info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Computer Hacking
826 views
Skip to first unread message
claviger
Jul 20, 2017, 10:41:38 AM7/20/17
to
I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
around? Was the US Federal Government aware of this growing problem or
just recently found out it can be a major problem in a national election?
If the US Government did know why would any high ranking officer of the
Federal government put National Security at risk by using a private
server?
Evidently hacking is now part of international politics 365 days of the
year for governments around the world. All politicians and political
parties in the US are now at risk. Democrats and Republicans both had
issues this past election. Does anyone know what information harvested,
gathered, and gleaned by hackers made an impact on the recent election?
Democrats claim Vladimir Putin selected the winning President in the 2016
US election.
What information was made public to the US electorate that convinced so
many Americans to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton? What
new information did hackers reveal during the election? Clinton ran the
most bizarre campaign in US history and almost got away with it. She also
had a lot of baggage to carry into the national election, which most
voters were already aware of. Can anyone point to some hacked revelation
that tipped the election in Trump's favor?
Anthony Marsh
Jul 20, 2017, 8:09:44 PM7/20/17
to
On 7/20/2017 10:41 AM, claviger wrote:
>
> I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
> want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
> around? Was the US Federal Government aware of this growing problem or
Ever since Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. They were computer hackers.
>
> I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
> want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
> around? Was the US Federal Government aware of this growing problem or
Very few people then bothered to hack IBMs because they were too lazy to
learn machine code.
> just recently found out it can be a major problem in a national election?
> If the US Government did know why would any high ranking officer of the
> Federal government put National Security at risk by using a private
> server?
>
using 5 different phones and 5 different computers and spending 3 hours a
day at 5 different facilities. Not counting travel time which is when
she'd have to eat lunch. it can be done, but it is a hassle and people
tend to burn out.
> Evidently hacking is now part of international politics 365 days of the
> year for governments around the world. All politicians and political
year? Many of the hacks are done automatically by bots so the hacker
doesn't even have to be there or use his own computer.
> parties in the US are now at risk. Democrats and Republicans both had
> issues this past election. Does anyone know what information harvested,
> gathered, and gleaned by hackers made an impact on the recent election?
Republicans.
> Democrats claim Vladimir Putin selected the winning President in the 2016
> US election.
>
All you need is one tenth of a percent, maybe 1,000 people even.
> What information was made public to the US electorate that convinced so
> many Americans to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton? What
That lost all the college-educated women.
> new information did hackers reveal during the election? Clinton ran the
The Russians are experts, with 100 years of experience.
Pizzagate?
> most bizarre campaign in US history and almost got away with it. She also
I didn't like her campaign because I thought she should have selected
Bernie Sanders as her VP.
I don't know if you ever heard of a Democrat named John Fitzgerald
Kennedy, but his rival for the nomination was a Texan named Lyndon Jonson.
Kennedy won the nomination and then took his father's advise and picked
LBJ as his running mate. Just that decision alone may have secured Texas
and other states in the South and assured his win.
> had a lot of baggage to carry into the national election, which most
> voters were already aware of. Can anyone point to some hacked revelation
> that tipped the election in Trump's favor?
>
only won by a mere 3 million votes.
>
>
For extra credit, when was the first BUG found in a computer?
I'll give you a hint. It was just a couple of years before I was born.
http://ids.si.edu/ids/deliveryService?id=NMAH-92-13130
bigdog
Jul 21, 2017, 7:51:41 AM7/21/17
to
On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 10:41:38 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
> want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
> around?
Probably as long as the internet was made available to the public.
> I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
> want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
> around?
> Was the US Federal Government aware of this growing problem or
> just recently found out it can be a major problem in a national election?
sensitive data was fooling themselves. Hackers can be just about anyone,
from an intelligence officer to the 30-something guy living in his
parents' basement spending half his day playing video games.
> If the US Government did know why would any high ranking officer of the
> Federal government put National Security at risk by using a private
> server?
>
> Evidently hacking is now part of international politics 365 days of the
> year for governments around the world. All politicians and political
> parties in the US are now at risk. Democrats and Republicans both had
> issues this past election. Does anyone know what information harvested,
> gathered, and gleaned by hackers made an impact on the recent election?
> Democrats claim Vladimir Putin selected the winning President in the 2016
> US election.
>
> What information was made public to the US electorate that convinced so
> many Americans to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton?
> What new information did hackers reveal during the election?
believed.
> Clinton ran the
> most bizarre campaign in US history and almost got away with it.
Democrat strongholds along the Great Lakes were supposed to be her
firewall in the event Trump swept the toss up states and she took them for
granted allowing Trump to steal them from under her nose. Meanwhile she
wasted time and money trying to pick off Republican states where she had
no chance such as Arizona and Utah.
> She also
> had a lot of baggage to carry into the national election, which most
> voters were already aware of.
disliked Trump less.
> Can anyone point to some hacked revelation
> that tipped the election in Trump's favor?
mainframetech
Jul 21, 2017, 10:40:09 AM7/21/17
to
On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 10:41:38 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
> want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
> around? Was the US Federal Government aware of this growing problem or
> just recently found out it can be a major problem in a national election?
> If the US Government did know why would any high ranking officer of the
> Federal government put National Security at risk by using a private
> server?
>
Hacking has been going on almost al long as there has been programming
> want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
> around? Was the US Federal Government aware of this growing problem or
> just recently found out it can be a major problem in a national election?
> If the US Government did know why would any high ranking officer of the
> Federal government put National Security at risk by using a private
> server?
>
of computers.
Those in the USG that were familiar with programming knew that hacking
could be done.
There is a website that has been online for years that speaks about
hacking of election machines. It's called 'blackboxvoting.org' that is
run by a lady named Bev Harris. There are probably others, but that's the
one I pay attention to.
A private server does not put the National Security at risk depending
on the amount of security applied to that sever. It may be even more safe
than the servers for the USG. So it all depends on how the servers were
built and the security applied.
> Evidently hacking is now part of international politics 365 days of the
> year for governments around the world. All politicians and political
> parties in the US are now at risk. Democrats and Republicans both had
> issues this past election. Does anyone know what information harvested,
> gathered, and gleaned by hackers made an impact on the recent election?
> Democrats claim Vladimir Putin selected the winning President in the 2016
> US election.
>
Hillary the popular winner, and Trump the electoral winner. It is
possible the bleeding of SNC information over to Wikileaks may have had
just enough help to the Trump campaign as to tip the balance. But it is
hard to say with out a major project and polls of most areas of the
country.
> What information was made public to the US electorate that convinced so
> many Americans to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton? What
> new information did hackers reveal during the election?
downloaded and shown to the electorate, and it was not pretty for the
democratic ticket.
> Clinton ran the
> most bizarre campaign in US history and almost got away with it. She also
> had a lot of baggage to carry into the national election, which most
> voters were already aware of. Can anyone point to some hacked revelation
> that tipped the election in Trump's favor?
of the Republicans said. If there had \ben than the Republicans would
have been successful in putting together a hearing that went on for more
than a year and cost millions of tax payer money and they still couldn't
pin anything on her. And believe me, they tried. Was she so powerful?
