Because the status quo of Obama has been so great? Hillary's plan to raise taxes across the board (because you won't pay off "FREE" college any other way, in addition to expanding all other forms of Welfare) is going to help the economy which has been in the tank since 2006? You think that the normalization of the Social Marxist SJW narratives across not just College campuses but a complicit media has been good? Do you believe that the fake narratives about the evil police force hunting down innocent people is good? Do oou believe that it's okay for the Government officials to get away crime after crime helps the country while the little people can be picked apart with petty laws and civil forfeiture (expanded under Obama) is good?
Here is an idea, how about actually fact checking the media instead of believing everything you are told. I know, it's a whole lot to ask people to actually use things like facts to base their opinions on, but that is what a sane and rational person does. Prove me wrong about your insanity, I dare you! Here is a hint however: Everything you are told is for propaganda purposes today. Everything is staged and cherry picked to give you the opinion that someone wants you to have to benefit them. It does not benefit you, Lenin shot his useful idiots as soon as it was convenient. You will be in a ditch too.
So are you attempting to claim that the IRS does not have a filing for Donald Trump which is a different law being broken and would still require a conviction to substantiate? You are so full of shit I can no longer stand the stench. Keep pandering, you won't get anything out of a Hillary win either (and most likely get less)
There were AT LEAST 21 cases prosecuted and named in the Congressional hearings. It's not my fault that you don't know facts and then guess randomly in a lame attempt to prove me wrong. You failed! Go do the work!
The logic the summary presents is backward. It is not that more than half of DDOS results in penetration attacks, it's that real attacks are covered by DDOS attacks. It's the old "hey, look over here, look over here" while they sneak in the side entry.
TFA seems to say as much, so it seems like the summary is wrong (I only read what's posted here so maybe TFA is wrong)
The Marine who posted a Selfie to Facebook without realizing a monitor was in the background was intentionally "stealing" classified material? Wholly fuck, you can't seriously be that big of an idiot.
Which if you did even 10 seconds of searching you would find is verifiable as false. Read or Listen to the Congressional hearings, and not the dipshits like Conniers who grandstanded his time on gun-control, and you would know of at least 21 cases where mens rea is not a matter in the cases. That is 21 people serving 20+ years for doing LESS than Hillary Clinton did.
I hate these traffic blocking cars with a passion. I live in Mountain view and they are doing 15Mph around a curve which is not even posted as a curve (no danger) and 20-25 where the speed limit is posted at 35-45.
Oh, at first it tolerable. "awe, look at the cute little Google car." After sitting behind these things trying to drive around the city for over a year, I am considering getting an IPO for anti-Google Car chaff cannons. (soda cans full of shredded aluminum foil). I'm pretty sure that would be illegal, so I have not filed a company charter.
Ahh, because the Directory of the FBI stated that she acted against the Law but that for some reason in Hillary's case we could not prove intent. Intent in every other case prosecuted by the DOJ has no bearing on the guilty verdict, it can only be used in sentencing (if used at all). The Marine in one case and Seaman on the sub who took a selfies and now serves 20 years in Federal Prison did not "intend" to disclose classified material either, yet each sits in jail for 20 years.
If you are going to attempt to appear intelligent, it actually helps to be intelligent.
How nice that you apoligized and acknowledging that Trump did not break any tax laws and did not do anything wrong. Oh wait...
To the second part, the FBI director denied anyone the attempt of attempting to prosecute. This denial was not just for her, but a full half dozen of her staff that _we know of_. Facts back my position, and you admit my position is correct. Your position on the other hand is based on politically motivated speculation.
Tax evasion is a Federal crime covered by Federal courts. Hillary's illegal activity is not denied even by the director of the FBI, just that he did not feel it was worth pursuing a prosecution. Strange that a Federal Prosecutor has not said the same thing.
Real estate values would remain depressed through 1995, when they would return to growth.[8]
Do you need me to point out the 2nd paragraph of "Recovery" for you, or do you think you can stop selectively reading when facts don't back your position? If the latter, you are the problem not myself or Trump.
If Trump did not follow the law it would have been prosecuted and we would have a verdict. There is no such thing, and that fact bothers the shit out of people like you who find facts an inconvenience.
From 3 pages of taxes in the 1990s we have gleaned 1 fact, that Trump took a loss. Everything else is speculation. The one troll I saw on a similar post yesterday simply denied facts and claimed that the 90s were some great economic boom. Again FACTS can be used to prove that troll wrong.
