Global warming will kill us, but, mass poverty will kill us sooner.
A) No, poverty won't kill us. Income inequity and the gutting of health, education and social services will kill some people—far too many, to be sure— but mostly it will reduce the quality of life for a generation or so. Undesirable? Yes. Deadly? Not for most people.
B) The reason for climate action today is not because it's going to affect us today. It's because every day of delay compounds the problem. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you're the type of person who changes their oil regularly and sticks to the vehicle maintenance schedule, because ignoring things until they become critical is costly and stupid....
C) If I have to carry B)'s analogy any further, there's really no point in even responding.
Not everyone assumes Trump is unalloyed evil. But Breitbart, on the other hand, is deliberately indulging in the kind of corrupt, amoral behaviour you claim that Donald Trump needs to deal with as his first priority.
[editor's note: Here is where the poster loses his shit at the willful blindness of this defender of the indefensible.]
In layman's terms, they fucking lie and lie and lie about climate change, and you can't get that through your fucking head. Instead, you defend the very fucking liars you claim are ruining this globe by pooh-poohing the fact that they fucking lied and claiming that the thing they fucking lied about isn't that big a deal.
Here's the problem with that situation: If you're so fed up with political corruption, why the fuck are you defending the very people who are perpetuating the problem? And don't give me any 'but Hillary' shit. I don't give a flying fuck about Hillary. I don't care if she's the devil. I am specifically concerned that you, sir, are defending liars in your paean to the need to end a culture of corruption. Because I don't fucking get it.
Said in every locker room every day. And not just in the guy's locker room - women are just the same when guys aren't around.
I say this with all the respect this statement deserves: Fuck you it is.
As someone who's spent more time in locker rooms than a lot of you, I have never once in my life heard someone bragging about forcing himself on women, and that 'they let you do it.' And you know what? Even if in some twisted world this actually is the reality, it's still fucking sick. It's describing criminal behaviour. Someone grabs any woman's pussy where I'm in a position to see it, they're going to be physically restrained until the cops come. Not kidding.
If you're cool with someone acting like a total asshole to someone else, then you need to check your attitude, because only an asshole would think that was alright. So fuck you, and fuck your normalisation of criminal behaviour. That's my sister, asshole.
If you're sending anything important in plain text over the Internet these days, you're as good as asking the government to read it.
What a completely ------ thing to say to someone like -------! I can't figure out why people like you always ---- and ----- when you could be ---ing. Seriously, do you even ---- it? I for one trust out ----- over----s completely. Rule Brit------!!!
(and now I have to write a bunch of other useless prose to get by Slashdot's junk filters. Which is a really useless filter. I mean just because goatse ASCII is a thing doesn't mean no one ever had any legitimate uses for copious punctuation. My word, are we really reduced to such silliness? How much more of this do you think will be required before the filter finally lets this past? Probably a little more still. Hang on, let me preview.... Nope. still not enough. If this doesn't improve soon, I'm just going to load up a Tolstoy eBook and start pasting in sections of Anna Karenina, but then again that would probably just set off the plagiarism filter. Heathens have no appreciation for satire, I tell you.)
The Russian Jews sent my still living uncle to a gulag back before WW2....
That's the strangest spelling for 'communist'[*] I've ever seen.
...we don't hate the jews, we just wish stupid people like you learned a bit more about history.
Why, because it would save you the trouble of learning actual history?
------------
[*] Oh, OK, if I must: YES, there were Jews among the party apparatchiks at a couple of points in the Leninist/Stalinist period. They were trusted to varying degrees, but were subject to purges, too, depending on a number of factors, not the least of which was endemic anti-semitism among the Russian populace in general. But yes, some of them actually prospered under Stalin when millions of others were dying. This was not typically because of their Jewishness, but because they had other survival skills, some of which were less than admirable, this being Stalin's Russia and all. The Baltic states suffered terribly under the Soviets, but not because of The Jews.
