You don't know that, unless you are hacking into the investigation. The Nunes memo said that the warrant application did not say certain specific things about the dossier. IIRC, "source fired for being unreliable" was not in the memo. The Nunes memo did not give any specifics about anything that was in the application, except that the dossier was attributed to a "named individual", whatever that may mean. Nunes supplied no reason to believe the dossier was presented as unbiased.
Was Steele fired for being unreliable? The FBI terminated their informal relationship with him because he talked too much, according to what I've seen.
Since I haven't been in a cave since something like 2010, I'm going to suggest that it's possible to hang around on the Net and not see something you claim is plastered all over the Internet. It may have been covered many times before, but there's a practically endless list of things that have. The Net is a big place.
Of course. The image may also be cached elsewhere on the Net. These are not considered to violate copyright, since they're an inevitable result and don't themselves make copies that are usable. Similarly, it's legal in the US to make all copies appropriate for the running of lawfully obtained software.
Sorry about the error. What I wrote was incorrect. It also seems to be a fairly prevalent belief, and I got it from enough sources that I didn't bother checking it.
What we on the Left wanted was treatment for mental illness, not just warehousing. This required funding, which Reagan disliked. Many of the problems we've got nowadays are because people have nowhere to go, not because they're trying to dodge the loony bin.
It's entirely possible do disagree with me and not be a Russian dupe. I believe there are well over three hundred million people in the US alone who disagree with me on some significant points. However:
So once again, we have this "Russia" narrative that prevents having to face that there are millions of people who do not agree with you.
doesn't look like any sort of informed or reasonable disagreement to me. It's completely not what I'm thinking, and by casting me as irrational it removes the need to consider my ideas. That's the sort of thing the Russians are apparently trying to foment.
Unfortunately, we've seen what Trump's said and done. He doesn't appear to have any interest in the hurricane damage to Puerto Rico, his appearance at the latest school shooting was a disgrace, He can't say "Nazis are bad" without qualifying it. I can go on, but I'm extremely disappointed in the US public. Anyone who supports Trump, by now, should know why they're supporting.
So, I'd be interested in a calm discussion of why you support Trump. Could you explain why to me? I sincerely don't understand.
However, almost all the Republicans in Congress are right behind Trump. They may not be comfortable there, but they almost always vote his way on major issues.
The voters were not nearly all hate-filled bigots, although Trump did attract them. Many were victims of the most successful con job in history. Consider the Carrier employees, for example, grateful to Trump until Carrier shipped all the jobs out of country anyway. Many thought he was the lesser of two evils, and held their noses while they voted for him. There's various reasons why someone would have voted for him, and I disagree with a lot of people on whether they were good or bad.
On the other hand, I feel quite comfortable saying things like "hate-filled bigots" about the ones who continue to positively support him.
Personally, I don't want countries meddling with other countries' politics in general. I know the US is notorious for that, but I don't like it.
However, I do support investigating foreign influence with our politics. We have a right to our own politics, and the fact that it's only fair doesn't mean I have to approve of it.
I'd also like some other countries to stand up to the US more.
The uranium sale is a non-issue, as has been shown. Read up on it. There is nothing illegal about the Steele Dossier. It may be biased or wrong, but it's legal. The Nunes memo did not claim it was used to mislead a FISA judge, but merely implied it, being very specific about what the application didn't do but vague about what it did. I take that to mean it was used appropriately, being labeled a biased source.
Me? I have my suspicions, but that's all they are. I'm waiting for Mueller to finish up. Predicting what he's going to find can be fun speculation, but it's no more than that.
The Clintons were seriously investigated, and no serious wrongdoing was found. There's no reason not to investigate Trump, and no reason right now to conclude that serious wrongdoing will not be found.
The Paula Jones case was a setup from the beginning. The claims from the Jones side, it was later ruled, did not constitute sexual harassment legally. (They did show that Bill was a real asshole, but that's not illegal per se.) Given an accusation of sexual harassment, the prosecutors then brought in consensual sex with an intern. Lewinsky was a victim in some sense, but I've never heard of the relationship being illegal. There's other disparaging words I'd use for it, but as far as I can tell it was legal. The only thing the Lewinsky affair brought in was that Clinton was an asshole, which we already knew, and that he'd commit adultery with subordinates, which we also knew.
