and about 3 weeks prior it goes completely bonkers. It's happened before, it'll happen again in 4 years. If you're worried, just ignore it for the next 3 weeks.
Apropos shadow banning, I myself was banned from Slashdot for about a day because of trolls modding my submissions as "spam" (and triggering Slashdot's anti-spam auto ban).
I sent an E-mail to feedback, an op read it, and I was unbanned. To my total astonishment.
Slashdot is awesome, please don't paint us with the same brush as Twitter or Facebook.
During the election of 1968, Johnson was trying to bring an end to the Vietnam war. Nixon feared a breakthrough at the Paris Peace talks designed to find a negotiated settlement to the Vietnam war, and he knew this would derail his campaign, so he contacted Hanoi and told them, essentially, "if you delay the peace talks, you'll get a better deal once I'm elected".
This was known to Johnson and the FBI at the time, who chose to do nothing.
From the article: “Once in office he escalated the war into Laos and Cambodia, with the loss of an additional 22,000 American lives, before finally settling for a peace agreement in 1973 that was within grasp in 1968,”
You probably aren't old enough to remember that era, but a lot of us are. The peace talks were constantly delayed by demands that, for instance, the table be round or square. This seemed odd at the time, but now we know why.
Nixon committed treason in the literal sense of the word, interfered with the US operations of state, and extended a war for 5 years just to get elected.
We only recently found this out because the records were sealed for 50 years, and recently unsealed.
I'm told that other, previous elections were worse. This one is just more heavily televised.
Be grateful for the bread and circus, because it's not actually killing people.
First the "investigative" video is by James O'Keefe, who is infamous for dishonestly editing and framing videos to create the false appearance of criminal behaviour. And yes, you're allowed to shoot the messenger when the messenger is lying.
As for the woman Zulema, even if she was a Clinton supporter or even worked some aspect of the Clinton campaign (they must have thousands of paid staffers) that doesn't mean she was part of a Clinton conspiracy to frame Sanders supporters for violent protests. People who work in politics sometimes care about politics too, and they're more than capable of attending a protest on their own.
Oh, and I don't know what she has to do with the violent protests anyway, the video is of her at a peaceful (though disruptive) protest on a highway!
Huh.
Scott Adams has a blog post on attacking the source, and claims it's almost always a "tell" for being guilty.
I don't know about those sorts of things, maybe this is the statistically improbably case where a non-guilty person attacks the messenger.
Then again, you don't cite any sources, show independent reviews of the evidence, or even any rationalization. Just "the evidence is junk".
Everyone else is covering that story to death. The "food groups" the nominees are in are their race, gender & wealth if you're wondering. Sanders is their very last choice, all by himself. So why not release this story instead, which almost nobody is covering right now?
Slashdot Mirror
Even the other Democratic candidate considers it a non-issue, and has said so since the very beginning of the primaries campaign:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
This is nothing more than a stupid-ass canard that Trump and his alt-right goonsquad are clinging to in order to distract from the real issues and the fact that they have no answers and their entire campaign is built around racism, misogyny, and xenophobic isolationism.
Real issue, such as Clinton supporters being bullies?
There's not a one among you who can rub two words together without insulting someone.
Delete the insults from any pro-Clinton position and you have nothing left!
Actually, Comey should drop out of the investigation, and someone else at the FBI should take over from him. He is either stupid, or compromised, or both.
Wouldn't matter. Apparently everyone on the investigation *except* Comey wanted her indicted:
The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved claiming that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged.
“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute — it was a top-down decision,” said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.
Tesla changes their accounting methods. Dumb money is excited that TSLA is profitable. Smart money has no idea what to make of these numbers but know something smells musky.
As far as I can tell (Yes, I am a forensic accountant) they sold a lot of now-obsolete cars at a big discount and did some other tricks to prop up sales and push Q4 revenue into Q3, Q3 expenses into Q4, etc.
Now, it really doesn't matter if they're profitable or not because they have plenty of money in the bank and $22 million is a rounding error. Except Tesla is trying to buy Solar City. Why? Basically to bail out Elon Musk since Solar City is a turd circling the drain and Elon has a lot of money tied up in it (directly and indirectly through his other company, Space X). A lot of Tesla stock holders recognize this shit for what it is. But if Tesla can eek out a profit, dumb money thinks Elon is a fucking genius and let him buy up Solar City.
I just want to point out that the OP is:
1) Claiming to be a forensic accountant
2) online
3) as AC.
4) Framing his position in emotional terms (dumb money, smart money)
5) While showing no specifics. (Tesla changed accounting methods? Using nebulously-defined "tricks"?)