Then she should have been prez, to deal with Putin (the proven adversary)
and not kiss his feet like we and the rest of the world are having to see.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
Jul 21, 2017, 8:46:18 PM7/21/17
to
On 7/21/2017 7:51 AM, bigdog wrote:
> On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 10:41:38 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>> I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
>> want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
>> around?
>
> Probably as long as the internet was made available to the public.
>
>> Was the US Federal Government aware of this growing problem or
>> just recently found out it can be a major problem in a national election?
>
> Anybody who didn't know that hackers can be very clever at accessing
> sensitive data was fooling themselves. Hackers can be just about anyone,
> from an intelligence officer to the 30-something guy living in his
> parents' basement spending half his day playing video games.
>
>> If the US Government did know why would any high ranking officer of the
>> Federal government put National Security at risk by using a private
>> server?
>>
>> Evidently hacking is now part of international politics 365 days of the
>> year for governments around the world. All politicians and political
>> parties in the US are now at risk. Democrats and Republicans both had
>> issues this past election. Does anyone know what information harvested,
>> gathered, and gleaned by hackers made an impact on the recent election?
>
> Impossible to quantify but my guess is very little.
>
>
>> Democrats claim Vladimir Putin selected the winning President in the 2016
>> US election.
>>
>
> One more reason not to believe what Democrats say.
>
So you'll support Trump and Putin no matter what crimes they commit.
> On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 10:41:38 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>> I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
>> want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
>> around?
>
> Probably as long as the internet was made available to the public.
>
>> Was the US Federal Government aware of this growing problem or
>> just recently found out it can be a major problem in a national election?
>
> Anybody who didn't know that hackers can be very clever at accessing
> sensitive data was fooling themselves. Hackers can be just about anyone,
> from an intelligence officer to the 30-something guy living in his
> parents' basement spending half his day playing video games.
>
>> If the US Government did know why would any high ranking officer of the
>> Federal government put National Security at risk by using a private
>> server?
>>
>> Evidently hacking is now part of international politics 365 days of the
>> year for governments around the world. All politicians and political
>> parties in the US are now at risk. Democrats and Republicans both had
>> issues this past election. Does anyone know what information harvested,
>> gathered, and gleaned by hackers made an impact on the recent election?
>
> Impossible to quantify but my guess is very little.
>
>
>> Democrats claim Vladimir Putin selected the winning President in the 2016
>> US election.
>>
>
> One more reason not to believe what Democrats say.
>
Anthony Marsh
Jul 22, 2017, 8:07:28 AM7/22/17
to
Lesbian orgies.
bigdog
Jul 22, 2017, 8:46:22 AM7/22/17
to
rigged the nomination for Hillary which pissed off lots of Sanders
supporters, many of whom stayed home or voted for third party candidates.
I don't doubt that some even voted for Trump out of spite.
>
>
> > Clinton ran the
> > most bizarre campaign in US history and almost got away with it. She also
> > had a lot of baggage to carry into the national election, which most
> > voters were already aware of. Can anyone point to some hacked revelation
> > that tipped the election in Trump's favor?
>
>
> There wasn't nearly as much baggage for Clinton as the constant claims
> of the Republicans said. If there had \ben than the Republicans would
> have been successful in putting together a hearing that went on for more
> than a year and cost millions of tax payer money and they still couldn't
> pin anything on her. And believe me, they tried. Was she so powerful?
> Then she should have been prez, to deal with Putin (the proven adversary)
> and not kiss his feet like we and the rest of the world are having to see.
>
ignored repeated calls for more security, then when the situation went
south, she tried to blame it on some obscure anti-Muslim video.
claviger
Jul 22, 2017, 12:57:19 PM7/22/17
to
campaign promisees they break.
mainframetech
Jul 22, 2017, 5:19:33 PM7/22/17
to
On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 7:51:41 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 10:41:38 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
> > want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
> > around?
>
> Probably as long as the internet was made available to the public.
>
WRONG! Long before that. Programs were changed by others by a process
> On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 10:41:38 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
> > want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
> > around?
>
> Probably as long as the internet was made available to the public.
>
called 'patching'. If one knew the layout of a card deck, one could put
in patch cards that could usurp the programs functions and introduce new
code. It was often used as a way to correct programs without having to go
through the process of compiling and preparing the program.
> > Was the US Federal Government aware of this growing problem or
> > just recently found out it can be a major problem in a national election?
>
> Anybody who didn't know that hackers can be very clever at accessing
> sensitive data was fooling themselves. Hackers can be just about anyone,
> from an intelligence officer to the 30-something guy living in his
> parents' basement spending half his day playing video games.
>
> > If the US Government did know why would any high ranking officer of the
> > Federal government put National Security at risk by using a private
> > server?
> >
> > Evidently hacking is now part of international politics 365 days of the
> > year for governments around the world. All politicians and political
> > parties in the US are now at risk. Democrats and Republicans both had
> > issues this past election. Does anyone know what information harvested,
> > gathered, and gleaned by hackers made an impact on the recent election?
>
> Impossible to quantify but my guess is very little.
>
>
> > Democrats claim Vladimir Putin selected the winning President in the 2016
> > US election.
> >
>
> One more reason not to believe what Democrats say.
>
> > What information was made public to the US electorate that convinced so
> > many Americans to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton?
>
> I suspect it was largely what voters already knew about Hillary.
>
Clinton campaign.
> > What new information did hackers reveal during the election?
>
> Very little new. What came out only confirmed what her detractors already
> believed.
>
> > Clinton ran the
> > most bizarre campaign in US history and almost got away with it.
>
> Bizarre in this case being a euphemism for stupid. The traditional
> Democrat strongholds along the Great Lakes were supposed to be her
> firewall in the event Trump swept the toss up states and she took them for
> granted allowing Trump to steal them from under her nose. Meanwhile she
> wasted time and money trying to pick off Republican states where she had
> no chance such as Arizona and Utah.
>
> > She also
> > had a lot of baggage to carry into the national election, which most
> > voters were already aware of.
>
> Yes, most voters already knew they didn't like her. They decided they
> disliked Trump less.
>
> > Can anyone point to some hacked revelation
> > that tipped the election in Trump's favor?
>
> You mean other than Hillary was a loser?
abilities of Hillary.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
Jul 22, 2017, 7:18:39 PM7/22/17
to
attacked.
The anti-Muslim video sparked the protest at the embassy. Two different
buildings. Don't conflate them.
bigdog
Jul 23, 2017, 9:21:13 AM7/23/17
to
On Saturday, July 22, 2017 at 5:19:33 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 7:51:41 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 10:41:38 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > > I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
> > > want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
> > > around?
> >
> > Probably as long as the internet was made available to the public.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! Long before that. Programs were changed by others by a process
> called 'patching'. If one knew the layout of a card deck, one could put
> in patch cards that could usurp the programs functions and introduce new
> code. It was often used as a way to correct programs without having to go
> through the process of compiling and preparing the program.
