Treason is the actual charge with which the FBI intended to charge Hillary Clinton. Whether it is a correct or incorrect use of the term lies with the agency, not with me. They did the very same thing they were investigating her for doing; therefore, to continue investigating her for that thing and risk having the act legally labeled as treason by way of a conviction against Clinton, the FBI would have been risking their own investigation and potential treason charges for those in charge of the Clinton investigation.
If McCaul and the FBI misunderstood the definition (notice how I'm not arguing over the legal definition here), that's on them, not me. It still doesn't change the fact that, and I'm purposely repeating myself to drive the point home, that is what they were investigating her for re: her email server while they were (and still are) doing the same thing, themselves re: the Tor exploit. That might indicate logical reasoning as to why they did not pursue the legal precedent of having such actions labelled as treason.
Of course, if could also be any number of other reasons, including the fact that liability for leaking any classified documents would fall on the individual(s) who sent them to Clinton's personal server knowing that her server was not vetted for such communications (e.g. the person(s) who actually leaked the communications). That, of course, is my opinion; I also feel that she may share in that liability if she requested such documents to be sent to that server and, especially so, if she misrepresented the status of that server in the course of any such requests.
Do I think she's innocent? I honestly don't know; it doesn't seem like she immediately deleted the emails and informed the sender not to send classified communications via that channel in the future, nor did she report and such breaches, though there were many of them. For that, I believe she bears liability to an extent. Treason? Perhaps not, but, again, I'm not the one who said it in the first place.
Do I think a large number of military, law enforcement, and intelligence agents and analysts, along with many members of Congress and a slew of other government officials would have burned had charges been brought? Definitely. That, also, may or may not have had anything to do with the FBI dropping their investigation. Just as likely, in fact, as their knowledge that they were putting classified communications at risk just as much as Clinton was, and that it would eventually come to light; thus they may not have wanted to set a legal precedent.
The US Government developed Tor for its own use in securing its own classified communications. Not disclosing the vulnerability so that it can be patched (and alternate modes of transmission used in the interim) puts those communications at risk.
I won't weigh in with an opinion on Hillary's actions, but perhaps this is why the FBI dropped their investigation into her committing the exact same offense through different means. If they charge her with treason for putting classified communications at risk, they open themselves up to the same charges for doing the very same thing.
It's not just about Tor; if they won't disclose the Tor exploit they're using, there are certainly others they're holding on to, as well. How many do you think they're keeping to themselves that affect services you use every day? I'll tell you with absolute certainty that the number is not zero.
Oh, J. H. Christ, it was a fucking joke. That said, since you want to take my "+4, Funny" comment seriously, the vast majority of modern "piracy" (it's not, but meh) is done via BitTorrent, wherein you are uploading to other users as you download. If you use BitTorrent, there is no longer a distinction.
Congratulations, you're the most recent of 4 posters who missed the joke. YOU get the reply!
Actually, the 3rd guy who missed the joke got a reply as well, but that's because his comment added information from TFA so we don't have to go read it.
In all reality, though, I was making a joke; moderators seem to have gotten it. It would have been interesting AF if the letter spelled it with a C, though, no?
I feel as though this is very accurate. Or, put another way, the whole thing is a sham and a waste of money that only serves to drive up prices or, rather, drive down profits since we know the prices wouldn't actually drop if they stopped wasting their money.
I, also, had never heard of Cubo and the Two Strings but, now, I'm going to go pirate it to see what it's about.
In fact, a quick googling reveals that Cubo and the Two Strings doe, in fact, not exist. Therefore, you could not have downloaded it. Kubo and the Two Strings, on the other hand... well, it looks kind of lame; perhaps I won't pirate it after all.
I cut off my 2nd to last paragraph too soon. It should continue thus:
Statistically speaking, 50.9% of them would be so inclined; therefore, banning guns would only, in all likelihood, have prevented 125 suicides in 2012. Again, how many lives did guns save that year? We don't have those statistics, because when a criminal turns and runs away at the sight of a gun, the person who didn't have to pull the trigger doesn't typically report it.
If a suicidal person doesn't have a gun, then they probably won't kill themselves.
Assuming that nearly 100% of people who use guns to commit suicide would not do so absent the gun, then yes, just barely "probably". Like, 50.9% "probably".
Only 50.9% of suicides in the US make use of a gun. Are you telling me that at least 20,300 of the 20,666 people who committed suicide by gun in 2012 would not have killed themselves had they not had a gun? Do you really not think at least 366 of them would have fallen back on suffocation, poisoning, or hanging, which account for 41.4% of suicides?
