Even ignoring the rampant anti-semitism there, nobody in the elite was killed during the holocaust. Name one super-rich who died in a concentration camp.
It is logical, that they have influence within their respective organisations.
It's the influence on politics, media and society that is disproportionate, because being a good manager or CEO or investor or funder doesn't say one thing about being good at politics, guiding a country or making politics.
The reaons the world is in such a sorry shape is exactly that we allow managers to run it, instead of visionaries and idealists.
You are confusing the 1% with the 0.01%. There is an elite within the elite. The super-rich. The oligarchs and billionaires. The Forbes 500. The guys who consider themselves so far above everything, their private airplanes have underage prostitutes as a complimentary service for guests.
The 1% can afford $5k and consider it a good investment if it saves them some time and gives them the privacy of a small plane filled exclusively with people of their type. The reason golf clubs have a $10k yearly membership fee - it keeps out the peasants.
Silly, of course. Germany doesn't need an army anymore. All it needs to do to make everyone in every government office and three-letter-agency in the USA shit their pants is to leave NATO and make a free-trade agreement with Russia. It would pull the rest of the EU with it and the american economy would crater faster than you can say "oh shiiiiiit".
So let's talk about Afghanistan. US supports the local islam "holy warriors" fighting the soviets after the 1979 start of the civil war. Weapons, training, money, everything except soldiers, which instead of from the USA come from all parts of the islam world after the whole thing was rebranded as a holy war. The logistics, organisation and support is run by a couple international organisations, one of whom is called "Al Qaida" ("the base"). The "holy warriors" or "freedom" fighters or Mujaheddin are later called "Taliban".
1-2 mio. civilians are killed, the civil war lasts 10 years, then the Taliban destroy every piece of progress and culture in Afghanistan, breed Al Qaida into a terror organisation, who go on to kill more people. Then some Saudis fly planes into skyscrapers in NYC and the USA bombs Afghanistan and invades Iraq, which kills about a million more arabs and leaves a power vaccuum into which Al Qaida spawns a splinter group that calls itself ISIS and goes on to occupy a kalifat, killing another half a million or so, but since they're fighting Assad whom the US government would like to remove as well, all it needs is a rebranding to Al Nusra and a go-back to the "freedom fighters" meme and they get - guess what - weapons, training and money from the USA.
And that is just one operation. Do you want a list of what the Contras did, or do I need to remind you about Vietnam? Korea?
Sorry dude, but compared to the US, Gaddafi actually is an angel.
If you can't attack the argument, attack the person. A show of weakness.
Yes, Gaddafi was not angel. But supporting rebel groups? Really? That's the best you can come up with for declaring a death penalty? What about the Contras? The Iranian Revolution? The various color revolutions? Ukraine, Syria or - irony - Libya itself recently? The US and Europe are guilty of the same crime.
Of course, we only ever support the "good" rebels. Like ISIS... oh, wait...
Hm, wars - 1969 vs. Chad and 1977 vs. Egypt. That's two wars he was directly involved in. In 30 years. The USA manages to start that many wars under practically every president ever.
Sponsorship is more difficult to compare because you're never completely sure of the truth, but I'm ready to take high bets that again the USA easily beats him.
So, according to your logic, every US president of the 20th and 21st century deserves to be dead, yes?
Can you point out, what US policy would bring peace, prosperity and freedom in Libya?
Not letting the CIA stage a bogus revolution to overthrow a government that was actually working not bad, especially compared to many other African countries. There was education, healthcare, a mostly functioning state. Yes, not a dream country and with many problems, but not one of them is better now. So just doing nothing would have been better as a policy.
In other news, Microsoft Office works better on Windows than Mac OS.
Actually, it doesn't. Through two different jobs I have been using both the Mac and the Windows version extensively during the past 12 months, and the Mac version is a ton better, exactly because the integration with the OS is less and thus they couldn't cripple it as badly. I still wonder how people who have to use the Windows version constantly for their daily work (for me it's only a part of what I do) don't jump off a bridge.
And Libya is such a wonderful place now, peace, prosperity, freedom - you name it, they have it all. Such a good thing that the western world intervened...