In fact, why not eliminate the middle bits and just cut to the chase. In your next issue, just put:
"TRUMP IS INSANE"
Because he's not insane. He's a buffoon, and so pathologically needy that he will say virtually anything to anyone, but that's not news. We don't run a celebrity gossip site. And this particular story is about his advisor, not Trump himself. You see, we report actual news. Which was my original point.
What we do run is a newspaper in a part of the world that is already feeling the effects of climate change, with direct and tangible economic and social impacts. So when a top climate denier says that he intends to cut the legs out from under an integral part of the climate science community, and claims to be acting to stop political interference with climate science.... That gets a big headline. We're running it tomorrow.
And yes, editors do sometimes talk like that. In jest, but mostly because if you can't maintain your gallows humour, you won't be an editor for long.
I would have said, "... you goddam major fucking batshit crazy under-educated piece of whale shit."
You guys. Stop holding back.
I would have said, "FUUUUUUUU-UUUCKK YOOOOOUUUU you gormless little spit-dribbling, smegma-gobbling, louse-brained, FAS patient. I've seen nematodes smarter than you. You couldn't calculate the number of fingers your mother used to scrape your father's cum out of her arse when she conceived you. You couldn't analyse the club your mother beat you with because you were too fucking stupid to shit anywhere but in your own shoes. In conclusion: fuck yourself. Fuck you from your your cum-encrusted New Balance sneakers to your shit-stained khakis... all the way to that Dap-smeared monstrosity you call your head.
Totally agree. The Trump administration is "poised" to eliminate climate science, quote from campaign advisers, and concerned scientists make up this article. Come back when you have something to report.
The advisor designated to oversea future planning related to NASA says, 'we're going to cut a $2+ billion NASA program that not coincidentally provides critical baseline data to climate scientists because politicians shouldn't meddle with client scientists.'
May I offer my professional opinion, as someone who runs a newspaper: That is something to report.
That's not just any old thing to report. That's something that you report in the World News section. Above the fold. With a 4 inch headline. And an entire editorial department asking the reporter, 'Really he said that? Because no sane person would say that. He's that fucking dense? Yeah? He did? Okay, fine. Zane, drop a hundred words from the second item. We're just going to print WTF fifty times below this article.'
Seriously, if you think this is a reasonable, unremarkable pronouncement from a member of the presidential transition team, you are not entirely sound in the head. I mean that in all sincerity. Get checked. Because you're not thinking rationally.
Thanks to Wikileaks we now know for a fact that she rigged everything against Bernie with the help of her minions in the DNC.
It's a FACT. A FACT, you say. That Clinton's team and others in the DNC began liaising about how to handle her candidacy... after it became mathematically impossible for Sanders to win the nomination. Yes, after, you fact-hungry person, you. Check the dates. Yeah, the fix was in, and the game was rigged... right from the moment the democratic process of voting for a nominee made her selection a certainty.
That, sir, is a fact. And you are welcome to try to prove to me that it's a lie, but only using actual, you know, facts.
I at least as many anti-Trump memes as anti-Hilary memes.
That's kind of the point. Unfiltered access to the modern equivalent of the yellow press means that people were free to follow their prejudice (in the Latin sense of the word) down the rabbit hole of their choosing.
More people voted for Hillary than voted for Trump, but no matter the outcome, the margin was vanishingly small. Basically, people just chose their narrative and cleaved to it, nourishing and sustaining it with the self-reinforcing feed that Facebook provides.
Trump is not going to 'drain the swamp', and Hillary was never anything but the enemy of ISIS. But in the final analysis, nobody fucking cares. And why should they? We just watched two straw dolls dance for 15 months, each accompanied by a back story knocked together by the political equivalent of an oxycontin-addicted non-Union Hollywood hack who's just been told the franchise needs a new Avenger.
Most good browsers have this feature built in. You just need to know how to find it:
1. Type 'snopes' into the address bar.
Does it bring up the Snopes website?
2. Type 'Politifact' into your address bar.
Does it bring up the Politifact website?
If you answered yes to these questions, then your browser supports fact-checking natively.