Meanwhile, Hillary is guilty of several laws which the FBI has simply refused to prosecute her for. We know that the FBI gave complete immunity to staffers, the guy who setup and ran the Exchange server, and his boss had a secret meeting with the suspects husband and former ex President the Friday before the Monday dismissal. We KNOW that the DNC has been colluding with mass media to promote Hillary and we know that they used their influence to shove Bernie down in the elections.
I have plenty of things I could complain about with Trump too, but with all the media bullshit there is no way my complaint would ever be viewed as valid. Telling a crowd that maybe they can protect their 2nd amendment rights was turned into "Trump claimed Kill Hillary", and Trump satirically saying "maybe Russia can release those emails she deleted" became "Trump claimed he wanted Russia to hack America", and the Russian influence in the DNC and Clinton foundation are ignored, but "Trump loves Putin".
It is so contrived I honestly no longer feel like I'm living in my own Country.
Anonymous comments prefixed with "I'm not pro Hillary" or "I'm not for either" are made by people who actually are for that person. You prove the point in an easy to spot fashion, so if you are a paid troll give your boss back your check. You suck.
TFA is not a Trump or Hillary issue, it's an issue of truth and the complete loss of Journalism in the USA. I don't read or watch any "news" intentionally today because it has become pure propaganda. The same shit that we used to make fun of the Pravda for when I was a kid is on open display in the US today. Instead of being pissed off about being openly manipulated, plenty of people support the propaganda.
Looking at the majority of posts here, very few are suggesting that media has become a drastic issue. Media has been an issue, if you want an eye opener go read some Ann Coulter ("Guilty" is a good one) and validate the references and sources she lists in her books. Dollars to donuts trolls will probably comment negatively about Ann Coulter in response instead of addressing points she lays out factually in her books.
Thankfully, enough people have been exposed to the game that propaganda is having the opposite effect. It may not be enough people, and it may not have been soon enough, but I have hope. Many people I know have done the same thing I did and started ignoring "media" and reading sources and listening to speakers directly. Media trustworthiness is rightly at an all time low in the US, lower than either Presidential candidate. Issues are not discussed, it's all personal attack all the time. It is so obviously one sided that you should immediately see which side the media is favoring. That more than anything should be considered in your selection of a Candidate.
According to attorneys I checked with, yes I checked because the media is so full of lies, you lose ALL bargaining power with the IRS once you disclose your taxes.
You may have nothing to lose, and the average Joe may have nothing to lose, but Billions of dollars is something else entirely. I'd also argue that due to Trump having properties and revenue for multiple separate businesses from literally all over the world his taxes are much more complex than say Gates and his foundation, which is 2 business units.
Yes, it's a waste of Tax payer money which should be addressed. While we are addressing it lets investigate and open all of the invalid classifications used to hide activity that the public may want. In addition, criminal actions should be prosecuted by ALL people exposed, and bad actors need to be removed from offices and positions. While the latter issue is allowed the former will never be addressed. It has become too convenient for politicians to hide, but we have also created a dual form of Justice where the wealthy and politicians are immune to law.
People seem to be forgetting that IANA _and_ ICANN are on the chopping blocks. Forward look ups could use an alternative service, but what if someone just takes half your IPs away and gives them to someone else because they don't like what your sites do?
They don't care that IoT is a horrible idea, and they ignore countless other security practices to increase their own pocket wads. Power holders want to track your every move and dig every loose penny they can find out of _your_ pocket in the process.
Stop connecting every damn thing to the Internet, and start securing what you have to have connected. This is not a mentally challenging thought process, so if you don't "get it" that makes you...
You start okay, because yeah many of us are fed up with a political class running ram-shod over the rest of us so that they can work toward their global domination agenda. Obama's UN speech made it clear that he does not care as much about sovereignty as he does about that agenda. The "We" in his speech that need to make sacrifices to support that end do not include him and the political class who has been wiping their ass with the US Constitution for decades. You in Europe are not much better off, but in fairness we have lost much more liberty because we had more.
Then, you go off to the deep end. Most intellectuals working in security are for personal Liberty, which is the exact opposite of Sanders. That leaves us with Trump as the only hope, which does not have great odds but it's better than a very well known liar. Sanders attracted crusaders who are not well educated in history, not the students of history. Sanders was shat upon, but that was in the cards when he was chosen to run against her. He got a decent retirement plan for his efforts, he's not too worried. People who followed him on the other hand found the system to be corrupt and many have dropped out. Study Communist transformation, and you will see that demoralizing the populace is requirement in large doses. This crap was well known 50 years ago and published by defecting KGB agents.
