751–760 of 797 posts
> Ms. Manning is set to be freed on May 17 of this year, rather than in 2045. She must feel ecstatic! It's good that she will be free to live the rest of her life as the gender she feels comfortable expressing.
edit: seriously who is doing all these drive by downvotes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've read most of the Wikileaks materials. I've taken them with a grain of salt because there is strong evidence that Assange does not have control of Wikileaks, and therefore it's very difficult to trust the entirely of the corpus. Even if I take all of them as 100% verified, I am certainly not "chilled" the way you are. Nor do I think having IT fuckups should be a federal crime. Given how shit both R and D party se…
> Given how shit both R and D party security is... Ummm, since we're now talking about the private email server (still absolutely illegal, regardless of justification), we're not talking about DNC leaks here, so this has nothing to do with "D" and "R". That ClintonEmail.com server should have been in the STATE DEPARTMENT behind government firewalls, heavily monitored by our government's cybersecurity division. > I su…
Which is a token gesture and we all know it. Most private companies have better cybersecurity than the "STATE DEPARTMENT."
> That's demonstrably been proven to be completely false (ClintonEmail.com is not exactly a "obscure" domain, BTW) -- and by her team's own admission, as there was hack attempt after hack attempt:
Email servers ... seeing hack attempts via direct and content-driven means? WOW. THAT ONLY HAPPENS TO STATE OFFICIALS! MY EMAILS CERTAINLY HAVE NEVER SEEN MALICIOUS LINKS.
> I suspect that they setup a private email server to keep out of the reach of FOIA attempts, because of Lord knows what scandals would have been unearthed.
I hope that you extend this righteous anger to Pence and the Trump campaign for doing everything they can to keep campaign planning materials hidden by (curiously) successfully invoking attorney-client privilege.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love it when people pronoun-bully other people. It shows how progressive they are
I think in this case, it's raised that we know the subject's gender identity, so the use of gender-ambiguous "they" isn't necessary. Not out of any sense of pronoun policing or bullying - I suspect more because it scans weirdly when you have the information that it would normally abstract.
What if we don't care about the subject's gender identity and are more interested in their biological identity?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>We have "only the word" of everyone with security clearance that they are not leaking secrets to foreign agents. Don't be dense. Those other agents didn't make off with 1.7 million highly classified files, flee to China and then arrange a defection to Russia with Russian officials. >I don't know why it makes any sense to assume that Snowden is leaking any more than what he gave to the journalists. Because he has sto…
He went to Hong Kong. In parent we can see you conveniently call that China, but that isn't the same. Besides, we have his word, and two (or three) witnesses who saw him destroy the content of the SD card.
Diplomatic relations are handled by China's foreign ministry. There is no way Snowden's status would not be handled by the Chinese government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Diplomacy is a lot less interesting and less nefarious than you seem to believe. About 95% of it, yes. But if the other 5% were so profoundly uninteresting then people wouldn't be talking about how "embarrassing" and "damaging" it was to have it released.
This is a business about people . You can have information that's not "embarrassing" or "damaging" to the US that's both embarrassing and damaging to individuals in other countries. Again, there's a practical side here. As I asked in another post, just how much would you share with a friend or family member that was going to immediately run to publish what you said in a Facebook post? Because that's essentially what…
No, that's not what she did. She gave the archive to a third party (Assange) who turned out to be unreliable. But that's not "the same" -- or even "essentially" the same -- as just outright posting it on Facebook.
Can we just end the discussion there, please? I'm not saying this issue is cut-and-dried, or that there's no validity in your arguments. But if we keep going back and forth about the basic event chronology, then there's really not much a of a point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The family connections to Russia that everyone conveniently ignores lately? Remind me, which side of that election is now alleged to have been talking to FSB the whole time?
First off, arguing "against the other side" has nothing to do with these emails and is offtopic. We're referencing what was discovered in the leaked emails. And inside, you can find documented proof of the Uranium One thing and their concerns over it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that the US murdered innocent civilians was highly embarrassing and hurt the interests of the US, not the fact that Manning leaked that information itself. Punish the murderers, not the messengers. The only people were actually harmed were the innocent children and journalists on the receiving end of US machine guns.
Did the diplomatic cables contain information that the US murdered innocent civilians?
A people deserves to know what their government did on their behalf.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
there is no obvious reason for russia to be considered an "adversary" versus merely a competing regional power in the absence of the ideological conflict of the cold war
Tell that to the Ukranians, Georgians, Poles, Balts... Russia may have an economy the size of Italy's, but geopolitically they are still the bear, a gangster state that seeks to disrupt all order so that they can bully on a one-to-one basis.
emphasis on regional power in my prior comment. my heart goes out to the ukrainian people but the actions of russia are not worth escalating over with a nuclear state on the part of the american people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if you assume my comments are pointless pedantry - since when has pointless pedantry been uncommon or unwelcome on Hacker News? It is wrong to misgender people. It is unacceptable . Why is it somehow more terrible to point that out than it is to do it in the first place ?
Actually, Chelsea may indeed have considered herself a he during the epoch of Bradley(we don't know and shouldn't proclaim) so by you in proclaiming that you can't use he for referring to bradley, may in fact be misgendering in of itself as you're proclaiming bradley should be referred to as "she" when for all we know Chelsea could rightfully so refer to Bradley epoch as "he". This would be misgendering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also worth noting that the only reason Snowden is currently in Russia is due to actions by the US State Department. Snowden left Hong Kong with a plane ticket to Cuba by way of Moscow. While he was on the plane, the US State Department revoked his passport, forcing him to miss his connecting flight. To make it seem like it was in any way a deliberate choice on his part is rewriting history.
If both Russia and Cuba were ok with this, what is the reason he can't just get on a plane to Cuba now?
"Snowden failed to board an onward flight to Cuba the next day, the paper says, again citing Russian officials, because the US put intense pressure on Cuba, warning of "adverse consequences" if Snowden were allowed to board the plane. The Cubans subsequently informed Moscow that the regular Aeroflot flight would not be permitted to land in Havana if Snowden was aboard."
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2013/0826/Russian...