What I would really like to see is some kind of measure of reputability. Not a measure of how much people trust a particular resource, because that turns into a faith-based exercise. But some kind of algorithm that measures the degree to which other sources rely on a particular source of information, and how frequently they reference it relative to other sources. Kind of a PageRank for information sources. It would hardly be a perfect measure, but it would help people learn to assess the source.
If nothing else, it would pull the rug out from under the Macedonian troll site cottage industry.
No, that's coordination between two groups, which happens all the time.
Does the State Department personally consult with you? Has any federal department ever asked your opinion on anything directly in an email sent to your personal account and written by a highly-paid government official?
Well, I'm not an American, so no, the State Department has nothing to do with me, and me with it.
But yes, I have worked closely with government agencies to prepare press releases concerning projects and events that I was involved in in a private capacity. It's not just something that sometimes happens; it's the process. You don't fucking talk to the media until everyone has their story straight. You just don't. Because it would be fucking stupid.
Reporters are paid to find the inconsistency in stories. They are professional sceptics. Well, the good ones are. The bad ones are willing to take anything you say and twist it beyond comprehensibility in order to score a point. Kind of like what happened here.
Again: People in the USA are demonstrating a shockingly tragic, deliberate, willful failure to accept that even people we hate are sometimes not guilty of every single fucking fantastical thing we invent about them. This is true of both sides. YOU'RE ALL FUCKED.
I'm dead serious here: I live in a Least Developed Country with some absolutely astonishing candidates for Parliament, and we have saner elections than you. Get a fucking grip, people. Stop fucking lying about each other—and stop fucking lying to yourselves.
While that's certainly true, it's also misdirection. A news organization checking the subject of an article isn't the point.
It's that the government agency fielding the request gave the campaign a heads up, and took direction from the campaign about the response.
That's collusion between government and the Clinton campaign.
No, that's coordination between two groups, which happens all the time. This kind of behaviour is run of the mill with just about any news story that includes both private and public sectors. They each need to know what the other is saying in order to avoid contradiction and confusion. And the fact that someone's taken input from someone else doesn't imply anything; it's neither positive nor negative.
Are you comfortable with government agencies checking with a campaign (of their choosing) during an election?
I'm not.
Then you are sorely, sorely mistaken about how communications between organisations and the media happens. And it's not a government agency checking with a campaign; it's a government agency coordinating with the ex-director about whom the media is asking questions. They'd be remiss not to check in.
Seriously, the effort people on both sides are going to in order to vilify and demonise the opponent is shameful. A pox on both your houses.
Without having read TFA, often even as a network engineer, I'll use the term "ping" even when not referring to ICMP. For example, I'll refer to an SNMP walk (of any kind) as a "ping".
Exactly. The term 'ping' may appear unfortunate to those of us who know what the ICMP protocol actually is, but it'll be suitably edgy to a tech-ignorant audience who need to feel that the writer actually knows what he's talking about.
Still though, this doesn't come off as suspicious to me at all. Since when is it odd or otherwise unusual that a server belonging to a billionaire talks to a server belonging to a bank in a foreign country?
When the bank is one of only a very few addresses the server communicates with.
Look, it's circumstantial at best, no more of a smoking gun than any number of other things. But if I were a US-based journalist, I'd consider it worth digging into. I don't know that I'd publish something based on the logs alone, but I would certainly be willing to follow wherever they lead. Even if the conclusion is that Trump has investments in Russian companies, that's a notable fact, given his constant and explicit denial that he has any financial ties to Russia.
That's like saying that it's odd that there's dog piss on a fire hydrant.
Kind of. It's more like saying it's odd that this dog doesn't seem to want to piss anywhere except at this particular fire hydrant, which he insists he would never piss on if you gave him a thousand years and a fire hose.
So yeah, the circumstances are curious, but there's nothing here that would make me jump out of my chair and shout, 'Aha!!!' And trust me, I'd be the first to do that if it took Trump down a notch.
I'm still not sure how this points to the Russians... How do we not know that it isn't some dude sitting on the beach in Tahiti and bouncing it off a server or VPN in Russia?
