> He is apparantly suprised that broadcasting a sign with "Death To All Jews" on it would get him fired.
Actually, he's surprised that his other video about the media taking things out of context would itself be taken out of context to prove that he was some kind of Nazi.
Even in the original video, in which he was dismayed to find out that someone would actually do those things for a few bucks, he says that he's not proud of this and apologizes to the viewers because he didn't think the people he hired on Fiverr would actually do those things.
But I bet you didn't actually look at any of that, and now the videos are marked as private. The best I can find now is this discussion by a friend of his.
You'd think that good backups would be better insurance, but far too many firms simply don't have good backups. Or worse, they think they have backups and they've never really tested the restore process and wait for an emergency to find out it doesn't actually work...
Thanks for the cite. It's amazing how many people on Slashdot are suddenly eager to defend the rape of children...
Yeah, I'm real sure that they're going to a Tor hidden service to show off a few innocent baby pics or people that are 1 day less than 18. Makes perfect sense/s
I know you're trolling me, but the simple answer would be to get permission from the car's owner before driving it. That has certain other advantages, like not needing to hotwire the damn thing just to drive it.
There's nothing analogous for the FBI putting malware disguised as child rape onto a CP hosting site on the dark web and investigating everyone who downloads and executes it.
This is a digital bait car. Just being infected isn't enough to convict you, but it's more than enough to investigate. When they pull up an HD full of CP, it'll be pretty clear on whether you accidentally stumbled onto that Tor hidden service or not.
Slashdot likes to forget that we've seen more than a few stories about people who had CP planted on them where the investigators figured that out right away once they examined the hard drive (and then charged the real culprit). It's not hard when they've been doing things for a long time that can be corroborated with other evidence. They generally end up having a conversation on cross examination that goes something like this: "So you say that it wasn't you at the computer at this time, but our data shows someone logged into your Facebook at the same time from that IP, you posted several status updates and sent several emails and also were chatting with several friends. And there are twelve separate instances like this. Yet you never once did anything that would indicate that someone who wasn't you posted to your Facebook dozens of times in the past year, did you?"
The kind of child rape and torture that's on that sort of site is so bad that the people who work on these cases develop PTSD. Yes iffy cases exist, but a dedicated CP site on Tor is not the kind of place that is dedicated to random innocent pictures.
This malware is the digital equivalent of a bait car. If they're actually innocent, they should be challenging how it was determined that they were using the computer. There's a safe harbor for people who stumble across CP accidentally, as well, but I'd guess that most of you haven't bothered to read that part of the US code, just to preempt the old Slashdot complaint that maybe they accidentally connected to Tor, hunted down a CP site, downloaded one picture and noped the hell out of there.
More the reverse, I look for evidence that something is true. That's how the burden of proof works and some hearsay they've published isn't going to change that. But feel free to jump at every new rumor, there's going to be a steady drip of those for years, FYI.
Is there a single non-anonymous source there? Some random "US official," really? Because unless they have something that can be corroborated, the whole thing is just a rumor. We were told us they had attacks like that planned months ago.
And no, I don't believe them when they tell me things I want to hear, either. It's just a stupid game they play in the press that only fools those who don't know how it works. Read this article for how not to get fooled. And note that the source of that is actually a fairly partisan Democrat.
The only thing that matters is whether they preserve the things they're legally obligated to. How they communicate for private or party business is up to them, as well. The bad thing would be if they claim they're sending 'yoga emails' but you find it's full of things like Top Secret pictures of North Korea as a certain someone had been known to do.
I'd hope that everyone would use secure messaging to actually transmit messages. It would be really dumb not to.
Speaking only for myself, yes, I'll be mad at them if they're trying to evade the Presidential Records Act or similar, whichever party is doing this. I won't, however, just make blind assumptions or blame either party for trying to be secure. That said, insider threats are the big threats and for that it doesn't matter how securely the messages are delivered to the mole.
