"I would highlight much, not all, much of what was in the intelligence community's assessment, for example, on the Russian efforts against the U.S. election process in 2016, was informed by knowledge we gained through (Section) 702 authority,"
I would like to see one piece of evidence they gained from the 702 authority. From the report they released, there was not one piece of evidence they presented that required special authority. There was not one piece of evidence thy presented that was new, or unknown by the security community up to that point. Never trust an NSA spokesperson, or an FBI spokesperson.
That is, trust them, but verify. Which means don't trust.
That's unlikely. Among certain segments, they are certainly wildly unpopular, but among other segments they are popular, to the point that people would defend them with guns if necessary.
Amazon has a similar database in AWS (DynamoDB). These kinds of products are not a good idea unless you want to lock yourself in to the platform (or unless you know how to write a really, really good abstraction layer).
I can't believe you're making me actually research this stuff. The circumstantial evidence is strong, for example, this:
Under Clinton’s leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure — derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) — represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.
Then there is this, cash flowing to the Clinton foundation from donors. Since it's the New York Times though, that's probably just a conservative hit piece.
From the emails (and you'll have to stop being lazy and look this one up on your own), it's apparent that the donors were expecting things in return, even if Clinton wasn't offering anything. Whether she is guilty or not probably depends on the quality and quantity of evidence that can be found, the precise details of the law, and the mood of the jury, but to say there is no evidence is to just close your eyes. There is definitely evidence.
Seriously? You look at that article in the New Republic and think, "here is solid analysis, this is not written to appeal to my emotions at all. It's clear, hard thinking." Really, pass the bong, you've got some good stuff.
Well, then why are you bothering to comment on it, moron
Mainly to annoy you.
Anyway, there is no question that people donated money to have access to the Clintons. If you don't know that, you're ignorant, and probably dumb, too. That's a standard politician bribe: you donate to the campaign, get access, then persuade them to do what you want. Lots of politicians do it.
The Atlantic isn't really a bastion of conservatism, and now they are one of the most respected news sources: not because they've changed, but because the quality of almost everything else has dropped dramatically.
As for the FBI, I don't trust them, period lol. Add the NSA and CIA into that category. You can add Trump into it, too.
No dude, for a lot of companies you could say that, but check it out. They have ~$200billion in the bank, and make around $50billion in profit every year. If you bought Apple for $800billion you'd be able to make your money back in 12 years.
It makes me feel good that some company in the world can do well by completely snubbing corporate desires. Probably shouldn't make me feel good, but it does. Business is not the most important thing.
The reality is voters have the power, they just won't use it. We're more interested in Rihanna than in good governance, because face it, good governance is boring. Even the news stories that do focus on politics are usually superficial (for example, look at the coverage of the healthcare bill going through congress. It's hard to find solid analysis, instead it's all hysterical, "Republicans want to kill you!" sort of stuff, or whatever is on Fox News I guess, I don't watch that. There was a lot more thoughtful analysis last time around).
So yeah, when voters stop paying attention, the ones who do pay attention will be the ones who get power. There is absolutely no system that will ever fix that. You need better voters.
There's some evidence of a quid-pro-quo. There isn't any such evidence in Clinton's case.
Do a search for "Hillary pay to play" and you'll see plenty of evidence. There was even an NYT bestseller on the topic in the last months before the election.
I don't know how real the evidence is, and don't particularly care to know anymore, either.
It's strong indication that Comey wasn't really on either side during the election, that instead his weird behavior was merely a manifestation of incompetence.
Also, are there people who think Microsoft isn't compromised?
Probably somewhere, but there have been indications that Microsoft has been working with the NSA for a looooong time. Also, I know it sounds ridiculous, but there is a back door in Intel chipsthat allows you to access them, even when the OS is not installed. I know that sounds crazy, I thought so too, at first.
Also, Google secretly hands your emails over to the NSA without telling you.
Of course it's not about me. It's been about you the entire time, starting with the moment you explained what a lousy boss you are. Then I explained why that makes YOU lousy, and then talked about YOUR desires. It's all about YOU. No escaping it.
I didnt asked for your feedback and it's funny you think any one cares.
Oh, you wish you could reach into your monitor and give me a good electric shock. Or you wish you had this device. I get paid in cash and you'll never have good coworkers until you change.
Slashdot Mirror
"I would highlight much, not all, much of what was in the intelligence community's assessment, for example, on the Russian efforts against the U.S. election process in 2016, was informed by knowledge we gained through (Section) 702 authority,"
I would like to see one piece of evidence they gained from the 702 authority. From the report they released, there was not one piece of evidence they presented that required special authority. There was not one piece of evidence thy presented that was new, or unknown by the security community up to that point. Never trust an NSA spokesperson, or an FBI spokesperson.