Because they weren't simply working with SRC and DST packets, Donald. They did actual analysis, and found that the intrusion tools were the same as those used, among other things, to hack the German Bundestag (Parliament). They found Russian language bits mistakenly left in the leaked materials—which disappeared and never emerged again once their presence was pointed out. A shared SSL certificate also implicated the Russians.
I saw you linking those articles the other day, and read the Intercept one. The leak doesn't prove that the entire mainstream media is in bed with Hillary, following her every command.
Maybe I can shed a little light here, as a professional journalist who often talks off the record with people in positions of power.
The question you should be asking is not whether so-and-so has a friendly relationship with Candidate X. The question is, what is the effect of that relationship on their reporting? And lest you think that I'm siding with the reporters on this one... don't. I see a far-too-common tendency among reporters to shy away from criticising people with whom they have a relationship. I also see a not-as-common tendency among reporters to assume that they are required to maintain an adversarial relationship with politicians and others in positions of power.
As with all things, 95% of everything is crap. If you seek out the 5% who really do a decent job of reporting, though, you'll see some fine—and reputable—journalism.
Good old-fashioned scepticism just doesn't seem to cut it any more. I actually took comfort from the fact that even though the Clinton team could rely on Maggie Haberman to write a story... but could not rely on her to portray the story the way they wanted. That's pretty much how journalism is designed. Of course it's worthwhile to write about Clinton's vetting process; it's noteworthy and in the public interest. And as long as it's written in a properly sceptical (but not cynical) frame, it's worth reading, too.
I have a lot of time for Greenwald. He's a quality journalist. But in my opinion he often confuses his own cynicism with honest and fair scepticism. But that's praising with faint damns. Even the best journos should be read through a context filter.
That is far from a detailed description and more of a list of uninformed rants. Much better to read the informed reply to TFA here: https://medium.com/@davidtstra...
More clueless autonomic defensiveness without any reflection on what the impact of the bug actually is. I especially enjoyed this old chestnut as the author attempts to fisk the original bug report:
These accusations are true for every major production kernel (Windows, Linux, and BSD) and every alternative to systemd (in the sense that they’re almost all written in C and run many of their operations as root).
"SystemD, let me just stop you there. I know the Linux kernel. I've worked with the Linux kernel. You're no Linux kernel."
The incredible hubris of asserting parity with the core of the entire OS, the ignorance that underlies the statement that init was written in C and runs as root, so it's every bit as vulnerable... How the fuck do you even make code run? Do you even teh logic?
The SystemD team is the Microsoft of a new generation. Doubling down on their mistakes; shouting louder when they don't get their way; using every available ratiocination and intellectual contortion to excuse themselves; resorting to any means to make their strategy win, instead of stopping to ask themselves for once, 'Are we following a winning strategy here?'
Thank g*d I quit writing software last year. Dealing with Microsoft's mind-crushing blindness was enough for one lifetime. Now I can just grump about it and walk away.
Um, the French and Indian War was between 1756 and 1763. There was no "Canada", save as a bit of a colloquial expression for the New France, which became British after the defeat of French forces in 1759.
Nitpick: The Treaty of Paris was signed in 1763. That was when the colony formally became British.
I've had a kidney stone, and I'll tell you the LAST thing I wanted to do during all that pain was hop on a roller coaster.
Amen, brother. I had heroin suppositories[*] keeping mine down to a deafening roar before my medevac, and I still couldn't even sit upright before the pain got the better of me. Talk about the cure being worse than the disease.
[*] From the ridiculous to the sublime, as it were.
Slashdot Mirror
We're all made typos, right?
Don't you mean "we've"?
WEAVE! Duh!
Fucking apostrophes....
...
:-D
..
.
Who cares? Let him use some third rate, white-only application to shit on other people.
But... I'm confused. Aren't we telling him not to use Twitter?
Global warming will kill us, but, mass poverty will kill us sooner.
