I asked my mom to to break crypto with open-source software...

She'd also have to be in a position to intercept the traffic to begin with. The article's problem-description is rather silly, indeed.

I also do not see, who would still be allowing weak ciphers on their servers — after all the earlier SSL-vulnerabilities we went through in the last 6 months, that is... But the report on the matter estimates 8.4% of the top million web-sites and 3.4% of all HTTPS-using sites as still vulnerable. Shrug...

From the article I linked to. Did you bother reading it?

Yeah, their only source for this particular claim is the guy's own words: "He told the Times: “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter.”

That's both flimsy evidence (hearsay and not under oath) and evasive. For example, if he is ever confronted with evidence of having been told by Clinton, how to vote, he'll be able to claim, that it was not "interference", but direct instructions from his official boss at the time.

And yet, you took his flimsy statement about lack of "interference" and turned it into a far wider-reaching "had no contact with her about it". Am I being picky? The other Clinton once claimed, "oral sex is not sex", for crying out loud — you can not be too picky with these weasels...

Yes. That's exactly what they did. *eyeroll*

Eye-rolling does not prove anything. I'll take it as another concession.

Yeah, no. This is about the vote to give a Russian country control of 20% of US uranium production and Sec. Clinton's (non)involvement in it.

You defended the Secretary here with two arguments:

1. That a FactCheck-article concludes, there is no evidence of her wrong-doing — only "speculations"
2. That any money (bribe) were given not to any of the Clintons, but to the Clinton Foundation

The first claim makes my "rant" — about the need to use a reverse of the usual burden-of-proof principle for Executive government officials — on-topic and otherwise appropriate. The second (false) claim likewise legitimizes my counter-argument about the Foundation being a slush-fund and a power-brokerage vehicle, even if it does not enrich the Clintons directly.

Legitimacy of my counter-arguments now established, absence of any other rebuttals from you evident, the only conclusion is that your original arguments in defense of Madame Secretary are null and void. Have a nice day.

If you start a mile north of the South Pole, walk a mile south, then you cannot walk west, so it still fails.

Also, the North Pole isn't ice-free all year long. (I've not been keeping up with how much (if it has happened yet) it is ice-free during a year, but it's certainly not the whole year. Yet.)

Yes, folks, those problems and more besides can be solved by radical individualism and its close friend, laissez-faire capitalism!

Yes, indeed. I wouldn't use the charged term "radical", but Individualism certainly is it.

Sure, some people will be free to starve, others will be free to die of preventable illnesses

No idea, where you got this from...

your freedom to amass wealth and keep it all to yourself will be safe.

That, definitely, is — or ought to be — among the top-priority freedoms to preserve, yes. I fail to see, how anyone can argue against it. Give it a try, if you feel like it: tell me, what — other than force majeure circumstances like need to defend the country — justifies confiscating one's honestly-earned property?

You are in a square room. All four sides have Southern exposure. A bear walks by. What color is it? :)

You can't walk South from the South Pole. :)

When's the last time it was every six months?

Hint: It was probably sometime back when the release was two CDs, and not 6 CDs and 2 double-sided DVDs.

uBlock isn't available for the _Android_ version, which is the problem. I use it on the desktop; I'd love to use it on Android as well.

the person who did represent the State Department had no contact with her about it

And you know this from?..

If any one of them had qualms about it [...]

And, maybe, they did... But seeing Clinton being in favor decided not to rock the boat and alienate the probably next President...

The rest of what you put down is an incoherent rant that really doesn't have much to do with the issue at hand.

A rather backwards way of conceding a point, but I'll take it. It must've been hard for you as it is.

Is completely wrong if it's implying that Sec. Clinton was the only person involved in approving the deal.

"Completely" wrong? No, it is quite right to suspect her. With government officials the famous legal standard is — or ought to be — backwards: guilty until proven innocent. With the amount of sheer power and influence the Executive government has, they must be constantly under scrutiny, and any time there is a suspicion, then must be presumed guilty. These cases are all the same:

• Policeman shoots a citizen
• A citizen dies in police custody
• A government agency "loses" e-mails
• A government official uses personal e-mail server to discuss financial contributions

We, the people, do not — or should not — have to prove their guilt, they must be proving innocence instead. And until they do, they must be deemed guilty of the worst crime reasonably suspected. For example: could the shooting have been malicious, or the could "lost" e-mails have contained evidence of rape or treason? If yes, than the charges of murder, rape, and treason ought to stand against all involved until innocence is proven.

She didn't have veto authority (only the president does) and she was part of a panel of 8 other members who also approved the deal.

Nonsense. She was the most influential person on that panel and among the 10 most influential members of the government. Her approval or lack thereof was, in all likelihood, the deciding factor.

there's little indication that she personally profits from money donated to the Clinton Foundation

Except the foundation is a slush fund . In 2013, for example, it took in $140mln, but spent only $9 mln on actual charity:

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.

It does not need to be a source of direct financial enrichment — it is perfectly fine as a vehicle for power.

But given that the USA's largest employer is using the government subsidized process

Instead of trying to alleviate this travesty with a new one — minimum wage — why not undo such subsidies? If somebody does not pay "enough" for your goods or services (including labor), people look for another buyer. And if they don't, then the pay is enough — by definition.

The government inserting itself between private parties willingly engaging in a lawful transaction is an abomination. That it is done under the pretext of fixing, what it broke in the first place, makes it worse.

This is a destruction of liberty and path to totalitarianism:

• We must help the poor!
• We must force everyone to be helping the poor.
• Now that we are helping the poor, we must control their lives to prevent them from doing "stupid" things. Depending on the kind of Statist in power, these may include:
  • no working for "too small" a wage
  • no drugs, tobacco, or alcohol
  • no sex out of wedlock
  • forced sterilizations and abortions
  • no usage of encryption to prevent monitoring your life
  • no driving "too fast"
  • forced medical treatments

All under the excuse, that we — the Collective — pay you, so you must do as we say. And, no, you can not opt-out either — our compassionate bleeding hearts would not allow you to make that stupid thing either.

As the definition of "poor" expands, the government's control of us all solidifies. Mandatory minimum wage is no different from NSA-spying and other manifestations of Collective (Glorious) trampling the rights of the Individual (cantankerous and unreasonable) — both are imposed on us "for our own good" by the people, who consider themselves our betters.

Are you saying they are more successful because blacks are inferior, or are you saying they are more successful for some other reason?

Just like you, I do not know the reasons. But I can see, that Asian Americans are more successful than White Americans, and White Americans — more successful than Black ones. It is evidenced in disproportional college admittance, arrest-records and other measures.

Whatever the reasons, the results are indisputable. Calling me "racist" over this is as stupid as blaming someone for stating, Blacks have more melanin in their skin...

I see you only responded to my assertion

Once again, my person is not the topic of this — nor any other forum on /. Not yet, anyway. Turning the conversation onto the person of your opponent is, by definition, an ad hominem attack. You automatically lose whatever the debate was about...

See why I said you wouldn't survive in an academic setting?

Darling, I handed your sorry ass back to you so many times already, I'm surprised, it is not yet falling off on its own. Or maybe it does? That would explain a thing or two...

Seek help — your obsession with my person, however illustrious, has already lead you to stalking — it is not healthy...

I certainly will not encourage you any more.