The problem is that the whole system was designed for the world of 1800 or so. I know the reasoning behind the Tuesday voting (ancient times, few poll stations, Monday for travel, etc.) - but it's insane that in the last 100 years since railways became common and cars were invented nobody thought that maybe it might need an update.
That includes the fact that each state has its own voting system. That might've made sense 200 years ago. Does it still make sense today?
I think the content of the emails was probably true, but it shows neither fraud nor treason.
Wow.
In every european country, if you were involved in even half the scandals that Clinton is, you would be completely inelectable. Your party would throw you out, your career would be over and you'd be asked to resign all your positions. Acting presidents have stepped down for a small fraction of that shit.
It completely baffles me that in the USA this level of corruption, election fraud and treachery is considered par for the course. That you can still call for votes saying you're the lesser evil. That absolutely fucking nobody stands up and shouts "what the fuck lesser evil - we don't want any evil in the White House!"
Absolutely batshit crazy.
And then they realized the new evidence wasn't new after all and re-closed the case, but I expect you'll just write that off as a conspiracy theory.
It could be they are doing their job very, very carefully, making sure nobody can gut them for not mentioning something in time, or it could be that they got pressure from up top. We will never know, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of doubt.
The purpose of this disclosure isn't to expose corruption or educate the public, it's to swing an election.
So you are also not doubting that what was revealed was true?
Conspiracy to commit fraud, possibly treason? That the FBI re-opened an investigation, a highly unusual procedure, doesn't stir you as "omg, there's something wrong there"?
The fact that something was leaked doesn't actually mean it exposed wrongdoing.
Maybe you should look at what was leaked before you join a discussion about it then?
Honestly, it's so badly broken that it is clear that they don't want it fixed. You couldn't fuck up an election system so bad if you tried. If you didn't know about it, and were tasked with designing the worst imaginable election system for a comedy movie, you couldn't come up with this.
Why keep such a broken system? Well, for one, with all these always-very-close results, it is incredibly easy to swing the election this way or that.
Or his source has never clearly identified itself as the Russia government and he's trying to maintain plausible deniability as to not destroy Wikileaks' credibility.
The funny thing is that it shouldn't matter who the source is as long as the information disclosed is true.
It appears to be true, as not even those who should face jail time over it deny it. If you can't attack the message, attack the messager. And the american public is stupid enough to get so easily distracted. Look, a three-headed monkey !
Russia is trying 'to denigrate the American electoral system, to make it look chaotic, make it look manipulable, make it look subject to intrusion, cheating and vulnerable so you can't trust it...
No need to do anything on that front. All of Europe has been laughing about the US voting process for decades. You've got the most complicated, error-prone, untrustworthy election system I personally have ever seen or heard about. The fact that you're incapable of fixing it is the best proof that the whole system is broken beyond repair.
I'm not just talking voting machines, I also mean Gerrymandering, the fact that you vote on a working day (seriously?) or that there are hour-long queues. You are holding elections the way 3rd world countries hold their first election in history, and it's just absolutely pathetic.
What could Russia possibly do to discredit this abomination? If I were the russian general in charge, I'd tell my hackers to stay out of this, lest they accidentally fix something and make it better.
Hello USA, tech support here. It appears that your political system has hanged itself. Both of your candidates (and thanks to the broken two-party system, none of the others have a chance) are total crap and they both belong behind bars, not into the White House.
Try to find the reset button and press it.
Seriously, can't you just jail those bastards and restart the whole election process? Keep Obama for one more year while you elect someone who is not a clear and proven criminal?
Companies and governments will not give one thought to information security until there is direct legal and monetary pressure, usually after a major hack or outage.
That is not true.
I'm an information security professional (CISM and all). I've been part of more than one project where IS expertise was brought in before the project even launched, though for my personal taste it should have been even earlier, during the design/architecture phase, but that's a seperate discussion.
Some companies don't understand IS until it bites them in the arse. But many other companies and government institutions (never make the mistake of thinking the government is one monolithic entity) do understand the necessity for IS.
Even monetary penalties are not sufficient. Companies will just consider it "the cost of doing business" and pay off fines as necessary, it is cheaper than implementing good security from day one.
That is called accepting a risk and is a perfectly valid business strategy. If a law is intended to make a risk inacceptable, it needs to make that clear. For some risks, accepting it should mean going to jail. But both the laws and the enforcement is lacking in such things. How many CEOs have ever gone to jail for something except financial crimes (stock fraud, tax evasion, etc.) ?
