That would not surprise me, but they do not get that deal for their employees, and the AC was apparently complaining about the additional property taxes from houses owned by those employees going to the state rather than to the local governments.
It can automate the tracking of floating-point uncertainty, so that when the answer 42 pops out, you have a good indication that your result is only accurate to plus or minus 2 to the 19th power. There are a lot of operations (for example, dividing by a very small number) where the magnitude of potential errors explodes.
So which "state" was this? In the US, property taxes are usually assessed and collected by local (county, city, town, etc.) governments, and that's what funds local services like police and schools. 90% of them don't go to any state that I know of.
That is an entirely fair and reasonable criticism, and I think the one that people should lead off with. Many reports from government are backed up with only a "trust us" for explanation. While it is reasonable to not show everything the government knows about another government's covert operations, because shows not only what they missed but also tends to reveal how they identified the ones they did, I think they could provide relevant examples to illustrate a lot of claims.
In contrast, "only the four most relevant agencies signed off on this report, not the 13 other ones that are mostly irrelevant!" is a very weak critique of the report. I don't think that argument will change anyone's mind, which is why I criticized it.
I have not kept close count on Russia's illegal invasions, but I know they have a higher count than the US for illegal annexations over the last 15 years, have a foreign assassination program, and also assassinate their own dissidents and critical journalists domestically. I suspect they would like to spy at least as widely as the US would, but mostly lack the technical capabilities.
I am not in the habit of admitting things that I know are false. It is not my fault if you mistake rhetoric for actual evidence, and on that basis confirm your previous biases.
The evidence is very circumstantial, that's for sure.
Asking the Russians to not retaliate against new sanctions is "tak[ing] steps to undermine or contradict the administrationâ(TM)s response to Russiaâ(TM)s election interference"? An email explaining how the Obama administration was trying to undermine the incoming Trump administration is supposedly "smoking-gun evidence" of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia?
Are you even reading the articles you link to, or just "feeling" them and accepting their conclusions without paying attention?
If you don't understand the meaning of words, why should we expect you to believe any evidence?
I explained why using the "common definition" of cooperation would make the suggested definition of "collusion" useless. I asked what hey! meant by "cooperation" to allow them to try to rescue their definition of "collusion".
If you can't understand a simple two-sentence comment, maybe you should take Hillary Clinton's advice and Delete your account.
No, you were merely implying that information is a "thing of value", when the phrase "thing of value" was in a section of a law called "STRENGTHENING FOREIGN MONEY BAN" [sic], in spite of the facts that information is not a thing, there is no objective way to assess a value for that information, and similar clauses have never (successfully) been applied to exchanges of information.
I hope that makes the situation clear enough to help you understand why your evidence isn't evidence of "collusion" in any useful sense of the word.
I am not relying on the First Amendment to declare the actions that you described as legal. I am relying on the normal rules of statutory interpretation. See, for example, Yates v. United States (2015) for a case where a fish was not a "tangible object" in the context of a particular law, because the context of the words "tangible object" made it clear -- or at least clear enough for the US Supreme Court (including Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor) -- that Congress meant something more specific than "any tangible object".
All of the things you said Trump's people did occurred after the information was obtained, so whether that information was obtained legally or illegally, they could not have solicited an illegal act to obtain that information.
No, I told you why (a) the actions you described are not illegal under the law you cited, and (b) why your comment didn't clarify your piss-poor definition of "collusion". Perhaps you should get out of that mental rut that you're in.
That does not answer my question. First, because it is already covered by your condition for criminal behavior, violating McCain-Feingold would count as "collusion", so pointing to it cannot answer the question of what "cooperation" is. Secondly, under the normal rules of statutory construction, because the law bans accepting or soliciting the donation or transfer of "money or other thing of value", an exchange of information would not be covered. (Even if the law attempted to cover exchanges of information, it is questionable whether such an attempt would survive scrutiny under the First Amendment. Other parts of the law have been struck down on First Amendment grounds.)
The media pushed the 17 number because they're mostly credulous fools, as Ben Rhodes pointed out. I don't know enough about particular politicians to speculate whether they actually lied or just accepted a number without checking it.
If your beef is with the credibility of the IC, would you have been convinced if the Treasury Department's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence signed on? My earlier comment about the other elements of the IC applies also to the question of trust: they're so minor or unrelated to the crux of the report that I doubt anyone would be swayed by their sign-off.