A) No, poverty won't kill us. Income inequity and the gutting of health, education and social services will kill some people—far too many, to be sure— but mostly it will reduce the quality of life for a generation or so. Undesirable? Yes. Deadly? Not for most people.
B) The reason for climate action today is not because it's going to affect us today. It's because every day of delay compounds the problem. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you're the type of person who changes their oil regularly and sticks to the vehicle maintenance schedule, because ignoring things until they become critical is costly and stupid....
C) If I have to carry B)'s analogy any further, there's really no point in even responding.
Not everyone assumes Trump is unalloyed evil. But Breitbart, on the other hand, is deliberately indulging in the kind of corrupt, amoral behaviour you claim that Donald Trump needs to deal with as his first priority.
[editor's note: Here is where the poster loses his shit at the willful blindness of this defender of the indefensible.]
In layman's terms, they fucking lie and lie and lie about climate change, and you can't get that through your fucking head. Instead, you defend the very fucking liars you claim are ruining this globe by pooh-poohing the fact that they fucking lied and claiming that the thing they fucking lied about isn't that big a deal.
Here's the problem with that situation: If you're so fed up with political corruption, why the fuck are you defending the very people who are perpetuating the problem? And don't give me any 'but Hillary' shit. I don't give a flying fuck about Hillary. I don't care if she's the devil. I am specifically concerned that you, sir, are defending liars in your paean to the need to end a culture of corruption. Because I don't fucking get it.
Said in every locker room every day. And not just in the guy's locker room - women are just the same when guys aren't around.
I say this with all the respect this statement deserves: Fuck you it is.
As someone who's spent more time in locker rooms than a lot of you, I have never once in my life heard someone bragging about forcing himself on women, and that 'they let you do it.' And you know what? Even if in some twisted world this actually is the reality, it's still fucking sick. It's describing criminal behaviour. Someone grabs any woman's pussy where I'm in a position to see it, they're going to be physically restrained until the cops come. Not kidding.
If you're cool with someone acting like a total asshole to someone else, then you need to check your attitude, because only an asshole would think that was alright. So fuck you, and fuck your normalisation of criminal behaviour. That's my sister, asshole.
If you're sending anything important in plain text over the Internet these days, you're as good as asking the government to read it.
What a completely ------ thing to say to someone like -------! I can't figure out why people like you always ---- and ----- when you could be ---ing. Seriously, do you even ---- it? I for one trust out ----- over----s completely. Rule Brit------!!!
(and now I have to write a bunch of other useless prose to get by Slashdot's junk filters. Which is a really useless filter. I mean just because goatse ASCII is a thing doesn't mean no one ever had any legitimate uses for copious punctuation. My word, are we really reduced to such silliness? How much more of this do you think will be required before the filter finally lets this past? Probably a little more still. Hang on, let me preview.... Nope. still not enough. If this doesn't improve soon, I'm just going to load up a Tolstoy eBook and start pasting in sections of Anna Karenina, but then again that would probably just set off the plagiarism filter. Heathens have no appreciation for satire, I tell you.)
With Trumps position on libel laws, smart move to project against legal action.
Plus, Canada welcomes refugees! :D
The Russian Jews sent my still living uncle to a gulag back before WW2....
That's the strangest spelling for 'communist'[*] I've ever seen.
...we don't hate the jews, we just wish stupid people like you learned a bit more about history.
Why, because it would save you the trouble of learning actual history?
------------
[*] Oh, OK, if I must: YES, there were Jews among the party apparatchiks at a couple of points in the Leninist/Stalinist period. They were trusted to varying degrees, but were subject to purges, too, depending on a number of factors, not the least of which was endemic anti-semitism among the Russian populace in general. But yes, some of them actually prospered under Stalin when millions of others were dying. This was not typically because of their Jewishness, but because they had other survival skills, some of which were less than admirable, this being Stalin's Russia and all. The Baltic states suffered terribly under the Soviets, but not because of The Jews.
Hey, go for it!
