Barring that, I think pushing Johnson or Stein into double digits would be fantastic.
Why? Getting them in to double digits is guaranteeing that Clinton will be in power and will shape the Supreme Court for next 20-30 years. Her loathsomeness extends to her ideology, not just her corrupt ways of working people and making herself wealthy at the public trough. She's anti-liberty. Trump can be a tool, socially, but we know which direction is SCOTUS nominees will lean: towards contstructionism, not tyrannical liberal activism a la Clinton. Having a hissy fit and voting for the Libertarian or Green candidates is guaranteeing the Hillary Clinton will be our chief law enforcement officer for at least the next four years, and will seat justices that are as hostile as she is to the liberties protected by the constitution.
How about not sensationalising everything they publish?
They publish non-sensational stuff all the time. But written evidence reinforcing our long understanding of Hillary Clinton's parade of corruption is rather sensational here in the weeks right before millions of people who know she's a corrupt liar none the less make her the chief law enforcement officer of the country. You don't think things related to that deserve some attention?
The "stuff they're leaking" is ABOUT politics. It's the DNC (a political entity) and her campaign (a political entity) making back room deals with the media, among others, to spin for her in her quest for power. How can leaks that are entirely about a politician's conduct and the behavior of her supporting minions in their pursuit of the White House be anything BUT political in nature?
We agree on the rights that we agree to protect. Then when someone decides they don't care about that agreement, we agree on what to do about that person if they act in violation of our agreement. If someone outside of our agreement decides they don't care how we operate as a society, and looks to destroy it (or parts of it) for the lulz or for territorial acquisition etc., then we agree on when and to what degree we do something about it.
You're "that's cute" bit of phony condescension shows you to be just another whiner who likes to pretend we can't decide on and enforce the protection of such things because your notion of what you're entitled to is at odds with everyone else's. Just to help your cause, you're complaining about other people's greed, to fake insulating yourself from anyone else's criticism that you're too lazy to get involved in the defense of the rights we recognize. So, just another anonymously craven, lazy whiner troll who thinks that calling other people cute gets them off the hook for their own intellectual cowardice. Carry on! Just remember you're not kidding anyone.
Filtering out extraneous data and acting on the environment is something all living things can do but computers are horrible at.
Unless computers have been trained to do exactly that. We're (genetically) trained to do so through natural selection. Things like software controlled radios are trained to do the exact same thing through careful programming in comparatively short time, rather than across millions of years of trial and error.
Yeah, Dyn is just a bunch of clueless amateurs. If only they'd asked you how to mitigate a colossal DDoS flood. You'd tell them: security! Because... the problem with a publicly exposed service that doesn't work if it's not publicly exposed, is that it doesn't have good enough security to keep the public traffic out. Gotcha.
Brave words in defense of a social media platform...
I'm not defending Twitter, I'm defending YOUR right, and mine, to be free of script kiddies trashing things just because they can. And I was replying to a user here who was cheering on a DDoS attack and hoping it permanently destroyed something he doesn't like. I didn't see that user, or you, proposing or providing an alternative that unicorns its way past your standards.
So, you don't like SV's social media systems. What have you got designed that will work better? Be specific.
But the things you listed aren't features of intelligence, they're bugs in our brains (or simply, things that natural selection de-emphasized out of comparative irrelevance in your basic cave man survival scenario).
If those short term memories were more reliably committed to long-term, or there was no real distinction between those things, would that really be a disqualifyier for intelligence?
You can't conceive of an individual or gradiated reaction
So what is your "gradiated" take on whether or not malicious script kiddies should burn down Twitter's DNS provider? Personally, I think that's a black and white issue. I responded to someone who was cheering on the script kiddies doing the damage. You, with your advanced and clearly superior intellect and sense of nuance, obviously think it's kind of OK that the script kiddies wreck things like that. Can you elaborate please? Be sure to use simple words to describe the part where launching a DDoS like that is a good thing, so that us simpletons can keep up with your anonymous, cowardly self as you teach us more about our irrelevance. Or will explaining the ethical merits of the DDoS attack on Dyn fail to provide you with a proper venue for your pretentious faux condescension? I'd hate for you to have to just simply get to the point - that might hurt your tender, advanced, nuanced feelings.
