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) 1004

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, or ignorant. I've produced 3 links and at least 2 quotes. You've produced nothing. If you'd like another link showing the timeline, here (https://sharylattkisson.com/hillary-clintons-email-the-definitive-timeline/). But I'm done trying to talk to a brick wall. Again, the basic timeline:
October 2014: State Department subpoenas work related emails
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"
March 2015: Investigation deepens and two more subpeonas are produced seeking additional emails on her server (however, these emails cannot be searched for, since the remaining emails are now deleted)

If you'd like to produce any facts than contradict the above points, other than just rambling, feel free. But I've yet to see a single link from you. Quite simply, she unilaterally deleted half her emails when she knew she was under investigation. Not a single person other than her or her staff made the determination of which of the emails were personal and which were work related. Since no third party made the determination, there is then no way to know if any of the 30k emails that were deleted were "work-related." Since they no longer exist, they can no longer be produced in further subpoena requests.

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?

Yes, at this point I've produced 3 links, all of which say the same timeline/details. You're clearly ignoring all of them, and I'm tired of reproducing links that say the same damn thing. You're either a Hillary shill, or just dense.

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". Nor do you. Nor does she. You're choosing (seemingly deliberately) to ignore scope and timing. Because the use of the term "routinely" and "30,000 emails" (which represented HALF of all her mail at the time) together is the part that flies in the face of logic. And verifying that "routine" is trivial...ask her if she's deleted 30,000 personal emails from her work account in the past 6 months. If she hasn't, she's a liar.

Comment Re:Wasserman-Shultz will get a job in administrati (Score 1) 769

No, because of an effect called Duverger's Law

Duverger's Law only works because of prevailing perception that there's only two parties that matter. In a vacuum, in a brand-new country that just stood up three parties and had an election, there would be no such effect. The effect is the result of perception of a wasted vote.

Comment Re:Does this surprise anyone? (Score 1) 1004

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, because she did not turn over the full contents of her inbox to the State Department (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/us/politics/state-department-hillary-clinton-emails.html?_r=0): "It was only then that Mrs. Clinton instructed her aides to cull through roughly 60,000 emails that had passed through the server and turn over those involving official business. Those amounted to roughly half of the total.

This is confirmed on a number of sites (http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/25/state-dept-admits-that-hillary-clinton-failed-to-turn-over-secretive-email/): "While more than 30,000 emails were turned over in all, an equal number were deleted because they were deemed by Clintonâ(TM)s team to have been personal in nature."

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

Burned them to where? Optical media somewhere?

"Burned" as in "deleted".

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, as you've gone out of your way to form a singular opinion based on one website that doesn't clearly portray what actually occurred. In simple terms: "State Department requested work emails. Hillary (not a third party) singlehandedly decided which of her emails were work-related. She handed approximately 50% of her emails to the State Department and then immediately afterwards (at some point in the several months following) deleted the other 50%. The implication here is that she didn't want an independent third party scouring through the contents of the remaining 50% of the emails, so she deleted them before anybody could dig deeper into the investigation. And shes trying to justify it under some claim of "everybody cleans up their inbox from time to time". You're deluded if you don't see the shadiness.

Comment Re:Does this surprise anyone? (Score 2) 1004

There is no evidence whatsoever that the emails were lost after the subpoena was issued.

THAT's your standard of guilt? That's like the crackhead desperately flushing the drugs down the toilet with the cops knocking at the door. All reports I've heard said the deletions occurred after the State Department requested the emails: http://www.politifact.com/pund...

She knew she was under investigation, and she burned the emails as soon as she possibly good before anybody could question what she believed were the only relevant emails. What she did screamed guilt. Even her statement was sketchy as hell (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/08/hillary-clinton-emails-_n_7756106.html):

I turned over everything I was obligated to turn over. And then I moved on,â Clinton told Keilar on Tuesday. âoePeople delete their personal emails, their work-related emails, whatever emails they have on a regular basis. I turned over everything that I could imagine.â

Yeah, people mass scour/delete 30,000 emails on a regular basis -- right. I would like to see some kind of historical account showing she's engaged in this behavior in the past. Or even since. I'd bet a dime to a donut she hasn't deleted shit in the past (if she did, how would she accrue tens of thousasnds of emails?)

Comment Re:Wasserman-Shultz will get a job in administrati (Score 1) 769

Go ask Republican Nominee Jeb Bush how much perception and blatant support from the national committee dictates everyone's votes.

I don't follow your point. Bush was running against many other Republican candidates, all wishing for their party to align behind them. They took far too long to do so, which is why you never saw a mainstream candidate "dictated" by the powers-that-be.

A better example of my point is what happened to Cruz's polling numbers when it was just him, Trump, and Kasich. The party aligned behind Cruz, not behind Kasich (with the message being "he's the only one that can get the votes to beat Trump"). And the effect was obvious. Kasich's surge was far more muted compared to Cruz. However, it was also too late to stop the Trump train at that point.

