This is a BS summary saying that they have pagers that get alerts telling operators to check things that's basically nuclear fear mongering. Which is basically all mdsolar ever writes as a story. It's to the point where I know who wrote it just by looking at the headline.
Go back far enough and you can throw out quite a few media outlets outright with that. For example, the LA Times? Supported Japanese internment camps.
Of course, I won't argue the broader point that most of the media simply isn't worth reading any more. But when evaluating them, instead of worrying about history, I worry about how detailed an account they give of their sources and how well the stories can be corroborated with other facts.
Anything less would simply be intellectual laziness.
Anyhow, Facebook has a lot more user data to sell to advertisers, but most people tell me the ads convert like crap. Marketers love just how fine you can tune your targeting, though.
Don't get me wrong, Twitter does monetize its users to people who datamine the stuff and such, but they haven't been making enough money off it.
Right now, they're just cutting costs so their financials don't look so bad, they can probably stay afloat for quite a while just by being so big. I mean, Yahoo has a NEGATIVE value if you take out their stake in Alibaba and they haven't imploded.... yet.
Don't be too surprised if they get sold at fire sale prices if the economy goes south, though.
That's because idiots thought Google gave away free search and didn't know it was raking in money with AdWords because they never looked at any financial statements.
Twitter is a pure money sink that is trading on their fame. I'm not even sure how they would monetize it and I don't think they know either.
Might want to fact check that next time. Watch the videos. Look at the corroborating sources. Note that the Zulema lies to the cops and that she fakes illness ("nice acting!") among all the other things.
But don't take my word for it. Watch the videos and compare (not, e.g., the mole on her chest that proves it's the same person). Look at the dates listed on the FEC website in comparison to the rallies.
Think for yourself. Contrary to what some have claimed, you don't need CNN's authorization to look at stuff. The press doesn't have extra rights, particularly not the right to think for us.
This would tend to give factual support to a conclusion opposite of that hypothetical scenario in which your ideological opponents act in ridiculous ways.
> Tell me, why have these e-mail releases only come at the expense of the Democrats?
Because nobody has sent Wikileaks any. They're a leak group, not a hacking group. They tweeted themselves that if someone had sent the leaks earlier, this could've been Sanders v. Trump.
> Do you believe that only the Dems conduct shady or embarrassing business?
Unlikely, and one of the GOP hinted as much downplaying the leaks by saying "next time it could be us." But you do have to actually present evidence before I'll go accusing anyone.
> Or is it simply that the current situation validates your political position and you aren't interested in justice?
I'm sure there may be some like that--there always seem to be. I wouldn't count myself among them, however.
> Is it a coincidence that these e-mail releases come during a political campaign?
Not at all. It should be hard to get leaks of campaign malfeasance before a campaign isn't actually going on.
> Or is it a coincidence that Donald Trump keeps making these bizarre admiring comments about Vladimir Putin?
Probably--they talk about playing up his "bromance" with Putin in the leaks, though. I won't defend Russia's actions--I don't like that at all. I greatly prefer not to go to war with them, however.
> I'll take a regulated police officer over a vigilante (or simply paid mercenary) hacker any day.
I will, too, but I'm not quick to condemn whistleblowers for releasing true information. And based on what I've been able to corroborate, it appears to be true.
> We know little about the motivations of these hackers, but logic suggests they have an agenda. And you've fallen for their agenda. Congratulations, an anonymous hacker is pulling your strings for reasons you vigorously deny! You are the perfect patsy.
Everyone has an agenda. I won't blindly believe Wikileaks any more than CNN. That's why I've gone through and verified things for myself.
What have you read? What have you researched? You can't base every decision on your priors, you have to actually test them against the evidence yourself.
It's not our business that the primary was rigged, that Bernie supporters were framed for the violence at Trump rallies (actually staged to benefit Hillary)? Normal people would call that newsworthy. It's also something that's been captured on video, including independent videos that corroborate the O'Keefe video. And then we have the FEC showing that person on the Democratic payroll.
What next, are you going to quote some of the joke personal emails they were talking about releasing?
> The thing about the emails is that there ain't shit in there. Really. Its just inside baseball crap. No actual scandals.
Well, you do realize they leaked PODESTA'S emails, right?:) Hillary's have come out via FOIA, but haven't been leaked (yet?).