Torrent, cryptocurrency. Spotify uses DRM. DRM is evil. I am surprised to see someone on Slashdot supporting these muppets.
I'm supporting your CHOICE to use whatever services you like, and to move to something else if you prefer. Wishing for the destruction of such services by a malicious third party is BS. If you want them to go away because you philosophically disagree with, say, musicians choosing to whom they license their works... then offer a service that musicians like better. Some don't license their works to Spotify. That's different than cheering when some script kiddies act to destroy access to it.
Paying money every month for a couple of sine waves coming out of a cheap tinny Chinese speaker.
Paying money to paypal for the privilege of paying. Paypal fees are f**ing ridiculous
Here's an idea: don't use those services.
Obviously you are personally running a much better music streaming service that you'd like to offer to Spotify's millions of customers. Can you provide a link to something that they will find persuasive? I'm sure your system is easier to use, less expensive, widely available, performs well, pays the artists who create the material they license to you, and in all other ways is superior to Spotify. Looking forward to your offering! Right? Yes?
And, obviously you have never been involved in any sort of commerce there in your mom's basement. Or, are you offering the infrastructure, security, staff, and other resources that will allow individuals and businesses the means by which to handle financial transactions on the fly, a million times a day, but at no cost to any party involved? Fantastic! Please provide a link to that other service of yours, too. That would be awesome. Right? Yes? No? I see.
See, my perspective is that you absolutely should have the choice to use PayPal or Square or what have you, if you choose to. You... absolutely think they should be shut down? In what way am I over-reacting to someone who thinks that Twitter should go away? Why not simply offer a better choice, or at least ignore the thing they don't like? The world view that calls for the destruction of businesses that whiners resent or wish were different is a fundamental problem with our current culture. So yes, it's worth reacting, and pointing out the baseline trollishness of such perspectives. Because the little baby tyrants that live inside people who think like that are poisonous to everyone. "I don't like that thing! I hope it dies!"
No, I'm not confused. But I see that you're trying very hard to avoid the big picture.
Hopefully they never come back up! It would be great to live in a world with the above gone.
Right! Because we sure wouldn't want small businesses to be able to do business using a payment mechanism they choose to use, or people to conveniently communicate from their phones using a service they choose to use, or listen to music from a source they choose to use. Definitely, all such things should be destroyed. What the hell is wrong with you?
Who do you think he was communicating to? People who really needed, just that moment, to process the distinction between steam and condensed water droplets making visible emissions? No. He was making sure that low information twits understood that wasn't smoke or Eeeevil Radioactive Fog.
So: you receive an email that specifically discusses the considerations surrounding drone strike targets, or which include high quality satellite imagery specifically labeled as including sites in North Korea. You're suggesting that the Secretary of State wouldn't be aware, as she saw those things on her internet-connected home computer, that it was classified material that should never be traveling or stored in that context? Yes or no.
I like the way you're skating around the central matter. It very much IS HER JOB to know that satellite imagery of North Korea and discussions about prosoectuve drone strike targets in the Middle East are classified material. It doesn't matter how it's "marked," it only matters what it IS. She was extensively briefed on such matters, just like everyone operating at that level. There was SAP-level material involved, here. There was material that was so sensitive that mere redaction of content wasn't enough - the source agencies insisted that even the meta-level nature of the documents be completely clamped down because of the level of secrecy involved. That's not some exercise in hair-splitting over how classification is graded - it's to point out that anyone serving as SoS has ZERO excuse for pretending they don't know that stuff is classified when they see it wandering through their email. And they are legally required to make a big freakin' stink about it with their own agency's security people.
But no. She just let it linger on her home computer, allowed her non-cleared staff to paw through it, and made copies of it which she then handed over to third parties (like her lawyers) where it was yet again stored in a non-secure location.
She wants to be commander in chief of a couple of million federal employees who would be spit-roasted for doing exactly what she did. And then she set about lying to all of us about it, over and over again, for months on end. The only thing sparing her from the indictment that anyone else would have suffered was political cover from the Obama administration.
