...but I guess we'll find out about the show soon.

Who's watching Walking Dead tonight?

So... the FBI saying they had nothing chargeable means nothing now. Some guys online says she's guilty lets just skip over the investigation that's already done and just string her up

His statement straight up declares that crimes were committed, but they won't do anything about it.

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

He does not say there is "nothing chargeable", and in fact spends all of the above discussing the various criminal failings of Clinton's administration. His response is that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." And remember, neither intent nor quantity matter in the crime; he is, for all intents and purposes stating that crimes were committed but they could not win the case despite such blatant evidence. And the DoJ deferring to the FBI, despite that they have the final say, allows neither to accept responsibility for not going forward.

https://medium.com/the-curious-civilian/admit-it-the-clinton-email-controversy-bothers-you-yet-you-dont-actually-know-what-the-clinton-511dc1659eda#.3wvsl17on

Where Did Hillary Clinton’s Email Server Come From?

Like most things bad in Hillary Clinton’s life, the email problem can be traced back to her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

Post-presidency, Bill Clinton had an email server set up in their Chappaqua, New York, home to handle the communication needs of their foundations and other post-White House affairs. They felt that it was more reliable if they controlled their own server (which few would argue was a bad idea). An aide to President Clinton, Justin Cooper, set up the first email server on an old Apple computer in their basement, and away this whole thing went.

Hillary Clinton, still senator and running for president, was generally doing her email on a Blackberry with an address she got from AT&T. If you think this is silly, remember that people like Colin Powell were emailing on AOL accounts — but more on that later.

Recently sworn in as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton decided to move from her AT&T account to the family server, which honestly, makes a lot of sense. If you had access to email that worked on whatever device you wanted to check it on, had near-perfect uptime, was siloed, and had support you knew personally (and could contact at any time), wouldn’t you consider using your own server too? When Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State, the server was in the process of being updated by Bryan Pagliano, who was recommended by Huma Abedin (Clinton’s longtime aide who many consider her closest). Within a few months (from January, to March 2009), Clinton and her staff were migrated to this server (clintonemail.com), doing work for the State Department.

tl;dr The Clintons had a private email server set up by their personal friend, and that was convenient for unofficial use. She became SoS, and they moved to the private server, in her home. For anyone dealing with classified material, this is completely inappropriate. My classified shit is kept in a locked safe in a locked room in a locked hall of a locked building in a base with controlled access, not in the bag I take home every night. Doing so is a federal crime, and I would immediately lose my clearance and would have no future in the defense industry or public service, not even mentioning the potential for criminal consequences.

So all of the government’s most private secrets were being funneled through a private server in Chappaqua? Lock her up!

In a word, no.

While some classified information passed through Clinton’s servers, email isn’t generally the place where state secrets and strategies are talked about. For that, Clinton used secure methods like SCIFs, couriers, and other approved forms of transmission. And while classified messages did go through her private server, the hard truth is that the vast majority of them were classified after the fact.

Classification is a strange beast in the government, and the rules aren’t exactly clear-cut. Classification, for the most part, is governed by a small set of guidelines, with human judgment being the most important criteria (if you want to really know more about the subject, check out this and this guide from the government itself — and be sure to enjoy the Microsoft Office clipart). The reasoning for classification doesn’t always have to be a great one— simply wanting to have something classified will generally do. In an age where terrorism and national security are such critical issues, you can imagine that more information than necessary might be considered sensitive, which has actually led to a major problem in over-classification.

Does this forgive Clinton for having any classified data on her server? No. But she also wasn’t actively trying to use her email for that purpose, and she followed proper state guidelines with information she knew was sensitive.

This is a whole lot of explanation that basically attempts to excuse illegal control of classified material. Even unclassified material, when combined with other unclassified material, may become classified. As Secretary of State, it's a very safe assumption that anything she does through official correspondence should be considered potentially confidential or secret.

So level with me. How many classified emails went through this server?

2093.

2093? Holy shit.

Hold on, that’s 2093 out of 62,320.