That is, trust them, but verify. Which means don't trust.
Trump and the Republicans are insanely unpopular.
That's unlikely. Among certain segments, they are certainly wildly unpopular, but among other segments they are popular, to the point that people would defend them with guns if necessary.
So......is Microsoft Word available in the app store yet? Because this is just making Microsoft look bad.........
Amazon has a similar database in AWS (DynamoDB). These kinds of products are not a good idea unless you want to lock yourself in to the platform (or unless you know how to write a really, really good abstraction layer).
That's because links to crappy sites smothered in ads are a major source of revenue for them.
It is their only source of revenue.
Under Clinton’s leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure — derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) — represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.
Then there is this, cash flowing to the Clinton foundation from donors. Since it's the New York Times though, that's probably just a conservative hit piece.
From the emails (and you'll have to stop being lazy and look this one up on your own), it's apparent that the donors were expecting things in return, even if Clinton wasn't offering anything. Whether she is guilty or not probably depends on the quality and quantity of evidence that can be found, the precise details of the law, and the mood of the jury, but to say there is no evidence is to just close your eyes. There is definitely evidence.
Seriously? You look at that article in the New Republic and think, "here is solid analysis, this is not written to appeal to my emotions at all. It's clear, hard thinking." Really, pass the bong, you've got some good stuff.
Well, then why are you bothering to comment on it, moron
Mainly to annoy you.
Anyway, there is no question that people donated money to have access to the Clintons. If you don't know that, you're ignorant, and probably dumb, too. That's a standard politician bribe: you donate to the campaign, get access, then persuade them to do what you want. Lots of politicians do it.
The Atlantic isn't really a bastion of conservatism, and now they are one of the most respected news sources: not because they've changed, but because the quality of almost everything else has dropped dramatically.
As for the FBI, I don't trust them, period lol. Add the NSA and CIA into that category. You can add Trump into it, too.
No dude, for a lot of companies you could say that, but check it out. They have ~$200billion in the bank, and make around $50billion in profit every year. If you bought Apple for $800billion you'd be able to make your money back in 12 years.
It makes me feel good that some company in the world can do well by completely snubbing corporate desires. Probably shouldn't make me feel good, but it does. Business is not the most important thing.
The reality is voters have the power, they just won't use it. We're more interested in Rihanna than in good governance, because face it, good governance is boring. Even the news stories that do focus on politics are usually superficial (for example, look at the coverage of the healthcare bill going through congress. It's hard to find solid analysis, instead it's all hysterical, "Republicans want to kill you!" sort of stuff, or whatever is on Fox News I guess, I don't watch that. There was a lot more thoughtful analysis last time around).
So yeah, when voters stop paying attention, the ones who do pay attention will be the ones who get power. There is absolutely no system that will ever fix that. You need better voters.
There's some evidence of a quid-pro-quo. There isn't any such evidence in Clinton's case.
Do a search for "Hillary pay to play" and you'll see plenty of evidence. There was even an NYT bestseller on the topic in the last months before the election.
I don't know how real the evidence is, and don't particularly care to know anymore, either.
Which, tbh, would really be another sign of incompetence lol.
Yeah I agree with you.
The biggest problem Republicans in congress have right now isn't the president, it's themselves.
It's strong indication that Comey wasn't really on either side during the election, that instead his weird behavior was merely a manifestation of incompetence.
And what about Microsoft, Apple, Google? Should Russia fear all these companies
Yeah, probably.
Also, are there people who think Microsoft isn't compromised?
Probably somewhere, but there have been indications that Microsoft has been working with the NSA for a looooong time. Also, I know it sounds ridiculous, but there is a back door in Intel chips that allows you to access them, even when the OS is not installed. I know that sounds crazy, I thought so too, at first.
Also, Google secretly hands your emails over to the NSA without telling you.
Oh, so now it is about me, then? I can assure you, that won't happen. I'd be long gone before it ever got to that.
Not your profession lol, just change how you are. You'll run into the same problems in any profession.
if there is one thing the founding fathers did not want its rich aristocrats making the laws.
Well, actually, they did want that lol. They specifically only allowed land-owners to vote.
You can't find one that lasted more than 5 years or so.
If you don't realize that people will act differently on a lifetime basic-income, then you're dense as a cucumber.
I don't know how you think this is about you.
Of course it's not about me. It's been about you the entire time, starting with the moment you explained what a lousy boss you are. Then I explained why that makes YOU lousy, and then talked about YOUR desires. It's all about YOU. No escaping it.
I didnt asked for your feedback and it's funny you think any one cares.
Oh, you wish you could reach into your monitor and give me a good electric shock. Or you wish you had this device. I get paid in cash and you'll never have good coworkers until you change.