I made my own virtual soundproof office with noise-canceling headphones. Of course, I'm sometimes a source of amusement because I don't notice what's going on just outside my cube.
No, the code-signing keys are not a back door for the 5S and later. They are for the 5C and earlier, but I don't think Apple has sold them for over three years. In the 5S and later, the important security functions have been moved out of the OS and into dedicated silicon.
I have an iPhone 5S, which has the Secure Enclave. This is a bit of silicon with a few rigidly defined functions. It stores an AES-256 key, and has no way to output that key. It can decrypt or encrypt according to that key, and it can wipe the key. It can likely generate a new random key, but I don't know about it. It accepts passcode entries. It keeps track of the number of entries.
There's an easily accessible setting that says to wipe the phone (actually, wipe the AES-256 key) if ten incorrect passcodes are entered. That means that, if you use a random 4-digit passcode, there's one chance in a thousand that they can guess the passcode without wiping the phone. If you use a random 6-digit passcode, that's one chance in a hundred thousand. If that's too much of a risk for you, go for the alphanumeric passcode option.
You can technically use this to wipe someone else's phone, but the Secure Enclave will have increasing timeouts as more incorrect passcodes are entered, so it's faster just to smash the thing with a hammer or rock if you want to destroy it. Also, you should never consider anything on a mobile device as immune from loss, so you really do want to have the phone backed up in normal use.
The FBI/Apple dispute was over an iPhone 5C, which was the last model without the Secure Enclave, so these things would be kept track of by the main phone, which means it would be possible to update the OS to bypass some of those features. The Secure Enclave doesn't accept new software. Moreover, in phones after the 5C, updating the OS means the user is required to enter the passcode before using the phone. There may be a back door on the 5S and later models, but it isn't obvious. There probably is not a reasonable crack for AES-256, and the key can't be found by brute force (not without considerably more resources than the Solar System possesses, anyway). Theoretically, it might be possible to remove some of the Secure Enclave silicon and read the key off the raw memory elements, but that sounds expensive and iffy to me.
More specifically, they get warrants legally. If Apple can break into iPhones, it means that Apple will do that with a legal warrant. That means they'll have probable cause, be willing to swear to it, and they'll specify exactly which phone is to be searched. There is absolutely no Fourth Amendment conflict here. (There could be if the police had full access, and could go on fishing expeditions, of course).
The question is how effective that method is. How long does it take to remove a ton of carbon dioxide from the air, and how many places do we have to bury dessicated trees where they won't eventually rot?
Net force is mass times acceleration plus drag. My car will spend about 3 gallons to go 100 miles at constant speed on a freeway, and it won't spend much at all accelerating to freeway speed. Drag dominates.
Of course, cars don't have to run on fossil fuel. Biofuels are carbon-neutral, since the CO2 comes from the air, into the plants, into the fuel, and then back into the air. Electric cars can run on any electricity source.
Trees temporarily sequester carbon, but if you want it to be permanent you have to do something with the tree to prevent it from rotting.
More to the point, Windows doesn't transmit itself to other computers. Viruses want to spread themselves to everyone, but Microsoft doesn't want to spread Windows to anybody who hasn't paid for a license (one way or another). It isn't really a trojan either, since it doesn't pretend to be something else. Do we have to invent a new category of malware?
It says he made lots and lots of disks, many more than he could have refurbished computers. Had he just provided the disks with the refurbished computers, your argument would be good. Since he intended to pass them on to others, who didn't receive computers from him, it doesn't cover everything.
Depends. The Third Reich was not anti-Muslim, because they could get a little help out of the Muslims, but I don't think they'd have maintained that, any more than they'd have continued to consider the Japanese honorary Aryans. Neo-Nazis can pick their own hates, and being anti-Muslim sells even better among their recruiting pool than being anti-Jew.
I wanted to point out that before someone jump to some right-wing-gun-toting conclusion, this county is overwhelmingly democrat. The chances of him being a right wing nut are not good so best not go there.