So what does "cooperation" mean? Your definition seems foolishly broad, because using the common definition of cooperation, probably any politician who seeks national office, a governorship, or the like, has "colluded" under your definition.
Sure, people engage in Bayesian reasoning without realizing it, but mostly they don't. They engage in much less rigorous but superficially similar reasoning. It's stupid to suggest that any time you update your beliefs based on new information, it's Bayesian, because people were doing that long before Bayes came along and provided a statistically rigorous way to do it.
Why don't you define what you mean by "collusion", so that anyone else can say what kind of evidence of "collusion" they would accept? The incidents you cited are evidence that the Trump campaign was interested in oppo research. Which "attested" facts suggest any kind of quid pro quo?
That is not much of a correction, though. Those four entities comprise the vast bulk of (the operations and analysis in) the American intelligence community, and are the most involved with questions of Russian influence in US affairs. Do you think the US Coast Guard Intelligence or the Department of Energy's Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence are going to have particular insights into Russian attempts to influence our elections?
As I said, you are more interested in arguing about standards of evidence -- with the implication that the people asking for evidence are so unreasonable that nothing will convince them -- than actually pointing to evidence.
Here's a bonus hint to not sound pretentiously ignorant: Nobody is engaging in Bayesian reasoning about this. Nobody's going to give you a prior probability that politician X colluded with the Russians on subject Y, unless politician X has been caught on tape telling the Russians how much more flexibility X will have after his election. Nobody is going to give a formula on how to form an a posteriori belief from the combination of an a priori belief and a particular piece of evidence, until all the parameters are set -- at which point it is entirely an ad hoc, political, and non-repeatable exercise.
Russia benefits from Americans being more divided and busy fighting each other instead of digging up dirt on Russian black-bag jobs, imposing more sanctions, and so forth. Russia does not necessarily heighten those divisions with the goal of helping any particular American faction.
If someone asks for evidence, present the most compelling and convincing evidence you have. It is a lame dodge, and implicit admission that you have nothing, to demand that someone else define a standard of evidence -- because you would then just argue about their definition instead of providing evidence.
So your answer to my question -- do you have evidence that Trump offered things to the Russian government, or that his administration actually did things to shield Russia from sanctions or prosecution -- is apparently "no". I gave those as examples of things that I would accept as clear evidence of improper "collusion", not as "whataboutism".
That is not evidence of Trump trying to shield Russia. That is evidence of Trump trying to enforce the nation's anti-espionage laws, although he still has a long way to go before he equals Obama's record for prosecuting alleged leakers.
Do you have video of Trump talking to Russia's president or prime minister, saying something like "after my election, I have more flexibility", and asking that the message be carried to Vladimir Putin? Did Trump's DOJ hide an investigation into Russian bribes and similar corruption among uranium dealers until after Trump's State Department approved the sale of something like 20% of America's uranium reserves to a Russian company?
If you substitute "Obama" for "Trump" in those questions, the answer to both is "yes".
But that's a narrative that you won't hear from Los Tiempos de Nuevo York.
I don't know what protections Google has against the kind of abuse you describe, but it is reasonably clear that the end user is working to infringe the copyright in that kind of case, just like a library is not liable for people who use the library's photocopiers to duplicate books or currency.
Good luck convincing everybody involved that your idea of "fair" payment really is, or even that the benefits of requiring a subscription before accessing any data come anywhere close to outweighing the huge drawbacks of requiring that.
(h)(1) For purposes of this section, during the last 20 years of any term of copyright of a published work, a library or archives, including a nonprofit educational institution that functions as such, may reproduce, distribute, display, or perform in facsimile or digital form a copy or phonorecord of such work, or portions thereof, for purposes of preservation, scholarship, or research, if such library or archives has first determined, on the basis of a reasonable investigation, that none of the conditions set forth in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (2) apply.
So, uh, which of these works are in the last 20 years of copyright? How does the Internet Archive ensure that copies it makes for third parties are for the purpose of scholarship or research? How do they certify that none of those conditions apply? (2(A) is essentially that the work is still being sold new, 2(B) is that copies are available at reasonable prices, and 2(C) is that a copyright owner or their agent can "provide[] notice" that 2(A) or 2(B) applies.)
The comment about stripped DRM is not that the Internet Archive is violating the DMCA, but that they are providing copies where the protections against indefinite use and further copying are provided only by DRM, and that DRM could be broken.
