Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:What event? (Score 1) 516

The worst confidential info "scandal" was when she gave the order to send talking points for the day...

So, you either don't actually know what SAP material is (in which case you're being willfully ignorant on this topic and should stop expressing opinions until you read up on it), or you DO know, and you're just being another liar in the service of a liar.

Comment Re:How hard is it to find emails? (Score 1) 516

Yeah, because the FBI knows nothing about gathering information, amirite?

The FBI can only gather what's given to them, or what can be forensically recovered. If she blew away 30,000 emails, and they've got under 20,000 of them to look at, there's some they couldn't get. It's not really very complicated.

Comment Re:What event? (Score 2) 516

seriously. What event? Aside from the scandal itself what, exactly, did Hilary do that was a) a criminal offense and b) revealed in the emails?

The emails revealed that she was incredibly reckless in handling classified information - some of it SAP-level stuff so sensitive that it can't even be talked about when it's 100% redacted, content-wise. People lose their careers and their liberty over such carelessness. And we're now seeing evidence of pervasive corruption as her family was enriched while their family business sold access to her while she was in office. So, you're either simply not paying attention or (more likely) you know all of this and are a Shillary.

While I'm on it, which is it? Is she a fool who couldn't run an email server or a Machiavellian genius who successfully evaded the FBI and an entire political party's attempts to bring her to justice?

False dichotomy.

She's had a long career of throwing underlings under the bus or having her party cover for Clinton Machine mis-steps. So yes, incompetence (but mostly arrogance). And no, she hasn't evaded the FBI or congress ... she's still hip deep in the mess she created.

Comment Re:How hard is it to find emails? (Score 5, Informative) 516

Her team did not "delete" emails -- that is a deliberately misleading term.

Yes, they did delete them. They even SAID they deleted them. That the server that had contained them had had all of its contents destroyed once they were done picking out the stuff that was work related.

What *actually* happened is they used discovery software to filter emails based on keywords.

But the lie she told was that her lawyers read each and every email. She knew that wasn't true, and so was lying. But that's OK, because her supporters know she lies to them, and they like being lied to.

People should really appreciate the amount of effort the FBI put into looking for malfeasance.

People should also recognize that they FBI could only look for corruption (and worse) within the material they had available. Clinton did not provide all of the requested material. She said she did, but that was another lie. Not an oversight, but a lie. Because we're not talking about "oops, a couple of emails you should have seen slipped through the cracks" - but "oops, thousands and thousands of emails you should have seen in that pile I printed out without header info were deleted."

In short: this fantasy that Hillary attempted to delete evidence is completely without basis

Other than the part where, you know, her records were deleted after her team put on a show of pulling out what they thought would make the appearance of complying with her requirements ... years after she was supposed to have turned ALL of it over to State so their archivists could make the distinction between personal and work-related records from her deliberately co-mingled collection.

What she *has* done is tried to *misrepresent*, the most egregious being her assertion that Comey agrees with her.

That was egregious, but it's hardly the worst of it. She knowingly, willingly, and repeatedly lied about her motivations and actions, and deliberately slow-walked and stonewalled at every turn. The fact that she'd whip up yet another lie to make it sound like the FBI's very clear identification of her multiple "untruths" on the matter is only egregious because it shows that she's still willing to lie even when she knows that we all know she's doing it. None of that matters, of course. Her supporters like that she lies, and none of that is legally meaningful. What IS legally meaningful is her testimony in front of congress. She spent long hours carefully avoiding direct answers to questions to she wouldn't perjure herself. We'll see if she's still as slippery on that front as her reputation suggests.

Separate from all of that, of course, is the actual content of the messages now being read. They exhibit a very clear pattern of tying access to her and her policy influence to being willing to dump piles of cash into her family business while she was in office. Legal jeopardy there? Hard to say. That would once again be Loretta Lynch's call, and we already know where she stands.

Comment Appraisals (Score 4, Interesting) 516

The people at State who have to appraise this material are the ones she was supposed to turn ALL of her co-mingled material over to on the day she left office. State's archivists are the ones who are supposed to weed through and figure out what's personal and what's not when someone in her role chooses to make everything personal. If she'd actually followed the rules and delivered all of it to them years ago as she was supposed to, she could have spent a solid year or two talking down all of the conflicts of interest and signs of corruption between her family business and access to her and her power as SoS and have Clinton-ed most of it into "the past" by now. She's got only herself to blame for deliberately ignoring her departure requirements, and then for slow-walking and hiding all of this stuff until it had to be pried out by the damn FBI and through suits pointing out FOIA shenanigans.