6) For a company whose analysis is largely partisan.
I don't know why people bother reading up on Tesla, news and analysis is all over the map. Price points from $150 to $400 per share, negative/positive outlooks, baldfaced lies about specs, dangers, and recalls, and all absolutely certain of their analysis.
It's almost as if there are large groups of people who would personally benefit from Tesla's success or failure, and who are willing to lie and mislead to bring about that result.
The other problem is what a do-gooder hacker could do once they took over the botnet. The options are: brick the devices, making them completely unusable; change the default passwords, locking out even their legitimate owners; or try to fix their firmware to make them more resistant to future hack attempts, and also still perfectly functioning.
I say brick them. Perhaps when bad security starts costing ordinary people time and money, they'll take it more seriously.
If I understand the process correctly, most hacked IoT devices aren't firmware hacked, the exploits live in volatile memory while the device is powered. The exploit can't get into the firmware because that's much more difficult, and in many cases the firmware is read-only.
Power cycling the device will clear the hack, but it can be taken over again using the same exploit.
Bricking the device, or perhaps making the device access an online site intended to catch the owner's attention(*) seems like a reasonable solution when used in concert with all the other solutions - going after the perpetrators legally, going after the device manufacturers, changing net rules to disallow IP address spoofing, and so on.
(*) Lead to a website with a landing page alerting the owner of the issue, or (for cameras) upload video to the user's account alerting the owner to the issue, and so on.
Twitter used to be free speech, but now it seems to be banning people right and left with the excuse "hate speech". In many cases the speech contains no insults whatsoever, and in many cases the speech is using clear terms in a non-insulting way to put forth a political view.
Google has several clear examples. For example, Scott Adams was banned from twitter for no apparent reason, and apparently gets banned from periscope [streaming app owned by twitter] whenever he starts talking about Trump.
Twitter is trying to engineer a "safe place" where no one can be insulted, and only approved speech is allowed.
It's bad enough that wikileaks threatened to start its own Twitter in response to the ban of Milo Yiannopoulos.
I think people are starting to realize that twitter's war on free speech makes it less interesting. When a celebrity with 9 million followers gets banned, that's 9 million customers who get put off and go somewhere else.
And I think that wikileaks will eventually be the answer. There's been no public announcement, but it's entirely possible that wikileaks *is* working on a twitter replacement, and of course it would be completely free speech.
By catering to the censors and thought police, twitter is digging its own grave and will get replaced by someone who's not afraid to stand up for free speech.
In a year or two, twitter will be on the cupboard of history, alongside companies (such as Google+) that restricted and pissed off its customers.
1) TruePundit is not a real news website.
2) It's much simpler than that. Julian Assange is a right-winger - a self-described fan of Ron Paul, anti-abortion, and with a long history of supporting authoritarian leaders worldwide.
Scott Adams says that attacking the source first is a tell for being "guilty".
I notice that you didn't sat that the information was false.
Was that on purpose?
Yes, except Trump's proposals are all to women he's trying to feel up.
Do you know Trump's well-laid-out plan for international trade? Do you know his well-though-out plan for dealing with the deficit? Can you name a single bit of legislation that Trump said he would push besides term limits?
Is this discussion about *me*? (*BLUSH*)
Trump is a fraud of a fake of a fugazi [...]
Ah, I see it now. You want me to do all the work, just so you can throw an insult in response.
Here you go, Latin lover: "Salus populi suprema lex esto".
And no, I didn't look that up.
Let's take a trip down memory lane.
Wikileaks published the diplomatic leaks in three large chunks, which included the "collateral murder" video.
At the time, Julian was surprised at how little impact the releases caused. He thought at the time that a huge drop would cause a huge response, but that turned out not to be the case(*). The news cycle quickly moved on to other issues.
He realized then that to get maximum effect you have to play the media a little.
So now he announces ahead of time that he has the data, then releases the data. He releases the data in smaller chunks, to spread the effect out, to keep the news cycle interested..
People see the "I have an interesting drop coming up" announcements as feeding his ego, but what he's *really* doing is getting everyone's attention.
And of course, a single monolithic drop is easy to counter with a juicy counter article. We saw that with the Trump "locker room" clip, which completely eclipsed the first of the recent Podesta E-mail drops. If Julian had released the entire tranch at that time, it would have been lost in the noise.
If Wikileaks had simply released everything at once after getting it, and not let Assange make his statements obviously made to be clear attacks on Clinton's campaign, you might have a point. But they didn't.
You're completely wrong on this point. Portioning out the drops gives the data maximum exposure, and helps to ensure that people notice and comment.