I don't think any of those things. That those are the only possibilities you can come up with is a sign of an impoverished imagination. All I'm saying is that something happened there that was relevant to the travel ban. And no, it wasn't a 'massacre' at all. Some of the other events were like that, but not that particular one.
Funny thing is, I'm not even in favor of this ban because I don't see how it helps anything. But it is funny to watch the media get trolled by Trump. I'm amazed you guys still haven't figured out what he's doing. It's as dumb as being surprised by what he's doing now, even after he spelled it out months ago.
> This is why Comey said what he did - cases like Clinton's result in administrative punishment at most, and the worst penalty was loss of clearance and thus job (which didn't apply anymore for her because she was no longer Secretary of State).
There's also the fact that Obama's AG, Loretta Lynch, would have had to prosecute a presidential candidate. It's not like this server was some accidental thing or that she was ignorant of the Presidential Records Act. Here's where I discuss her email with Colin Powell on how to cheat the oversight. The original email is here (click 'view original PDF'). And here's a transcription of it for anyone who hates PDFs. Some typos are in the original, but compare with the PDF if you want to be sure I didn't add any:
C06125520 UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2016-11013 Doc No. C06125520 Date: 09/08/2016
Re: Question
From: Colin Powell [redacted] [RELEASE IN PART B6]
To: Hillary Clinton hr15@att.blackberry.net B6
Subject: Re: Question
I didn't have a BlackBerry. What I did do was have a personal computer that was hooked up to a private phone line (sounds ancient.) So I could communicate with a wide range of friends directly without it going through the State Department servers. I even used it to do business with some foreign leaders and some of the senior folks in the Department on their personal email accounts. I did the same thing on the road in hotels.
Now, the real issue had to do with PDAs, as we called them a few years ago before BlackBerry became a noun. And the issue was DS would not allow them into the secure spaces, especially up your way. When I asked why not they gave me all kinds of nonsense about how they gave out signals that could be read by spies, etc. Same reason they tried to keep mobile phones out of the suite. I had numerous meetings with them. We even opened one up for them to try to explain to me why it was more dangerous than say, a remote control for one of the many tvs in the suite. Or something embedded in my shoe heel. They never satisfied me and NSA/CIA wouldn't back off. So, we just went about our business and stopped asking. I had an ancient version of a PDA and used it. In general, the suite was so sealed that it is hard to get signals in or out wirelessly.
However, there is a real danger. If it is public that you have a BlackBerry and it is governmend and your are using it, government or not, to do business, it may become an official record and subject to the law. Readingi about the President's BB rules this morning, it sounds like it won't be as useful as it used to be. Be very careful. I got around it all by not saaying much and not using systems that captured the data.
You will find DS driving you crazy if you let them. They had Maddy tied up in knots. I refused to let them live in my house or build a place on my property. They found an empty garage half a block away. On weekends, I drove my beloved cars around town without them following me. I promised I would have a phone and not be gone more than an hour or two at Tysons or the hardware store. They hated it and asked me to sign a letter relieving them of responsibility if I got whacked while doing that. I gladly did. Spontaneity was
There was no massacre, that much was indeed wrong. However, this is what did happen in Bowling Green, KY:
In 2011, two two Iraqi men who entered the country as refugees were arrested in Bowling Green, Kentucky.[2] They were charged with federal terrorism because they had attempted to send both money and weapons to al-Qaeda in Iraq.[1][3] They were convicted of supporting attacks on U.S. troops while they were still in Iraq as well as attempting to provide material support to al-Qaeda in Iraq after they had moved to the United States.[3] Arrests were made on various charges including "attempting to provide material support to terrorists and to al Qaeda in Iraq."[1]
Before entering the U.S., both had used improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in Iraq,[4] although this had not been known at the time of their admission to the United States. The men both pleaded guilty; one is serving a life sentence while the other is serving 40 years in federal prison.[3] The charges included "conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals abroad, conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction against U.S. national abroad, distributing information on the manufacture and use of IEDs, attempting to provide material support to terrorists" and "conspiracy to transfer, possess and export Stinger missiles".[5] The two men never attacked anyone in the United States,[2] and there was no evidence that the men had traveled back to the Middle East or had any contact with ISIS after being admitted to the United States. Neither of the two was ever charged with plotting attacks inside the United States.[4]
What exactly is a "real" operation? Shouldn't that be one defined on R? Yet you seem to want to restrict me to N if you're talking about rocks. So tell me, can I multiply 4 rocks by 4 rocks? Why or why not? Because multiplication, logarithms and floor are all I need to define concatenation in some base. Do I have to define that in terms of splitting rocks into smaller pieces, measuring their length, or shaving them off to an even size? Do I have to use unary? Help me out here.