State will now say that it will take until next year to review this new material - plenty of time to stonewall and foot-drag past November. Her supporters are still running around claiming she hasn't once lied about any of this, and that nothing inappropriate to a private home-based mail server ever passed through her hands, despite the FBI pointing out the opposite.

Comment Re:Driving yes, but charging? (Score 1) 990

Why are you so dumb that you think I have to spend any time waiting for my car to charge?

So, how long does it take your car to charge? How long will you have to wait before you can head out for a commute, allowing for traffic, inclement weather, etc.? Three minutes? Ten? Which amazing technology are you using that lets you go from low-charge empty to a several-hundred-mile range in just a few minutes? Please be specific. Or, does it actually take you a lot longer than a few minutes to charge up for a several hundred mile range? And are you, or are you not prevented from embarking on your trip (you know, waiting) while that happens? How are you not clear on this?

Comment Re:Driving yes, but charging? (Score 1) 990

Oh, please. The point is that when you pull up to re-fill a fuel-based car, you're done in minutes, and hundreds of more people can use the same facility on that same day, and be on their way. The pretending-he-doesn't-get-the-point person knows he's being a tool by suggesting that the time it takes him to physically hook up to his private charging station is evidence that there's less time involved in using an EV. It's only true in a tiny number of cases for a small number of wealthier-than-post people. And here you are trotting out "paid shill" crap because you're ALSO pretending you're too dumb to understand the difference.

Comment Re:Driving yes, but charging? (Score 1) 990

Why won't you acknowledge the counter-point? The rate of charge is a substantial non-issue.

Sure, if you live like the wealthy minority of people. Other than that little detail, the counter-point is entirely off-topic. The guy pumping gas can "re-charge" his car anywhere in the country in a matter of minutes, leaving that fuel-based re-charging station available for use hundreds of more times that day by hundreds of other people. You're really going to throw out some lazy "toddler" ad hominem in order to avoid addressing the obvious point of the post? Your phony condescension doesn't change the substance of the matter, and you know it.

Comment Re:Driving yes, but charging? (Score 1) 990

I spend less of my time charging my EV than you spend filling your car's gas tank.

Why are you pretending to be so dumb that you can't understand the point he's just made? Really, why? Your attempt at deflection is laughable. So, thanks for the entertainment, anyway.

Comment Re:Holy shitballs, all the sci-fi books were right (Score 1) 344

The fastest probe we ever has built goes 0.023%. It is doubtful we will even get to 1%, ever.

And yet decades have technology has improved since, and we've never built a probe for this purpose. Everything else has been built with planetary observation/fly-by in mind, not blazing out of the solar system for blazing's sake.

Comment Re:interstellar mission (Score 1) 344

Christ, space nutters are delusional. Anti-matter rockets? Don't you realize that anti-matter is simply a theory? It isn't something you just stuff in a rocket. Christ.

Yes, talking about visiting is nuts. But you're objectively wrong about the "just a theory" part, anti-matter-wise. That doesn't make it practical or even plausible from an engineering perspective, but your understanding of it is simply incorrect.

Comment Re: And Russians landed on that thing, 10 times (Score 1) 211

They pay the majority of taxes in terms of total sum, true. However, on an individual level, the rich pay a much lower percent of their income to taxes than many other income levels.

47% of people in the US pay NO INCOME TAXES AT ALL. You do understand that, right? When you say "many other levels," what are you referring to?

Regardless, what is it you're really talking about? Capital gains taxes vs. normal income taxes? True: some rich people no longer work normal jobs, or get only a small portion of their income from salary-type pay. The risk lots of money on investments, and if those investments pay off, they pay the going rate (which varies based on short or long term returns ... if they flip stocks all day, they pay a much higher rate than if they invest in a company and hang onto the stocks for years).

Anybody who has some money in a stock and sells it for a profit is going to pay those same rates. Sounds like what you're really arguing for is to raise taxes on everybody who makes some money off of profits they make when they risk money investing. That will, as it always does, cause people to invest less money in new and growing businesses, and will reduce the capital that flows towards more productive areas of the economy. And that results in less activity, fewer jobs in those sectors, and less tax revenue generally. This stuff isn't really mysterious. But if you're going to complain that "rich" people pay lower rates of income taxes on some types of income (like ALL people who get that type of income), then talk about your real complaint, not about the fact that people with more cash on hand happen to be the ones who do the most (dollars-worth of) investing in companies that are selling shares of their businesses.

Slashdot Top Deals

If in any problem you find yourself doing an immense amount of work, the answer can be obtained by simple inspection.

Working...