Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



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

Comment Re:Does this surprise anyone? (Score 1) 1005

No, the Time article is perfectly clear. What is not clear is where you get your twisted ideas from. You haven't been able to support them yet.

You're deliberately being obtuse

I suggest you look up the meaning of obtuse. It is not synonymous with questioning, nor is it synonymous with challenging someone's partisan beliefs.

ignorant

I have been asking you questions. You have been failing - repeatedly - to answer them in a factual manner.

I've produced 3 links and at least 2 quotes.

And I have shown how they do not actually support your statements. If these are your only sources, then you are at best spouting nonsense that you cannot support and at worst simply lying.

December 2014: Clinton turns over ~30k "work related" emails that she filtered herself (no third party) and deletes the other ~30k which she has deemed "personal"

You've gone back to your huge assumption, there. In fact, you have multiple huge assumptions in that one statement that you have shown repeatedly you cannot support with facts. You cannot support the claim that the emails were deleted only after the others were turned in, you cannot support the claim that Clinton deleted them herself, you cannot support the claim that she alone decided which emails were and were not personal.

But I've yet to see a single link from you.

You have provided several links that contradict or fail to support your assumptions. Not yet have you provided a single link that supports them.

You really should try reading some time.

Yes, at this point I've produced 3 links, all of which say the same timeline/details.

No , you have not. Had you bothered to read the pages you have linked to, you would know that they do not support your claims. In fact you would have done almost as well to link to goatse.

Are you telling me you leave all your email in your inbox and never delete anything? Maybe you don't get much email, but for those who use email for work that would be a huge volume of email.

No, I do not routinely delete 30,000 emails on a "regular basis".

You really suffer mightily at reading comprehension, here. Try reading what I wrote before you reply to it.

Which is probably why you also missed my statement before that there are a LOT of problems with Hillary. It just so happens that you are obsessing over making up shit about a problem that you cannot demonstrate to be an actual problem. You have a lot of egg on your face now, and throwing silly accusations at me doesn't help clear it.

Comment Re: Does this surprise anyone? (Score 1) 1005

He is unpaid chairman of board of directors. You really need better evidence to call someone a crook.

Where do you think you're writing that statement? On this website it is considered 100% appropriate and fully supported to call Hillary - or anyone she has ever met or talked with - a crook just for being Hillary. The favorite presidential candidate of this community for 2016 supports that idea, so it must be true.

Comment Re:Does this surprise anyone? (Score 1) 1005

It does not appear you felt the need to read the page you linked to. It wasn't merely that they were deleted after the request, they were deleted after fulfilling the request. In other words the state department had them before they were deleted. If the state department did not retain the emails from a former employee, that is a different matter than what you allege here.

The linked page is obviously not clear then

No, the Time article is perfectly clear. What is not clear is where you get your twisted ideas from. You haven't been able to support them yet.

she did not turn over the full contents of her inbox to the State Department

I've just spent some time looking for the subpoena that demanded her to turn over all of her email - which, mind you, is different from just "the full contents of her inbox" as you just stated - and I have not found it yet. Can you? I'd love to see a source that says what was actually subpoena'd. I found several links to threats of subpoenas but I can't find one of a subpoena that was actually issued. It is certainly possible that I need to craft a better search query, but I started with "clinton email subpoena" (no quotes) and couldn't find anyone showing that a subpoena was actually issued.

Regardless of the existence - or lack thereof - of a subpoena, your phrase

full contents of her inbox

It itself troublesome. I don't know how you organize your email, but I can tell you that my inbox is only a small fraction of all my mail. I sort lots of mail into separate folders that are not part of my inbox - as I have done for decades. There also are some emails that go in to my inbox that I end up deleting for various reasons as time goes on. I am quite sure I am not the only person on earth who does this.

So basically she personally chose the ones she believed were work-related, turned them over, and then promptly deleted the rest.

Do you have a source for that grand statement?

Being as you couldn't be bothered to read the piece you linked to earlier enough to realize that it does not support your allegation, I guess I shouldn't be surprised by this misread either.

You clearly have spent zero time actually researching this

The overwhelming majority of what you have said, you have not been able to support with facts (including the statement you made that I just quoted). It appears likely that I have spent more time reading up on this than you have. Just because it makes you angry and me only mildly annoyed does not mean your assumptions are somehow magically made valid.

as you've gone out of your way to form a singular opinion

You're making huge and unsupported assumptions about my opinions, here. I suggest you back that down a bit and try reading.

based on one website that doesn't clearly portray what actually occurred

What website would you think that is? I have been trying to see what sources you think support your beliefs on the matter, and so far the sources you have provided do not do that.

immediately afterwards (at some point in the several months following)

You're getting wishy-washy here. Unfortunately you didn't adjust your time line in the correct direction.

"everybody cleans up their inbox from time to time"

Are you telling me you leave all your email in your inbox and never delete anything? Maybe you don't get much email, but for those who use email for work that would be a huge volume of email. One email address I use has over 10,000 emails in the main inbox currently and a search can be a long process. It certainly doesn't get easier when that number goes up to 60,000.