>
When I was in the business correcting programs was not called hacking. It
> On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 7:51:41 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 10:41:38 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > > I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
> > > want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
> > > around?
> >
> > Probably as long as the internet was made available to the public.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! Long before that. Programs were changed by others by a process
> called 'patching'. If one knew the layout of a card deck, one could put
> in patch cards that could usurp the programs functions and introduce new
> code. It was often used as a way to correct programs without having to go
> through the process of compiling and preparing the program.
>
was called debugging. Modifying a program was known as maintenance.
>
>
> > > Was the US Federal Government aware of this growing problem or
> > > just recently found out it can be a major problem in a national election?
> >
> > Anybody who didn't know that hackers can be very clever at accessing
> > sensitive data was fooling themselves. Hackers can be just about anyone,
> > from an intelligence officer to the 30-something guy living in his
> > parents' basement spending half his day playing video games.
> >
> > > If the US Government did know why would any high ranking officer of the
> > > Federal government put National Security at risk by using a private
> > > server?
> > >
> > > Evidently hacking is now part of international politics 365 days of the
> > > year for governments around the world. All politicians and political
> > > parties in the US are now at risk. Democrats and Republicans both had
> > > issues this past election. Does anyone know what information harvested,
> > > gathered, and gleaned by hackers made an impact on the recent election?
> >
> > Impossible to quantify but my guess is very little.
> >
> >
> > > Democrats claim Vladimir Putin selected the winning President in the 2016
> > > US election.
> > >
> >
> > One more reason not to believe what Democrats say.
> >
>
>
>
> One more reason to not believe what is said here.
>
>
>
> > > What information was made public to the US electorate that convinced so
> > > many Americans to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton?
> >
> > I suspect it was largely what voters already knew about Hillary.
> >
>
>
> It was private emails of John Podesta, who was chairman of the Hillary
> Clinton campaign.
>
which no doubt infuriated Sanders supporters, voters she needed to defeat
Trump, many of whom she didn't get. Of course there was also the
assessment by the Sanders supporters, quite accurate, that Hillary for all
her populist rhetoric was in the pockets of the Wall Street bankers who
figured she was going to win and gave her lots of money to curry favor
with her. The best laid plans...
>
>
>
> > > What new information did hackers reveal during the election?
> >
> > Very little new. What came out only confirmed what her detractors already
> > believed.
> >
> > > Clinton ran the
> > > most bizarre campaign in US history and almost got away with it.
> >
> > Bizarre in this case being a euphemism for stupid. The traditional
> > Democrat strongholds along the Great Lakes were supposed to be her
> > firewall in the event Trump swept the toss up states and she took them for
> > granted allowing Trump to steal them from under her nose. Meanwhile she
> > wasted time and money trying to pick off Republican states where she had
> > no chance such as Arizona and Utah.
> >
> > > She also
> > > had a lot of baggage to carry into the national election, which most
> > > voters were already aware of.
> >
> > Yes, most voters already knew they didn't like her. They decided they
> > disliked Trump less.
> >
> > > Can anyone point to some hacked revelation
> > > that tipped the election in Trump's favor?
> >
> > You mean other than Hillary was a loser?
>
>
>
> Now that we see what Trump is as president, we can appreciate the
> abilities of Hillary.
>
Trump were to shoot somebody I wouldn't wish that. Trump is president,
Hillary is not, and Neil Gorsuch is the newest member of the Supreme
Court. If Putin helped bring that about, I will be forever grateful to him
although I suspect the reality is that he had little if anything to do
with any of that. But you go right on believing the fairy tales MSNBC and
CNN are feeding you. You've always found fables to be far more interesting
than the plain boring truth.
claviger
Jul 23, 2017, 3:43:44 PM7/23/17
to
national security and all State Department personnel, especially diplomats
and staff on foreign soil. Evidently Hillary didn't read her job
description.
> It was the CIA safe house which was attacked.
they gather, like an impending attack on a US Embassy.
> The anti-Muslim video sparked the protest at the embassy.
coming and advised evacuation of US personnel.
> Two different buildings. Don't conflate them.
mainframetech
Jul 23, 2017, 6:38:38 PM7/23/17
to
Particularly that he wouldn't allow ANY changes to Social Security,
Medicare or MEDICAID. That one got dropped quickly when it came time to
make a bill for wealthcare.
Chris
mainframetech
Jul 23, 2017, 6:38:52 PM7/23/17
to
> >
> >
> > > Clinton ran the
> > > most bizarre campaign in US history and almost got away with it. She also
> > > had a lot of baggage to carry into the national election, which most
> > > voters were already aware of. Can anyone point to some hacked revelation
> > > that tipped the election in Trump's favor?
> >
> >
> > There wasn't nearly as much baggage for Clinton as the constant claims
> > of the Republicans said. If there had \ben than the Republicans would
> > have been successful in putting together a hearing that went on for more
> > than a year and cost millions of tax payer money and they still couldn't
> > pin anything on her. And believe me, they tried. Was she so powerful?
> > Then she should have been prez, to deal with Putin (the proven adversary)
> > and not kiss his feet like we and the rest of the world are having to see.
> >
>
> Right. She showed what she was made of during the Benghazi tragedy. She
> ignored repeated calls for more security, then when the situation went
> south, she tried to blame it on some obscure anti-Muslim video.
Chris
mainframetech
Jul 24, 2017, 10:19:44 AM7/24/17
to
On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 9:21:13 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Saturday, July 22, 2017 at 5:19:33 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 7:51:41 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 10:41:38 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > > > I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
> > > > want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
> > > > around?
> > >
> > > Probably as long as the internet was made available to the public.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Long before that. Programs were changed by others by a process
> > called 'patching'. If one knew the layout of a card deck, one could put
> > in patch cards that could usurp the programs functions and introduce new
> > code. It was often used as a way to correct programs without having to go
> > through the process of compiling and preparing the program.
> >
>
> When I was in the business correcting programs was not called hacking. It
> was called debugging. Modifying a program was known as maintenance.
>
Here we go again with your lack of knowledge of the programming field.
> On Saturday, July 22, 2017 at 5:19:33 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 7:51:41 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 10:41:38 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > > > I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
> > > > want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
> > > > around?
> > >
> > > Probably as long as the internet was made available to the public.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Long before that. Programs were changed by others by a process
> > called 'patching'. If one knew the layout of a card deck, one could put
> > in patch cards that could usurp the programs functions and introduce new
> > code. It was often used as a way to correct programs without having to go
> > through the process of compiling and preparing the program.
> >
>
> When I was in the business correcting programs was not called hacking. It
> was called debugging. Modifying a program was known as maintenance.