Her job required her to know things like the SAP-level intelligence for the classified material it was, on sight, regardless of markings. And on receipt of it or any awareness of it being stored or moved through non-secure systems, to immediately notify the security staff at State. Any mis-handling of that information or failure to report its existence outside of secure channels is a federal felony. But what did she do? She continued to let it linger on her home computer, and then dumped copies of those records onto portable storage that was then pawed through and stored by other people (like her lawyers) without clearances.
She was required to present ALL of her records to State archivists on the day she left office, so they could go through it all and decide was official, sensitive, etc. But she chose not to follow that law, either, and held onto that material despite years of FOIA and other requests that required her to produce it. And once she was finally subpoenaed to produce the records, she quickly had a meeting with her lawyers, and then her for-hire IT guy went straight to scrubbing the server storage with Bleachbit... after she'd deleted thousands of work-related records.
None of those things are the result of "rabid hatred of Hillary," they are just the facts. Rabid support for getting her more political power is the issue here - because it includes a parade of corruption, collusion, and actions that would (and does) put anyone else in prison. Trying to paint her as unaware of all of this is laughable. If she truly is that incompetent and truly can't remember any of the countless conversations surrounding all of this, then she's scarcely the person to be running the nation's law enforcement agencies and in command of a million and half military people (any of whom would lose their jobs and likely their liberty for doing a tenth of what she's been found doing).
"His staff" doesn't include the career IT (including military and NSA people) who actually run White House Communications and the related IT infrastructure. How are you not clear on this?
It's just like the career IT staff at the State Department that were begging Clinton to use their infrastructure as she was supposed to. When she took that office, she didn't change who those people were - she just ignored them and used a home computer to handle all of her official email so she could decide when (and if) she would allow her official records to be subject to FOIA requests. She did bring "her staff" into place at State, but that didn't cause the IT people there to be swapped out with her own flunkies. That situation is far, far more entrenched in the communications systems that run at the White House.
We don't know if she conducted "all" correspondence through her own server.
She never used a State email account. All of her email correspondence was conducted from her home computer. And yes, the emails that she sent and received ARE federal records, by definition. And as the FBI carefully documented, these things happened in this order:
Congress issued a subpoena, explaining her need to turn over all related records.
She met with her lawyers.
The IT guy was immediately brought in and used Bleachbit to scrub the server's storage clean after 30,000+ records were destroyed. By various means, the FBI found that thousands of the records destroyed were plainly State-related work correspondence, including dozens of threads involving sensitive and/or classified (at the time they were sent!) information.
She then proceeded to lie about each of these things, repeatedly.
Regardless, under no circumstances would she have obtained permission to conduct ALL of her State correspondence from an internet-connected computer in her house. Never. There was classified material coming and going, as of course there would be when the SoS is involved.
Further: she was required to turn over all of her records on the day she left office, allowing the State archivists to decide what was personal and what was the property of the public. She chose not to do that, and when ultimately subpoenaed for that information, she set about destroying federal records. She flouted rules, policies, and the law at every turn - all so she could hide the nature of the relationship between her job and the foundation that her family uses to make themselves millions of dollars. She didn't "go wrong" by, whoopsie, forgetting to get permission... she went wrong by assuming that her holier than thou status would prevent all of this from being made public.
They arent making points, they are telling the same old lies
And yet here you are, unable to muster the energy to directly address the substance of the matter, and reverting to yet more lazy ad hominem because you hope that will distract readers from the fact that Hillary Clinton is a corrupt pathological liar who has spent decades enriching herself through the sale of influence. Here's the thing: calling people names doesn't make the truth go away.
Slashdot Mirror
Barring that, I think pushing Johnson or Stein into double digits would be fantastic.