Julian is doing a good job, let's not lose sight of the sheer volume of corruption he's brought to light.
(*) From my memory of an interview he gave.
There were Trump leaks? News to me. It seems like Assange has just been going after Hillary because he knows she won't pardon him.
There are really multiple competing theories on this.
Maybe Assange has been going after them because he leaks what he has, and doesn't have dirt on the other side.
Maybe Assange has been going after them because they are more corrupt than the other side, so he has much more dirt on them.
Maybe Assange is going after them because Hillary conspired to have him killed, and took "legan and extra legal" steps to silence him.
Your position doesn't look too strong.
Who are the "morons" again?
Why don't you try an argument from reason, based on some specific examples.
Maybe first, your favorite presidential candidate should do those things.
I have it on good authority that she's busy.
Perhaps you could post something in her place?
What would Hillary actually *say*, if she had to make an actual argument?
> A link confirming that his position is what you say it is would be nice.
Lol. Trump has been on every side of nearly every issue. [...]
And Hillary has a public policy and private policy on every issue (in her own words).
What's your point?
And I note that you *still* haven't listed an issue or reasoned why her position is better than his.
Wikileaks hadn't been pushing Trump leaks as hard as Clinton leaks. Now its supports are trying to take down US infrastructure. I used to think that Wikileaks is a neutral organisation promoting government transparency, but not any more. I kind of feel that they are up to no good.
What do you propose? Should Wikileaks hold off on Clinton until they have an equal amount on Trump?
Is that your definition of neutral? That they must expose corruption in equal amounts for both sides?
.... or by the 2nd?
Looks like the shoe's on the other foot, at least for their 15 minutes of Internet infamy, whomever did this.
We don't threaten to jail our political opponents - that would be a dictatorship!
(But we totally use our influence to silence their detractors! That's completely different!)
Trump's proposed solutions would not solve anything, and they're aiming at issues that this country has already successfully [...]
Would too!
See how easily I can refute you?
Why don't you try an argument from reason, based on some specific examples. A link confirming that his position is what you say it is would be nice.
You're talking to smart people, you have to use smart arguments.
Trump will dry the swamp, with nuclear fire if [...].
Random babbling does not make your point.
Address the *issues*, and we'll listen.
The problem is [...]
And none of that matters. You can try to spin this Clinton's way or Trump's way, but that's just partisanship.
The only issue of note is "change" versus "stay the course".
It's not one-sided, your candidate is not the best choice in all cases, stop trying to make her seem best for all people. Address the *issues*, not your wild guess of what their actions might be in some hypothetical situation.
Both candidates have specific, well-laid-out proposals which anyone can find.
Tell us why her policies are better than his.
Firstly, I don't put much stock in EQ, or AI as a valid way to measure EQ, or reports from hired companies using AI to assess EQ, as meaningful. As opposed to, for instance, peer-reviewed research.
That being said, it's no secret that Clinton is mostly "we're doing great" and Trump is "we need to change". That's the takeway from this report.
Now let's ask the American people: which sentiment resonates with you? Are you feeling mostly good about your situation, the economy, your job prospects, our internal security, our external policies?
Regardless of all the crap that's going on this election, that's the fundamental difference between the candidates. Clinton is saying "we're doing great", her public speeches say exactly that ("America is already great!"). Trump is saying that we have a host of problems, and we should fix them ("Make America great again!").
This is the intellectual discussion we should be having in this election - not locker room talk or rape allegations or anything less than the overall picture.
Take a moment and ask yourself, how do you *feel* about your situation in America right now, and whether the US government is benefitting you or not.
If you like your situation, vote for Clinton.
If you want change, vote for Trump.
They are xenophobic views. Just because someone who identifies as a conservative has them, does not make them conservative themselves. They're pretty extremist, which defies the term conservative as it is.
These are not xenophobic views, they are completely practical views, and we need to debate and consider them as adults.
Carter imposed a temporary ban on Iranians entering the US, which is essentially what Trump wants. Below are Carter's exact words.
Also, banning immigration for any reason is not unconstitutional and has been held to not be unconstitutional by the supreme court in cases which were on point. I won't bother posting a link because explanations are easy to find on the net.
If, and I mean this literally, if you can state a clear case that allowing unfettered Muslim immigration from conflict areas (Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan et al) is good or bad, you should make it and convince the intellectuals who read this board of your position.
Just shouting racist! xenophobe! burn the witch! could result in crippling the country from terrorist attacks.
These are serious issues which should be discussed as adults, and not as Clinton supporters
If you have a case to make then make it, otherwise let the adults talk.
Let's let free speech have its moment.
Fourth, the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.
Is it interesting that the Clinton Foundation has no measurable results?