If you want another example of perception vs reality, just look at third parties. I can't count the number of people who have literally made the statement "well I really wanted 3rd party candidate X, but I didn't want to throw my vote away." That's perception driving action at its finest right there. You have people literally choosing not to vote for the person they want because mainstream opinion has drilled it into them that it is a hopeless cause.

Comment Re:Wasserman-Shultz will get a job in administrati (Score 1) 769

Sanders didn't lose because of any "internal schemes". He lost because less actual Democratic voters preferred him. That's all on him.

You seriously underestimate the power of perception in this country. The vast majority of the superdelegates (of which Debbie Wasserman Schultz is one of, btw) supported Hillary from day 1 of the primaries, with the prevailing message being "Bernie stands no chance at winning the primaries because of the massive delegate gap" (much of which was only due to superdelegates). Even a subtle change in perception can send massive ripples through the system.

Comment Re:well well well (Score 1) 769

All I'm saying is Donald is a member of the ultra-rich, and he HAD to be ultra-rich to have been able to get where he was. Joe Pleb wouldn't have been able to get all that media coverage, and he was constantly reminding us of his self-funding campaign which he kept talking up even after his campaign was no longer self-funding. Donald's managed to pull the wool over the eyes of a lot of people who think that somehow he's one of the common men, and that theirs are the interests he'll be working for. At least his trade rhetoric is a change that the rest of the super-rich won't like. So there's that.

For the entirety of his time as a candidate, he's had next to zero support for the mainstream party or any of the rich donors that fund them (all of whom went out of their way to try to get someone else to win). And he spent far less in campaign money than anyone else running for office. How the hell can you claim he's a candidate of the super-rich? He's by definition an example of "the people's choice" overcoming "the money machine".

Comment Re:Linkedin took the bird in hand (Score 1) 64

The problem is that this might mean that the deal is impossible to complete. If the buyer's stock drops too low then they may not ever be able give the amount of stock, or it could end up being 100% of the buyer, which they probably can't agree to. It's too difficult and complex a deal to manage to pull off that I don't think anyone would take it seriously.

Comment Re:Well, I _wanted_ to like her. (Score 1) 177

The trend in the polls is moving in Trump's favor

Kind of. It's more moving away from Clinton than it is towards Trump. Clinton's numbers have gone down, but Trump's have remained flat. Frankly, I think a good chunk of the Clinton support just shifted over to Gary Johnson (whose numbers have climbed a good deal over the same period).

Comment To Trump, or Not to Trump... (Score 1) 12

Trump has some good ideas, and I think he is striking a chord with a lot of voters who are sick of career politicians. My concern with him is that he likely is completely unaware of everything he's getting himself into. You cannot fire senators like you can secretaries and mail room clerks, and being President doesn't equate to being supreme leader (not supposed to, anyway). Also, the government's budget is very different than that of a hotel chain or casino and you can't [easily] just lay off whole bureaus of people to save a little money. If he's elected, I have a feeling there will be some very ugly surprises waiting for him.

Submission + - How (and why) FreeDOS keeps DOS alive (computerworld.com.au)

angry tapir writes: In August it will be 35 years since of the release of version 1.0 of MS-DOS (or PC DOS as it was known at the time). Despite MS-DOS being long dead, the FreeDOS community has kept DOS alive, with the open source project having been founded some 22 years ago. I caught up with the founder of the project about the plans for the next version of FreeDOS and what keeps the open source OS alive.

Comment Re: The DNC overlords always get their way (Score 1) 644

Obamacare is a conservative plan

Umm, no: http://www.politifact.com/pund...

Aside from the fact the Republican legislation you're referring to was from 1993 , it didn't even have a majority of Republicans behind it. And there remain differences between it and ACA in its current form. But 1993...really? You're trying to use 23 year old legislation as a barometer for current day conservatism? Do you want to look up Democrat stances from the early 90s? They backed wealthy tax cuts back then, and supported defense spending: http://www.theatlantic.com/mag...

Comment Re:As it's been said... (Score 1) 621

I am openly against the UK leaving the EU, because it appears to me that leaving has no merits whatsoever. I would like to hear any you can think of.

There are many. The most obvious of which is that Britain gains the ability to actually police its borders by having sovereign control over immigration. Not having your economy tied to the PIIGS of Europe is a plus as well. Generally, being in the EU is a win for any struggling country because those weak countries are lifted up by the stronger ones. The successful ones, on the other hand, gain marginal benefits (collective bargaining) while accepting the massive risks of keeping the struggling actors afloat while having little to no control over the economic policies of those countries. Germany had to fight tooth and nail with Greece to get them to agree to any reasonable terms during that whole country's collapse.

Honestly, I believe the only reason people can't see any benefit to UK sovereignty is because they'd gotten far too used to "business as usual" being in the EU.

Slashdot Top Deals

Can anything be sadder than work left unfinished? Yes, work never begun.

Working...