>
Debugging was done in a few different ways. One was testing with known
parameters, another was scanning the logic and looking for the error, and
after the problem was found, there were a few ways to correct the problem,
one was to recompile the program and link it into a object deck, then run
it with the linkage editor JCL (Job Control language) getting a new deck,
and then put the new deck into production. Another way to make
corrections to a program deck that already existed was to 'patch' the run
deck with cards punched out by the programmer. That method was also used
to 'hack' programs if the source wasn't available to change.
brainwash folks are saying. It's the same old fake news often directly
from Trump. No wonder he tried to convince folks that the real media was
making up fake news. They were often reporting on HIM! And he didn't
want anyone to believe it!
Chris
Anthony Marsh
Jul 24, 2017, 1:32:54 PM7/24/17
to
Anthony Marsh
Jul 24, 2017, 1:33:06 PM7/24/17
to
bigdog
Jul 24, 2017, 7:12:52 PM7/24/17
to
process, Trump sure as hell wouldn't have been the nominee. All Republican
delegates were chosen through the primaries and caucuses which is why
Trump was able to win despite being despised by the party establishment.
The Democrats were able to tip the scales to Hillary through unelected
super delegates, i.e. the party establishment, who overwhelmingly went for
Hillary making it virtually impossible for Sanders to win. In addition she
had the party machinery on her side which was a huge help in helping her
get out the vote. Despite this, Sanders won numerous primaries. There were
a number of primaries in which Sanders won the popular vote but Hillary
walked away with the lion's share of the delegates. But nobody in
Hillary's camp thought that was unfair. But when she got the most popular
votes but still lost the general election, that was terribly unfair in
their eyes.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > Clinton ran the
> > > > most bizarre campaign in US history and almost got away with it. She also
> > > > had a lot of baggage to carry into the national election, which most
> > > > voters were already aware of. Can anyone point to some hacked revelation
> > > > that tipped the election in Trump's favor?
> > >
> > >
> > > There wasn't nearly as much baggage for Clinton as the constant claims
> > > of the Republicans said. If there had \ben than the Republicans would
> > > have been successful in putting together a hearing that went on for more
> > > than a year and cost millions of tax payer money and they still couldn't
> > > pin anything on her. And believe me, they tried. Was she so powerful?
> > > Then she should have been prez, to deal with Putin (the proven adversary)
> > > and not kiss his feet like we and the rest of the world are having to see.
> > >
> >
> > Right. She showed what she was made of during the Benghazi tragedy. She
> > ignored repeated calls for more security, then when the situation went
> > south, she tried to blame it on some obscure anti-Muslim video.
>
>
>
> Blaming on someone else. Yep, a Trump method.
>
bigdog
Jul 24, 2017, 7:21:19 PM7/24/17
to
didn't enter the field until 1977 and by then things had gotten a bit more
sophisticated. Punch cards were something I worked with in school but
fortunately when I got my first job they were being phased out. I won't
say I never punched a JCL card deck but it was a skill that was quickly
forgotten for good reason. Nothing you described here could remotely be
considered hacking.
every pore and is obvious with every word they speak. They have been
engaged in a non-stop vendetta against Trump since they night they were
forced to report he was President-elect. They never take a days off. Tune
in to any live program on MSNBC or CNN and it is a virtual certainty you
will see one of two things. One is an attack piece on Donald Trump. The
other is a commercial. I cracked up yesterday when Joy Reid referred to
herself as a journalist. If she's a journalist, I'm a Chinese aviator.
MSNBC doesn't hire journalists. They have no use for them. Their talking
heads are nothing but shills for the Democrat Party. That includes their
turncoat Republicans like Michael Steele and Judas Scarborough. CNN is
pretty much as bad.
Anthony Marsh
Jul 25, 2017, 3:24:46 PM7/25/17
to
2 camps. Obviously different news outlets appeal to different factions.
mainframetech
Jul 25, 2017, 7:19:29 PM7/25/17
to
1964. I worked on the first generation of computers with the 705, and
then the 1401 and 1410, and many of the EAM machines, wiring them with
boards and wires.
We 'patched' programs often with cards inserted into run decks, and
that was indeed how hacking was done in the stone age when you weren't
around. That explains why you don't know anything about it.
Back then compiling was done with an 'SPS' deck. It consisted of 5
decks of cards, and you ran your assembler deck with the first 3 decks and
then the 4th deck compressed your final program, and the 5th gave you a
printout of your assembled program. In those days, even the operators
knew how to use machine code and input a program through the console of
whichever machine you were working with, and hacking was sometimes done
that way. There were occasions that I hacked a program to get a function
it did without doing all it's work. Just picking out the function you
wanted, then causing branches and other code to manipulate an existing
program to do something it normally wasn't supposed to do. But you
wouldn't know about that.
too, and many of the foreign news channels as well. They agreed with the
general news coming out from everywhere except FOX. FOX was smart in that
they had a guaranteed audience, and they listened to that fake news and
believed every word, just like some folks believed the WCR.
> They have been
> engaged in a non-stop vendetta against Trump since they night they were
> forced to report he was President-elect. They never take a days off. Tune
> in to any live program on MSNBC or CNN and it is a virtual certainty you
> will see one of two things. One is an attack piece on Donald Trump.
BWEFORE he became prez, along with everyone else he could think of. And
that's usually not too wise, but wisdom is not Trump's forte.
> The
> other is a commercial. I cracked up yesterday when Joy Reid referred to
> herself as a journalist. If she's a journalist, I'm a Chinese aviator.
> MSNBC doesn't hire journalists. They have no use for them. Their talking
> heads are nothing but shills for the Democrat Party. That includes their
> turncoat Republicans like Michael Steele and Judas Scarborough. CNN is
> pretty much as bad.
Hannity is somehow better than Joy Reid? Or some of the other talking
heads on FOX? There's really no difference how they do the job, only in
what they choose to talk about.
Chris
mainframetech
Jul 25, 2017, 7:20:36 PM7/25/17
to
Trump slid by and won the RNC top position. They were caught with their
pants down. But then they went and supported him in the election, and
made their mistake bigger.
> All Republican
> delegates were chosen through the primaries and caucuses which is why
> Trump was able to win despite being despised by the party establishment.
> The Democrats were able to tip the scales to Hillary through unelected
> super delegates, i.e. the party establishment, who overwhelmingly went for
> Hillary making it virtually impossible for Sanders to win. In addition she
> had the party machinery on her side which was a huge help in helping her
> get out the vote. Despite this, Sanders won numerous primaries. There were
> a number of primaries in which Sanders won the popular vote but Hillary
> walked away with the lion's share of the delegates. But nobody in
> Hillary's camp thought that was unfair. But when she got the most popular
> votes but still lost the general election, that was terribly unfair in
> their eyes.
>
to win.
> > > > > Clinton ran the
> > > > > most bizarre campaign in US history and almost got away with it. She also
> > > > > had a lot of baggage to carry into the national election, which most
> > > > > voters were already aware of. Can anyone point to some hacked revelation
> > > > > that tipped the election in Trump's favor?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There wasn't nearly as much baggage for Clinton as the constant claims
> > > > of the Republicans said. If there had \ben than the Republicans would
> > > > have been successful in putting together a hearing that went on for more
> > > > than a year and cost millions of tax payer money and they still couldn't
> > > > pin anything on her. And believe me, they tried. Was she so powerful?