Concatenation may be base-dependent, but it's not exactly hard to give a formula for. Basically you shift the first number to the left by however many digits and add the second one. You use logarithms to figure out how many places to slide it over. You raise the base to that power and multiply by the first number to shift it to the left. Then you just add the second number, which overwrites all the 0 spaces you just created. log(x, base) = { ln x / ln base }
concat(x, y, base) = { (x * base^(floor(log(y, base)) + 1)) + y }
This is probably easier to see in binary. You're just doing a left shift, filling everything with 0s and doing an OR to add them.
Calculate concat(1101, 0011):
Shift 1101 by 4 places (i.e. the length of the 2nd number) - 11010000
> If you're even trying to define "normal" in a special way to make something true, then you've already left the realm of normalcy and entered the realm of "alternate facts."
There are also many different axiomatic systems, e.g. ZF vs. ZFC, which are built from different rules and which admit different factual statements. It's not like either one is more 'correct' either. In that example, both accepting and denying the Axiom of Choice leads to strange results.
So if you want to make a point about "alternate facts," you might want to make sure that your knowledge doesn't have big gaps in it. It's fascinating just how many different accounts you have to read these days to get a more complete picture of what's going on these days. So many stories (on *all* sides) like to omit and possibly denigrate whichever parts of a story they find inconvenient. You cannot trust any single source, best to read them all and figure out who is leaving out which bits of the story (and why). Personally, I think that a skeptical reading of the news is a good approach.
The people in charge change regularly enough that I wouldn't label the FBI as some monolithic block when there must be thousands of people in there with different motivations, knowledge, and leadership.
Besides, more than a few high ranking pedos have been taken down, for example former Republican Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert. I'm surprised Podesta would still want to hang out with that guy, but then again, they do have a long history together.
Depends on your definition of 'normal', really. But yes, this is just a silly game. I mean, you normally construct the integers out of just one number, zero, and the successor function called an arbitrary number of times.
So there's no reason you need four 4s. Just construct the integers normally, e.g. 0, ++0, ++(++0), etc. with ++ denoting the successor function in a way familiar to C-syntax programmers.
For those who haven't seen this before, just look up set theory on Khan academy or such.
> Your assertion is at the two year old level: no facts, no logic, just babbling.
Normally the person asserting a claim is supposed to provide the proof. I note that you provided no evidence of a "false flag" and instead pointed out that there are tons of people who hate Trump, lending credence to the idea that some minority thereof might be angry enough to injure someone they believe supports him. You neatly fashion that into some kind of strawman, making claims I did not.
As for the other part about the Berkley employee, I'm perfectly capable of linking it and it's easy to find by searching, but I'll just hold off on naming names until I see a proper police report.
That said, you remember that plot to attack the Deploreaball that PV exposed that certain people were claiming was some kind of sting operation? There have been actual arrests as a result of that one. If you go back to the actual video, they were planning to put butyric acid in the ventilation systems as well, something NBC did not mention.
Or did you mean the part about the Young Turks (the original ones) throwing the Armenians out of their homes and leaving them to die? Pretty much only Turkey still denies that, for political reasons. Definitely not a group I'd want to name myself after.
I don't get this either. What does a hologram really add here vs. normal people holding a gotomeeting/webex/whatever over 3 different continents regularly?
I have yet to see any actual evidence of that, unless you count pure conjecture by The Young Turks & co.