Why do people say "Russians"? That is a multi-part answer. The easiest is that it takes people's eyes away from the wrong doing you started with. Will this double dipping person face any penalty for shafting tax payers? Will the people who employed her? Obama is running around on Tax payer dollars for Hillary fundraisers and campaign purposes. But hey, look at those stinky Russians.
I'll grant you that the game is complex, but it's not "that" complex if you focus on the team playing. They own the media and own most politicians, and it's a club that you can't join.
I know some people love it, but I am hard pressed to think of anything worth saying in 140 characters or less. I always saw Twitter as like an emergency broadcast system for the Internet, not a form of conversation. Adding an image won't change my view, I have wind in my sails. Just read some of my posts.
Making education entertaining conditions children into enjoying education.
Prove it. If that was true today's society would be producing a populace with higher IQs than we have previously had, yet we have a massive reduction in IQ's over the last 70 or so years. Facts show you are wrong, and was the point of my post. How many people were patting Descartes on the back and giving him and his classmates participation trophies? How many circuses did Einstein attend during the public portion of his schooling? He dropped out because it was easy, not because he was not entertained. Socrates must have been surrounded by all of the artists and courtesans in Athens, show me some proof that he was "entertained" to learn.
A common thread among the geniuses of the past is that they all started education at a very early age and it was ground into them, so they almost instinctively had it become their raison d'tere.
Veritably untrue if you are using a generalization akin to modern schools. We start kids in School at 4 to 5 years old today, way before kids were walking miles and miles to and from school. Most kids at 4-5 were taught at home and performed menial chores. Interest in education starts young, but school is not the culprit for sparking interest.
You can't roll back the clock, so talking about the good old days doesn't solve anything. Work with where we are now, the world we are in today.
I may be cynical but I ground my position in facts. You on the other hand are defeatist and don't seem to care much about facts. So you lose, give me my way! My side has to win every couple hundred years to put reality back in place. Seriously, check a history book sometime.
It's a property of "English" in general, though perhaps you may (correctly?) notice it more often in American English. In the UK Parliament is a proper noun, yet parliament is the correct definition for what Parliament does.
I realize my opinion bothers you, but instead of your insistence on censorship why not provide reasonable arguments against people you censor? Feckless.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the status quo of Obama has been so great? Hillary's plan to raise taxes across the board (because you won't pay off "FREE" college any other way, in addition to expanding all other forms of Welfare) is going to help the economy which has been in the tank since 2006? You think that the normalization of the Social Marxist SJW narratives across not just College campuses but a complicit media has been good? Do you believe that the fake narratives about the evil police force hunting down innocent people is good? Do oou believe that it's okay for the Government officials to get away crime after crime helps the country while the little people can be picked apart with petty laws and civil forfeiture (expanded under Obama) is good?
Here is an idea, how about actually fact checking the media instead of believing everything you are told. I know, it's a whole lot to ask people to actually use things like facts to base their opinions on, but that is what a sane and rational person does. Prove me wrong about your insanity, I dare you! Here is a hint however: Everything you are told is for propaganda purposes today. Everything is staged and cherry picked to give you the opinion that someone wants you to have to benefit them. It does not benefit you, Lenin shot his useful idiots as soon as it was convenient. You will be in a ditch too.
So are you attempting to claim that the IRS does not have a filing for Donald Trump which is a different law being broken and would still require a conviction to substantiate? You are so full of shit I can no longer stand the stench. Keep pandering, you won't get anything out of a Hillary win either (and most likely get less)
There were AT LEAST 21 cases prosecuted and named in the Congressional hearings. It's not my fault that you don't know facts and then guess randomly in a lame attempt to prove me wrong. You failed! Go do the work!
The logic the summary presents is backward. It is not that more than half of DDOS results in penetration attacks, it's that real attacks are covered by DDOS attacks. It's the old "hey, look over here, look over here" while they sneak in the side entry.
TFA seems to say as much, so it seems like the summary is wrong (I only read what's posted here so maybe TFA is wrong)
The Marine who posted a Selfie to Facebook without realizing a monitor was in the background was intentionally "stealing" classified material? Wholly fuck, you can't seriously be that big of an idiot.
Which if you did even 10 seconds of searching you would find is verifiable as false. Read or Listen to the Congressional hearings, and not the dipshits like Conniers who grandstanded his time on gun-control, and you would know of at least 21 cases where mens rea is not a matter in the cases. That is 21 people serving 20+ years for doing LESS than Hillary Clinton did.