Perhaps that organization should focus more on its "only purpose", then, and stop providing copies of currently copyrighted works to the current generation. Also, if the Internet Archive is still doing this, now is not 10 years after the fact -- it is 10 years into ongoing actions.
Slashdot Mirror
That would not surprise me, but they do not get that deal for their employees, and the AC was apparently complaining about the additional property taxes from houses owned by those employees going to the state rather than to the local governments.
It can automate the tracking of floating-point uncertainty, so that when the answer 42 pops out, you have a good indication that your result is only accurate to plus or minus 2 to the 19th power. There are a lot of operations (for example, dividing by a very small number) where the magnitude of potential errors explodes.
So which "state" was this? In the US, property taxes are usually assessed and collected by local (county, city, town, etc.) governments, and that's what funds local services like police and schools. 90% of them don't go to any state that I know of.
That is an entirely fair and reasonable criticism, and I think the one that people should lead off with. Many reports from government are backed up with only a "trust us" for explanation. While it is reasonable to not show everything the government knows about another government's covert operations, because shows not only what they missed but also tends to reveal how they identified the ones they did, I think they could provide relevant examples to illustrate a lot of claims.
In contrast, "only the four most relevant agencies signed off on this report, not the 13 other ones that are mostly irrelevant!" is a very weak critique of the report. I don't think that argument will change anyone's mind, which is why I criticized it.
I have not kept close count on Russia's illegal invasions, but I know they have a higher count than the US for illegal annexations over the last 15 years, have a foreign assassination program, and also assassinate their own dissidents and critical journalists domestically. I suspect they would like to spy at least as widely as the US would, but mostly lack the technical capabilities.
I am not in the habit of admitting things that I know are false. It is not my fault if you mistake rhetoric for actual evidence, and on that basis confirm your previous biases.
The evidence is very circumstantial, that's for sure.
Asking the Russians to not retaliate against new sanctions is "tak[ing] steps to undermine or contradict the administrationâ(TM)s response to Russiaâ(TM)s election interference"? An email explaining how the Obama administration was trying to undermine the incoming Trump administration is supposedly "smoking-gun evidence" of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia?
Are you even reading the articles you link to, or just "feeling" them and accepting their conclusions without paying attention?
I explained why using the "common definition" of cooperation would make the suggested definition of "collusion" useless. I asked what hey! meant by "cooperation" to allow them to try to rescue their definition of "collusion".
If you can't understand a simple two-sentence comment, maybe you should take Hillary Clinton's advice and Delete your account.
No, you were merely implying that information is a "thing of value", when the phrase "thing of value" was in a section of a law called "STRENGTHENING FOREIGN MONEY BAN" [sic], in spite of the facts that information is not a thing, there is no objective way to assess a value for that information, and similar clauses have never (successfully) been applied to exchanges of information.
I hope that makes the situation clear enough to help you understand why your evidence isn't evidence of "collusion" in any useful sense of the word.
I am not relying on the First Amendment to declare the actions that you described as legal. I am relying on the normal rules of statutory interpretation. See, for example, Yates v. United States (2015) for a case where a fish was not a "tangible object" in the context of a particular law, because the context of the words "tangible object" made it clear -- or at least clear enough for the US Supreme Court (including Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor) -- that Congress meant something more specific than "any tangible object".
All of the things you said Trump's people did occurred after the information was obtained, so whether that information was obtained legally or illegally, they could not have solicited an illegal act to obtain that information.
No, I told you why (a) the actions you described are not illegal under the law you cited, and (b) why your comment didn't clarify your piss-poor definition of "collusion". Perhaps you should get out of that mental rut that you're in.
That does not answer my question. First, because it is already covered by your condition for criminal behavior, violating McCain-Feingold would count as "collusion", so pointing to it cannot answer the question of what "cooperation" is. Secondly, under the normal rules of statutory construction, because the law bans accepting or soliciting the donation or transfer of "money or other thing of value", an exchange of information would not be covered. (Even if the law attempted to cover exchanges of information, it is questionable whether such an attempt would survive scrutiny under the First Amendment. Other parts of the law have been struck down on First Amendment grounds.)
The media pushed the 17 number because they're mostly credulous fools, as Ben Rhodes pointed out. I don't know enough about particular politicians to speculate whether they actually lied or just accepted a number without checking it.