Why? Getting them in to double digits is guaranteeing that Clinton will be in power and will shape the Supreme Court for next 20-30 years. Her loathsomeness extends to her ideology, not just her corrupt ways of working people and making herself wealthy at the public trough. She's anti-liberty. Trump can be a tool, socially, but we know which direction is SCOTUS nominees will lean: towards contstructionism, not tyrannical liberal activism a la Clinton. Having a hissy fit and voting for the Libertarian or Green candidates is guaranteeing the Hillary Clinton will be our chief law enforcement officer for at least the next four years, and will seat justices that are as hostile as she is to the liberties protected by the constitution.
How about not sensationalising everything they publish?
They publish non-sensational stuff all the time. But written evidence reinforcing our long understanding of Hillary Clinton's parade of corruption is rather sensational here in the weeks right before millions of people who know she's a corrupt liar none the less make her the chief law enforcement officer of the country. You don't think things related to that deserve some attention?
The "stuff they're leaking" is ABOUT politics. It's the DNC (a political entity) and her campaign (a political entity) making back room deals with the media, among others, to spin for her in her quest for power. How can leaks that are entirely about a politician's conduct and the behavior of her supporting minions in their pursuit of the White House be anything BUT political in nature?
We agree on the rights that we agree to protect. Then when someone decides they don't care about that agreement, we agree on what to do about that person if they act in violation of our agreement. If someone outside of our agreement decides they don't care how we operate as a society, and looks to destroy it (or parts of it) for the lulz or for territorial acquisition etc., then we agree on when and to what degree we do something about it.
You're "that's cute" bit of phony condescension shows you to be just another whiner who likes to pretend we can't decide on and enforce the protection of such things because your notion of what you're entitled to is at odds with everyone else's. Just to help your cause, you're complaining about other people's greed, to fake insulating yourself from anyone else's criticism that you're too lazy to get involved in the defense of the rights we recognize. So, just another anonymously craven, lazy whiner troll who thinks that calling other people cute gets them off the hook for their own intellectual cowardice. Carry on! Just remember you're not kidding anyone.
Filtering out extraneous data and acting on the environment is something all living things can do but computers are horrible at.
Unless computers have been trained to do exactly that. We're (genetically) trained to do so through natural selection. Things like software controlled radios are trained to do the exact same thing through careful programming in comparatively short time, rather than across millions of years of trial and error.
You remind me of people who insist on creationism or intelligent design.
Why? Because you don't understand how natural selection works? Fascinating.
Yeah, Dyn is just a bunch of clueless amateurs. If only they'd asked you how to mitigate a colossal DDoS flood. You'd tell them: security! Because ... the problem with a publicly exposed service that doesn't work if it's not publicly exposed, is that it doesn't have good enough security to keep the public traffic out. Gotcha.
Yes, he is quite the patronizing little wannabe tyrant. That's the main subtext in all of his posts.
Brave words in defense of a social media platform ...
I'm not defending Twitter, I'm defending YOUR right, and mine, to be free of script kiddies trashing things just because they can. And I was replying to a user here who was cheering on a DDoS attack and hoping it permanently destroyed something he doesn't like. I didn't see that user, or you, proposing or providing an alternative that unicorns its way past your standards.
So, you don't like SV's social media systems. What have you got designed that will work better? Be specific.
But the things you listed aren't features of intelligence, they're bugs in our brains (or simply, things that natural selection de-emphasized out of comparative irrelevance in your basic cave man survival scenario).
If those short term memories were more reliably committed to long-term, or there was no real distinction between those things, would that really be a disqualifyier for intelligence?
Hey, I'm on board with people being able to use what they choose! Just gotta make sure those choices are all ones that I also like.
Meaning ... if you don't like a choice, you don't think other people should have access to it?
You can't conceive of an individual or gradiated reaction
So what is your "gradiated" take on whether or not malicious script kiddies should burn down Twitter's DNS provider? Personally, I think that's a black and white issue. I responded to someone who was cheering on the script kiddies doing the damage. You, with your advanced and clearly superior intellect and sense of nuance, obviously think it's kind of OK that the script kiddies wreck things like that. Can you elaborate please? Be sure to use simple words to describe the part where launching a DDoS like that is a good thing, so that us simpletons can keep up with your anonymous, cowardly self as you teach us more about our irrelevance. Or will explaining the ethical merits of the DDoS attack on Dyn fail to provide you with a proper venue for your pretentious faux condescension? I'd hate for you to have to just simply get to the point - that might hurt your tender, advanced, nuanced feelings.