And there are plenty of scandals, it's just that you have to read a lot to piece things together. Better to do that yourself than just blindly trust CNN or whoever. I mean, CNN was trying to tell us that there Congressional term limits already exist and that reading Wikileaks is illegal, both of which are complete nonsense. You can find clips of both on YouTube, BTW.
That's supposed to come out Monday, actually, in the next Project Veritas video. I'll reserve judgement until I see it for myself.
That said, there's already evidence that one of the guys caught was regularly visiting Obama and there was an email in the leaks that corroborated their daily 1 o'clock calls with the DNC. And there's all the talk of people who set things up so they won't know about things, not to mention that one might think the "nasty things" you were talking about were the violent rallies we now know to be staged, but whatever. This certainly has been a dismal election, I don't think anyone can argue otherwise.
Anyhow, let's wait and see when all the facts come out. I prefer to update my thinking as facts are uncovered, rather than pre-commit.
Actually, I saw one on the news saying they'd seen some of their emails up there and then they waffled about non-specific "inaccuracies." They clearly said it was their email, but they weren't giving any specifics about what they believed was inaccurate.
So that tells me the DNC email was really leaked. I'd say it's a time to "trust but verify"--that is, don't blindly trust anything you read, but corroborate it yourself with other evidence.
The best way to avoid being manipulated is to verify things yourself, though. Don't believe someone when they says the emails say this or that, go read them for yourself. Go follow the links in the investigations.
Why is exposing illegal activity, including things like staging violence at political rallies, a "dirty trick"? It's interesting how people change when their own team is exposed in wrongdoing.
You can tell a lot about who can and cannot be trusted by how they act, such as the Republicans saying to avoid the leaks because "next time it might be us."
Funny thing, I'm not on either team. I supported Obama back in the day and you can go look up my history if you want. Rather, I hope that everyone doing dirty tricks gets exposed.
Haven't read the email leaks, have you? Her own staff say she "needs an adult" and that she "doesn't know what planet she's on" sometimes, among other things.
The shouting bit is also in there--people were conspiring to figure out how to avoid having her shout at them.
> It was a pretty unprecedented move to declare Russia as being behind the hacks and wouldn't do so if they didn't have solid evidence.
Or their bosses told them to. Don't remember what they said about the yellowcake or how they stumped for the Iraq war? Or how they decided that negligence requires intent, despite that being a literal contradiction in terms? If there is intent, it *can't* be negligence, literally by definition.
Well, the GOP offices have been firebombed ("Nazi republicans get out"). Someone here on Slashdot was calling that a "Reichstag fire" (yeah, umm, so where are the riots over it? oh, right... the GOP doesn't stage those). People on the Democratic payroll (MoveOn, specifically) were responsible for staging the violence at Trump rallies and then blamed Sanders supporters for it. Oh, and there was a mysterious DC "robbery" (where nothing was taken) with the guy shot twice in the back in the middle of the night. Who was an insider that may have been responsible for some leaks. Don't worry! Fact checkers "debunked" that due to there being "no evidence" on the same day (investigate? why?). The killer has not been caught.
But we can ignore that because Russia? If Putin wanted to influence the elections, it's pretty clear that he could've just donated to the Clinton foundation like Qatar, Saudi Arabia and everyone else.
He was happy to call out the Iraq war. That doesn't really fit your claimed fact pattern very well when we look back to past leaks and not just to the current panic as the DNC's corruption is exposed.
It's actually built off of corroboration with independent videos and the FEC data showing the woman on the Democratic payroll, getting money to be at those specific protests. You can, in fact, see an independent video of the woman lying to the cops.
You can say whatever nonsense you like, but there are independent sources that allow us to verify who paid her and what she did, so it would appear that you have failed to look at all the evidence if you think it's all based on O'Keefe's video.
So you might want to check your own facts next time.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a BS summary saying that they have pagers that get alerts telling operators to check things that's basically nuclear fear mongering. Which is basically all mdsolar ever writes as a story. It's to the point where I know who wrote it just by looking at the headline.
Go back far enough and you can throw out quite a few media outlets outright with that. For example, the LA Times? Supported Japanese internment camps.
Of course, I won't argue the broader point that most of the media simply isn't worth reading any more. But when evaluating them, instead of worrying about history, I worry about how detailed an account they give of their sources and how well the stories can be corroborated with other facts.
Anything less would simply be intellectual laziness.
I sure wish Obama was actually going to stop this kind of thing like he promised long ago :(
But you were saying they were rigid against Tesla before they were rigged against Tesla and we have proof that everyone used to say that!