The county is also overwhelmingly not going into schools and shooting them up. The shooter is likely to differ from county norms in other ways, so it would be a mistake to think his political orientation is probably the same.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't know that, unless you are hacking into the investigation. The Nunes memo said that the warrant application did not say certain specific things about the dossier. IIRC, "source fired for being unreliable" was not in the memo. The Nunes memo did not give any specifics about anything that was in the application, except that the dossier was attributed to a "named individual", whatever that may mean. Nunes supplied no reason to believe the dossier was presented as unbiased.
Was Steele fired for being unreliable? The FBI terminated their informal relationship with him because he talked too much, according to what I've seen.
Since I haven't been in a cave since something like 2010, I'm going to suggest that it's possible to hang around on the Net and not see something you claim is plastered all over the Internet. It may have been covered many times before, but there's a practically endless list of things that have. The Net is a big place.
Of course. The image may also be cached elsewhere on the Net. These are not considered to violate copyright, since they're an inevitable result and don't themselves make copies that are usable. Similarly, it's legal in the US to make all copies appropriate for the running of lawfully obtained software.
Sorry about the error. What I wrote was incorrect. It also seems to be a fairly prevalent belief, and I got it from enough sources that I didn't bother checking it.
What we on the Left wanted was treatment for mental illness, not just warehousing. This required funding, which Reagan disliked. Many of the problems we've got nowadays are because people have nowhere to go, not because they're trying to dodge the loony bin.
It's entirely possible do disagree with me and not be a Russian dupe. I believe there are well over three hundred million people in the US alone who disagree with me on some significant points. However:
doesn't look like any sort of informed or reasonable disagreement to me. It's completely not what I'm thinking, and by casting me as irrational it removes the need to consider my ideas. That's the sort of thing the Russians are apparently trying to foment.
Unfortunately, we've seen what Trump's said and done. He doesn't appear to have any interest in the hurricane damage to Puerto Rico, his appearance at the latest school shooting was a disgrace, He can't say "Nazis are bad" without qualifying it. I can go on, but I'm extremely disappointed in the US public. Anyone who supports Trump, by now, should know why they're supporting.
So, I'd be interested in a calm discussion of why you support Trump. Could you explain why to me? I sincerely don't understand.
However, almost all the Republicans in Congress are right behind Trump. They may not be comfortable there, but they almost always vote his way on major issues.
The voters were not nearly all hate-filled bigots, although Trump did attract them. Many were victims of the most successful con job in history. Consider the Carrier employees, for example, grateful to Trump until Carrier shipped all the jobs out of country anyway. Many thought he was the lesser of two evils, and held their noses while they voted for him. There's various reasons why someone would have voted for him, and I disagree with a lot of people on whether they were good or bad.
On the other hand, I feel quite comfortable saying things like "hate-filled bigots" about the ones who continue to positively support him.
Personally, I don't want countries meddling with other countries' politics in general. I know the US is notorious for that, but I don't like it.
However, I do support investigating foreign influence with our politics. We have a right to our own politics, and the fact that it's only fair doesn't mean I have to approve of it.
I'd also like some other countries to stand up to the US more.
The uranium sale is a non-issue, as has been shown. Read up on it. There is nothing illegal about the Steele Dossier. It may be biased or wrong, but it's legal. The Nunes memo did not claim it was used to mislead a FISA judge, but merely implied it, being very specific about what the application didn't do but vague about what it did. I take that to mean it was used appropriately, being labeled a biased source.
Me? I have my suspicions, but that's all they are. I'm waiting for Mueller to finish up. Predicting what he's going to find can be fun speculation, but it's no more than that.
The Clintons were seriously investigated, and no serious wrongdoing was found. There's no reason not to investigate Trump, and no reason right now to conclude that serious wrongdoing will not be found.
The Paula Jones case was a setup from the beginning. The claims from the Jones side, it was later ruled, did not constitute sexual harassment legally. (They did show that Bill was a real asshole, but that's not illegal per se.) Given an accusation of sexual harassment, the prosecutors then brought in consensual sex with an intern. Lewinsky was a victim in some sense, but I've never heard of the relationship being illegal. There's other disparaging words I'd use for it, but as far as I can tell it was legal. The only thing the Lewinsky affair brought in was that Clinton was an asshole, which we already knew, and that he'd commit adultery with subordinates, which we also knew.
I made my own virtual soundproof office with noise-canceling headphones. Of course, I'm sometimes a source of amusement because I don't notice what's going on just outside my cube.