Torrent, cryptocurrency. Spotify uses DRM. DRM is evil. I am surprised to see someone on Slashdot supporting these muppets.
I'm supporting your CHOICE to use whatever services you like, and to move to something else if you prefer. Wishing for the destruction of such services by a malicious third party is BS. If you want them to go away because you philosophically disagree with, say, musicians choosing to whom they license their works ... then offer a service that musicians like better. Some don't license their works to Spotify. That's different than cheering when some script kiddies act to destroy access to it.
Paying money every month for a couple of sine waves coming out of a cheap tinny Chinese speaker.
Paying money to paypal for the privilege of paying. Paypal fees are f**ing ridiculous
Here's an idea: don't use those services.
Obviously you are personally running a much better music streaming service that you'd like to offer to Spotify's millions of customers. Can you provide a link to something that they will find persuasive? I'm sure your system is easier to use, less expensive, widely available, performs well, pays the artists who create the material they license to you, and in all other ways is superior to Spotify. Looking forward to your offering! Right? Yes?
And, obviously you have never been involved in any sort of commerce there in your mom's basement. Or, are you offering the infrastructure, security, staff, and other resources that will allow individuals and businesses the means by which to handle financial transactions on the fly, a million times a day, but at no cost to any party involved? Fantastic! Please provide a link to that other service of yours, too. That would be awesome. Right? Yes? No? I see.
You really need to be less of an absolutist
See, my perspective is that you absolutely should have the choice to use PayPal or Square or what have you, if you choose to. You ... absolutely think they should be shut down? In what way am I over-reacting to someone who thinks that Twitter should go away? Why not simply offer a better choice, or at least ignore the thing they don't like? The world view that calls for the destruction of businesses that whiners resent or wish were different is a fundamental problem with our current culture. So yes, it's worth reacting, and pointing out the baseline trollishness of such perspectives. Because the little baby tyrants that live inside people who think like that are poisonous to everyone. "I don't like that thing! I hope it dies!"
No, I'm not confused. But I see that you're trying very hard to avoid the big picture.
Hopefully they never come back up! It would be great to live in a world with the above gone.
Right! Because we sure wouldn't want small businesses to be able to do business using a payment mechanism they choose to use, or people to conveniently communicate from their phones using a service they choose to use, or listen to music from a source they choose to use. Definitely, all such things should be destroyed. What the hell is wrong with you?
Who do you think he was communicating to? People who really needed, just that moment, to process the distinction between steam and condensed water droplets making visible emissions? No. He was making sure that low information twits understood that wasn't smoke or Eeeevil Radioactive Fog.
I didn't say it was SAP. But you seem to know it was. Where are you getting your information?
Someone should go to jail for a very long time as soon as we figure out exactly what was screwed up.
Really. Criminal conviction, huh? Programmer in prison? Are you even listening to yourself?
So: you receive an email that specifically discusses the considerations surrounding drone strike targets, or which include high quality satellite imagery specifically labeled as including sites in North Korea. You're suggesting that the Secretary of State wouldn't be aware, as she saw those things on her internet-connected home computer, that it was classified material that should never be traveling or stored in that context? Yes or no.
I like the way you're skating around the central matter. It very much IS HER JOB to know that satellite imagery of North Korea and discussions about prosoectuve drone strike targets in the Middle East are classified material. It doesn't matter how it's "marked," it only matters what it IS. She was extensively briefed on such matters, just like everyone operating at that level. There was SAP-level material involved, here. There was material that was so sensitive that mere redaction of content wasn't enough - the source agencies insisted that even the meta-level nature of the documents be completely clamped down because of the level of secrecy involved. That's not some exercise in hair-splitting over how classification is graded - it's to point out that anyone serving as SoS has ZERO excuse for pretending they don't know that stuff is classified when they see it wandering through their email. And they are legally required to make a big freakin' stink about it with their own agency's security people.