We have reached the point of "hacking is inevitable, why bother protecting ourselves?" as corporate policy.
That's not what I tell people hiring me. I tell them that being attacked is inevitable. But because their competitors probably bother less with security than they should, not being the weakest target is more important than having perfect security.
Because many companies come from literally nothing and need to build up an ISMS to get an ISO certification or whatever the business reason for the sudden interest in IS is. They cannot possibly get to state-of-the-art in one year. But they can fix the most serious problems and then go from there. And yes, that takes considerable resources, because people like me are expensive, and training your IT people and hiring some new ones is expensive, and the costs of some firewalls and IDS systems almost doesn't matter because replacing your fundamentally, unfixable broken legacy systems (you know, that machine still runing windows 95 with your business critical application...) is what will really kill you.
Sometimes, management has no other choice but to accept the risk, and your success as the IS guy is that at least they're aware of it now and understand they need to do something about it next year.
"When people are thinking about the security of their systems, they worry about people discovering what they are doing," Berners-Lee said. "What they don't think about is the possibility of things being changed."
In such case they need to be fired and replaced.
Considering information disclosure as well as manipulation or simple destruction (without disclosure) is Information Security 101 and anyone working with data who doesn't think about the possibility of manipulation should be escorted to the door immediately.
This is the I part of CIA - Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability - and thus practically one of the first things you learn when you deal with IS.
Slashdot Mirror
Even ignoring the rampant anti-semitism there, nobody in the elite was killed during the holocaust. Name one super-rich who died in a concentration camp.
It is logical, that they have influence within their respective organisations.
It's the influence on politics, media and society that is disproportionate, because being a good manager or CEO or investor or funder doesn't say one thing about being good at politics, guiding a country or making politics.
The reaons the world is in such a sorry shape is exactly that we allow managers to run it, instead of visionaries and idealists.
You are confusing the 1% with the 0.01%. There is an elite within the elite. The super-rich. The oligarchs and billionaires. The Forbes 500. The guys who consider themselves so far above everything, their private airplanes have underage prostitutes as a complimentary service for guests.
The 1% can afford $5k and consider it a good investment if it saves them some time and gives them the privacy of a small plane filled exclusively with people of their type. The reason golf clubs have a $10k yearly membership fee - it keeps out the peasants.
Silly, of course. Germany doesn't need an army anymore. All it needs to do to make everyone in every government office and three-letter-agency in the USA shit their pants is to leave NATO and make a free-trade agreement with Russia. It would pull the rest of the EU with it and the american economy would crater faster than you can say "oh shiiiiiit".
So let's talk about Afghanistan. US supports the local islam "holy warriors" fighting the soviets after the 1979 start of the civil war. Weapons, training, money, everything except soldiers, which instead of from the USA come from all parts of the islam world after the whole thing was rebranded as a holy war. The logistics, organisation and support is run by a couple international organisations, one of whom is called "Al Qaida" ("the base"). The "holy warriors" or "freedom" fighters or Mujaheddin are later called "Taliban".
1-2 mio. civilians are killed, the civil war lasts 10 years, then the Taliban destroy every piece of progress and culture in Afghanistan, breed Al Qaida into a terror organisation, who go on to kill more people. Then some Saudis fly planes into skyscrapers in NYC and the USA bombs Afghanistan and invades Iraq, which kills about a million more arabs and leaves a power vaccuum into which Al Qaida spawns a splinter group that calls itself ISIS and goes on to occupy a kalifat, killing another half a million or so, but since they're fighting Assad whom the US government would like to remove as well, all it needs is a rebranding to Al Nusra and a go-back to the "freedom fighters" meme and they get - guess what - weapons, training and money from the USA.
And that is just one operation. Do you want a list of what the Contras did, or do I need to remind you about Vietnam? Korea?
Sorry dude, but compared to the US, Gaddafi actually is an angel.
If you can't attack the argument, attack the person. A show of weakness.
Yes, Gaddafi was not angel. But supporting rebel groups? Really? That's the best you can come up with for declaring a death penalty? What about the Contras? The Iranian Revolution? The various color revolutions? Ukraine, Syria or - irony - Libya itself recently? The US and Europe are guilty of the same crime.