In fact, why not eliminate the middle bits and just cut to the chase. In your next issue, just put:
"TRUMP IS INSANE"
Because he's not insane. He's a buffoon, and so pathologically needy that he will say virtually anything to anyone, but that's not news. We don't run a celebrity gossip site. And this particular story is about his advisor, not Trump himself. You see, we report actual news. Which was my original point.
What we do run is a newspaper in a part of the world that is already feeling the effects of climate change, with direct and tangible economic and social impacts. So when a top climate denier says that he intends to cut the legs out from under an integral part of the climate science community, and claims to be acting to stop political interference with climate science.... That gets a big headline. We're running it tomorrow.
And yes, editors do sometimes talk like that. In jest, but mostly because if you can't maintain your gallows humour, you won't be an editor for long.
Jzanu was gentle.
I would have said, "... you goddam major fucking batshit crazy under-educated piece of whale shit."
You guys. Stop holding back.
I would have said, "FUUUUUUUU-UUUCKK YOOOOOUUUU you gormless little spit-dribbling, smegma-gobbling, louse-brained, FAS patient. I've seen nematodes smarter than you. You couldn't calculate the number of fingers your mother used to scrape your father's cum out of her arse when she conceived you. You couldn't analyse the club your mother beat you with because you were too fucking stupid to shit anywhere but in your own shoes. In conclusion: fuck yourself. Fuck you from your your cum-encrusted New Balance sneakers to your shit-stained khakis... all the way to that Dap-smeared monstrosity you call your head.
Also: Fuck you.
HTH. HAND
Totally agree. The Trump administration is "poised" to eliminate climate science, quote from campaign advisers, and concerned scientists make up this article. Come back when you have something to report.
The advisor designated to oversea future planning related to NASA says, 'we're going to cut a $2+ billion NASA program that not coincidentally provides critical baseline data to climate scientists because politicians shouldn't meddle with client scientists.'
May I offer my professional opinion, as someone who runs a newspaper: That is something to report.
That's not just any old thing to report. That's something that you report in the World News section. Above the fold. With a 4 inch headline. And an entire editorial department asking the reporter, 'Really he said that? Because no sane person would say that. He's that fucking dense? Yeah? He did? Okay, fine. Zane, drop a hundred words from the second item. We're just going to print WTF fifty times below this article.'
Seriously, if you think this is a reasonable, unremarkable pronouncement from a member of the presidential transition team, you are not entirely sound in the head. I mean that in all sincerity. Get checked. Because you're not thinking rationally.
Look who's lecturing us: YOUR country Brexited your asses into recession.
That should give you an idea just how fucked you really are. When even Boris Johnson is all like, 'what a muppet!' you should probably take note.
Thanks to Wikileaks we now know for a fact that she rigged everything against Bernie with the help of her minions in the DNC.
It's a FACT. A FACT, you say. That Clinton's team and others in the DNC began liaising about how to handle her candidacy... after it became mathematically impossible for Sanders to win the nomination. Yes, after, you fact-hungry person, you. Check the dates. Yeah, the fix was in, and the game was rigged... right from the moment the democratic process of voting for a nominee made her selection a certainty.
That, sir, is a fact. And you are welcome to try to prove to me that it's a lie, but only using actual, you know, facts.
Donald Trump - the great filter...
I was wondering what the hair was for....
It is too late. There is no going back. Now we ride it out to the end. The end of us.
If by 'us' you mean you, then by all means, feel free to ride it out any time. In fact, why wait?
I at least as many anti-Trump memes as anti-Hilary memes.
That's kind of the point. Unfiltered access to the modern equivalent of the yellow press means that people were free to follow their prejudice (in the Latin sense of the word) down the rabbit hole of their choosing.
More people voted for Hillary than voted for Trump, but no matter the outcome, the margin was vanishingly small. Basically, people just chose their narrative and cleaved to it, nourishing and sustaining it with the self-reinforcing feed that Facebook provides.
Trump is not going to 'drain the swamp', and Hillary was never anything but the enemy of ISIS. But in the final analysis, nobody fucking cares. And why should they? We just watched two straw dolls dance for 15 months, each accompanied by a back story knocked together by the political equivalent of an oxycontin-addicted non-Union Hollywood hack who's just been told the franchise needs a new Avenger.