But no. She just let it linger on her home computer, allowed her non-cleared staff to paw through it, and made copies of it which she then handed over to third parties (like her lawyers) where it was yet again stored in a non-secure location.
She wants to be commander in chief of a couple of million federal employees who would be spit-roasted for doing exactly what she did. And then she set about lying to all of us about it, over and over again, for months on end. The only thing sparing her from the indictment that anyone else would have suffered was political cover from the Obama administration.
Her job required her to know things like the SAP-level intelligence for the classified material it was, on sight, regardless of markings. And on receipt of it or any awareness of it being stored or moved through non-secure systems, to immediately notify the security staff at State. Any mis-handling of that information or failure to report its existence outside of secure channels is a federal felony. But what did she do? She continued to let it linger on her home computer, and then dumped copies of those records onto portable storage that was then pawed through and stored by other people (like her lawyers) without clearances.
... after she'd deleted thousands of work-related records.
She was required to present ALL of her records to State archivists on the day she left office, so they could go through it all and decide was official, sensitive, etc. But she chose not to follow that law, either, and held onto that material despite years of FOIA and other requests that required her to produce it. And once she was finally subpoenaed to produce the records, she quickly had a meeting with her lawyers, and then her for-hire IT guy went straight to scrubbing the server storage with Bleachbit
None of those things are the result of "rabid hatred of Hillary," they are just the facts. Rabid support for getting her more political power is the issue here - because it includes a parade of corruption, collusion, and actions that would (and does) put anyone else in prison. Trying to paint her as unaware of all of this is laughable. If she truly is that incompetent and truly can't remember any of the countless conversations surrounding all of this, then she's scarcely the person to be running the nation's law enforcement agencies and in command of a million and half military people (any of whom would lose their jobs and likely their liberty for doing a tenth of what she's been found doing).
"His staff" doesn't include the career IT (including military and NSA people) who actually run White House Communications and the related IT infrastructure. How are you not clear on this?
It's just like the career IT staff at the State Department that were begging Clinton to use their infrastructure as she was supposed to. When she took that office, she didn't change who those people were - she just ignored them and used a home computer to handle all of her official email so she could decide when (and if) she would allow her official records to be subject to FOIA requests. She did bring "her staff" into place at State, but that didn't cause the IT people there to be swapped out with her own flunkies. That situation is far, far more entrenched in the communications systems that run at the White House.
We don't know if she conducted "all" correspondence through her own server.
She never used a State email account. All of her email correspondence was conducted from her home computer. And yes, the emails that she sent and received ARE federal records, by definition. And as the FBI carefully documented, these things happened in this order:
Congress issued a subpoena, explaining her need to turn over all related records.
She met with her lawyers.
The IT guy was immediately brought in and used Bleachbit to scrub the server's storage clean after 30,000+ records were destroyed. By various means, the FBI found that thousands of the records destroyed were plainly State-related work correspondence, including dozens of threads involving sensitive and/or classified (at the time they were sent!) information.
She then proceeded to lie about each of these things, repeatedly.
Regardless, under no circumstances would she have obtained permission to conduct ALL of her State correspondence from an internet-connected computer in her house. Never. There was classified material coming and going, as of course there would be when the SoS is involved.
... she went wrong by assuming that her holier than thou status would prevent all of this from being made public.
Further: she was required to turn over all of her records on the day she left office, allowing the State archivists to decide what was personal and what was the property of the public. She chose not to do that, and when ultimately subpoenaed for that information, she set about destroying federal records. She flouted rules, policies, and the law at every turn - all so she could hide the nature of the relationship between her job and the foundation that her family uses to make themselves millions of dollars. She didn't "go wrong" by, whoopsie, forgetting to get permission
They arent making points, they are telling the same old lies
And yet here you are, unable to muster the energy to directly address the substance of the matter, and reverting to yet more lazy ad hominem because you hope that will distract readers from the fact that Hillary Clinton is a corrupt pathological liar who has spent decades enriching herself through the sale of influence. Here's the thing: calling people names doesn't make the truth go away.