Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



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

Comment Re:Wait for the conspiracy (Score 1) 285

Are you suggesting Assange is misleading people with this hint because he's actually in league with the Russians?

(Are you clutching your pearls?) Sure he is. He has a lot to lose if she's elected (he's holed up in an embassy that he can't leave unless Trump wins) and he's the guy who runs Wikileaks. Whoever hacks the DNC- Russians or otherwise- is naturally going to go to him.

Wow, the irony. When Meta-Monkey brings up how the DNC has a lot to gain from by saying it is the Russian government behind it and therefore their public statements may be biased or less than credible, you jump on him/her essentially saying potential motives don't matter since it isn't proof. Now when he/she brings up what Assange has implied is a recent interview, you dismiss it saying Assange has a motive to mislead so we can't trust what he says. Please pick a belief system and stick with it, not just choose the one that is most convenient at the time to help your argument. You do not look good with two faces.

Franky I don't see why it really matters whether Russia was involved in the hack at all. Even if it's true, I don't think it unearths anything that wasn't completely obvious to begin with.

Because the core of this thread is debating the difference between what has been claimed versus what has been proven. People claimed, and many believed, there was bias in the DNC to make sure Billary won and Sanders was locked out, but now there is proof documenting at least some bias that occurred. So yes, it matters.

Comment Re:Might be a blessing disguise (Score 1) 225

Are you trying to suggest that those companies are presently acting as impediments to whatever the government would be doing if the government owned their networks outright?

Actually, yes. Right now they would need to break the law to do it, and I am sure there is some of that going on. If they owned and controlled the networks though, they can legally monitor them for the "protection of the rights or property of the provider", i.e. the provider exemption to the Wiretap Act [18 U.S.C.2511], which I am sure can be weasel worded into all sorts of ways to then legally monitor it.

Comment Re:Wait for the conspiracy (Score 1) 285

The only people who benefit from the "Russian involvement" narrative is the DNC themselves.

And therefore it can't be true? What kind of logic is that?

Meta-Monkey didn't say it means it can't be true, so that is a strawman. I is both fair and reasonable to look at the potential motives of the players to determine how it may impact on the credibility of their statements. Ignoring potential motives would in fact be illogical.

Comment Re:Dear Leader (Score 1) 57

This is not a joke -- other countries is one thing, but the high seas must remain free and open to trade according to international treaty and convention and laws of the sea.

And that means sailing inside the 12 mile military limits on these artificial islands, which are expressly not recognized as granting economic or military exclusion.

You are assuming they will respect international law. Bad assumption.

Comment Re:I wonder if they'll cancel Petraeus's sentence (Score 1) 801

In her interview with the FBI I guarantee you everything she said they felt was the truth.

I disagree. I would bet there are things she said that the FBI believe aren't true

Well, you're very bad at it, because this statement you made doesn't contradict the one above it. The FBI thinking something isn't true and Clinton thinking something isn't true are two completely different things. Its only a "lie" if Clinton didn't believe it was true when she said it. Lying and being wrong are two totally different things.

In her interview with the FBI I guarantee you everything she said they felt was the truth.

I disagree. I would bet there are things she said that the FBI believe aren't true

Well, you're very bad at it, because this statement you made doesn't contradict the one above it. The FBI thinking something isn't true and Clinton thinking something isn't true are two completely different things. Its only a "lie" if Clinton didn't believe it was true when she said it. Lying and being wrong are two totally different things.

The parent post said (reordering the words for clarity) 'the FBI felt everything she said was the truth'

I said (also reordering) 'the FBI believes (feels) things she said aren't true'

How are those two statements NOT in contradiction? What Clinton thought was true wasn't part of either statement so not sure why you bring that up, unless you think 'truth' means what she thinks is true versus how the dictionary defines it (that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality).

I believe she DID know things she said weren't true but was confident they couldn't prove it so she would get away with it. Likewise, Comey didn't say she didn't break laws (which is how her supporters are phrasing his statements), rather he said they didn't find evidence sufficient to prove it in a court since it mostly requires showing intent, and unless she put in an email or told someone that she was intending to break the law, how can it be proven in this case? And when I say "told someone", I mean someone who would be willing to testify against her, versus the circle of allies she employed who likely wouldn't.

Comment Re:I wonder if they'll cancel Petraeus's sentence (Score 1) 801

Clinton probably didn't lie to the FBI, whether you call what she did lying or not she did it publicly. In her interview with the FBI I guarantee you everything she said they felt was the truth.

I disagree. I would bet there are things she said that the FBI believe aren't true but have no direct evidence to prove it so there is nothing they can do to her. That probably added to the obvious frustration that Comey showed in the speech.

Comment Re:What took them so long? Simple (Score 1) 130

Their phone was released 6 months before the iPhone. Unless you think that they invented time-travel, the odds are that their design was completed long before the iPhone in question was released.

Yeah, it probably was, but can you say that these two designs really resemble each other?

Screen, speaker and mic in front - check.
Front-facing camera and rear-facing camera with flash - check.
Rounded edges - check.
Uses an operating system that allows the installation of apps - check.

Got to admit it, the iPhone 6 does share those innovative and unique features. /s

Comment Re:Indict? (Score 4, Insightful) 742

Stepping into the discussion. I used to be a classifier in the government so have some experience with these areas.

Except it wasn't illegal at the time.

Sending and storing classified material insecurely has been illegal for a very long time. It was definitely illegal during her term a Secretary of State. Knowing that the material is classified is on the onus of the sender/possessor, and as SoS she is legally expected to know what is classified. While she can technically tap dance around Department of State material classification since as SoS theoretically she gets to set the rules (though within limits, some I have listed below, and my guess is she violated those), she doesn't get to change other department's/agency's material. Leaving off the markings doesn't change that she was insecurely sending and storing classified material that by law has handling requirements that she was violating. As jeff4747 said, she is acting like the material is being retroactively classified which is isn't; it is being retroactively marked. It was classified at the time and by not marking it then, she is now claiming ignorance. If she was that ignorant of the rules she was placed in the position to enforce, then she had no right being the Secretary of State. Telling a staffer in an email to strip off classification markings and send a classified document by insecure means just demonstrates how she thought the law didn't apply to her.

She had no 'intent' to harm the interests of the United States.

Knowingly violating the laws designed to provide protection of information "which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security" just for her own convenience, and so she can skirt FOIA issues, is legally considered a form of "intent", i.e. gross negligence. Think of a guy at the NSA taking top secret documents home at night to work on them. He doesn't intend to cause harm, but he can still go to jail.

Do you have some statute that you're not selectively reading?

I think 46 CFR 503, EO13526, 32 CFR 2001, 18 USC 798, DoDD 5200 et al, etc., don't need to be selectively read. They make the duties of people dealing with classified info very clear - and the mishandling very illegal.

Or are you just listening to the other misogynists?

Ahhh, invoking an ad hominem attack, and a bad one at that. So you label anyone who speaks against her as a misogynist? In your world it's not possible for a person to disagree with her based on the merit of the facts? Just to be clear, you are the one who has brought her gender into the discussion.

Slashdot Top Deals

The party adjourned to a hot tub, yes. Fully clothed, I might add. -- IBM employee, testifying in California State Supreme Court

Working...