Most good browsers have this feature built in. You just need to know how to find it:
1. Type 'snopes' into the address bar.
Does it bring up the Snopes website?
2. Type 'Politifact' into your address bar.
Does it bring up the Politifact website?
If you answered yes to these questions, then your browser supports fact-checking natively.
What I would really like to see is some kind of measure of reputability. Not a measure of how much people trust a particular resource, because that turns into a faith-based exercise. But some kind of algorithm that measures the degree to which other sources rely on a particular source of information, and how frequently they reference it relative to other sources. Kind of a PageRank for information sources. It would hardly be a perfect measure, but it would help people learn to assess the source.
If nothing else, it would pull the rug out from under the Macedonian troll site cottage industry.
Yep we have a secret Russian,KGB, FBI slashdot irc channel coordinating are posts and modding.
Tovarisch, please to remember for first rule of #slashdotmodclub.
No, that's coordination between two groups, which happens all the time.
Does the State Department personally consult with you? Has any federal department ever asked your opinion on anything directly in an email sent to your personal account and written by a highly-paid government official?
Well, I'm not an American, so no, the State Department has nothing to do with me, and me with it.
But yes, I have worked closely with government agencies to prepare press releases concerning projects and events that I was involved in in a private capacity. It's not just something that sometimes happens; it's the process. You don't fucking talk to the media until everyone has their story straight. You just don't. Because it would be fucking stupid.
Reporters are paid to find the inconsistency in stories. They are professional sceptics. Well, the good ones are. The bad ones are willing to take anything you say and twist it beyond comprehensibility in order to score a point. Kind of like what happened here.
Again: People in the USA are demonstrating a shockingly tragic, deliberate, willful failure to accept that even people we hate are sometimes not guilty of every single fucking fantastical thing we invent about them. This is true of both sides. YOU'RE ALL FUCKED.
I'm dead serious here: I live in a Least Developed Country with some absolutely astonishing candidates for Parliament, and we have saner elections than you. Get a fucking grip, people. Stop fucking lying about each other—and stop fucking lying to yourselves.
While that's certainly true, it's also misdirection. A news organization checking the subject of an article isn't the point.
It's that the government agency fielding the request gave the campaign a heads up, and took direction from the campaign about the response.
That's collusion between government and the Clinton campaign.
No, that's coordination between two groups, which happens all the time. This kind of behaviour is run of the mill with just about any news story that includes both private and public sectors. They each need to know what the other is saying in order to avoid contradiction and confusion. And the fact that someone's taken input from someone else doesn't imply anything; it's neither positive nor negative.
Are you comfortable with government agencies checking with a campaign (of their choosing) during an election?
I'm not.
Then you are sorely, sorely mistaken about how communications between organisations and the media happens. And it's not a government agency checking with a campaign; it's a government agency coordinating with the ex-director about whom the media is asking questions. They'd be remiss not to check in.
Seriously, the effort people on both sides are going to in order to vilify and demonise the opponent is shameful. A pox on both your houses.
Without having read TFA, often even as a network engineer, I'll use the term "ping" even when not referring to ICMP. For example, I'll refer to an SNMP walk (of any kind) as a "ping".
Exactly. The term 'ping' may appear unfortunate to those of us who know what the ICMP protocol actually is, but it'll be suitably edgy to a tech-ignorant audience who need to feel that the writer actually knows what he's talking about.
Still though, this doesn't come off as suspicious to me at all. Since when is it odd or otherwise unusual that a server belonging to a billionaire talks to a server belonging to a bank in a foreign country?
When the bank is one of only a very few addresses the server communicates with.
Look, it's circumstantial at best, no more of a smoking gun than any number of other things. But if I were a US-based journalist, I'd consider it worth digging into. I don't know that I'd publish something based on the logs alone, but I would certainly be willing to follow wherever they lead. Even if the conclusion is that Trump has investments in Russian companies, that's a notable fact, given his constant and explicit denial that he has any financial ties to Russia.
