No worries, "actors might act to support their most obvious interests" isn't exactly a "conspiracy theory." It seems pretty obvious that Trump would be really great for Russia, just based on his known policy ideas and their intended effects.
As somebody who has been following politics continuously since elementary school, I find it shocking that there are people who consider "employee of a major political committee has a preference for a particular candidate" to be a sign of "corruption." Wow. Just wow. Imagine if these people read a one page discussion of Halliburton and war funding! Their heads would explode.
Back in the 1990s it was widely reported that Bill and Hillary had discussed both of them wanting to run for President... while they were college students. Before they were married. As young lovers, both of them becoming President is what they were dreaming of together. And they're achieving those dreams.
IME it is a lot easier to protect a single server than a whole office network where some of the computer inside the network have to be shown respect by other computers. With a single computer, you don't have to trust anything else on the LAN, and with a good firewall it might be nearly impossible to break into it unless you get lucky. With a big office full of computers, a stray wifi printer plugged into the wrong port might turn into a major attack vector.
It was already reported in the past that while Hillary was using the "wrong" email account, her work emails were likely accessed by foreign agents, and that her private server is not believed to have been. But that gets ignored by people who pretend to care about this stuff, for obvious reasons.
I'm not sure why it is presumed by some, who are apparently not even Democrats, that the Democratic Party would hire people already involved in politics who each actually support specific candidates. Apparently the sin that was committed was not switching to a different email account before sending certain emails. If everything else was exactly the same, all the words were the same, but the email was sent from the right account? No story. Is sending an email from the wrong account automatically an extreme horrible act?
People who already dislike Hillary are "outraged." I get that. But the words they're shouting are totally absurd when you look at the facts of what they're accusing people of. They even point the finger at her, "Somebody who supports her sent an email from the wrong account! And the email said her name!" Yeah.... so?
With the Collateral Murder video the extra footage doesn't really change anything.
The only reason this is true is because collateral damage, including loss of civilian life, is not illegal, is not surprising in war, and isn't even what the accusation was. Even in your own phrasing of it you try to propagandize it with the word "murder," but accidentally killing the wrong guy during a war is not murder.
What the context shows is that it wasn't even a big mistake; the guy running around with a camera was apparently embedded in an enemy military unit, and it isn't surprising that his tripod looked like a gun. The context shows that the accusation is based on knowing lies, it isn't just a difference of opinion about what should or should not be allowed during war.
You seem to miss that HRC is not the DNC. Why would the DNC having poor network security have anything to do with Clinton, or reflect on her at all? Because they're both from the same political party? What?
As for security, it is known at this point that while she was at the State Department, the network security people (who are not hired by the Secretary of State, by-the-way) dropped the ball (as all government departments do every year...) and the network has hacked multiple times, exposing emails to theft. However, Clinton's private email wasn't hacked. But people who hate her will get that backwards every time, even right it has been explained to them. They just hate for no (apparent) reason.
That and Russia's corruption is pretty well known and public. No need for a Russian Wikileaks.
This exactly. Russian bad-dealing is often reported on, but it doesn't sell papers in the West because it isn't news. Russians will pretend they don't believe it, but if you ask them off the record they generally approve of corruption or rule-breaking by a strong leader.
American corruption is news because Americans care out it, it is as simple as that. Of course, this story isn't about corruption, it is about somebody sending a mildly offensive email and their co-workers ignoring it. So the boss got fired. And that tiny little story is bigger news to a lot of people than learning that the Sochi olympics were fake, like pro-wrestling.
Actually if you go back, most of what they trickled out the first 6 months were incorrect training documents. I don't know their real motivations, but educating you wasn't one. However, they did succeed at... something. They certainly sold papers.
It isn't that governments would fall, it is more that if the real, high quality information was just released, then people could look at what it means, and they could respond to it. By trickling out lies and mistakes first, they made sure that was no momentum for change. So you're sorta right, except that you just wave your hands assume that heads would roll or whatever. Or, policy would be debated would be another thing that might have happened in some places.
When the political manipulation of information is "irrelevant" to your campaign to... attack politicians you don't like, you're just inside an echo chamber. Apparently a Russian one.
You just wave your hands and say "Chewbacca," but you're the one trying to confuse things. I'll give you a hint: having a foreign power breaking into US computer systems to screw with our election is a way, way bigger deal than, "somebody said something mildly offensive in an email, and nobody did the thing they recommended because it would offend people. But nobody got fired for talking about it."
See, I wouldn't expect reality to go either way. Who broke into their system? If it was the Russians, I would expect the "excuse" for somebody breaking in would be that it was the Russians.
If it was somebody else, I'd expect them to say that it was that other group.
Your concept of what people say seems really excessively politicized.
And if there wasn't any sign of "massive corruption," but what happened was that somebody wrote an internal email that offended somebody after it was leaked? Then what? Same outrage as "massive corruption," snowflake?