Even if looks like they're going to crash and burn, Tesla will make America fabulous again.
> I'm old enough to remember when people said that about Facebook.
Well, Facebook was founded on February 4, 2004, so welcome to the over 12 crowd, I guess? :) That'd also imply that you got that username at age one, though.
Anyhow, Facebook has a lot more user data to sell to advertisers, but most people tell me the ads convert like crap. Marketers love just how fine you can tune your targeting, though.
Don't get me wrong, Twitter does monetize its users to people who datamine the stuff and such, but they haven't been making enough money off it.
Right now, they're just cutting costs so their financials don't look so bad, they can probably stay afloat for quite a while just by being so big. I mean, Yahoo has a NEGATIVE value if you take out their stake in Alibaba and they haven't imploded.... yet.
Don't be too surprised if they get sold at fire sale prices if the economy goes south, though.
That's because idiots thought Google gave away free search and didn't know it was raking in money with AdWords because they never looked at any financial statements.
Twitter is a pure money sink that is trading on their fame. I'm not even sure how they would monetize it and I don't think they know either.
https://slashdot.org/submissio...
Might want to fact check that next time. Watch the videos. Look at the corroborating sources. Note that the Zulema lies to the cops and that she fakes illness ("nice acting!") among all the other things.
But don't take my word for it. Watch the videos and compare (not, e.g., the mole on her chest that proves it's the same person). Look at the dates listed on the FEC website in comparison to the rallies.
Think for yourself. Contrary to what some have claimed, you don't need CNN's authorization to look at stuff. The press doesn't have extra rights, particularly not the right to think for us.
That's a very convenient hypothetical you engage in, but some of us went through a lot of research to corroborate some of those things with the FEC records, two independent videos, etc.
This would tend to give factual support to a conclusion opposite of that hypothetical scenario in which your ideological opponents act in ridiculous ways.
> Tell me, why have these e-mail releases only come at the expense of the Democrats?
Because nobody has sent Wikileaks any. They're a leak group, not a hacking group. They tweeted themselves that if someone had sent the leaks earlier, this could've been Sanders v. Trump.
> Do you believe that only the Dems conduct shady or embarrassing business?
Unlikely, and one of the GOP hinted as much downplaying the leaks by saying "next time it could be us." But you do have to actually present evidence before I'll go accusing anyone.
> Or is it simply that the current situation validates your political position and you aren't interested in justice?
I'm sure there may be some like that--there always seem to be. I wouldn't count myself among them, however.
> Is it a coincidence that these e-mail releases come during a political campaign?
Not at all. It should be hard to get leaks of campaign malfeasance before a campaign isn't actually going on.
> Or is it a coincidence that Donald Trump keeps making these bizarre admiring comments about Vladimir Putin?
Probably--they talk about playing up his "bromance" with Putin in the leaks, though. I won't defend Russia's actions--I don't like that at all. I greatly prefer not to go to war with them, however.
> I'll take a regulated police officer over a vigilante (or simply paid mercenary) hacker any day.
I will, too, but I'm not quick to condemn whistleblowers for releasing true information. And based on what I've been able to corroborate, it appears to be true.
> We know little about the motivations of these hackers, but logic suggests they have an agenda. And you've fallen for their agenda. Congratulations, an anonymous hacker is pulling your strings for reasons you vigorously deny! You are the perfect patsy.
Everyone has an agenda. I won't blindly believe Wikileaks any more than CNN. That's why I've gone through and verified things for myself.
What have you read? What have you researched? You can't base every decision on your priors, you have to actually test them against the evidence yourself.
It's not our business that the primary was rigged, that Bernie supporters were framed for the violence at Trump rallies (actually staged to benefit Hillary)? Normal people would call that newsworthy. It's also something that's been captured on video, including independent videos that corroborate the O'Keefe video. And then we have the FEC showing that person on the Democratic payroll.
What next, are you going to quote some of the joke personal emails they were talking about releasing?
I presume they're talking about the hack:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
> The thing about the emails is that there ain't shit in there. Really. Its just inside baseball crap. No actual scandals.
Well, you do realize they leaked PODESTA'S emails, right? :) Hillary's have come out via FOIA, but haven't been leaked (yet?).
And there are plenty of scandals, it's just that you have to read a lot to piece things together. Better to do that yourself than just blindly trust CNN or whoever. I mean, CNN was trying to tell us that there Congressional term limits already exist and that reading Wikileaks is illegal, both of which are complete nonsense. You can find clips of both on YouTube, BTW.