Meanwhile, I have seen a fair bit of evidence that someone employed by Berkley appears to have admitting to assaulting someone who was unconscious on Twitter, complete with pics of the guy. I suppose that person could've taken a picture of an unconscious person and claimed to have punched them for fun on Twitter without actually doing it, but that sounds even dumber.
Why do you believe the FBI has anything to do with Podesta talking about a handkercheif with a 'pizza-related map' in leaked emails or with weird pictures found on Alefantis' now-defunct Instagram account?
I'm protesting the sort of unclear thinking that caused someone to use an emotionally charged word that is not correct on any level.
As for the rest, think what you wish, but I don't believe I have anything copyright infringing on here. I basically gave up on movies & TV a long time ago and I can hardly find anything to watch on YouTube or CR. My games are either free (Nethack, DF) or from GoG / Steam. No emulators or ROMs. You might well be right that nearly everyone has probably committed some sort of copyright violation at some point by now, though, but that only serves to show how overreaching that law has become.
Slashdot Mirror
> He is apparantly suprised that broadcasting a sign with "Death To All Jews" on it would get him fired.
Actually, he's surprised that his other video about the media taking things out of context would itself be taken out of context to prove that he was some kind of Nazi.
Even in the original video, in which he was dismayed to find out that someone would actually do those things for a few bucks, he says that he's not proud of this and apologizes to the viewers because he didn't think the people he hired on Fiverr would actually do those things.
But I bet you didn't actually look at any of that, and now the videos are marked as private. The best I can find now is this discussion by a friend of his.
> does it run well on all operating systems?
They're only trying to compete with Skype here....
You'd think that good backups would be better insurance, but far too many firms simply don't have good backups. Or worse, they think they have backups and they've never really tested the restore process and wait for an emergency to find out it doesn't actually work...
Thanks for the cite. It's amazing how many people on Slashdot are suddenly eager to defend the rape of children...
Yeah, I'm real sure that they're going to a Tor hidden service to show off a few innocent baby pics or people that are 1 day less than 18. Makes perfect sense /s
I know you're trolling me, but the simple answer would be to get permission from the car's owner before driving it. That has certain other advantages, like not needing to hotwire the damn thing just to drive it.
There's nothing analogous for the FBI putting malware disguised as child rape onto a CP hosting site on the dark web and investigating everyone who downloads and executes it.
Same here. I don't have a Facebook and I doubt I ever will.
This is a digital bait car. Just being infected isn't enough to convict you, but it's more than enough to investigate. When they pull up an HD full of CP, it'll be pretty clear on whether you accidentally stumbled onto that Tor hidden service or not.
Slashdot likes to forget that we've seen more than a few stories about people who had CP planted on them where the investigators figured that out right away once they examined the hard drive (and then charged the real culprit). It's not hard when they've been doing things for a long time that can be corroborated with other evidence. They generally end up having a conversation on cross examination that goes something like this: "So you say that it wasn't you at the computer at this time, but our data shows someone logged into your Facebook at the same time from that IP, you posted several status updates and sent several emails and also were chatting with several friends. And there are twelve separate instances like this. Yet you never once did anything that would indicate that someone who wasn't you posted to your Facebook dozens of times in the past year, did you?"
We already have mass surveillance in private hands. Ever been to a casino? Do you know what kind of tech they use?
The real question is how we keep police accountable to the public, not how to make sure the police are kept away from every new technology.
> Define "Child Porn" for us.
The kind of child rape and torture that's on that sort of site is so bad that the people who work on these cases develop PTSD. Yes iffy cases exist, but a dedicated CP site on Tor is not the kind of place that is dedicated to random innocent pictures.
This malware is the digital equivalent of a bait car. If they're actually innocent, they should be challenging how it was determined that they were using the computer. There's a safe harbor for people who stumble across CP accidentally, as well, but I'd guess that most of you haven't bothered to read that part of the US code, just to preempt the old Slashdot complaint that maybe they accidentally connected to Tor, hunted down a CP site, downloaded one picture and noped the hell out of there.