Of course, we only ever support the "good" rebels. Like ISIS... oh, wait...
You mean Gaddafi.
Hm, wars - 1969 vs. Chad and 1977 vs. Egypt. That's two wars he was directly involved in. In 30 years. The USA manages to start that many wars under practically every president ever.
Sponsorship is more difficult to compare because you're never completely sure of the truth, but I'm ready to take high bets that again the USA easily beats him.
So, according to your logic, every US president of the 20th and 21st century deserves to be dead, yes?
Can you point out, what US policy would bring peace, prosperity and freedom in Libya?
Not letting the CIA stage a bogus revolution to overthrow a government that was actually working not bad, especially compared to many other African countries. There was education, healthcare, a mostly functioning state. Yes, not a dream country and with many problems, but not one of them is better now. So just doing nothing would have been better as a policy.
Because it works perfectly fucking fine, amazingly enough. You'd know that if you had a clue what you were talking about.
If you cannot attack the argument, attack the person. Cheap rhetorics 101, page 5.
We're done here, I prefer to talk to adults.
In other news, Microsoft Office works better on Windows than Mac OS.
Actually, it doesn't. Through two different jobs I have been using both the Mac and the Windows version extensively during the past 12 months, and the Mac version is a ton better, exactly because the integration with the OS is less and thus they couldn't cripple it as badly. I still wonder how people who have to use the Windows version constantly for their daily work (for me it's only a part of what I do) don't jump off a bridge.
And Libya is such a wonderful place now, peace, prosperity, freedom - you name it, they have it all. Such a good thing that the western world intervened...
The echo chamber is strong in this one.
Look at a county map of election results. Oops, there are parts of California where Trump got 50%, 60% or 70% of the votes.
Go and Cexit, it'll be spectacular to watch.
It's got little to do with the FBI.
Given the sheer list of corruption and questionable actions surrounding the Clintons, from the governeur times, it's a case of "fool me once..."
Yes, if anyone presents any evidence of Clinton being corrupt, I would say that the chances for it being right are better than 50/50.
But, you know, at least I am willing to accept proof that I was wrong, even if reluctantly.
The problem is that the whole system was designed for the world of 1800 or so. I know the reasoning behind the Tuesday voting (ancient times, few poll stations, Monday for travel, etc.) - but it's insane that in the last 100 years since railways became common and cars were invented nobody thought that maybe it might need an update.
That includes the fact that each state has its own voting system. That might've made sense 200 years ago. Does it still make sense today?
I think the content of the emails was probably true, but it shows neither fraud nor treason.
Wow.
In every european country, if you were involved in even half the scandals that Clinton is, you would be completely inelectable. Your party would throw you out, your career would be over and you'd be asked to resign all your positions. Acting presidents have stepped down for a small fraction of that shit.
It completely baffles me that in the USA this level of corruption, election fraud and treachery is considered par for the course. That you can still call for votes saying you're the lesser evil. That absolutely fucking nobody stands up and shouts "what the fuck lesser evil - we don't want any evil in the White House!"
Absolutely batshit crazy.
And then they realized the new evidence wasn't new after all and re-closed the case, but I expect you'll just write that off as a conspiracy theory.
It could be they are doing their job very, very carefully, making sure nobody can gut them for not mentioning something in time, or it could be that they got pressure from up top. We will never know, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of doubt.
The purpose of this disclosure isn't to expose corruption or educate the public, it's to swing an election.
So you are also not doubting that what was revealed was true?
Conspiracy to commit fraud, possibly treason? That the FBI re-opened an investigation, a highly unusual procedure, doesn't stir you as "omg, there's something wrong there"?
The fact that something was leaked doesn't actually mean it exposed wrongdoing.
Maybe you should look at what was leaked before you join a discussion about it then?
Honestly, it's so badly broken that it is clear that they don't want it fixed. You couldn't fuck up an election system so bad if you tried. If you didn't know about it, and were tasked with designing the worst imaginable election system for a comedy movie, you couldn't come up with this.
Why keep such a broken system? Well, for one, with all these always-very-close results, it is incredibly easy to swing the election this way or that.
(Seriously though, I'm with you. This would be the last and I mean last kind of thing I'd ever willingly install on my PC.)