I'd say, statistically speaking, 41.4% (8,349) of them would have. That's 20.6% of all suicides in the US, which drops the incidence of suicide that would be prevented by the absence of guns to a mere 30.3%, if you also ignore the remaining forms of suicide, which make up another 7.7% of suicides in the US.
When you consider those other methods methods, you must admit that the difference between guns suicides and non-gun suicides is only 1.8%; that hardly makes guns more effective; it just indicates that they're more typically chosen.
That 1.8% variance represents the suicides which would likely be prevented if there were no guns. That's 730 suicidal lives which would have been saved in 2012; how many lives did guns save in that time?
Then, there's the fact that guns exist and will continue to exist for the foreseeable future. Even if we restrict gun ownership to police and military, you need to realize that police and military suicides are not uncommon. In 2012, 126 police officers and 349 soldiers committed suicide. That further reduces the number of gun suicides we can prevent from 730 to 255. That's just 0.6%.
Furthermore, as long as guns and/or the knowledge, tools, and materials required to build them exist, even if restricted to police and military, criminals will be able to get their hands on them (theft, illegal manufacture, etc); and if a criminal can get one, so can a suicidal person, which leaves the door open to suicide by gun for any of the remaining 255 souls who are so inclined.
If guns could disappear tomorrow, along with the knowledge required to make them, I'd be fine with that happening. I mean, I'd want the $2000+ I've spent on them back, but other than that, yes, I think we'd be better off. But, as long as they exist, I'm going to hit the range at least twice a month and make loud noises while putting holes in paper targets at a distance.
And every time I have to edit code written by some dickface who uses 2 or 8 (as examples) spaces, I want to invent a way to murder someone with a Git commit. My preference is 4; if yours is something else, you set yours to something else. For the times when you have to use an editor in which you can't figure out how to change the tab with, well, either figure it our or deal with it.
What your argument boils down to is "I can't have my way all the time unless I force my way on everyone, so I'm going to be a dick and force my way on everyone, because I'm a dickish dick."
Oops, I lied. Somehow, I feel the need to point out the 3rd sentence I wrote in the post you were replying to:
Now, I'll save you the trouble and tell you that yes, they did actually sell 3.5 million more iPhones this in the quarter in which the iPhone 7 launched than they did in the quarter in which the iPhone 6s launched.
I, then, went on to address just that.
Ok, now that I've shown the audience that you really are just attacking me, by demonstrating that you don't even bother reading my posts before replying, we really are
TBH I didn't realize my earlier link was premium until I had loaded it a couple times and it locked me out. Further, I had no trouble finding it, as I'm sure you already are aware because you have read every single one of my posts here looking for opportunities to attack me, and I've already addressed it as well.
At any rate, this is the last thing I'm writing in response to one of your comments, other than:
Why don't you follow your own advice, human monopede?
With the personal attacks, again. I see, you've got nothing to actually contribute so you just exercise the raging hard-on you've got for me with this bullshit instead.
Why do't you stop waisting your time by making up stuff
What, exactly, did I make up? Nothing. You, however, seem to have made up a word (do't) and a new definition for waist. Maybe tone down the rage a little and think through your replies? A little proofreading goes a long way; it not only gives you the opportunity to correct idiotic mistakes like the two you made in that single sentence fragment, it also gives you time to reconsider posting something that will make you sound like a raging dick.
and even better stop searching for statistics you don't understand
Just because you don't like what the statistics say doesn't mean I don't understand them.
Fuck, I've been correcting your bullshit interpretations for years now
You're free to disagree with me; we could even have fun with it, sans the personal attacks. However, you're the only one really going at me like this. Does that tell you anything?
and you still fuck around with them.
Of course I do; because I'm right. If I were wrong, I'd be dealing with negative moderation and a lot more people telling me so. This is the public internet, where anyone with a keyboard and at least one finger with which to hunt and peck can tell me I'm wrong and, yet, you're the only one who does so consistently.
Sometimes, and it's becoming exceedingly rare ad my experience and wisdom grow, multiple people will stand up to tell my I'm wrong. When they provide evidence, I actually reconsider my position. It's called personal growth and doing it habitually is precisely how I got to this point, where you're really the only one who tries to argue with me on a regular basis.
I'm done with you; any future replies to my comments from you will be met with a link back to this one.
Slashdot Mirror
Defeat? You can't even read and understand my posts before replying with personal attacks! That's why we're done here, my friend.
Defeat? You can't even read and understand my posts before replying with personal attacks! That's why we're done here, my friend.
You're not even a good troll and I've lost interest. That's why we're done here, my friend.
That's all well and good, but the point still stands that it was McCaul who said "treason".
Maybe not as clueless as you think.
