●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter
Forgot your password?
Close
wnewsdaystalestupid
sightfulinterestingmaybe
cflamebaittrollredundantoverrated
vefunnyunderrated
podupeerror
×
180714054
comment
bydrnb
6 @05:26AM
(#65962202)
Attached to: White House Labels Altered Photo of Arrested Minnesota Protester a 'Meme'
Of course you can't, it would challenge the doctrine of your religion, its heresy. The faithful must avoid such evil. The world is binary, Resistance or MAGA, there can no other option.
Sooo, not taking a stance based on belief is somehow the "doctrine of [my] religion"? Do you read your comments to yourself in your head as you write? Possibly after? You really should.
No, it's your binary nature that indicates a "religious" sort of attitude. It's either accept my beliefs or you must be part of the other side.
Politics is not binary. Trump is not binary. Rejecting one side is not an endorsement of the other. Both are often full of shit.
Nope. Independents notice it all the time.
Notice what?
That the world is not binary. That rejecting one side is not endorsing the other. That both are often full of shit. Hence, independent.
For crying out loud, I'm an independent. Why should I let you speak for me?
I am not speaking for you, I am correcting your bad guesses and mistakes.
Once again, I provide a specific example...
You provide party line misrepresentations, and when these are not accepted you accuse others of being mega. Such binary thinking is very atypical of an independent.
No, it wasn't Trump that lowered the bar, it was Biden, ...
Not on lawfare. Obama, then Biden, used gov't in an attempt to persuade voters to ignore a presidential candidate. That's fine for political parties, not gov't itself.
Actually I cited the Mueller report, which I read at the time. As I read various other primary sources, at the time
Name dropping is not the same as citing.
Citing Mueller's repeated claims of no collusion with the campaign, party, or Trump himself is not name dropping. Its citing what Mueller wrote.
You not hearing about these inconvenient truths inside you info silo does not make then untruths
See, the whole point here is that this is not an information silo. This is a discussion where, if you have specific information, you can provide it.
It would be far better for you to stray outside your silo and google it yourself. You could learn something.
The fact that you don't and just seem to be claiming that, if I weren't inside some posited information silo, I would just know the things you claim to know, suggests it is you that lives inside a silo.
Nope. I'm able to state the left, right, and independent perspectives of various issues. You seem only capable of providing the left. And then being rather close minded and willfully ignorant, refusing to do a google yourself.
>It's not irrelevant to the assertion made: that "lawfare" in that context is just a whiny excuse for being prosecuted for crimes by Republicans.
Nope. "Lawfare" was used in the context of government officials and agents being the law and procedure and norms to manufacture a narrative they knew to be false. Not to get a conviction, but to deter voters from supporting a candidate.
It is also interesting that you say that his prosecution has nothing to do with Trumps
The facts speak for themselves. Those prosecuted were overwhelmingly prosecuted for lying to federal agents, not over any collusion with Russians. That just the false conflation the dem party uses to mislead people.
The Mueller investigation explicitly avoided making claims against Trump citing DOJ policy forbidding indictments against a sitting President.
Now you conflate things to mislead. Again, very TDS like behavior, not so much independent behavior. The potential charges are with respect to obstructing an investigation. That is something separate. Again, Mueller explicitly stated, multiple times, that there was no evidence of collusion with the campaign, the administration, or Trump himself. Novel theories of obstruction are something entirely different.
It was delivered to the FBI fraudulently in terms of the person handing it over and its provenance.
How was it delivered fraudulently?
A Clinton attorney misrepresented himself to the FBI. Misrepresented the document's origin as paid research from foreign assets.
Who was the fraud against?
Initially the FBI. Then pro-Resistance FBI officials misrepresented it the FISA judges in order to get warrants.
Wrong. You are mistaken to think the goal of the lawfare was a conviction in court. The goal in the lawfare was to deter voters from considering Trump as a candidate.
The first part of that statement: "Wrong." is about me stating that they did not use the dossier in court.
They used it to defraud a FISA judge to get a warrant.
Actually, no. FISA expect evidence to be of a certain quality and legitimacy.
Sure. As I have already pointed out, in 99.96755% of cases,
Again, BS stats, Stats 101 caveat, "all other things being equal". 99.97% of cases are not bootstrapped with fraudulent evidence.
... the FISA courts grant a warrant for the request. It boggles the mind to even consider the possibility that their standards are so incredibly stringent that the evidence provided was lacking.