That's supposed to come out Monday, actually, in the next Project Veritas video. I'll reserve judgement until I see it for myself.
That said, there's already evidence that one of the guys caught was regularly visiting Obama and there was an email in the leaks that corroborated their daily 1 o'clock calls with the DNC. And there's all the talk of people who set things up so they won't know about things, not to mention that one might think the "nasty things" you were talking about were the violent rallies we now know to be staged, but whatever. This certainly has been a dismal election, I don't think anyone can argue otherwise.
Anyhow, let's wait and see when all the facts come out. I prefer to update my thinking as facts are uncovered, rather than pre-commit.
Actually, I saw one on the news saying they'd seen some of their emails up there and then they waffled about non-specific "inaccuracies." They clearly said it was their email, but they weren't giving any specifics about what they believed was inaccurate.
So that tells me the DNC email was really leaked. I'd say it's a time to "trust but verify"--that is, don't blindly trust anything you read, but corroborate it yourself with other evidence.
Actually there are quite a few DKIM signatures on there, though those sometimes get broken for irrelevant reasons.
Furthermore, some of them can (and have) been corroborated based on independent evidence.
The best way to avoid being manipulated is to verify things yourself, though. Don't believe someone when they says the emails say this or that, go read them for yourself. Go follow the links in the investigations.
Think for yourself, don't let reporters do your thinking for you.
I don't even ask you to trust me. I'd much rather you investigate and verify everything on your own.
Why is exposing illegal activity, including things like staging violence at political rallies, a "dirty trick"? It's interesting how people change when their own team is exposed in wrongdoing.
You can tell a lot about who can and cannot be trusted by how they act, such as the Republicans saying to avoid the leaks because "next time it might be us."
Funny thing, I'm not on either team. I supported Obama back in the day and you can go look up my history if you want. Rather, I hope that everyone doing dirty tricks gets exposed.
Haven't read the email leaks, have you? Her own staff say she "needs an adult" and that she "doesn't know what planet she's on" sometimes, among other things.
The shouting bit is also in there--people were conspiring to figure out how to avoid having her shout at them.
> It was a pretty unprecedented move to declare Russia as being behind the hacks and wouldn't do so if they didn't have solid evidence.
Or their bosses told them to. Don't remember what they said about the yellowcake or how they stumped for the Iraq war? Or how they decided that negligence requires intent, despite that being a literal contradiction in terms? If there is intent, it *can't* be negligence, literally by definition.
Well, the GOP offices have been firebombed ("Nazi republicans get out"). Someone here on Slashdot was calling that a "Reichstag fire" (yeah, umm, so where are the riots over it? oh, right... the GOP doesn't stage those). People on the Democratic payroll (MoveOn, specifically) were responsible for staging the violence at Trump rallies and then blamed Sanders supporters for it. Oh, and there was a mysterious DC "robbery" (where nothing was taken) with the guy shot twice in the back in the middle of the night. Who was an insider that may have been responsible for some leaks. Don't worry! Fact checkers "debunked" that due to there being "no evidence" on the same day (investigate? why?). The killer has not been caught.
But we can ignore that because Russia? If Putin wanted to influence the elections, it's pretty clear that he could've just donated to the Clinton foundation like Qatar, Saudi Arabia and everyone else.
Wild speculation from a crazy guy? Thanks Slashdot.
Really? He was happy to call out Bush back in the day -
https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Bus...
He was happy to call out the Iraq war. That doesn't really fit your claimed fact pattern very well when we look back to past leaks and not just to the current panic as the DNC's corruption is exposed.
Maybe someone got upset over this? - https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiL...
Whoever did it, it's a really bad way to make a point.
I already covered that: https://slashdot.org/submissio...
It's actually built off of corroboration with independent videos and the FEC data showing the woman on the Democratic payroll, getting money to be at those specific protests. You can, in fact, see an independent video of the woman lying to the cops.
You can say whatever nonsense you like, but there are independent sources that allow us to verify who paid her and what she did, so it would appear that you have failed to look at all the evidence if you think it's all based on O'Keefe's video.
So you might want to check your own facts next time.
> he is a criminal trading in stolen goods - goods he stole from every American. We need to keep that in mind.
Just curious, but do you hold the same opinion of the people behind the Pentagon Papers?
"It's okay when I do it," is generally how people recognize those who can't be trusted.
See also: http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...