That's like saying that it's odd that there's dog piss on a fire hydrant.
Kind of. It's more like saying it's odd that this dog doesn't seem to want to piss anywhere except at this particular fire hydrant, which he insists he would never piss on if you gave him a thousand years and a fire hose.
So yeah, the circumstances are curious, but there's nothing here that would make me jump out of my chair and shout, 'Aha!!!' And trust me, I'd be the first to do that if it took Trump down a notch.
I'm still not sure how this points to the Russians... How do we not know that it isn't some dude sitting on the beach in Tahiti and bouncing it off a server or VPN in Russia?
Because they weren't simply working with SRC and DST packets, Donald. They did actual analysis, and found that the intrusion tools were the same as those used, among other things, to hack the German Bundestag (Parliament). They found Russian language bits mistakenly left in the leaked materials—which disappeared and never emerged again once their presence was pointed out. A shared SSL certificate also implicated the Russians.
I saw you linking those articles the other day, and read the Intercept one. The leak doesn't prove that the entire mainstream media is in bed with Hillary, following her every command.
Maybe I can shed a little light here, as a professional journalist who often talks off the record with people in positions of power.
The question you should be asking is not whether so-and-so has a friendly relationship with Candidate X. The question is, what is the effect of that relationship on their reporting? And lest you think that I'm siding with the reporters on this one... don't. I see a far-too-common tendency among reporters to shy away from criticising people with whom they have a relationship. I also see a not-as-common tendency among reporters to assume that they are required to maintain an adversarial relationship with politicians and others in positions of power.
As with all things, 95% of everything is crap. If you seek out the 5% who really do a decent job of reporting, though, you'll see some fine—and reputable—journalism.
Good old-fashioned scepticism just doesn't seem to cut it any more. I actually took comfort from the fact that even though the Clinton team could rely on Maggie Haberman to write a story... but could not rely on her to portray the story the way they wanted. That's pretty much how journalism is designed. Of course it's worthwhile to write about Clinton's vetting process; it's noteworthy and in the public interest. And as long as it's written in a properly sceptical (but not cynical) frame, it's worth reading, too.
I have a lot of time for Greenwald. He's a quality journalist. But in my opinion he often confuses his own cynicism with honest and fair scepticism. But that's praising with faint damns. Even the best journos should be read through a context filter.
That is far from a detailed description and more of a list of uninformed rants. Much better to read the informed reply to TFA here: https://medium.com/@davidtstra...
More clueless autonomic defensiveness without any reflection on what the impact of the bug actually is. I especially enjoyed this old chestnut as the author attempts to fisk the original bug report:
"SystemD, let me just stop you there. I know the Linux kernel. I've worked with the Linux kernel. You're no Linux kernel."
The incredible hubris of asserting parity with the core of the entire OS, the ignorance that underlies the statement that init was written in C and runs as root, so it's every bit as vulnerable... How the fuck do you even make code run? Do you even teh logic?
The SystemD team is the Microsoft of a new generation. Doubling down on their mistakes; shouting louder when they don't get their way; using every available ratiocination and intellectual contortion to excuse themselves; resorting to any means to make their strategy win, instead of stopping to ask themselves for once, 'Are we following a winning strategy here?'
Thank g*d I quit writing software last year. Dealing with Microsoft's mind-crushing blindness was enough for one lifetime. Now I can just grump about it and walk away.
Um, the French and Indian War was between 1756 and 1763. There was no "Canada", save as a bit of a colloquial expression for the New France, which became British after the defeat of French forces in 1759.
Nitpick: The Treaty of Paris was signed in 1763. That was when the colony formally became British.
I've had a kidney stone, and I'll tell you the LAST thing I wanted to do during all that pain was hop on a roller coaster.
Amen, brother. I had heroin suppositories[*] keeping mine down to a deafening roar before my medevac, and I still couldn't even sit upright before the pain got the better of me. Talk about the cure being worse than the disease.
[*] From the ridiculous to the sublime, as it were.