Comment Re:So in other words... (Score 2) 304

against the wishes of both the buyers and sellers.

Against the wishes of the sellers? Sure, the sellers would prefer no regulation at all.

Against the wishes of the buyers? Possibly. There are certainly some buyers who bought into the e-cigs in the belief that these were somehow health alternatives to regular cigarettes. However so far there has been no research and no regulation to prove or disprove that. In fact the majority of what is sold is completely free of regulations, inspections, etc. We generally don't know what is actually in the liquids that are going in to these devices, and these liquids often coming from places that don't tend to place any significant regulations on much of anything.

Comment Re:Does this surprise anyone? (Score 1) 1005

That is speculative, to be kind. You have absolutely no way to prove that the email server was setup for that purpose. To demonstrate their intent you would need something that you have no evidence to support.

Typically later actions are enough to prove intent.

Don't quit your day job. There are no later actions in this case that are strong enough to prove intent.

You're really bending over backward to give her the benefit of the doubt,

Here's a tip for you - try only making arguments that you have a chance of supporting. This is not one of them.

and I understand that

No, you really do not. You assume that, and you assume incorrectly there.

But if it were you or I this is extra jail time.

Another strange assumption there.

Do you have a source for that?

Yes, in fact I do.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here - even though you have not once done the same for anyone in this discussion - and clarify what it was that I was asking you to provide a source for (as this is not a source for my request related to your earlier statement).

Your earlier claim was that the emails were deleted after the subpoena was issued. I asked you if you had a source to support that claim. The source you offered describes how they came up with the emails that were handed over to the state department, but says nothing about when emails were deleted. That is an important distinction, especially in the context of the allegations you are trying to level against Mrs. Clinton.

Nobody has shown that such an offense happened.

Yes, that's tampering with evidence.

Except it isn't, for reasons we have already discussed. Particularly as nobody can establish when the emails were deleted, it is impossible to state that anyone knew them to be evidence. Furthermore if they are only interested in emails that were official government correspondence then there should be copies of those emails on the other end as well.

Imagine a situation where someone close to you goes missing tomorrow. If the police thought you were suspicious would you immediately hand over ever email you ever sent to that person? What about ones that were deleted well before tomorrow? What if this is someone you have been emailing since the 90s, can you find the emails you sent to them back then?

Prosecutors

Don't get to decide the validity of a defense. Their job is to present the state's case as best they can.

judges will not accept "You can't prove what I deleted has any connection to the case" as a valid defense.

That is a dubious claim based on dubious assumptions.

Comment Re:Does this surprise anyone? (Score 1) 1005

All reports I've heard said the deletions occurred after the State Department requested the emails: http://www.politifact.com/pund...

It does not appear you felt the need to read the page you linked to. It wasn't merely that they were deleted after the request, they were deleted after fulfilling the request. In other words the state department had them before they were deleted. If the state department did not retain the emails from a former employee, that is a different matter than what you allege here.

she burned the emails as soon as she possibly good

Burned them to where? Optical media somewhere? Sure, she's a bit on the older side for a presidential candidate but I'm pretty sure her email server doesn't run directly on fire.

Yeah, people mass scour/delete 30,000 emails on a regular basis

You're trying to read deeper into that statement than where it actually goes. Being as you couldn't be bothered to read the piece you linked to earlier enough to realize that it does not support your allegation, I guess I shouldn't be surprised by this misread either.

Comment Re:Does this surprise anyone? (Score 1) 1005

Illegal has a specific meaning...

Yes, and this falls within that meaning because the point was to evade official records statutes and control evidence of other wrongdoing.

That is speculative, to be kind. You have absolutely no way to prove that the email server was setup for that purpose. To demonstrate their intent you would need something that you have no evidence to support.

Lost? You mean, "lost" as in misplaced, or "lost" as in deliberately deleted?

You are, again, claiming to know the intent of the user. You are also claiming knowledge of a timeline that you cannot possibly demonstrate.

And yes, we know it happened after the subpoena because Hillary's lawyers have admitted the process they used to comply with the subpoena.

Do you have a source for that? I have never heard anyone make that claim before. For such a claim to be true and to support your claim, it would require them to have done what you claim they did and then subsequently have gone and told their lawyer that they did it. Why would anyone ever do that?

In this country the judge does need a reason to hand out a sentence that long. No such reason has been established yet in this case.

Tampering with evidence carries a maximum sentence of twenty years.

Nobody has shown that such an offense happened. A conviction on such a charge requires showing that someone did that intentionally.

I'll tell you the same thing I've told the other people who have been running around with these conspiracies - there is plenty wrong with Hillary Clinton. Why not pick on her for something you can support with facts? When you instead put this much energy into propagation of conspiracies you just make yourself look silly and desperate.

Comment Re:How to stop Trump (Score 1) 227

I don't know if you were already aware of this or not, but the code that runs this echo chamber has been available freely for some time - although it hasn't been updated in some time either. A while back when there was a new beta being forced down our throats here, there was at least one site (soylentnews.org) that built a new site from modifications of the old code. While their community is not as large as the one here, they do cover similar material. More to the point, if you want to try to fund a specific improvement, you might find their crew more receptive than the guys who work on the code here.

