Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



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

Comment Re:Horse Hockey (Score 1) 688

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:Cheesy 80's movie excuse (Score 1) 688

I believe "editing" in this context meant "Deciding what emails to publish", not "Changing the content of the published emails", so the DNC releasing the originals wouldn't help.

Wikileaks have made it clear they haven't altered the content of the emails, and the fact real phone numbers and blameless people's names appear in the emails would seem to confirm that (If it turned out they were altered, but Wikileaks left in people's phone numbers, that'd be a spectacular PR own-goal on WL's behalf.)


    • .

      . .

Comment Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse (Score 1) 688

WikiLeaks has shown great interest in anti-US material, and comparatively very little interest in anything that disparages Russia

I agree with much of what you say but this line is just silly. We all know that Putin's Russia is a corrupt, barely democratic regime with a autocratic strongman in charge (an ex-KGB boss no less.)

Leaking evidence that they're terrible would be a waste of time.

Also add to this that Assange is Wikileaks, and Assange has spent the last few years holed up on an embassy in an environment which would be stressful and intimidating even for someone not considered persona-non-Grata by some of the most powerful countries in the world. It's not hard to believe he'd be far more interested in the machinations of a political party whose leadership currently holds the Presidency of the country most likely to lock him in a dungeon for the rest of his life, than memos at a poisoned tip umbrella company owned by Vladimir Putin.

Comment Re:Horse Hockey (Score 1) 688

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) 688

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) 373

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.

Comment Re:Falling problems (Score 1) 112

If drone delivery becomes common, is there going to be a problem with drones falling from the sky and hitting people on the head?

Have you been worrying yourself about ground-based delivery and shipping vehicles striking and killing people? No? Why not? Road-related injuries and deaths happen all the time, and some of them involve commercial delivery vehicles.

In the meantime, millions of people fly remotely operated small aircraft, with untold millions of hours in the air and more or less statistically non-existent rate of people on the ground getting hurt. And that hasn't even really involved more expense, professionally operated machines with built-in redundancies and higher quality motors and batteries.

There are much more realistic things to think about. For example, tens of thousands of people die every year in easily prevented medical mistakes in hospitals.

Comment Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. (Score 1) 373

I'm letting the link speak for me

No you're not. You're unable to speak for yourself, even in a single coherent sentence that explains how you think your wasted vote will constructively work in this upcoming election. Why aren't you saying words of your own? Because you know it will sound like the nonsense it is, and you're trying to use someone else as cover so you can pretend you're not part of that craven charade. You're putting on a transparent veneer of condescending smugness in an attempt to avoid explaining your position, and greatly annoyed that someone isn't falling for the lazy theatrics.

Slashdot Top Deals

"What if" is a trademark of Hewlett Packard, so stop using it in your sentences without permission, or risk being sued.

Working...