If your beef is with the credibility of the IC, would you have been convinced if the Treasury Department's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence signed on? My earlier comment about the other elements of the IC applies also to the question of trust: they're so minor or unrelated to the crux of the report that I doubt anyone would be swayed by their sign-off.
So what does "cooperation" mean? Your definition seems foolishly broad, because using the common definition of cooperation, probably any politician who seeks national office, a governorship, or the like, has "colluded" under your definition.
Sure, people engage in Bayesian reasoning without realizing it, but mostly they don't. They engage in much less rigorous but superficially similar reasoning. It's stupid to suggest that any time you update your beliefs based on new information, it's Bayesian, because people were doing that long before Bayes came along and provided a statistically rigorous way to do it.
Why don't you define what you mean by "collusion", so that anyone else can say what kind of evidence of "collusion" they would accept? The incidents you cited are evidence that the Trump campaign was interested in oppo research. Which "attested" facts suggest any kind of quid pro quo?
That is not much of a correction, though. Those four entities comprise the vast bulk of (the operations and analysis in) the American intelligence community, and are the most involved with questions of Russian influence in US affairs. Do you think the US Coast Guard Intelligence or the Department of Energy's Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence are going to have particular insights into Russian attempts to influence our elections?
As I said, you are more interested in arguing about standards of evidence -- with the implication that the people asking for evidence are so unreasonable that nothing will convince them -- than actually pointing to evidence.
Here's a bonus hint to not sound pretentiously ignorant: Nobody is engaging in Bayesian reasoning about this. Nobody's going to give you a prior probability that politician X colluded with the Russians on subject Y, unless politician X has been caught on tape telling the Russians how much more flexibility X will have after his election. Nobody is going to give a formula on how to form an a posteriori belief from the combination of an a priori belief and a particular piece of evidence, until all the parameters are set -- at which point it is entirely an ad hoc, political, and non-repeatable exercise.
Russia benefits from Americans being more divided and busy fighting each other instead of digging up dirt on Russian black-bag jobs, imposing more sanctions, and so forth. Russia does not necessarily heighten those divisions with the goal of helping any particular American faction.
How many of those tens of thousands of followers came from Russian Twitter farms?
If someone asks for evidence, present the most compelling and convincing evidence you have. It is a lame dodge, and implicit admission that you have nothing, to demand that someone else define a standard of evidence -- because you would then just argue about their definition instead of providing evidence.
So your answer to my question -- do you have evidence that Trump offered things to the Russian government, or that his administration actually did things to shield Russia from sanctions or prosecution -- is apparently "no". I gave those as examples of things that I would accept as clear evidence of improper "collusion", not as "whataboutism".
That is not evidence of Trump trying to shield Russia. That is evidence of Trump trying to enforce the nation's anti-espionage laws, although he still has a long way to go before he equals Obama's record for prosecuting alleged leakers.
Do you have video of Trump talking to Russia's president or prime minister, saying something like "after my election, I have more flexibility", and asking that the message be carried to Vladimir Putin? Did Trump's DOJ hide an investigation into Russian bribes and similar corruption among uranium dealers until after Trump's State Department approved the sale of something like 20% of America's uranium reserves to a Russian company?
If you substitute "Obama" for "Trump" in those questions, the answer to both is "yes".
But that's a narrative that you won't hear from Los Tiempos de Nuevo York.
I don't know what protections Google has against the kind of abuse you describe, but it is reasonably clear that the end user is working to infringe the copyright in that kind of case, just like a library is not liable for people who use the library's photocopiers to duplicate books or currency.
Good luck convincing everybody involved that your idea of "fair" payment really is, or even that the benefits of requiring a subscription before accessing any data come anywhere close to outweighing the huge drawbacks of requiring that.
So, uh, which of these works are in the last 20 years of copyright? How does the Internet Archive ensure that copies it makes for third parties are for the purpose of scholarship or research? How do they certify that none of those conditions apply? (2(A) is essentially that the work is still being sold new, 2(B) is that copies are available at reasonable prices, and 2(C) is that a copyright owner or their agent can "provide[] notice" that 2(A) or 2(B) applies.)
The comment about stripped DRM is not that the Internet Archive is violating the DMCA, but that they are providing copies where the protections against indefinite use and further copying are provided only by DRM, and that DRM could be broken.
Perhaps that organization should focus more on its "only purpose", then, and stop providing copies of currently copyrighted works to the current generation. Also, if the Internet Archive is still doing this, now is not 10 years after the fact -- it is 10 years into ongoing actions.