Most charities can say "we received $x amount of money, and spent $y on cancer research" or similar. The dollars can be traced to studies or hospitals or doctors' salaries or aid workers in conflict areas.
Not so with the Clinton Foundation. Their purpose is to "lobby" for good causes.
Totally unmeasurable, there is no way to judge whether a donation to the Clinton Foundation is more or less effective than a donation to the "Save the Children Foundation".
With "Save The Children", you know that 1 child is helped, you know how they are helped, and you see whether the help does any good over time.
But with the "Clinton Foundation"... ?
[Scott Adams is a world class fucking idiot] As proof, please see your same link.
And this is why Slashdot seems to be pro-Trump.
Scott Adams is a trained hypnotist, and has had many insights into this election from that point of view. When he says people are brainwashed, he's speaking professionally with some background. And the posted article uses analogy and example to explain his point.
If you think he's wrong, just pasting a random insult ain't 'gonna do it.
Anyone can show pro-Clinton articles and posts on Slashdot, it only takes insight and background, which anyone could do.
Raw, unsupported insults simply aren't good enough.
I've been here through a couple of elections, and I can say definitively that this place goes to hell just prior.
About 6 weeks before an election this place starts to get crazy with spammers and sock puppets, and about 3 weeks prior it goes completely bonkers. It's happened before, it'll happen again in 4 years. If you're worried, just ignore it for the next 3 weeks.
Apropos shadow banning, I myself was banned from Slashdot for about a day because of trolls modding my submissions as "spam" (and triggering Slashdot's anti-spam auto ban).
I sent an E-mail to feedback, an op read it, and I was unbanned. To my total astonishment.
Slashdot is awesome, please don't paint us with the same brush as Twitter or Facebook.
It's just our 4-yearly version of pon-farr.
During the election of 1968, Johnson was trying to bring an end to the Vietnam war. Nixon feared a breakthrough at the Paris Peace talks designed to find a negotiated settlement to the Vietnam war, and he knew this would derail his campaign, so he contacted Hanoi and told them, essentially, "if you delay the peace talks, you'll get a better deal once I'm elected".
This was known to Johnson and the FBI at the time, who chose to do nothing.
From the article: “Once in office he escalated the war into Laos and Cambodia, with the loss of an additional 22,000 American lives, before finally settling for a peace agreement in 1973 that was within grasp in 1968,”
You probably aren't old enough to remember that era, but a lot of us are. The peace talks were constantly delayed by demands that, for instance, the table be round or square. This seemed odd at the time, but now we know why.
Nixon committed treason in the literal sense of the word, interfered with the US operations of state, and extended a war for 5 years just to get elected.
We only recently found this out because the records were sealed for 50 years, and recently unsealed.
I'm told that other, previous elections were worse. This one is just more heavily televised.
Be grateful for the bread and circus, because it's not actually killing people.
Because the evidence is junk.
First the "investigative" video is by James O'Keefe, who is infamous for dishonestly editing and framing videos to create the false appearance of criminal behaviour. And yes, you're allowed to shoot the messenger when the messenger is lying.
As for the woman Zulema, even if she was a Clinton supporter or even worked some aspect of the Clinton campaign (they must have thousands of paid staffers) that doesn't mean she was part of a Clinton conspiracy to frame Sanders supporters for violent protests. People who work in politics sometimes care about politics too, and they're more than capable of attending a protest on their own.
Oh, and I don't know what she has to do with the violent protests anyway, the video is of her at a peaceful (though disruptive) protest on a highway!
Huh.
Scott Adams has a blog post on attacking the source, and claims it's almost always a "tell" for being guilty.
I don't know about those sorts of things, maybe this is the statistically improbably case where a non-guilty person attacks the messenger.
Then again, you don't cite any sources, show independent reviews of the evidence, or even any rationalization. Just "the evidence is junk".
Was that on purpose?
Everyone else is covering that story to death. The "food groups" the nominees are in are their race, gender & wealth if you're wondering. Sanders is their very last choice, all by himself. So why not release this story instead, which almost nobody is covering right now?
https://slashdot.org/submissio...
An excellent choice, monseur.
Might I also recommend https://slashdot.org/submissio...
or perhaps https://twitter.com/wikileaks/...
So what happens to the other 37 procent? If you keep adding CO2 to the water, re-saturating it, doesn't the reaction just keep going?
That's faradic efficiency. The remaining 37% go to heat, and perhaps other by-products.
The paper points out that CO, H2, and CH4 are made at various other voltages, maybe some of the remaining 37% is in useful by-products.
(I've only skimmed the paper - need more time to read and digest.)