> > > > Then she should have been prez, to deal with Putin (the proven adversary)
> > > > and not kiss his feet like we and the rest of the world are having to see.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Right. She showed what she was made of during the Benghazi tragedy. She
> > > ignored repeated calls for more security, then when the situation went
> > > south, she tried to blame it on some obscure anti-Muslim video.
> >
> >
> >
> > Blaming on someone else. Yep, a Trump method.
> >
>
> So in your eyes, she was just as bad as Trump.
the hearing they tried to keep going as long as possible. And still
couldn't nail her with any real blame. At her level as SoS it's doubtful
that she was directly aware of the situation, or only aware that they
couldn't get the funding they wanted for security.
If she was guilty of something, be sure that the Republicans would have
gleefully had her jailed.
Chris
bigdog
Jul 26, 2017, 11:03:51 PM7/26/17
to
> I worked on the first generation of computers with the 705, and
> then the 1401 and 1410, and many of the EAM machines, wiring them with
> boards and wires.
>
> We 'patched' programs often with cards inserted into run decks, and
> that was indeed how hacking was done in the stone age when you weren't
> around. That explains why you don't know anything about it.
>
what we think of today as hacking which is a malicious act.
> Back then compiling was done with an 'SPS' deck. It consisted of 5
> decks of cards, and you ran your assembler deck with the first 3 decks and
> then the 4th deck compressed your final program, and the 5th gave you a
> printout of your assembled program. In those days, even the operators
> knew how to use machine code and input a program through the console of
> whichever machine you were working with, and hacking was sometimes done
> that way. There were occasions that I hacked a program to get a function
> it did without doing all it's work. Just picking out the function you
> wanted, then causing branches and other code to manipulate an existing
> program to do something it normally wasn't supposed to do. But you
> wouldn't know about that.
>
compilers. Then I got out in the real world and learned that was the kind
of computing done in the Dark Ages.
> They agreed with the
> general news coming out from everywhere except FOX.
> FOX was smart in that
> they had a guaranteed audience, and they listened to that fake news and
> believed every word, just like some folks believed the WCR.
>
which have engaged in a vendetta against Trump since the night he was
elected to fairly and accurately report the news. I'm supposed to believe
in a network that was talking about impeaching Trump before he had even
been declared the winner of the election. Right. Why would I expect people
like that to tell me the truth about anything?
>
>
>
> > They have been
> > engaged in a non-stop vendetta against Trump since they night they were
> > forced to report he was President-elect. They never take a days off. Tune
> > in to any live program on MSNBC or CNN and it is a virtual certainty you
> > will see one of two things. One is an attack piece on Donald Trump.
>
>
>
> Sad that you forget so easily that Trump was attacking the news media
> BWEFORE he became prez, along with everyone else he could think of. And
> that's usually not too wise, but wisdom is not Trump's forte.
>
back when the media attacked him. The typical Republican politician curls
up into a fetal position when people in the media say nasty things about
them. One of the things that appealed to Trump voters is that he was
willing to take on his attackers. All these so called smart political
pundits were openly laughing at the prospect of Trump even being nominated
much less elected and they were all forced to eat crow and they didn't
like the taste of it.
>
>
>
> > The
> > other is a commercial. I cracked up yesterday when Joy Reid referred to
> > herself as a journalist. If she's a journalist, I'm a Chinese aviator.
> > MSNBC doesn't hire journalists. They have no use for them. Their talking
> > heads are nothing but shills for the Democrat Party. That includes their
> > turncoat Republicans like Michael Steele and Judas Scarborough. CNN is
> > pretty much as bad.
>
>
>
> Oooo! The nasty names! So typically Republican! So you think
> Hannity is somehow better than Joy Reid?
He is a commentator. If Hannity referred to himself as a journalist I
would mock him too.
> Or some of the other talking
> heads on FOX? There's really no difference how they do the job, only in
> what they choose to talk about.
>
to be journalists. True journalists report facts, not their opinions. I
see very little journalism being practiced anywhere including FOX.
bigdog
Jul 26, 2017, 11:04:50 PM7/26/17
to
Republicans, like the Bushes, were willing to go down that road.
Fortunately enough voters were not.
>
>
> > All Republican
> > delegates were chosen through the primaries and caucuses which is why
> > Trump was able to win despite being despised by the party establishment.
> > The Democrats were able to tip the scales to Hillary through unelected
> > super delegates, i.e. the party establishment, who overwhelmingly went for
> > Hillary making it virtually impossible for Sanders to win. In addition she
> > had the party machinery on her side which was a huge help in helping her
> > get out the vote. Despite this, Sanders won numerous primaries. There were
> > a number of primaries in which Sanders won the popular vote but Hillary
> > walked away with the lion's share of the delegates. But nobody in
> > Hillary's camp thought that was unfair. But when she got the most popular
> > votes but still lost the general election, that was terribly unfair in
> > their eyes.
> >
>
>
> So what you're saying is that Hillary as a politician knew what to do
> to win.
>
comes around.
>
>
>
> > > > > > Clinton ran the
> > > > > > most bizarre campaign in US history and almost got away with it. She also
> > > > > > had a lot of baggage to carry into the national election, which most
> > > > > > voters were already aware of. Can anyone point to some hacked revelation
> > > > > > that tipped the election in Trump's favor?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > There wasn't nearly as much baggage for Clinton as the constant claims
> > > > > of the Republicans said. If there had \ben than the Republicans would
> > > > > have been successful in putting together a hearing that went on for more
> > > > > than a year and cost millions of tax payer money and they still couldn't
> > > > > pin anything on her. And believe me, they tried. Was she so powerful?
> > > > > Then she should have been prez, to deal with Putin (the proven adversary)
> > > > > and not kiss his feet like we and the rest of the world are having to see.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Right. She showed what she was made of during the Benghazi tragedy. She
> > > > ignored repeated calls for more security, then when the situation went
> > > > south, she tried to blame it on some obscure anti-Muslim video.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Blaming on someone else. Yep, a Trump method.
> > >
> >
> > So in your eyes, she was just as bad as Trump.
>
>
> Benghazi was a setup by the Republicans.
> They played their cards with
> the hearing they tried to keep going as long as possible. And still
> couldn't nail her with any real blame. At her level as SoS it's doubtful
> that she was directly aware of the situation, or only aware that they
> couldn't get the funding they wanted for security.
>
derelict in her duty.
> If she was guilty of something, be sure that the Republicans would have
> gleefully had her jailed.
>
claviger
Jul 26, 2017, 11:18:30 PM7/26/17
to
On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 6:20:36 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 7:12:52 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>
> I must admit the Republicans were just as surprised as others when
> Trump slid by and won the RNC top position.
Which proves a large segment of the US public lost confidence in both
> On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 7:12:52 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>
> I must admit the Republicans were just as surprised as others when
> Trump slid by and won the RNC top position.
political parties.