Treason is the actual charge with which the FBI intended to charge Hillary Clinton. Whether it is a correct or incorrect use of the term lies with the agency, not with me. They did the very same thing they were investigating her for doing; therefore, to continue investigating her for that thing and risk having the act legally labeled as treason by way of a conviction against Clinton, the FBI would have been risking their own investigation and potential treason charges for those in charge of the Clinton investigation.
Again, I'm not the one who said "treason", that came from House Homeland Security Chairman Mike McCaul. That is what the FBI investigating Clinton for.
If McCaul and the FBI misunderstood the definition (notice how I'm not arguing over the legal definition here), that's on them, not me. It still doesn't change the fact that, and I'm purposely repeating myself to drive the point home, that is what they were investigating her for re: her email server while they were (and still are) doing the same thing, themselves re: the Tor exploit. That might indicate logical reasoning as to why they did not pursue the legal precedent of having such actions labelled as treason.
Of course, if could also be any number of other reasons, including the fact that liability for leaking any classified documents would fall on the individual(s) who sent them to Clinton's personal server knowing that her server was not vetted for such communications (e.g. the person(s) who actually leaked the communications). That, of course, is my opinion; I also feel that she may share in that liability if she requested such documents to be sent to that server and, especially so, if she misrepresented the status of that server in the course of any such requests.
Do I think she's innocent? I honestly don't know; it doesn't seem like she immediately deleted the emails and informed the sender not to send classified communications via that channel in the future, nor did she report and such breaches, though there were many of them. For that, I believe she bears liability to an extent. Treason? Perhaps not, but, again, I'm not the one who said it in the first place.
Do I think a large number of military, law enforcement, and intelligence agents and analysts, along with many members of Congress and a slew of other government officials would have burned had charges been brought? Definitely. That, also, may or may not have had anything to do with the FBI dropping their investigation. Just as likely, in fact, as their knowledge that they were putting classified communications at risk just as much as Clinton was, and that it would eventually come to light; thus they may not have wanted to set a legal precedent.
The US Government developed Tor for its own use in securing its own classified communications. Not disclosing the vulnerability so that it can be patched (and alternate modes of transmission used in the interim) puts those communications at risk.
I won't weigh in with an opinion on Hillary's actions, but perhaps this is why the FBI dropped their investigation into her committing the exact same offense through different means. If they charge her with treason for putting classified communications at risk, they open themselves up to the same charges for doing the very same thing.
It's not just about Tor; if they won't disclose the Tor exploit they're using, there are certainly others they're holding on to, as well. How many do you think they're keeping to themselves that affect services you use every day? I'll tell you with absolute certainty that the number is not zero.
Oh, J. H. Christ, it was a fucking joke. That said, since you want to take my "+4, Funny" comment seriously, the vast majority of modern "piracy" (it's not, but meh) is done via BitTorrent, wherein you are uploading to other users as you download. If you use BitTorrent, there is no longer a distinction.
Congratulations, you're the most recent of 4 posters who missed the joke. YOU get the reply!
Actually, the 3rd guy who missed the joke got a reply as well, but that's because his comment added information from TFA so we don't have to go read it.
You RTFA? GTFO.
In all reality, though, I was making a joke; moderators seem to have gotten it. It would have been interesting AF if the letter spelled it with a C, though, no?
I feel as though this is very accurate. Or, put another way, the whole thing is a sham and a waste of money that only serves to drive up prices or, rather, drive down profits since we know the prices wouldn't actually drop if they stopped wasting their money.
We're done here, my friend.
We're done here, my friend.
We're done here, my friend.
I, also, had never heard of Cubo and the Two Strings but, now, I'm going to go pirate it to see what it's about.
In fact, a quick googling reveals that Cubo and the Two Strings doe, in fact, not exist. Therefore, you could not have downloaded it. Kubo and the Two Strings, on the other hand... well, it looks kind of lame; perhaps I won't pirate it after all.
Also, as a courtesy, my sources: military suicides in 2012 and police suicides in 2015 (2012 total is provided within).
I cut off my 2nd to last paragraph too soon. It should continue thus:
Statistically speaking, 50.9% of them would be so inclined; therefore, banning guns would only, in all likelihood, have prevented 125 suicides in 2012. Again, how many lives did guns save that year? We don't have those statistics, because when a criminal turns and runs away at the sight of a gun, the person who didn't have to pull the trigger doesn't typically report it.
If a suicidal person doesn't have a gun, then they probably won't kill themselves.
Assuming that nearly 100% of people who use guns to commit suicide would not do so absent the gun, then yes, just barely "probably". Like, 50.9% "probably".
Let's take a look at the reality of the situation.