What makes you think the target market is people who willingly install it on their own PCs ?
The company captures all the content you've looked at and stores it on its servers.
What could possibly go wrong?
Seriously, no one during the design process stood up and said "are we maybe having a stupid idea here?"
???
Or his source has never clearly identified itself as the Russia government and he's trying to maintain plausible deniability as to not destroy Wikileaks' credibility.
The funny thing is that it shouldn't matter who the source is as long as the information disclosed is true.
It appears to be true, as not even those who should face jail time over it deny it. If you can't attack the message, attack the messager. And the american public is stupid enough to get so easily distracted. Look, a three-headed monkey !
Not just India. Germany is using the same system and it works wonderfully. As I hear, most of Europe uses such a system or variations of it.
Russia is trying 'to denigrate the American electoral system, to make it look chaotic, make it look manipulable, make it look subject to intrusion, cheating and vulnerable so you can't trust it...
No need to do anything on that front. All of Europe has been laughing about the US voting process for decades. You've got the most complicated, error-prone, untrustworthy election system I personally have ever seen or heard about. The fact that you're incapable of fixing it is the best proof that the whole system is broken beyond repair.
I'm not just talking voting machines, I also mean Gerrymandering, the fact that you vote on a working day (seriously?) or that there are hour-long queues. You are holding elections the way 3rd world countries hold their first election in history, and it's just absolutely pathetic.
What could Russia possibly do to discredit this abomination? If I were the russian general in charge, I'd tell my hackers to stay out of this, lest they accidentally fix something and make it better.
Hello USA, tech support here. It appears that your political system has hanged itself. Both of your candidates (and thanks to the broken two-party system, none of the others have a chance) are total crap and they both belong behind bars, not into the White House.
Try to find the reset button and press it.
Seriously, can't you just jail those bastards and restart the whole election process? Keep Obama for one more year while you elect someone who is not a clear and proven criminal?
Companies and governments will not give one thought to information security until there is direct legal and monetary pressure, usually after a major hack or outage.
That is not true.
I'm an information security professional (CISM and all). I've been part of more than one project where IS expertise was brought in before the project even launched, though for my personal taste it should have been even earlier, during the design/architecture phase, but that's a seperate discussion.
Some companies don't understand IS until it bites them in the arse. But many other companies and government institutions (never make the mistake of thinking the government is one monolithic entity) do understand the necessity for IS.
Even monetary penalties are not sufficient. Companies will just consider it "the cost of doing business" and pay off fines as necessary, it is cheaper than implementing good security from day one.
That is called accepting a risk and is a perfectly valid business strategy. If a law is intended to make a risk inacceptable, it needs to make that clear. For some risks, accepting it should mean going to jail. But both the laws and the enforcement is lacking in such things. How many CEOs have ever gone to jail for something except financial crimes (stock fraud, tax evasion, etc.) ?
We have reached the point of "hacking is inevitable, why bother protecting ourselves?" as corporate policy.
That's not what I tell people hiring me. I tell them that being attacked is inevitable. But because their competitors probably bother less with security than they should, not being the weakest target is more important than having perfect security.
Because many companies come from literally nothing and need to build up an ISMS to get an ISO certification or whatever the business reason for the sudden interest in IS is. They cannot possibly get to state-of-the-art in one year. But they can fix the most serious problems and then go from there. And yes, that takes considerable resources, because people like me are expensive, and training your IT people and hiring some new ones is expensive, and the costs of some firewalls and IDS systems almost doesn't matter because replacing your fundamentally, unfixable broken legacy systems (you know, that machine still runing windows 95 with your business critical application...) is what will really kill you.
Sometimes, management has no other choice but to accept the risk, and your success as the IS guy is that at least they're aware of it now and understand they need to do something about it next year.
"When people are thinking about the security of their systems, they worry about people discovering what they are doing," Berners-Lee said. "What they don't think about is the possibility of things being changed."
In such case they need to be fired and replaced.
Considering information disclosure as well as manipulation or simple destruction (without disclosure) is Information Security 101 and anyone working with data who doesn't think about the possibility of manipulation should be escorted to the door immediately.
This is the I part of CIA - Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability - and thus practically one of the first things you learn when you deal with IS.