I agree with him that a person needs to consider this. It is true for some users; some users don't have a secure home computer, and they probably should not be banking online at all. However, I totally disagree with the idea that because a home computer might be even less safe than a phone, that that means it is safe to bank on the phone. The reality is that it is a minor convenience, it doesn't enable any significant activity or financial process; if you don't have a way to do internet banking safely, you don't really need to do it.
Those links just tell me "nobody" is going to be using libreboot in the future.
And with good reason; the GNU boot loader that people actually use is called grub, not libreboot. Libreboot is just a grub tagalong that, apparently, has as its purpose to not work very many places. Nifty! But not notable.
Having CPU code that you can't access just means it is a CPU; that is not news, or unique to the systems they whine about. Nobody sells CPUs without a "back door" if you consider code that the manufacturer can run that the user can't access to be a "backdoor." This is true because no modern CPU for decades actually operates the way the user-accessible API presents itself. For good reasons. The good news is, there is no application ecosystem making use of that, so it doesn't matter for software freedom. Everything happens on the user side according to the published APIs and CPU command sets, so software freedom isn't affected. Clue up and be more consistent, don't just be paranoid about the few details you heard of.
They don't seem to be aware that all CPUs have microcode that actually works differently than the published command set. Their paranoia should have started 30 years ago, and they should be unwilling to use any modern CPU.
Even something simple like an 8 bit microcontroller actually works differently than the published command set. ANY modern digital IC chip could be doing "anything" if the manufacturer was part of a conspiracy to do something other than just sell chips.
People who are paranoid in this way should just stop trusting computers in the first place instead of worrying about each new chip being outside of their personal ability to verify functionality.
Not everybody is stupid enough to use a phone app for banking.
If a thief steals your card, you're protected from that. If they steal your phone with your 3rd party banking app, you're probably liable for whatever is done with your app. You should only do that with a device that you can maintain physical security. A mobile device can never guarantee physical security.
You should check out SCOTUSblog, you don't have to just think of the Court as the Ebil Gubermint, you can actually follow along everything the Court does, and read their decisions. They give detailed explanations for most of the things that they do. And there are always "corporations" on both sides of any issue, so no need to worry that that prevents them from deciding things whichever way they want.
Slashdot Mirror
Give him a break, he can't tell the difference, he's not as sharp as he used to be.
That would be a major accusation if it was based on facts, rather than rank speculation.
No worries, "actors might act to support their most obvious interests" isn't exactly a "conspiracy theory." It seems pretty obvious that Trump would be really great for Russia, just based on his known policy ideas and their intended effects.
As somebody who has been following politics continuously since elementary school, I find it shocking that there are people who consider "employee of a major political committee has a preference for a particular candidate" to be a sign of "corruption." Wow. Just wow. Imagine if these people read a one page discussion of Halliburton and war funding! Their heads would explode.
That's a rather absurd thing to say.
Back in the 1990s it was widely reported that Bill and Hillary had discussed both of them wanting to run for President... while they were college students. Before they were married. As young lovers, both of them becoming President is what they were dreaming of together. And they're achieving those dreams.
IME it is a lot easier to protect a single server than a whole office network where some of the computer inside the network have to be shown respect by other computers. With a single computer, you don't have to trust anything else on the LAN, and with a good firewall it might be nearly impossible to break into it unless you get lucky. With a big office full of computers, a stray wifi printer plugged into the wrong port might turn into a major attack vector.
It was already reported in the past that while Hillary was using the "wrong" email account, her work emails were likely accessed by foreign agents, and that her private server is not believed to have been. But that gets ignored by people who pretend to care about this stuff, for obvious reasons.
I'm not sure why it is presumed by some, who are apparently not even Democrats, that the Democratic Party would hire people already involved in politics who each actually support specific candidates. Apparently the sin that was committed was not switching to a different email account before sending certain emails. If everything else was exactly the same, all the words were the same, but the email was sent from the right account? No story. Is sending an email from the wrong account automatically an extreme horrible act?
People who already dislike Hillary are "outraged." I get that. But the words they're shouting are totally absurd when you look at the facts of what they're accusing people of. They even point the finger at her, "Somebody who supports her sent an email from the wrong account! And the email said her name!" Yeah.... so?
With the Collateral Murder video the extra footage doesn't really change anything.
The only reason this is true is because collateral damage, including loss of civilian life, is not illegal, is not surprising in war, and isn't even what the accusation was. Even in your own phrasing of it you try to propagandize it with the word "murder," but accidentally killing the wrong guy during a war is not murder.
What the context shows is that it wasn't even a big mistake; the guy running around with a camera was apparently embedded in an enemy military unit, and it isn't surprising that his tripod looked like a gun. The context shows that the accusation is based on knowing lies, it isn't just a difference of opinion about what should or should not be allowed during war.
You seem to miss that HRC is not the DNC. Why would the DNC having poor network security have anything to do with Clinton, or reflect on her at all? Because they're both from the same political party? What?
As for security, it is known at this point that while she was at the State Department, the network security people (who are not hired by the Secretary of State, by-the-way) dropped the ball (as all government departments do every year...) and the network has hacked multiple times, exposing emails to theft. However, Clinton's private email wasn't hacked. But people who hate her will get that backwards every time, even right it has been explained to them. They just hate for no (apparent) reason.