DOJ said the dossier was too unreliable to bring before a judge. The Pro-Reistance FBI officials brought it before a judge and misrepresented it.
Does not change the fact that suspected fraudulent evidence is not permitted. Even in your straw man police informant scenario. The informant's "evidence" still needs some credibility.
Only you seem to be claiming that it's fraudulent.
Again, you tout the party info silo. Step ousted, google, read things from independent sources. Gov't sources even.
There was sufficient credibility for the FISA court.
Actually FISA judges have stated they would not have accepted the dossier had they known its true origin. The judges say it was misrepresented to them.
Also, how is the police informant scenario a "straw man"? You keep using that phrase, I don't think it means what you think it means.
It's a straw man because you substitute a different defendable scenario for the actual undependable scenario. Evidence has to be credible to get a warrant, even evidence from a police informant. If an informant is known to be reporting something fraudulent it cannot be used. So it is something quite different than the dossier, not the heresy you false misrepresented things as.
You can keep telling yourself whatever you want, but there's never been any evidence of any outright fraud.
FISA judges say otherwise. Unreliable evidence was false presented to them as being credible.
>Wow. Talk about wallowing in ignorance. I mean, not being able to look up the numbers yourself is one thing, but not even knowing what the numbers actually are supposed to represent, even though it's right there in my post. To clarify, since you seem to have somehow missed it. The "99.97%" is not about any percentage of evidence being fraudulent (I can't really parse your sentence to quite figure out what you're even claiming there, but it's clear you're talking about fraudulent evidence. The "99.97%" is the percentage of FISA warrants that are approved. In other words, the percentage rejected is vanishingly small.
Nope. Warrants approved assumes the evidence behind the warrants were credible Stats 101 failure on your part. "all other things being equal fails".
Or in other words, you can't actually stick to what is actually being discussed, you have to distort whatever the other person is saying to twist things so that you can write about your own pet peeves.
Nope. It was an example of lawfare. Gov't pro-Resistance agents acting to persuade voters against a candidate, not actually convict the candidate.
You do understand that operatives in US campaigns accepting money from foreign governments intended to "soe [sic] chaos" is still something that is a perfectly legitimate basis for an investigation,
It was investigate, and Mueller found it to be insignificant in scale, unlikely to have altered the outcome of the election. But the real point here is that any such exchanges of money is something entirely different than the dossier.
right. Of course, plenty of sources seem to confirm that the Russians did, indeed, favor Trump as their candidate.
Money was spent attacking Hillary, Bernie, and Trump.
the Mueller report very specifically did not exonerate Trump.
Never claimed it did. Just that it repeated claimed no evidence of collusion.
180713758
comment
bydrnb
6 @04:24AM
(#65962156)
Attached to: The Bill Gates-Epstein Bombshell - and What Most People Get Wrong
None of that is an answer to question so I'll ask it again if you want to dance around it again.
"When was the Federal investigation into Epstein investigation actually closed?"
Is there something about Epstein's death and Maxwel's conviction that confuses you?
180710172
comment
bydrnb
26 @02:55PM
(#65961330)
Attached to: The Bill Gates-Epstein Bombshell - and What Most People Get Wrong
None of that explains why Trump picked Acosta for the cabinet though. Why that specific guy?
Facts are facts. Biden had it all for four years
Fact's are facts. So being we both love facts here when was the Federal investigation into Epstein investigation actually closed? Was it during Biden's term or was there an active trial happening?
Epstein died Aug 2019. Ghislaine Maxwel was convicted by a jury Dec 2021. Biden was sworn in as President Jan 2021. So Biden had over 3 years to release documents. He could have started preparing documents for release on Day 1, and held them until Maxwel's trial ended. Given Biden's attacks to prevent a second presidential run by Trump, surely if there had been something incriminating in those files it would have come out. Unless democratic mega donors like Bill Gates needed to be protected, or democratic politicians. Similarly, any newfound reluctance to release by Trump probably has something to do with protecting republican mega donors, or republican politicians.
180709840
comment
bydrnb
26 @01:35PM
(#65961196)
Attached to: The Bill Gates-Epstein Bombshell - and What Most People Get Wrong
Sure but even in that absolute-most-charitable-best-case scenario you lay out it just shows Trump is once again a terrible and incompetent executive, like, why else specifically hire Acosta for that role?