More the reverse, I look for evidence that something is true. That's how the burden of proof works and some hearsay they've published isn't going to change that. But feel free to jump at every new rumor, there's going to be a steady drip of those for years, FYI.
Is there a single non-anonymous source there? Some random "US official," really? Because unless they have something that can be corroborated, the whole thing is just a rumor. We were told us they had attacks like that planned months ago.
And no, I don't believe them when they tell me things I want to hear, either. It's just a stupid game they play in the press that only fools those who don't know how it works. Read this article for how not to get fooled. And note that the source of that is actually a fairly partisan Democrat.
The only thing that matters is whether they preserve the things they're legally obligated to. How they communicate for private or party business is up to them, as well. The bad thing would be if they claim they're sending 'yoga emails' but you find it's full of things like Top Secret pictures of North Korea as a certain someone had been known to do.
I'd hope that everyone would use secure messaging to actually transmit messages. It would be really dumb not to.
Meanwhile, the DNC is on Signal.
Speaking only for myself, yes, I'll be mad at them if they're trying to evade the Presidential Records Act or similar, whichever party is doing this. I won't, however, just make blind assumptions or blame either party for trying to be secure. That said, insider threats are the big threats and for that it doesn't matter how securely the messages are delivered to the mole.
I don't think any of those things. That those are the only possibilities you can come up with is a sign of an impoverished imagination. All I'm saying is that something happened there that was relevant to the travel ban. And no, it wasn't a 'massacre' at all. Some of the other events were like that, but not that particular one.
Funny thing is, I'm not even in favor of this ban because I don't see how it helps anything. But it is funny to watch the media get trolled by Trump. I'm amazed you guys still haven't figured out what he's doing. It's as dumb as being surprised by what he's doing now, even after he spelled it out months ago.
> More specifically, if you look back over the case law for this, people generally get prosecuted if:
> A) They get caught lying to the investigators
So what do you call this? Not to mention destroying items under subpoena. Here's the full hearing if you want more context.
> This is why Comey said what he did - cases like Clinton's result in administrative punishment at most, and the worst penalty was loss of clearance and thus job (which didn't apply anymore for her because she was no longer Secretary of State).
There's also the fact that Obama's AG, Loretta Lynch, would have had to prosecute a presidential candidate. It's not like this server was some accidental thing or that she was ignorant of the Presidential Records Act. Here's where I discuss her email with Colin Powell on how to cheat the oversight. The original email is here (click 'view original PDF'). And here's a transcription of it for anyone who hates PDFs. Some typos are in the original, but compare with the PDF if you want to be sure I didn't add any:
> Or the bowling green massacre farce?
There was no massacre, that much was indeed wrong. However, this is what did happen in Bowling Green, KY:
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_Green_massacre
What exactly is a "real" operation? Shouldn't that be one defined on R? Yet you seem to want to restrict me to N if you're talking about rocks. So tell me, can I multiply 4 rocks by 4 rocks? Why or why not? Because multiplication, logarithms and floor are all I need to define concatenation in some base. Do I have to define that in terms of splitting rocks into smaller pieces, measuring their length, or shaving them off to an even size? Do I have to use unary? Help me out here.
Concatenation may be base-dependent, but it's not exactly hard to give a formula for. Basically you shift the first number to the left by however many digits and add the second one. You use logarithms to figure out how many places to slide it over. You raise the base to that power and multiply by the first number to shift it to the left. Then you just add the second number, which overwrites all the 0 spaces you just created.
log(x, base) = { ln x / ln base }
concat(x, y, base) = { (x * base^(floor(log(y, base)) + 1)) + y }
This is probably easier to see in binary. You're just doing a left shift, filling everything with 0s and doing an OR to add them.
Calculate concat(1101, 0011):
Shift 1101 by 4 places (i.e. the length of the 2nd number) -
11010000
OR the other number:
11010000
OR 0011
=======
11010011
> If you're even trying to define "normal" in a special way to make something true, then you've already left the realm of normalcy and entered the realm of "alternate facts."