> They were caught with their pants down. But then they went and
> supported him in the election, and made their mistake bigger.
candidate with most votes in the GOP Primary. In fact it would have
destroyed the Republican Party. Voters could never take them seriously
again. In one sense it's a pity that didn't happen. Republicans take the
Middle Class for granted just like Democrats do. This past election was a
Middle Class uprising. Both major political parties need to learn that
lesson.
> > All Republican
> > delegates were chosen through the primaries and caucuses which is why
> > Trump was able to win despite being despised by the party establishment.
> > The Democrats were able to tip the scales to Hillary through unelected
> > super delegates, i.e. the party establishment, who overwhelmingly went for
> > Hillary making it virtually impossible for Sanders to win. In addition she
> > had the party machinery on her side which was a huge help in helping her
> > get out the vote. Despite this, Sanders won numerous primaries. There were
> > a number of primaries in which Sanders won the popular vote but Hillary
> > walked away with the lion's share of the delegates. But nobody in
> > Hillary's camp thought that was unfair. But when she got the most popular
> > votes but still lost the general election, that was terribly unfair in
> > their eyes.
>
> So what you're saying is that Hillary as a politician knew what to do
> to win.
use those same skills to screw up the US economy. The voters prevented
that from happening.
> > > Blaming on someone else. Yep, a Trump method.
> >
> > So in your eyes, she was just as bad as Trump.
>
> Benghazi was a setup by the Republicans.
> They played their cards with the hearing they tried to keep going as
> long as possible. And still couldn't nail her with any real blame.
> At her level as SoS it's doubtful that she was directly aware of the
> situation,
agreed with your observation.
> or only aware that they couldn't get the funding they wanted for
> security.
get funding to bury the dead and take care of the wounded?
> If she was guilty of something, be sure that the Republicans would have
> gleefully had her jailed.
> Chris
humiliating loss in the general election was the next best thing that
could have happened to her. Ultimately justice was done by the voters.
The corruption of the devious Obama administration finally came to an end.
mainframetech
Jul 28, 2017, 7:47:57 PM7/28/17
to
> > I worked on the first generation of computers with the 705, and
> > then the 1401 and 1410, and many of the EAM machines, wiring them with
> > boards and wires.
> >
>
> I bet back then you were churning your own butter too.
>
> > We 'patched' programs often with cards inserted into run decks, and
> > that was indeed how hacking was done in the stone age when you weren't
> > around. That explains why you don't know anything about it.
> >
>
> I seriously doubt it was called hacking. Whatever it was called it wasn't
> what we think of today as hacking which is a malicious act.
>
'patching', but the effect was the same. You could completely override
the programming in a program and use it for your own purposes or add to it
and do all kinds of things that weren't intended.
> > Back then compiling was done with an 'SPS' deck. It consisted of 5
> > decks of cards, and you ran your assembler deck with the first 3 decks and
> > then the 4th deck compressed your final program, and the 5th gave you a
> > printout of your assembled program. In those days, even the operators
> > knew how to use machine code and input a program through the console of
> > whichever machine you were working with, and hacking was sometimes done
> > that way. There were occasions that I hacked a program to get a function
> > it did without doing all it's work. Just picking out the function you
> > wanted, then causing branches and other code to manipulate an existing
> > program to do something it normally wasn't supposed to do. But you
> > wouldn't know about that.
> >
>
> Actually I trained on one of those first generation computers with card
> compilers. Then I got out in the real world and learned that was the kind
> of computing done in the Dark Ages.
>
equipment? Wiring boards?
> > They agreed with the
> > general news coming out from everywhere except FOX.
>
> Surprise, surprise.
>
> > FOX was smart in that
> > they had a guaranteed audience, and they listened to that fake news and
> > believed every word, just like some folks believed the WCR.
> >
>
> I guess I'm supposed to believe that electronic and print media centers
> which have engaged in a vendetta against Trump since the night he was
> elected to fairly and accurately report the news. I'm supposed to believe
> in a network that was talking about impeaching Trump before he had even
> been declared the winner of the election. Right. Why would I expect people
> like that to tell me the truth about anything?
>
expected given who Trump is and his history, but not many of the media
were that way. Most were waiting to see how Trump would handle the job,
and now we know he can't. Of course, his foolish attacks on everyone
around him including the media is mistake. He can't get along with
anyone.
> >
> >
> >
> > > They have been
> > > engaged in a non-stop vendetta against Trump since they night they were
> > > forced to report he was President-elect. They never take a days off. Tune
> > > in to any live program on MSNBC or CNN and it is a virtual certainty you
> > > will see one of two things. One is an attack piece on Donald Trump.
> >
> >
> >
> > Sad that you forget so easily that Trump was attacking the news media
> > that's usually not too wise, but wisdom is not Trump's forte.
> >
>
> Of course he was. He was that rare Republican who was willing to fight
> back when the media attacked him. The typical Republican politician curls
> up into a fetal position when people in the media say nasty things about
> them.
My experience watching the major channels is that most Republicans fight
> >
>
> Of course he was. He was that rare Republican who was willing to fight
> back when the media attacked him. The typical Republican politician curls
> up into a fetal position when people in the media say nasty things about
> them.
back continuously, and you can't stop them from talking and hogging the
channel.
> One of the things that appealed to Trump voters is that he was
> willing to take on his attackers. All these so called smart political
> pundits were openly laughing at the prospect of Trump even being nominated
> much less elected and they were all forced to eat crow and they didn't
> like the taste of it.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > The
> > > other is a commercial. I cracked up yesterday when Joy Reid referred to
> > > herself as a journalist. If she's a journalist, I'm a Chinese aviator.
> > > MSNBC doesn't hire journalists. They have no use for them. Their talking
> > > heads are nothing but shills for the Democrat Party. That includes their
> > > turncoat Republicans like Michael Steele and Judas Scarborough. CNN is
> > > pretty much as bad.
> >
> >
> >
> > Oooo! The nasty names! So typically Republican! So you think
> > Hannity is somehow better than Joy Reid?
>
> By a wide margin. For one, he makes no pretense about being a journalist.
> He is a commentator. If Hannity referred to himself as a journalist I
> would mock him too.
>
> > Or some of the other talking
> > heads on FOX? There's really no difference how they do the job, only in
> > what they choose to talk about.
> >
>
> Yes, FOX does have their advocates too but they don't go around pretending
> to be journalists. True journalists report facts, not their opinions. I
> see very little journalism being practiced anywhere including FOX.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
Jul 29, 2017, 9:24:16 AM7/29/17
to
actually WALKING around inside his computer.
Do you even know what the MS stands for?
bigdog
Jul 29, 2017, 2:10:09 PM7/29/17
to
taking over from Big Iron when I got out.
>
>
> > > I worked on the first generation of computers with the 705, and
> > > then the 1401 and 1410, and many of the EAM machines, wiring them with
> > > boards and wires.
> > >
> >
> > I bet back then you were churning your own butter too.
> >
>
>
> No need. I had trainee programmers to do it for me.