When I wrote that Acosta's defense is weak, I did so with a 2025 perspective, with a hell of a lot more information available. In 2008 such information was not available, the victims had not come forward as they had recently. Acosta's defense did not seem so weak in 2008, nor in 2017. In 2008 it did look like the state prosecution was somehow influenced by Epstein and Acosta was stepping in so Epstein would face some accountability. That was a more plausible argument back then. It's only now, where we know that things were so much worse than imaged do we see that as weak. We find it hard to believe that prosecutors did not know how bad things really were.
Suddenly after Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden we're gonna slow down and dig into the nuance now? There is more here than there was against either of them.
Facts are facts. Biden had it all for four years. Trump seems more interested in releasing Epstein docs than Biden. Obama had it all for eight years. You don't think mega donors like Bill Gates might have had some influence here during democratic admins? Other mega donors or the left and right?
180709628
comment
bydrnb
26 @12:46PM
(#65961080)
Attached to: WhatsApp End-to-End Encryption Allegations Questioned By Some Security Experts, Lawyers
Meta has forcefully rejected the allegations. In a statement shared with Decrypt, a company spokesperson called the claims "categorically false and absurd...
They didn't claim state of the art or even competent encryption. Just encryption. ROT13 would count. :-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
180709622
comment
bydrnb
26 @12:41PM
(#65961078)
Attached to: 'Reverse Solar Panel' Generates Electricity at Night
A solar panel converts sunlight to electricity.
A reverse solar panel would convert electricity to sunlight.
We have those, lightbulbs, fluorescent tubes, LEDs, etc :-)
180709584
comment
bydrnb
26 @12:31PM
(#65961064)
Attached to: The Bill Gates-Epstein Bombshell - and What Most People Get Wrong
Why the fuck does anyone care?
Because embarrassing and divorce inspiring things like this can be used to blackmail someone. Something that has lots of influence in political circles, who can donate lots of money and contribute even more money to dark political action committees.
180709576
comment
bydrnb
26 @12:27PM
(#65961062)
Attached to: The Bill Gates-Epstein Bombshell - and What Most People Get Wrong
Gates' ex-wife knows the truth.
Nope. Bill told her he got VD from the toilet those dirty software developers who don't take showers use. He knew he should have left their poorly lit den in the basement and used his private toilet in the CEO suite, but he had to go so bad. :-)
180709544
comment
bydrnb
26 @12:19PM
(#65961046)
Attached to: The Bill Gates-Epstein Bombshell - and What Most People Get Wrong
Epstein was given a sweetheart deal by Alex Acosta who was Labor Secretary in Trump's first term.
He was labor secretary in 2017, nine years after that sweetheart 2008 Epstein deal. Let's not infer a connection between the Trump admin and that deal. If you want to slam the Trump admin at least pick something they actually did. Trump had already banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago at the time of the deal. You can blame Trump for having such a creepy friend up through 2007, but the sweetheart deal is not on Trump.
"Oct. 2007: Trump barred Epstein from Mar-a-Lago for his behavior toward a teenager. Trump barred Epstein from Mar-a-Lago after Epstein behaved inappropriately toward a club member's teenage daughter, according to journalists from the Miami Herald and Wall Street Journal."
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/p...
It's a weak defense IMO, I'm skeptical they did not know how bad things really were, but according to Google: "Following the 2019 arrest of Epstein on new federal charges, Acosta defended his 2008 decision, stating that his office stepped in when state prosecutors were prepared to let Epstein go free. He argued the deal was the best outcome possible at the time, claiming the evidence was weak and a trial was a "roll of the dice. Amid mounting pressure, criticism from lawmakers, and scrutiny of the "perversion of justice" (as described by the Miami Herald), Acosta resigned as Labor Secretary in July 2019"
180706460
comment
bydrnb
26 @12:13AM
(#65960468)
Attached to: Apple Reports Best-Ever Quarter For iPhone Sales
I'm pretty sure iPhones let you read the political left, the political center, and the political right.
The Apple News service may have a leaning, but the iPhone itself does not. Go wherever you like.
180703850
comment
bydrnb
@05:29PM
(#65959982)
Attached to: Universal Basic Income Could Be Used To Soften Hit From AI Job Losses In UK, Minister Says
"Really, try getting a software development job without some skill at integrating an AI assistant into your workflow"
Whats that supposed to mean? Any idiot can type into ChatGPT "write me code to do X". Most idiots wouldn't be able to debug the resulting mess particularly if its a non toy language such as C++.