Bad example. Math already has many different kinds of normal. You might think that a 'normal operator' is 'something my calculator has a button for', but instead it's a continuous linear operator N : H -> H that commutes with its hermitian adjoint N*, that is: NN* = N*N on a complex Hilbert space H.
There are also many different axiomatic systems, e.g. ZF vs. ZFC, which are built from different rules and which admit different factual statements. It's not like either one is more 'correct' either. In that example, both accepting and denying the Axiom of Choice leads to strange results.
So if you want to make a point about "alternate facts," you might want to make sure that your knowledge doesn't have big gaps in it. It's fascinating just how many different accounts you have to read these days to get a more complete picture of what's going on these days. So many stories (on *all* sides) like to omit and possibly denigrate whichever parts of a story they find inconvenient. You cannot trust any single source, best to read them all and figure out who is leaving out which bits of the story (and why). Personally, I think that a skeptical reading of the news is a good approach.
The people in charge change regularly enough that I wouldn't label the FBI as some monolithic block when there must be thousands of people in there with different motivations, knowledge, and leadership.
Besides, more than a few high ranking pedos have been taken down, for example former Republican Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert. I'm surprised Podesta would still want to hang out with that guy, but then again, they do have a long history together.
Honestly, your post should probably be more 'insightful' than funny....
Depends on your definition of 'normal', really. But yes, this is just a silly game. I mean, you normally construct the integers out of just one number, zero, and the successor function called an arbitrary number of times.
So there's no reason you need four 4s. Just construct the integers normally, e.g. 0, ++0, ++(++0), etc. with ++ denoting the successor function in a way familiar to C-syntax programmers.
For those who haven't seen this before, just look up set theory on Khan academy or such.
> Your assertion is at the two year old level: no facts, no logic, just babbling.
Normally the person asserting a claim is supposed to provide the proof. I note that you provided no evidence of a "false flag" and instead pointed out that there are tons of people who hate Trump, lending credence to the idea that some minority thereof might be angry enough to injure someone they believe supports him. You neatly fashion that into some kind of strawman, making claims I did not.
As for the other part about the Berkley employee, I'm perfectly capable of linking it and it's easy to find by searching, but I'll just hold off on naming names until I see a proper police report.
That said, you remember that plot to attack the Deploreaball that PV exposed that certain people were claiming was some kind of sting operation? There have been actual arrests as a result of that one. If you go back to the actual video, they were planning to put butyric acid in the ventilation systems as well, something NBC did not mention.
Or did you mean the part about the Young Turks (the original ones) throwing the Armenians out of their homes and leaving them to die? Pretty much only Turkey still denies that, for political reasons. Definitely not a group I'd want to name myself after.
I don't get this either. What does a hologram really add here vs. normal people holding a gotomeeting/webex/whatever over 3 different continents regularly?
I have yet to see any actual evidence of that, unless you count pure conjecture by The Young Turks & co.
Meanwhile, I have seen a fair bit of evidence that someone employed by Berkley appears to have admitting to assaulting someone who was unconscious on Twitter, complete with pics of the guy. I suppose that person could've taken a picture of an unconscious person and claimed to have punched them for fun on Twitter without actually doing it, but that sounds even dumber.
Pizzagate?
Why do you believe the FBI has anything to do with Podesta talking about a handkercheif with a 'pizza-related map' in leaked emails or with weird pictures found on Alefantis' now-defunct Instagram account?
I'm protesting the sort of unclear thinking that caused someone to use an emotionally charged word that is not correct on any level.
As for the rest, think what you wish, but I don't believe I have anything copyright infringing on here. I basically gave up on movies & TV a long time ago and I can hardly find anything to watch on YouTube or CR. My games are either free (Nethack, DF) or from GoG / Steam. No emulators or ROMs. You might well be right that nearly everyone has probably committed some sort of copyright violation at some point by now, though, but that only serves to show how overreaching that law has become.