a release in 120 days is immediate (those days are to begin a transition to post-prision life, not punishment)
I am certain that there are many private citizens and organizations that are willing to help Chelsea Manning transition to private life outside of the prison system and can do so better and more humanely than the prison system can. I am sure many people would be willing to donate to such a cause. If a reputable private organization gathering funds for that cause emerges, I will contribute Bitcoin immediately to help out.
>You mean the generation who literally, in the truest sense of the word, would attack a black guy if he was talking to a white woman?
Not everyone back then was a Democrat, dude.
I don't disagree that "regular" phones are still useful -- but they're not useful if there's no network available to it. They also for the most part don't have the flexibility of using side-loaded apps for fancy things like independent mesh antennaes. As I said: a lot of effort.
A smartphone might be a marginally-useful-over-WiFi paperweight, but any non-smartphone 2G phone (i.e., any 2G-only phone other than the iPhone) might as well be bricked unless someone's putting some major effort in.
I realize that was a consumer-level link, but still... I expect better from Slashdot.
There are plenty of other devices out there that are still liable to use 2G that are now effectively bricked. The iPhone is probably the least likely of them to cause a real concern for people. (Though, hell, until 2 years ago my parents were still on 2G PCS phones (not through AT&T though).)
How is rural 3G coverage these days? I remember when the analog shut down happened, there were folks out there who needed lots of repeaters to get anything... Some of whom decided to go back to HAM repeaters to patch into the phone network.
And the government wonders why there's a fake news problem?
They don't, of course, but good post.
But in saying it this way, you're attempting to imply you can provide evidence. And I am simply pointing out that there is no reason to even consider that this is a possibility. Don't tell me you will do it later, because that's irrelevant. It's no different than saying nothing at all, or even saying "I have no evidence" or "I cannot provide evidence." They are all exactly equivalent in the end, except that the other methods do not have the implication that you might actually provide the evidence, despite you not giving us a reason to believe that, so it smacks of dishonesty.
Just say nothing at all, unless you have something to contribute. You'll be better off.
If not for you, then it's not difficult for anybody.
I make no claims about what is not hard for others. I do assert that most people do not do it, regardless of how hard it is.
In this case blaming the media is just doing the democrats' dirty work
Yawn. I am uninterested of your characterizations. Either actually make an argument against what I wrote, or do not. So far, you have not.
We all have the same power to turn our backs. You're not that special.
You are not, in any way, arguing against what I wrote.
In theory humans can make the choice.
Of course they can. So? Again: this, in no way whatsoever, implies that the media is not to blame. It just means that we have the power to ignore their bad behavior. But it's still their bad behavior. They are still to blame for it. Obviously.
Until you provide evidence, I won't believe it exists.
(See how this works?)
Incorrect. Page views and the like are cash money.
I meant -- obviously -- there is no journalistic or democratic reason to do it. Everything has a reason.
I don't know of any broadly reported unsourced attacks on Hillary Clinton.
Of course not, you don't read the NYT.
So you have no examples, then. Good to know.
I'm not talking about evidence, I'm talking about railgunner's assertion that it's "obvious".
I get that, but the main point is that there's no reason to report it in the first place, because there is no evidence
Besides, it worked so well on Clinton, can you blame anyone for adopting the tactic?
I don't know of any broadly reported unsourced attacks on Hillary Clinton. Can you give an example? The main attacks I know of on her were based on hacked documents that the DNC and others admitted were genuine; on a report by the FBI that no one called into question on the facts (though admittedly we couldn't verify some of those facts, such as that the information Clinton mishandled was actually classified); and so on.
If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't.