Actually, if you ask an AI coding assistant to produce code for a small need that happens to be something well known, well discussed in professional literature, textbooks, etc it will do surprisingly well. Of course, AI generated code is reviewed and in cases like those just referred to it can do well. As well as sample code from a textbook or other reference where the code if abbreviated for publishing reasons.
180703830
comment
bydrnb
@05:24PM
(#65959974)
Attached to: New Jersey Law Requires E-Bike Drivers To Have License, Insurance
I don't think you did. how many does your reliable source say is "plenty"? I searched for the multiple incidents that killed or injured young people in New Jersey in 2025 that prompted the legislation, and 100% of them were e-bike riders getting hit by cars.
So you are basically assuming the outlier a politician refers too, usually something chosen due to being the most tragic not the most representative, is the norm.
Plus, your argument still fails due to the history of motorcycle rider licensing and training. Modern training includes a lot of coverage of defensive riding due to the dangers autos and trucks represent. Now add that e-bike riders are overwhelmingly juveniles, untrained, and engage in dangerous-to-other activities like riding on sidewalks and other pedestrian areas. Something motorcycle riders to not generally do. And on top of all this, we have the history of models, which is all e-bikes really are, where mandatory training reduced accident rates.
180703764
comment
bydrnb
@05:15PM
(#65959952)
Attached to: Apple Launches AirTag 2 With Improved Range, Louder Speaker
>No, that was all cars stolen. The point was: Airtag or not, ...
My point is that violates the "all other things equal caveat", so your can't assume one population behaves like the other.
... 85% of cars are eventually recovered anyways, ...
My hypothesis is about the condition those recovered vehicles are in. The faster the discovery, hopefully the better the condition.
The reporting of its location reducing the likelihood of the bodyshop or container.
Why? First, police have been repeatedly reported as being reluctant to go where owners tell them their hardware has reported in. We've had this with notebooks and smartphones.
This also violates the "all other things equal caveat". Auto theft is a historic category for police, with dedicated officers and special interest in chop shops and repeat offenders.
But if thieves were even one bit professional, ...
My understanding is that much car theft is juveniles engaging in joy riding. They dump the cars after the "ride", and the abandoned car then becomes victims to a secondary group. Hence early discovery being helpful.
You know, the who argument that criminals will do the smart thing just makes law enforcement laugh. The typical response is "if criminals did the smart thing we wouldn't catch so many of them". :-)
As for Airtags - they have this anti-stalking feature, so if the thief is driving around in your car for a bit, he'll be told that there's an unknown Airtag following him. At which point he'll stop, locate it ...
Tools may be required.
... and you can send the cops to an empty ditch at the side of the road.
Or they may just immediately abandon the car.
In the end, it's a $20 investment and it pretty much all potential upside. It not going to make things worse, it might make things better..
180696032
comment
bydrnb
26 @11:25PM
(#65958180)
Attached to: Universal Basic Income Could Be Used To Soften Hit From AI Job Losses In UK, Minister Says
There are no AI job losses in the UK or anywhere else.
Really, try getting a software development job without some skill at integrating an AI assistant into your workflow.
Moving from hand crafted to machine made has put people out of work, or made them less employable.
You are correct that this is nothing new. What is new here is that white collar jobs are affected this time. If it were just the usual blue collar folks displaced we'd hardly be talking about it.
Yes people will transition, as they always have. I welcome the former javascript coders to their new careers as plumbers. You'll probably get payed more and work fewer hours. :-)
180695992
comment
bydrnb
26 @11:14PM
(#65958152)
Attached to: Apple Updates iOS 12 For the First Time Since 2023
The unmaintained cruft just falls off of the Apple App Store over time.
Yet 40-year-old software keeps running on the Nintendo Entertainment System ...
40-year old software on the NES was not written by amateurs learning to program, the app store filled with apps that are someone's "first program" they got working.
« Newer
Older »
Slashdot Top Deals
drnb (2434720) 
●(email not shown publicly)
●
Days Read in a Row
●
Got a Score:5 Comment
●
Years Read
●
Re:You're surprised Independent trusts neither par
●
Re:Biden had over 3 years to release files
●
Biden had over 3 years to release files
●
Re:Acosta did deal 9 years before Trump admin
●
State of the art encryption for 1st century BC
(Score:2)
●
guns (submissions)
●
law (submissions)
●
crime (submissions)
●
government (submissions)
●
slashdot (submissions)
●
California Bill 2013 AB 174 Would Confiscate Legally Registered Firearms
Slashdot
●
Submit Story
/* Halley */
(Halley's comment.)
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...