>
>
>
> > > We 'patched' programs often with cards inserted into run decks, and
> > > that was indeed how hacking was done in the stone age when you weren't
> > > around. That explains why you don't know anything about it.
> > >
> >
> > I seriously doubt it was called hacking. Whatever it was called it wasn't
> > what we think of today as hacking which is a malicious act.
> >
>
>
> It was what is today called hacking, though back then it was
> 'patching', but the effect was the same. You could completely override
> the programming in a program and use it for your own purposes or add to it
> and do all kinds of things that weren't intended.
>
legitimate and authorized action. Hacking is maliciously accessing and/or
destroying someone else's data without their permission.
>
>
> > > Back then compiling was done with an 'SPS' deck. It consisted of 5
> > > decks of cards, and you ran your assembler deck with the first 3 decks and
> > > then the 4th deck compressed your final program, and the 5th gave you a
> > > printout of your assembled program. In those days, even the operators
> > > knew how to use machine code and input a program through the console of
> > > whichever machine you were working with, and hacking was sometimes done
> > > that way. There were occasions that I hacked a program to get a function
> > > it did without doing all it's work. Just picking out the function you
> > > wanted, then causing branches and other code to manipulate an existing
> > > program to do something it normally wasn't supposed to do. But you
> > > wouldn't know about that.
> > >
> >
> > Actually I trained on one of those first generation computers with card
> > compilers. Then I got out in the real world and learned that was the kind
> > of computing done in the Dark Ages.
> >
>
>
>
> So you worked on a 705 or similar computer? What model? EAM
> equipment? Wiring boards?
>
are very liberal just as PBS is.
>
>
> > > They agreed with the
> > > general news coming out from everywhere except FOX.
> >
> > Surprise, surprise.
> >
> > > FOX was smart in that
> > > they had a guaranteed audience, and they listened to that fake news and
> > > believed every word, just like some folks believed the WCR.
> > >
> >
> > I guess I'm supposed to believe that electronic and print media centers
> > which have engaged in a vendetta against Trump since the night he was
> > elected to fairly and accurately report the news. I'm supposed to believe
> > in a network that was talking about impeaching Trump before he had even
> > been declared the winner of the election. Right. Why would I expect people
> > like that to tell me the truth about anything?
> >
>
>
>
> That an individual here and there was unhappy with Trump would be
> expected given who Trump is and his history, but not many of the media
> were that way.
infested with such people.
> Most were waiting to see how Trump would handle the job,
> and now we know he can't.
24/7 ever since. Good luck finding any of these liberal propaganda
machines having said one positive thing about Trump. EVER!!!
> Of course, his foolish attacks on everyone
> around him including the media is mistake. He can't get along with
> anyone.
>
those liberal commentators who were so smug before the election and so
devastated afterward. Since I couldn't possibly watch everyone's election
night coverage I was pleasantly surprised to see that all the network and
cable news coverage has been posted on YouTube and one of the things I do
for laughs is replay them and watch those liberal talking heads starting
out the evening brimming with confidence and arrogance and then slowly
melting down as the reality of the situation started sinking in. It really
hit them hard when one of them reported midway through the evening that
the NYT had calculated based on the returns up to that point that there
was a 91% chance that Trump was going to win.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > They have been
> > > > engaged in a non-stop vendetta against Trump since they night they were
> > > > forced to report he was President-elect. They never take a days off. Tune
> > > > in to any live program on MSNBC or CNN and it is a virtual certainty you
> > > > will see one of two things. One is an attack piece on Donald Trump.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sad that you forget so easily that Trump was attacking the news media
> > > BEFORE he became prez, along with everyone else he could think of. And
> > > that's usually not too wise, but wisdom is not Trump's forte.
> > >
> >
> > Of course he was. He was that rare Republican who was willing to fight
> > back when the media attacked him. The typical Republican politician curls
> > up into a fetal position when people in the media say nasty things about
> > them.
>
>
>
> My experience watching the major channels is that most Republicans fight
> back continuously, and you can't stop them from talking and hogging the
> channel.
>
because they were afraid that if the government shut down, the media would
blame them. That would have been the case and they didn't want to fight
that battle.
>
>
>
> > One of the things that appealed to Trump voters is that he was
> > willing to take on his attackers. All these so called smart political
> > pundits were openly laughing at the prospect of Trump even being nominated
> > much less elected and they were all forced to eat crow and they didn't
> > like the taste of it.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > The
> > > > other is a commercial. I cracked up yesterday when Joy Reid referred to
> > > > herself as a journalist. If she's a journalist, I'm a Chinese aviator.
> > > > MSNBC doesn't hire journalists. They have no use for them. Their talking
> > > > heads are nothing but shills for the Democrat Party. That includes their
> > > > turncoat Republicans like Michael Steele and Judas Scarborough. CNN is
> > > > pretty much as bad.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Oooo! The nasty names! So typically Republican! So you think
> > > Hannity is somehow better than Joy Reid?
> >
> > By a wide margin. For one, he makes no pretense about being a journalist.
> > He is a commentator. If Hannity referred to himself as a journalist I
> > would mock him too.
> >
> > > Or some of the other talking
> > > heads on FOX? There's really no difference how they do the job, only in
> > > what they choose to talk about.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, FOX does have their advocates too but they don't go around pretending
> > to be journalists. True journalists report facts, not their opinions. I
> > see very little journalism being practiced anywhere including FOX.
>
> Well, time will tell if you are onto the truth...:)
>
mainframetech
Jul 30, 2017, 9:20:56 PM7/30/17
to
your company was behind the times.
> >
> >
> > > > I worked on the first generation of computers with the 705, and
> > > > then the 1401 and 1410, and many of the EAM machines, wiring them with
> > > > boards and wires.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I bet back then you were churning your own butter too.
> > >
> >
> >
> > No need. I had trainee programmers to do it for me.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > We 'patched' programs often with cards inserted into run decks, and
> > > > that was indeed how hacking was done in the stone age when you weren't
> > > > around. That explains why you don't know anything about it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I seriously doubt it was called hacking. Whatever it was called it wasn't
> > > what we think of today as hacking which is a malicious act.
> > >
> >
> >
> > It was what is today called hacking, though back then it was
> > 'patching', but the effect was the same. You could completely override
> > the programming in a program and use it for your own purposes or add to it
> > and do all kinds of things that weren't intended.
> >
>
> Patching and hacking are two different acts. Patching is a perfectly
> legitimate and authorized action. Hacking is maliciously accessing and/or
> destroying someone else's data without their permission.
>
"Computer hacking refers to the practice of modifying or altering computer
software and hardware to accomplish a goal that is considered to be
outside of the creator's original objective. Those individuals who engage
in computer hacking activities are typically referred to as
“hackers.”
You will find black hat hackers and white hat hackers. And before
your time, we 'hacked' programs using 'patching' among other tools. I've
on a number of occasions hacked a program through the console while the
program was loaded, which is a second form of hacking.