That and Russia's corruption is pretty well known and public. No need for a Russian Wikileaks.
This exactly. Russian bad-dealing is often reported on, but it doesn't sell papers in the West because it isn't news. Russians will pretend they don't believe it, but if you ask them off the record they generally approve of corruption or rule-breaking by a strong leader.
American corruption is news because Americans care out it, it is as simple as that. Of course, this story isn't about corruption, it is about somebody sending a mildly offensive email and their co-workers ignoring it. So the boss got fired. And that tiny little story is bigger news to a lot of people than learning that the Sochi olympics were fake, like pro-wrestling.
Actually if you go back, most of what they trickled out the first 6 months were incorrect training documents. I don't know their real motivations, but educating you wasn't one. However, they did succeed at... something. They certainly sold papers.
It isn't that governments would fall, it is more that if the real, high quality information was just released, then people could look at what it means, and they could respond to it. By trickling out lies and mistakes first, they made sure that was no momentum for change. So you're sorta right, except that you just wave your hands assume that heads would roll or whatever. Or, policy would be debated would be another thing that might have happened in some places.
When the political manipulation of information is "irrelevant" to your campaign to... attack politicians you don't like, you're just inside an echo chamber. Apparently a Russian one.
You just wave your hands and say "Chewbacca," but you're the one trying to confuse things. I'll give you a hint: having a foreign power breaking into US computer systems to screw with our election is a way, way bigger deal than, "somebody said something mildly offensive in an email, and nobody did the thing they recommended because it would offend people. But nobody got fired for talking about it."
See, I wouldn't expect reality to go either way. Who broke into their system? If it was the Russians, I would expect the "excuse" for somebody breaking in would be that it was the Russians.
If it was somebody else, I'd expect them to say that it was that other group.
Your concept of what people say seems really excessively politicized.
And if there wasn't any sign of "massive corruption," but what happened was that somebody wrote an internal email that offended somebody after it was leaked? Then what? Same outrage as "massive corruption," snowflake?
I agree with him that a person needs to consider this. It is true for some users; some users don't have a secure home computer, and they probably should not be banking online at all. However, I totally disagree with the idea that because a home computer might be even less safe than a phone, that that means it is safe to bank on the phone. The reality is that it is a minor convenience, it doesn't enable any significant activity or financial process; if you don't have a way to do internet banking safely, you don't really need to do it.
Those links just tell me "nobody" is going to be using libreboot in the future.
And with good reason; the GNU boot loader that people actually use is called grub, not libreboot. Libreboot is just a grub tagalong that, apparently, has as its purpose to not work very many places. Nifty! But not notable.
Having CPU code that you can't access just means it is a CPU; that is not news, or unique to the systems they whine about. Nobody sells CPUs without a "back door" if you consider code that the manufacturer can run that the user can't access to be a "backdoor." This is true because no modern CPU for decades actually operates the way the user-accessible API presents itself. For good reasons. The good news is, there is no application ecosystem making use of that, so it doesn't matter for software freedom. Everything happens on the user side according to the published APIs and CPU command sets, so software freedom isn't affected. Clue up and be more consistent, don't just be paranoid about the few details you heard of.
They don't seem to be aware that all CPUs have microcode that actually works differently than the published command set. Their paranoia should have started 30 years ago, and they should be unwilling to use any modern CPU.
Even something simple like an 8 bit microcontroller actually works differently than the published command set. ANY modern digital IC chip could be doing "anything" if the manufacturer was part of a conspiracy to do something other than just sell chips.
People who are paranoid in this way should just stop trusting computers in the first place instead of worrying about each new chip being outside of their personal ability to verify functionality.
That could be a huge win for those of us who no longer trust x86
What is that supposed to mean? The words look like normal words, but it makes no sense. You stopped trusting a CPU command set? What?
Not everybody is stupid enough to use a phone app for banking.
If a thief steals your card, you're protected from that. If they steal your phone with your 3rd party banking app, you're probably liable for whatever is done with your app. You should only do that with a device that you can maintain physical security. A mobile device can never guarantee physical security.
You should check out SCOTUSblog, you don't have to just think of the Court as the Ebil Gubermint, you can actually follow along everything the Court does, and read their decisions. They give detailed explanations for most of the things that they do. And there are always "corporations" on both sides of any issue, so no need to worry that that prevents them from deciding things whichever way they want.
Nobody has the balls to push the button anyway.
OK, smartypants, pop quiz:
Q: 2 > none
A: T/F?
I don't doubt you've been reading since 14. It is never too late to learn, you're a glimmer of possibility.
Bat Boy is gonna drop a giant stink bomb on your house at night if you're not careful with that sort of talk.
But maybe they can get an interview with Lucifer to see his perspective on the Russians. Or at least Elvis.
If you're actually dropping nukes, I think any treaties are irrelevant at that point.
Missiles are better, they're just trying to hide that it is a mobile surveillance platform.