No, the code-signing keys are not a back door for the 5S and later. They are for the 5C and earlier, but I don't think Apple has sold them for over three years. In the 5S and later, the important security functions have been moved out of the OS and into dedicated silicon.
I have an iPhone 5S, which has the Secure Enclave. This is a bit of silicon with a few rigidly defined functions. It stores an AES-256 key, and has no way to output that key. It can decrypt or encrypt according to that key, and it can wipe the key. It can likely generate a new random key, but I don't know about it. It accepts passcode entries. It keeps track of the number of entries.
There's an easily accessible setting that says to wipe the phone (actually, wipe the AES-256 key) if ten incorrect passcodes are entered. That means that, if you use a random 4-digit passcode, there's one chance in a thousand that they can guess the passcode without wiping the phone. If you use a random 6-digit passcode, that's one chance in a hundred thousand. If that's too much of a risk for you, go for the alphanumeric passcode option.
You can technically use this to wipe someone else's phone, but the Secure Enclave will have increasing timeouts as more incorrect passcodes are entered, so it's faster just to smash the thing with a hammer or rock if you want to destroy it. Also, you should never consider anything on a mobile device as immune from loss, so you really do want to have the phone backed up in normal use.
The FBI/Apple dispute was over an iPhone 5C, which was the last model without the Secure Enclave, so these things would be kept track of by the main phone, which means it would be possible to update the OS to bypass some of those features. The Secure Enclave doesn't accept new software. Moreover, in phones after the 5C, updating the OS means the user is required to enter the passcode before using the phone. There may be a back door on the 5S and later models, but it isn't obvious. There probably is not a reasonable crack for AES-256, and the key can't be found by brute force (not without considerably more resources than the Solar System possesses, anyway). Theoretically, it might be possible to remove some of the Secure Enclave silicon and read the key off the raw memory elements, but that sounds expensive and iffy to me.
More specifically, they get warrants legally. If Apple can break into iPhones, it means that Apple will do that with a legal warrant. That means they'll have probable cause, be willing to swear to it, and they'll specify exactly which phone is to be searched. There is absolutely no Fourth Amendment conflict here. (There could be if the police had full access, and could go on fishing expeditions, of course).
This is not a Constitutional issue, guys.
The question is how effective that method is. How long does it take to remove a ton of carbon dioxide from the air, and how many places do we have to bury dessicated trees where they won't eventually rot?
Net force is mass times acceleration plus drag. My car will spend about 3 gallons to go 100 miles at constant speed on a freeway, and it won't spend much at all accelerating to freeway speed. Drag dominates.
Of course, cars don't have to run on fossil fuel. Biofuels are carbon-neutral, since the CO2 comes from the air, into the plants, into the fuel, and then back into the air. Electric cars can run on any electricity source.
Trees temporarily sequester carbon, but if you want it to be permanent you have to do something with the tree to prevent it from rotting.
Why in proportion to land area? If China were to annex Siberia, then, it would be doing far better in CO2 emissions?
3a) The legal system is bent. AIUI, he's currently out on appeal. The legal system screws up sometimes, but there are ways to fix some mistakes.
More to the point, Windows doesn't transmit itself to other computers. Viruses want to spread themselves to everyone, but Microsoft doesn't want to spread Windows to anybody who hasn't paid for a license (one way or another). It isn't really a trojan either, since it doesn't pretend to be something else. Do we have to invent a new category of malware?
It says he made lots and lots of disks, many more than he could have refurbished computers. Had he just provided the disks with the refurbished computers, your argument would be good. Since he intended to pass them on to others, who didn't receive computers from him, it doesn't cover everything.
Depends. The Third Reich was not anti-Muslim, because they could get a little help out of the Muslims, but I don't think they'd have maintained that, any more than they'd have continued to consider the Japanese honorary Aryans. Neo-Nazis can pick their own hates, and being anti-Muslim sells even better among their recruiting pool than being anti-Jew.
The county is also overwhelmingly not going into schools and shooting them up. The shooter is likely to differ from county norms in other ways, so it would be a mistake to think his political orientation is probably the same.
C'mon. There's other languages that use the Cyrillic alphabet. I think it's the fault of the Serbs and Bulgarians, myself.