I hate these traffic blocking cars with a passion. I live in Mountain view and they are doing 15Mph around a curve which is not even posted as a curve (no danger) and 20-25 where the speed limit is posted at 35-45.
Oh, at first it tolerable. "awe, look at the cute little Google car." After sitting behind these things trying to drive around the city for over a year, I am considering getting an IPO for anti-Google Car chaff cannons. (soda cans full of shredded aluminum foil). I'm pretty sure that would be illegal, so I have not filed a company charter.
Ahh, because the Directory of the FBI stated that she acted against the Law but that for some reason in Hillary's case we could not prove intent. Intent in every other case prosecuted by the DOJ has no bearing on the guilty verdict, it can only be used in sentencing (if used at all). The Marine in one case and Seaman on the sub who took a selfies and now serves 20 years in Federal Prison did not "intend" to disclose classified material either, yet each sits in jail for 20 years.
If you are going to attempt to appear intelligent, it actually helps to be intelligent.
How nice that you apoligized and acknowledging that Trump did not break any tax laws and did not do anything wrong. Oh wait...
To the second part, the FBI director denied anyone the attempt of attempting to prosecute. This denial was not just for her, but a full half dozen of her staff that _we know of_. Facts back my position, and you admit my position is correct. Your position on the other hand is based on politically motivated speculation.
Tax evasion is a Federal crime covered by Federal courts. Hillary's illegal activity is not denied even by the director of the FBI, just that he did not feel it was worth pursuing a prosecution. Strange that a Federal Prosecutor has not said the same thing.
Real estate values would remain depressed through 1995, when they would return to growth.[8]
Do you need me to point out the 2nd paragraph of "Recovery" for you, or do you think you can stop selectively reading when facts don't back your position? If the latter, you are the problem not myself or Trump.
If Trump did not follow the law it would have been prosecuted and we would have a verdict. There is no such thing, and that fact bothers the shit out of people like you who find facts an inconvenience.
From 3 pages of taxes in the 1990s we have gleaned 1 fact, that Trump took a loss. Everything else is speculation. The one troll I saw on a similar post yesterday simply denied facts and claimed that the 90s were some great economic boom. Again FACTS can be used to prove that troll wrong.
Meanwhile, Hillary is guilty of several laws which the FBI has simply refused to prosecute her for. We know that the FBI gave complete immunity to staffers, the guy who setup and ran the Exchange server, and his boss had a secret meeting with the suspects husband and former ex President the Friday before the Monday dismissal. We KNOW that the DNC has been colluding with mass media to promote Hillary and we know that they used their influence to shove Bernie down in the elections.
I have plenty of things I could complain about with Trump too, but with all the media bullshit there is no way my complaint would ever be viewed as valid. Telling a crowd that maybe they can protect their 2nd amendment rights was turned into "Trump claimed Kill Hillary", and Trump satirically saying "maybe Russia can release those emails she deleted" became "Trump claimed he wanted Russia to hack America", and the Russian influence in the DNC and Clinton foundation are ignored, but "Trump loves Putin".
It is so contrived I honestly no longer feel like I'm living in my own Country.
Anonymous comments prefixed with "I'm not pro Hillary" or "I'm not for either" are made by people who actually are for that person. You prove the point in an easy to spot fashion, so if you are a paid troll give your boss back your check. You suck.
TFA is not a Trump or Hillary issue, it's an issue of truth and the complete loss of Journalism in the USA. I don't read or watch any "news" intentionally today because it has become pure propaganda. The same shit that we used to make fun of the Pravda for when I was a kid is on open display in the US today. Instead of being pissed off about being openly manipulated, plenty of people support the propaganda.
Looking at the majority of posts here, very few are suggesting that media has become a drastic issue. Media has been an issue, if you want an eye opener go read some Ann Coulter ("Guilty" is a good one) and validate the references and sources she lists in her books. Dollars to donuts trolls will probably comment negatively about Ann Coulter in response instead of addressing points she lays out factually in her books.
Thankfully, enough people have been exposed to the game that propaganda is having the opposite effect. It may not be enough people, and it may not have been soon enough, but I have hope. Many people I know have done the same thing I did and started ignoring "media" and reading sources and listening to speakers directly. Media trustworthiness is rightly at an all time low in the US, lower than either Presidential candidate. Issues are not discussed, it's all personal attack all the time. It is so obviously one sided that you should immediately see which side the media is favoring. That more than anything should be considered in your selection of a Candidate.
According to attorneys I checked with, yes I checked because the media is so full of lies, you lose ALL bargaining power with the IRS once you disclose your taxes.