Only 50.9% of suicides in the US make use of a gun. Are you telling me that at least 20,300 of the 20,666 people who committed suicide by gun in 2012 would not have killed themselves had they not had a gun? Do you really not think at least 366 of them would have fallen back on suffocation, poisoning, or hanging, which account for 41.4% of suicides?
I'd say, statistically speaking, 41.4% (8,349) of them would have. That's 20.6% of all suicides in the US, which drops the incidence of suicide that would be prevented by the absence of guns to a mere 30.3%, if you also ignore the remaining forms of suicide, which make up another 7.7% of suicides in the US.
When you consider those other methods methods, you must admit that the difference between guns suicides and non-gun suicides is only 1.8%; that hardly makes guns more effective; it just indicates that they're more typically chosen.
That 1.8% variance represents the suicides which would likely be prevented if there were no guns. That's 730 suicidal lives which would have been saved in 2012; how many lives did guns save in that time?
Then, there's the fact that guns exist and will continue to exist for the foreseeable future. Even if we restrict gun ownership to police and military, you need to realize that police and military suicides are not uncommon. In 2012, 126 police officers and 349 soldiers committed suicide. That further reduces the number of gun suicides we can prevent from 730 to 255. That's just 0.6%.
Furthermore, as long as guns and/or the knowledge, tools, and materials required to build them exist, even if restricted to police and military, criminals will be able to get their hands on them (theft, illegal manufacture, etc); and if a criminal can get one, so can a suicidal person, which leaves the door open to suicide by gun for any of the remaining 255 souls who are so inclined.
If guns could disappear tomorrow, along with the knowledge required to make them, I'd be fine with that happening. I mean, I'd want the $2000+ I've spent on them back, but other than that, yes, I think we'd be better off. But, as long as they exist, I'm going to hit the range at least twice a month and make loud noises while putting holes in paper targets at a distance.
And every time I have to edit code written by some dickface who uses 2 or 8 (as examples) spaces, I want to invent a way to murder someone with a Git commit. My preference is 4; if yours is something else, you set yours to something else. For the times when you have to use an editor in which you can't figure out how to change the tab with, well, either figure it our or deal with it.
What your argument boils down to is "I can't have my way all the time unless I force my way on everyone, so I'm going to be a dick and force my way on everyone, because I'm a dickish dick."
Failed HTML... We really are done here.
Now, I'll save you the trouble and tell you that yes, they did actually sell 3.5 million more iPhones this in the quarter in which the iPhone 7 launched than they did in the quarter in which the iPhone 6s launched.
I, then, went on to address just that.
Ok, now that I've shown the audience that you really are just attacking me, by demonstrating that you don't even bother reading my posts before replying, we really are
TBH I didn't realize my earlier link was premium until I had loaded it a couple times and it locked me out. Further, I had no trouble finding it, as I'm sure you already are aware because you have read every single one of my posts here looking for opportunities to attack me, and I've already addressed it as well.
At any rate, this is the last thing I'm writing in response to one of your comments, other than:
We're done here, my friend.
No, you're just choosing to ignore context. At any rate, we're done here, my friend.
Why don't you follow your own advice, human monopede?
With the personal attacks, again. I see, you've got nothing to actually contribute so you just exercise the raging hard-on you've got for me with this bullshit instead.
Why do't you stop waisting your time by making up stuff
What, exactly, did I make up? Nothing. You, however, seem to have made up a word (do't) and a new definition for waist. Maybe tone down the rage a little and think through your replies? A little proofreading goes a long way; it not only gives you the opportunity to correct idiotic mistakes like the two you made in that single sentence fragment, it also gives you time to reconsider posting something that will make you sound like a raging dick.
and even better stop searching for statistics you don't understand
Just because you don't like what the statistics say doesn't mean I don't understand them.
Fuck, I've been correcting your bullshit interpretations for years now
You're free to disagree with me; we could even have fun with it, sans the personal attacks. However, you're the only one really going at me like this. Does that tell you anything?
and you still fuck around with them.
Of course I do; because I'm right. If I were wrong, I'd be dealing with negative moderation and a lot more people telling me so. This is the public internet, where anyone with a keyboard and at least one finger with which to hunt and peck can tell me I'm wrong and, yet, you're the only one who does so consistently.
Sometimes, and it's becoming exceedingly rare ad my experience and wisdom grow, multiple people will stand up to tell my I'm wrong. When they provide evidence, I actually reconsider my position. It's called personal growth and doing it habitually is precisely how I got to this point, where you're really the only one who tries to argue with me on a regular basis.
I'm done with you; any future replies to my comments from you will be met with a link back to this one.