Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. (Score 1) 377

Ah, good, we're back to you displaying your own inability to explain your actions without admitting the consequences, and thus once again deflecting and dishing out juvenile insults. SOP for "my type?" What, pointing out your inability to so much as answer a direct question in your own words? Wow, that is just awful, isn't it? Of course anyone with the intellectual courage to stand behind their position to support Hillary Clinton would have no trouble using their own words, or at least doing the usual Shillary cut-and-paste. But no, you don't want to be seen typing out those words - it's embarrassing, I know, being unable to form your own sentences to explain yourself. Perhaps your next Hillary campaign workshop can help you out with that.

Comment Re:Horse Hockey (Score 1) 724

He pointed out her untruthfulness about a long list of things, one at a time. She said she only ever used a single mobile device. The FBI said that was untrue. Why? Because she used several of them. It's not a matter of English usage or context.

Are you really suggesting that she, a person known to be glued to her device, wasn't clear on the fact she used several, instead of one? She said she never handled any classified information on that account. She, who as the nation's top diplomat and read in on all sorts of extremely sensitive material and programs involving billions of dollars and life-or-death activities, was unable to recall the dozens of email threads - including top-secret and ABOVE top-secret material - in which she participated? Or understand that things like imagery from the NRO of sites in North Korea are born classified? She claimed no, and the FBI said her characterization of all of that was untrue. Are you saying that she really meant it when she said that knew she'd turned over every single work-related email because her lawyers had read each and every one of them ... which the FBI reported was untrue (to say nothing of the thousands more they turned up, which she had deleted)? I know I don't need to run down the list of 100%-exactly-wrong things she said, even under oath in front of congress, as she tried to wish this away, because you already know about them. They're not "context" problems, or her not double-checking things. She repeated these untrue things dozens of times for a year and a half.

Comment Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. (Score 1) 377

Irrelevant

So you consider your actions in relation to the election to be irrelevant? Then why are you telling people that you're going to vote? Why do something you consider to be irrelevant, or why say it's irrelevant if you don't actually think that?

Oh, I get it ... you think that the fact you know your vote is going to be thrown away as a way to help Hillary Clinton is irrelevant, because talking about it means you have to justify your support for her. That makes more sense, and fits your previous pattern of evasion.

Comment Re:Horse Hockey (Score 1) 724

No, you're confusing two different things. There's whether or not she was "extremely careless" with classified material (the FBI chose the words "extremely careless," not me - and that's not at all like "sloppy"), and then - separately - there's whether or not she regularly, over and over again, lied about what she did. The FBI director, when asked specific questions on several fronts about Clinton's statements regarding numerous aspects of her conduct, said they her statements were (his word) "untrue."

Comment Re:TFA is not terribly clear... (Score 1) 198

"But I'm not ignoring it, I'm enforcing it. I do not have to assist them in their search."

I think you are confusing "unreasonable search and seizure" with "any search and seizure". Swiping a finger is non-intrusive. Swabbing a cheek is non-intrusive. Maryland V King is a fairly recent example.

Comment Re:TFA is not terribly clear... (Score 2) 198

"Exactly. I am very disappointed that people think it's okay to compel anyone to assist in any way one's own prosecution,"

I knew the wording of this would toss up responses like yours.

This is no different than an order to produce blood/cheek swab or even passwords. The accused have the right to remain silent -- they do not have the right to ignore lawful search warrants. If you really want to keep information that the law cannot touch then either memorize it or have a trusted spouse memorize it.

Comment Re:Horse Hockey (Score 1) 724

You have no evidence of this

You mean, other than the FBI director directly answering questions about whether or not specific things that Clinton swore were true were in fact untrue? Are you really going to pretend that you haven't watched video of him clarifying that in response to multiple direct questions with examples?

And yes, the director was very clear that other people would face consequences for the things that he found Clinton had done and lied about. No, he was not able to find anyone willing to cite an example of a cabinet secretary deliberately destroying public records and mishandling classified information. Who was going to come up with that? It doesn't happen (until now). What he should have asked for was for any intern-level high school student to spend some time giving him a list of the people representing the long history of criminal prosecutions for government employees breaking the law - including the removing of classified information, sharing it with non-cleared third parties, and more of the things which he agreed that Clinton did. Because there are numerous examples of felony convictions in just such cases, many of which involving far less critical behavior than Clinton's.

Comment Re:Horse Hockey (Score 2, Informative) 724

If the Russians wanted to help Trump they would release some "they weren't classified when on my server" emails that they got from her bathroom server.

Whether or not they have them, there's no need. The FBI has already said that Clinton was lying about that, and they have the evidence to prove it. They just don't have Clinton's leverage with the Obama administration, so no prosecution for that act and the lie told to cover it up - even though anyone else would be in deep legal trouble for doing exactly the same.

Comment Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. (Score 1) 377

Hey, look! He still can't put together a coherent thought on the subject matter, and is still deflecting with juvenile ad hominem. Carry on! The party you're working for happens to be exhibiting a great display of just your sort of incoherence already in Philadelphia - I'm sure you're tuned in for marching orders. Have fun!

Comment Re:Falling problems (Score 1) 112

That's because they don't fly through populated areas.

What? People operate these machines in suburban and busy areas all the time. Millions of them. Most operators are very casual and have very little skill, while using easy-to-fail devices with little or no redundancy or ability to tolerate even mild LiPo failure. And despite all of that, all of the mayhem that the hand-wringing nanny-staters keep talking about... doesn't happen.

Comment Re:the biggest problem I see (Score 2) 112

It's funny because the question is preposterous. If you allowed your dog to run loose in your front yard, and asked a pizza delivery guy to leave food on your front porch where the dog could get to it, would you be questioning the viability of this fancy new "people delivery pizza using cars" technology? No? I see.

Slashdot Top Deals

As in certain cults it is possible to kill a process if you know its true name. -- Ken Thompson and Dennis M. Ritchie

Working...