Still a lot.

Yes, but out of that 2093, only 110 were classified at the time. 0.17%, or just under two-tenths of a percent.

Still kinda bad that it was on a private server.

Yeah, pretty much, but look at it this way. Even if she used a state account, that percentage would be identical, and state accounts are not immune to security breaches. While hosting it on her own server wasn’t the smartest move by Clinton, you can hardly call it malice. It makes James Comey’s conclusion, which was that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case against Clinton, seem perfectly sound. There’s really nothing there.

Yeah, but some classified information being shared is disastrous, right?

Maybe, but Clinton wasn’t even close to being alone. The Washington Post reported in 2015 that one in three government employees were using personal email addresses to conduct business. This quote from the article (emphasis mine) really illustrates where the security/convenience issue breaks down:

“The record keeping rules are unfortunately not known by everyone at an agency,” he said. And the flexibility of telework makes it easier for employees to skip the step of signing into a government account remotely if using, say, Gmail is simpler.”

The sad truth is that security isn’t a sure thing in government communication, and that it generally lags heavily behind the public sector. We like to think that digital correspondence in the government is happening over some bank vault-like super networks, but many times it’s just an iPhone and a Hotmail account.

First of all, one misuse of classified material is a felony. This article confirms over 2,000 felonious acts, with 110 of them being completely indefensible. Security of classified material is taken extremely seriously throughout the entire government, and the excuse that "record keeping rules are...not known by everyone at an agency" is complete horseshit.



The rest of the article is just pointless apologetics, and consists of speculation and opinion. Is the fact that there are 110 incontrovertible (and 2000 otherwise) accounts felonious misuse of classified information enough to be a legitimate reason to not elect somebody? Anyone else doing something like this would likely be in jail, especially when it involves such a high position of power. The fact that the FBI won't continue the investigation despite admission of fault and incontrovertible evidence of guilt is a pretty disturbing indication of her apparent immunity from recourse.

Haven't seen the season so I'm not sure what you're specifically referring to, but I'm of the mindset that gratuitous violence or sexuality is completely unnecessary unless it serves a purpose for the characters or plot -- think of the sex scene from Gone Girl or Sicario, or any scene with Ramsay in GoT. If it's there just to be provocative or disturb, it's probably pointless fan service, which is synonymous with lazy filler.

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/17/498235419/songs-we-love-dark-blue-bombs-on-the-beach

No YouTube link, so go to the one above and just stream the song.

It's written about four Palestinian kids who were killed by IDF shelling a couple years ago.

"Bombs On The Beach" begins in a dystopic place — the song from Philadelphia's pre-eminent post-punkers Dark Blue kicks off with a descending bass melody. Someone snaps, slow and pointed, giving the track a distinctly depressive doo-wop quality. When singer John Sharkey III enters the mix, it gets under the skin, cold and heavy — a song that is so intimately and crucially joyless, it should come with a warning.

The most distinguishing element of Dark Blue is Sharkey's baritone, somewhere between Joy Division's Ian Curtis and the sound of mechanical technology. Its depth is both haunting and attention-drawing, and everything he croons feels like a story. In "Bombs On The Beach," it's a tale about war.

"'Bombs On The Beach' is about the four Palestinian boys who were murdered on the beach by the Israel Defense Forces in the summer of 2014," Sharkey tells NPR. "Shelled like their lives were worthless. Target practice for slime. I remember sitting on the El train after reading about it and just thinking, 'You f****** animals.' I completed the lyrics on that train ride. It still makes me shiver to think of those kids. I'm tired of reading these stories. My heart can't take it anymore."

In the song, Sharkey sings from the perspective of one of the mothers of those boys — the only song on the band's upcoming LP, Start Of The World, sung from a voice outside his own. Near the end of the recording, his voice trembles, the result of facial muscles quivering and turning downward; he's unable to complete the narrative without sounding weepy. There's an inherent helplessness and hopelessness in inexplicable tragedy, and Dark Blue manages to illustrate the feeling of being defeated while offering a critique of what caused that feeling in the first place. It's a challenging listen, but one worth spending time with.

