There's a new version up that fixes the bug, so the point is moot.

Well, my guess would be that they tokenize by the port separator ':' before doing validation of the URL, and end up performing network operations on empty strings. How in the world that break the installation, I have no clue. It may be that it caches the convo, and on trying to read the cache again it breaks? Maybe not.

Which lies? His trusting (just like, say, Clinton did) what the CIA told him about the status of WMDs in Iraq? As in, the same CIA that you are now saying we should trust as the source of the initial sloppy talking points, re: the consulate attack in Libya? Or are you referring to lies about whether or not Saddam was blocking inspections, shooting at patrolling aircraft, continuing to traffic in weapons he said he wouldn't, continuing to kill large numbers of Kurds and others not in his tribe, defraud the UN and skim billions of aid money, and so on? Oh, right, those things were very real, weren't they? Just like Saddam's UN-observed mountains of VX gas, some of which he used to slaughter thousands of people. Yeah, yeah, just lies, I know.

Uh huh. OK. Did you learn this rhetorical strategy in debate club?

Let's see ... you're willing to tell everyone else what happened (by selectively quoting part of a report, while deliberately ignoring the parts you don't like) based on a legislative report, but you're not willing to even address the fact that multiple intelligence and defense officials were on the record describing the well armed and organized nature of the consulate attack while the administration's flacks were still going to the press with the phony video protest theater. You're backing them, here. So, you've concluded that the hours-long assault with motors and machine guns was in fact an ad hoc gathering of protestors? No? You're saying I don't know what happened, but you're saying you do, even though people on the ground there describe events completely at odds with the phony video protest story that even the administration eventually had to admit was not what happened.

Right. I find that this particular faction's deliberate lying about the event in order to influence an election was reprehensible. You're OK with it, since you like the administration.

The two can't be separated. The actor (Obama) committed the act: deliberate misrepresentation, for weeks, knowing full well his people were lying about what happened. All in a vain attempt to avoid being challenged on their fictional campaign narrative about Terrorists On The Run, what with an election on the calendar, where he was making that fable a central feature of his stump speeches (you know, along with ISIS being the "JV team," etc).

You're comparing one president (and the majority of the democratic legislators, including the liberal front runner in the current cycle) who read, processed, and repeated what the intelligence community concluded about Iraq, to the current president who had his people continue to lie after being told that what they were selling was - as was known and officially conveyed to the White House almost immediately - wholly incorrect. Pure fiction. But, you're sticking with the liars on this one, because you like them. At least admit it.

... not letting me delete my account.

Slashdot is like the Mafia, CIA, and the Los Angeles Science Fiction Society: Once a member, ALWAYS a member.

As LASFS says: "Death Will Not Release You."

No, the CIA reported on outside-the-embassy protests elsewhere, and made some conjecture along those lines in the hours immediately following the event. They (and the FBI, and DoD) briefed the White House (and thus State) on the reality of the event (a planned, organized event run by well armed, hardened militants) not even 24 hours later. But for days and weeks afterwards, the administration continued to try to sell the "It's all because of this vile video, see..." fairy tale. Why? Because that deliberate lie was a better fit with the campaign's "the terrorist are on the run" narrative. It really isn't any more complicated than that.

And you really think that whatever number that other 95% is, it will go down if someone willing to kill himself on a commercial airliner in order to destroy it on approach over a large city no longer has to even wonder if he'll have his bomb found while boarding? If you're going to troll, at least do it in a way that makes it look like you at least take yourself seriously.

Feel free to pop into any of thousands of posts and show me where someone with whom I'm more philosophically aligned has sent someone out to do a stint of serial lying on a matter of plainly obvious fact (a la launching Susan Rice at the weekend talk shows, or Hillary repeating the same stuff days after she's been briefed on details that explicitly illustrate the exact opposite) - upon which I excused/approved. Specifics, please.

But in your imagination, I have? THAT'S how you make it more comfortable, somehow, to process the pre-election BS we're talking about, coming out of the current administration? "I don't like you, so I suspect you'd approve of other people I don't like lying, and saying so while using phrases like 'statistical certainty' is, no matter how lame, the best thing I can think of to try to distract from the administration's campaign of deliberate, purposeful lying on the topic at hand." THAT'S your argument? Very nice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

It's not clear under what grounds you consider either Paul "fascist". Was it their use of that famous fascist symbol set, the Roman Alphabet?

Now maybe people will actually bother using their email encryption and secure VoIP services and anonymized Tor routers and all of that fun stuff now that you KNOW that they're tracking you. Even moreso now that the telecom companies are in charge of collecting your data, since I trust them less than the NSA.

You're right. Sending out Susan Rice to lie to reporters in an attempt to spin a completely preventable horror show at the consulate so as to prevent it from further tainting an upcoming election ... that's party-neutral. It's pointing out the lies that's partisan, right? Yeah.

So, when the people in the DoD and the CIA say the exact opposite, and point out that at no time did they conclude or tell anyone that the ambassador was killed by a spontaneous protest crowd, you're thinking ... what, exactly? Weeks afterwards, when the administration was still sticking to that narrative, when every agency with info on the matter was telling them the opposite, you're concluding what, exactly?

Regardless, you're deliberately ignoring the concluding pages of the report, which point out the administration's culpability in ignoring the safety of the people deployed there, and the unanswered questions about the actions of the administration during and in the wake of the event. The report doesn't address why the administration continued to lie about the event for days and weeks after they had unassailable intelligence showing the nature of the attacks.

The report does, of course, express the Senate's considerable frustration that the State Department was preventing important people from appearing to testify, and thus preventing inquiry into entire areas related to accountability and the usual who-knew-what-when. They specifically cite a lack of cooperation from the administration, which prevented access to documents, personnel, and the answers to questions they wanted answered. They, the people who wrote the report you're trumpeting, say that political protectionism by the administration prevented discovery of basic facts about what happened before, during, and after the attack.

In short, the "flawed talking points" they identified were ... flawed. And to the extent that they outlined something known "at the time," we're talking about information that was formally revised only hours later ... not that the administration changed their pervasive lie on the subject for days and days, in appearance after appearance, where they continued on with the YouTube video BS. Something that everyone involved knew was crap before the sun set the next day. But you keep patting them on the back, and ignoring the bulk of the conclusions in the report you yourself trotted out.

"Smithers... release the hounds."

So what you're saying is we should stop screening for weapons and explosives? Yes or no.