You may have nothing to lose, and the average Joe may have nothing to lose, but Billions of dollars is something else entirely. I'd also argue that due to Trump having properties and revenue for multiple separate businesses from literally all over the world his taxes are much more complex than say Gates and his foundation, which is 2 business units.
Yes, it's a waste of Tax payer money which should be addressed. While we are addressing it lets investigate and open all of the invalid classifications used to hide activity that the public may want. In addition, criminal actions should be prosecuted by ALL people exposed, and bad actors need to be removed from offices and positions. While the latter issue is allowed the former will never be addressed. It has become too convenient for politicians to hide, but we have also created a dual form of Justice where the wealthy and politicians are immune to law.
People seem to be forgetting that IANA _and_ ICANN are on the chopping blocks. Forward look ups could use an alternative service, but what if someone just takes half your IPs away and gives them to someone else because they don't like what your sites do?
They don't care that IoT is a horrible idea, and they ignore countless other security practices to increase their own pocket wads. Power holders want to track your every move and dig every loose penny they can find out of _your_ pocket in the process.
Stop connecting every damn thing to the Internet, and start securing what you have to have connected. This is not a mentally challenging thought process, so if you don't "get it" that makes you...
You start okay, because yeah many of us are fed up with a political class running ram-shod over the rest of us so that they can work toward their global domination agenda. Obama's UN speech made it clear that he does not care as much about sovereignty as he does about that agenda. The "We" in his speech that need to make sacrifices to support that end do not include him and the political class who has been wiping their ass with the US Constitution for decades. You in Europe are not much better off, but in fairness we have lost much more liberty because we had more.
Then, you go off to the deep end. Most intellectuals working in security are for personal Liberty, which is the exact opposite of Sanders. That leaves us with Trump as the only hope, which does not have great odds but it's better than a very well known liar. Sanders attracted crusaders who are not well educated in history, not the students of history. Sanders was shat upon, but that was in the cards when he was chosen to run against her. He got a decent retirement plan for his efforts, he's not too worried. People who followed him on the other hand found the system to be corrupt and many have dropped out. Study Communist transformation, and you will see that demoralizing the populace is requirement in large doses. This crap was well known 50 years ago and published by defecting KGB agents.
Why do people say "Russians"? That is a multi-part answer. The easiest is that it takes people's eyes away from the wrong doing you started with. Will this double dipping person face any penalty for shafting tax payers? Will the people who employed her? Obama is running around on Tax payer dollars for Hillary fundraisers and campaign purposes. But hey, look at those stinky Russians.
I'll grant you that the game is complex, but it's not "that" complex if you focus on the team playing. They own the media and own most politicians, and it's a club that you can't join.
ZDNet was alive and well, why are we shocked?
I know some people love it, but I am hard pressed to think of anything worth saying in 140 characters or less. I always saw Twitter as like an emergency broadcast system for the Internet, not a form of conversation. Adding an image won't change my view, I have wind in my sails. Just read some of my posts.
It is called "allergies" you insensitive clod!
Making education entertaining conditions children into enjoying education.
Prove it. If that was true today's society would be producing a populace with higher IQs than we have previously had, yet we have a massive reduction in IQ's over the last 70 or so years. Facts show you are wrong, and was the point of my post. How many people were patting Descartes on the back and giving him and his classmates participation trophies? How many circuses did Einstein attend during the public portion of his schooling? He dropped out because it was easy, not because he was not entertained. Socrates must have been surrounded by all of the artists and courtesans in Athens, show me some proof that he was "entertained" to learn.
A common thread among the geniuses of the past is that they all started education at a very early age and it was ground into them, so they almost instinctively had it become their raison d'tere.
Veritably untrue if you are using a generalization akin to modern schools. We start kids in School at 4 to 5 years old today, way before kids were walking miles and miles to and from school. Most kids at 4-5 were taught at home and performed menial chores. Interest in education starts young, but school is not the culprit for sparking interest.
You can't roll back the clock, so talking about the good old days doesn't solve anything. Work with where we are now, the world we are in today.
I may be cynical but I ground my position in facts. You on the other hand are defeatist and don't seem to care much about facts. So you lose, give me my way! My side has to win every couple hundred years to put reality back in place. Seriously, check a history book sometime.
It's a property of "English" in general, though perhaps you may (correctly?) notice it more often in American English. In the UK Parliament is a proper noun, yet parliament is the correct definition for what Parliament does.
I realize my opinion bothers you, but instead of your insistence on censorship why not provide reasonable arguments against people you censor? Feckless.