I want to get this but I don't know anyone that plays DS3 on PC.

<

Obama and Hillary read from paper when they speak.

Oh no what a terrible thing for a public speaker to do

Quote from: TurkTurkBangBang on October 21, 2016, 11:20:30 AM

Quote from: MyNameIsCharlie on October 21, 2016, 11:17:27 AM

Quote from: TurkTurkBangBang on October 21, 2016, 11:16:26 AM

Quote from: MyNameIsCharlie on October 21, 2016, 11:11:46 AM

Your subject is misleading. It's only during the transition that they're exempt. Once that's finished they are held to the same standard as the sex they transition to.

Yes, that's the first sentence of the article.

But your subject is misleading.

It's a paraphrase of the article's title. I don't interject my thoughts when I'm quoting another author.

Mate, you don't get it. Your subject title is a reasonable summary of the article, but is ambiguous enough to be read in a misleading way. It doesn't matter that this can be cleared up by reading the first sentence of the article; this doesn't satisfy my laziness, or stop me from trying to score tribal political points by appearing to side with an oppressed minority . . .

So I'm going to waste my time complaining about it, okay? Fascist pig.

Wow, how else am I supposed to express my thinly-veiled transphobia?

Quote from: TurkTurkBangBang on October 21, 2016, 11:16:26 AM

Quote from: MyNameIsCharlie on October 21, 2016, 11:11:46 AM

Your subject is misleading. It's only during the transition that they're exempt. Once that's finished they are held to the same standard as the sex they transition to.

Yes, that's the first sentence of the article.

But your subject is misleading.

It's a paraphrase of the article's title. I don't interject my thoughts when I'm quoting another author.

YouTube

Trump can talk

this kills the hillary


tbh tho that was pretty hard to watch because of how bad he is at speaking. It's like he'd never seen the speech before he walked up to give it.

Hillary's was much better.

Quote from: TurkTurkBangBang on October 21, 2016, 10:04:01 AM

It's an analogy, but what are you talking about? The sweet/sour/bitter/salty/umami model is widely accepted and proven.

A shitty analogy that doesn't work, and it seemed to me like he was referring to this. If he's not, he chose a very long-winded way to illustrate his point--probably to appear scientifically literate so that more people would buy into his logic.

Long winded? It's a few sentences in an entire essay and is just used to segue a well-known concept to political priorities. At no point did the author bring up those "flavors" being mapped to any particular area, nor is any of it a foundational argument.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on October 21, 2016, 09:28:54 AM

Quote

One reason the left has such difficulty forging a lasting connection with voters is that the right has a built-in advantage – conservatives have a broader moral palate than the liberals (as we call leftists in the US). Think about it this way: our tongues have taste buds that are responsive to five classes of chemicals, which we perceive as sweet, sour, salty, bitter, and savoury. Sweetness is generally the most appealing of the five tastes, but when it comes to a serious meal, most people want more than that.

When you substantiate your shitty argument with debunked scientific myths that have been proven false for years and years, it can be hard to take the rest of what you say seriously.

It's an analogy, but what are you talking about? The sweet/sour/bitter/salty/umami model is widely accepted and proven.

We need a megathread megathread, to organize all of our megathreads.

http://americanmilitarynews.com/2016/10/transgender-u-s-air-force-airmen-can-now-skip-physical-fitness-tests/?utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=alt&utm_source=asmdss

Transgender airmen who are "transitioning" are now allowed to skip their physical fitness tests. Secretary of the Air Force Deborah James made it so by releasing the new "Air Force Policy Memorandum for In-Service Transition for Airmen Identifying as Transgender," on October 6th.

(...)

If a transgender person does fail a fitness test as the gender they are transitioning from then the Airman’s commander must certify that the transgender person "tried to the best of their ability to meet the standards associated with their current gender" that they are transitioning away from.

Friends don't let friends go Air Force.

They really need to just fuck already.