They certainly aren't trying to engage in rational conversations

Currently, yes. A large portion of the conservative majority here has no interest in rational conversation; they just like to fling stuff around and see what sticks. However, this is not 4chan or townhall.com; historically slashdot has worked because of the community of users. It really should not be irrational to expect a sincere discussion here ... emphasis (unfortunately) on should.

They are insane (probably sociopaths or pathologically ignorant) or they are paid to act like they are nuts.

I think that depends on how one defines "insane". While we have had people here who fancied themselves "professional trolls" they have grown tired of their own act and left. I think what we're left with aren't necessarily trolls in the strictest sense of the word, I think rather they are people who actually believe what they say and don't give a shit about what anyone else has to say about it. Although if you consider that to be trollish behavior, then that would classify Drumpf as a troll and probably explain a lot.

Where does "profoundly stupid" fit in?

You and I don't have much of a history here, so you probably don't know my experience with that phrase and why I try to avoid it. A certain midwestern governor - who spent over 2 years running for the presidency only to drop out not long after his first Iowa straw poll - labeled a large part of his "home" state population with those exact words for disagreeing with him. I don't expect that you would have been aware of that before writing it but I do occasionally bring up that statement from the guy I call "The Teflon Candidate".

To answer your question though I doubt that truly stupid people would find this site to be worth their effort. While it is more politics - and less tech - than it used to be, it still focuses mostly on content that a lot of people wouldn't want to put time into.

Sincere religious delusions?

Religion and politics have become so intertwined - and indeed for some people indistinguishable - that you could call many of our biggest political parrots here religious zealots.

Or some kind of masochistic pleasure in losing arguments?

I don't think a troll is capable of admitting to ever losing an argument. Come to think of it, a slashdot conservative almost never is either - I suppose that supports your argument some.

Too much thought wasted on the trolls. Or is that their real goal?

I'm quite comfortable in my belief that they do not aspire to drive anyone to think.

Comment Re:Does this surprise anyone? (Score 1) 1005

If you or I got a subpoena to produce emails from an illegal email system,

Illegal has a specific meaning, and it is not at all clear that said meaning is an accurate description of the email server Hillary used as secretary. Short-sighted? Certainly. Peculiar? Yes. Illegal? Hard to say. If you pull your keys out of your pocket and a gum wrapper gets away from you in the process are your pants now illegal for not holding the gum wrapper?

then we produced a tiny fraction of the emails and deleted the rest,

There is no evidence whatsoever that the emails were lost after the subpoena was issued. And frankly why couldn't they recover them from somewhere else if they were so important? Supposedly the lion's share of her email went between her and State Dept. employees; if you want to see State Dept email it should be possible to subpoena the State Dept for those emails.

as he threw us in jail for decades.

In this country the judge does need a reason to hand out a sentence that long. No such reason has been established yet in this case.

Comment Does this surprise anyone? (Score 0, Flamebait) 1005

Drumpf has run most of his campaign by going from one conspiracy to another. He's convinced that there is something astronomically nefarious in those missing emails, and he knows from all the people shouting for Hillary's lynching at the GOP convention that this is a really popular conspiracy with this supporters. The complete and total absence of factual support for this conspiracy is of no consequence to him.

Comment Re:How to stop Trump (Score 1) 227

Unless you actually provide some evidence to support your conspiracy, this is my final reply to you in this JE discussion.

I will point out that I have never accused you of trolling in this JE. I gave you the benefit of the doubt - repeatedly - that perhaps you actually had some evidence to support your conspiracy. I even gave you repeated opportunities to choose other angles from which to attack Hillary, and you passed on those as well. You claimed that the wikileaks dump would support your conspiracy, yet there is absolutely no reason to believe that as the dump has already been parsed through by various organizations of all different political stripes from all over the world and none of them have found any such evidence.

As I've said before, Hillary is no saint. I'm not a big fan of hers and see plenty wrong with her. Why you insist on propagating fact-free conspiracies is the big question here when there is so much supported fodder you could use instead.

Comment Re:I'm Surprised Eddie Lampert Isn't Higher (Score 1) 176

Nobody can save KMart or Sears.

You're right on KMart, it is a dead duck. I disagree on Sears, though. Sears could be saved by a competent CEO with knowledge of how retail works. Instead they have a Randian maniac who cannot be bothered to even show up in person to board meetings (preferring instead to yell at the board members over a videoconference connection). There are plenty of worthwhile assets belonging to Sears; if a competent person was in charge the company could be made relevant again. Instead it is circling the drain at a higher rate than before.

$4.3M seems like a deal if he was able to keep it open another year

He has utterly trashed the company, he started on autopilot and now he is in accelerated decay. He gets the pay because he can demand it as he owns more of the company than does the board and they can't refuse anything he wants to do - they can't even fire him. It is still open in spite of what he has done, not because of it. I don't know if you are been in a Sears in the past few years but he has pretty much turned the stores into Lord of the Flies between the very few employees that are around. It's not a pleasant experience to for customers to see and its even worse for the employees to experience.

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?

Working...