> >
> >
> > > > They agreed with the
> > > > general news coming out from everywhere except FOX.
> > >
> > > Surprise, surprise.
> > >
> > > > FOX was smart in that
> > > > they had a guaranteed audience, and they listened to that fake news and
> > > > believed every word, just like some folks believed the WCR.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I guess I'm supposed to believe that electronic and print media centers
> > > which have engaged in a vendetta against Trump since the night he was
> > > elected to fairly and accurately report the news. I'm supposed to believe
> > > in a network that was talking about impeaching Trump before he had even
> > > been declared the winner of the election. Right. Why would I expect people
> > > like that to tell me the truth about anything?
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > That an individual here and there was unhappy with Trump would be
> > expected given who Trump is and his history, but not many of the media
> > were that way.
>
> Here and there? Are you serious? The networks and cable news outlets are
> infested with such people.
>
> > Most were waiting to see how Trump would handle the job,
> > and now we know he can't.
>
> Bullshit. The attacks began the night of the election and have continued
> 24/7 ever since. Good luck finding any of these liberal propaganda
> machines having said one positive thing about Trump. EVER!!!
>
> machines". Give the brainwashing a rest. How easily you forget that Trump during the last half of the campaign insulted the media all over the place when he thought he was going to lose. And he kept it up after he became prez. And then he complains about their treatment of him. Never mind that he does wacky things just to get attention, and then complains when he gets it!
If you think Trump is being honest about his not having anything
illegal or damaging to himself that he's hiding, send him an email telling
him to come clean with everything and await the clearing of his name by
Mueller. So far, the whole Trump family and others have been lying about
Russian in meetings and such, and probably more to come. Get it all out
and stop the drip...drip...drip.
> > Of course, his foolish attacks on everyone
> > around him including the media is mistake. He can't get along with
> > anyone.
> >
>
> His "foolish attacks" got him elected much to the surprise and dismay of a
> those liberal commentators who were so smug before the election and so
> devastated afterward. Since I couldn't possibly watch everyone's election
> night coverage I was pleasantly surprised to see that all the network and
> cable news coverage has been posted on YouTube and one of the things I do
> for laughs is replay them and watch those liberal talking heads starting
> out the evening brimming with confidence and arrogance and then slowly
> melting down as the reality of the situation started sinking in. It really
> hit them hard when one of them reported midway through the evening that
> the NYT had calculated based on the returns up to that point that there
> was a 91% chance that Trump was going to win.
>
democrats, don't try to relive it...:)
> > > > > They have been
> > > > > engaged in a non-stop vendetta against Trump since they night they were
> > > > > forced to report he was President-elect. They never take a days off. Tune
> > > > > in to any live program on MSNBC or CNN and it is a virtual certainty you
> > > > > will see one of two things. One is an attack piece on Donald Trump.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sad that you forget so easily that Trump was attacking the news media
> > > > BEFORE he became prez, along with everyone else he could think of. And
> > > > that's usually not too wise, but wisdom is not Trump's forte.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Of course he was. He was that rare Republican who was willing to fight
> > > back when the media attacked him. The typical Republican politician curls
> > > up into a fetal position when people in the media say nasty things about
> > > them.
> >
> >
> >
> > My experience watching the major channels is that most Republicans fight
> > back continuously, and you can't stop them from talking and hogging the
> > channel.
> >
>
> Nonsense. It's the reason the Republicans caved to Obama on the budget
> because they were afraid that if the government shut down, the media would
> blame them. That would have been the case and they didn't want to fight
> that battle.
>
can understand there sensitivity.
Chris
bigdog
Jul 31, 2017, 4:42:05 PM7/31/17
to
programmer who modified an existing programmer as a hacker. Almost all
programs get modified as requirements change over time. Even the word
hacking has malicious connotations. That's why it isn't used in connection
with normal program maintenance.
>
> You will find black hat hackers and white hat hackers. And before
> your time, we 'hacked' programs using 'patching' among other tools. I've
> on a number of occasions hacked a program through the console while the
> program was loaded, which is a second form of hacking.
>
system software. I rarely if ever heard it used regarding application
software.
government tit.
>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > They agreed with the
> > > > > general news coming out from everywhere except FOX.
> > > >
> > > > Surprise, surprise.
> > > >
> > > > > FOX was smart in that
> > > > > they had a guaranteed audience, and they listened to that fake news and
> > > > > believed every word, just like some folks believed the WCR.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I guess I'm supposed to believe that electronic and print media centers
> > > > which have engaged in a vendetta against Trump since the night he was
> > > > elected to fairly and accurately report the news. I'm supposed to believe
> > > > in a network that was talking about impeaching Trump before he had even
> > > > been declared the winner of the election. Right. Why would I expect people
> > > > like that to tell me the truth about anything?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > That an individual here and there was unhappy with Trump would be
> > > expected given who Trump is and his history, but not many of the media
> > > were that way.
> >
> > Here and there? Are you serious? The networks and cable news outlets are
> > infested with such people.
> >
>
>
>
> Then you feel that many, many people were unhappy with Trump. I see.
>
>
>
>
> > > Most were waiting to see how Trump would handle the job,
> > > and now we know he can't.
> >
> > Bullshit. The attacks began the night of the election and have continued
> > 24/7 ever since. Good luck finding any of these liberal propaganda
> > machines having said one positive thing about Trump. EVER!!!
> >
>
>
>
> Wow! Those pat phrases just spill out like water. "liberal propaganda
> > machines". Give the brainwashing a rest. How easily you forget that Trump during the last half of the campaign insulted the media all over the place when he thought he was going to lose. And he kept it up after he became prez. And then he complains about their treatment of him. Never mind that he does wacky things just to get attention, and then complains when he gets it!
>
> If you think Trump is being honest about his not having anything
> illegal or damaging to himself that he's hiding, send him an email telling
> him to come clean with everything and await the clearing of his name by
> Mueller. So far, the whole Trump family and others have been lying about
> Russian in meetings and such, and probably more to come. Get it all out
> and stop the drip...drip...drip.
>
evidence? There is a story about a young protégé of LBJ's who
was making his first run at public office and his campaign was not going
well so he turned to his mentor for advice. LBJ suggested he accuse his
opponent of having sex with his pig. The protégé said he
couldn't say that because it wasn't true. LBJ replied, "Make him deny it".
That's what this whole Russia nothing burger is all about.
>
>
>
> > > Of course, his foolish attacks on everyone
> > > around him including the media is mistake. He can't get along with
> > > anyone.
> > >
> >
> > His "foolish attacks" got him elected much to the surprise and dismay of a
> > those liberal commentators who were so smug before the election and so
> > devastated afterward. Since I couldn't possibly watch everyone's election
> > night coverage I was pleasantly surprised to see that all the network and
> > cable news coverage has been posted on YouTube and one of the things I do
> > for laughs is replay them and watch those liberal talking heads starting
> > out the evening brimming with confidence and arrogance and then slowly
> > melting down as the reality of the situation started sinking in. It really
> > hit them hard when one of them reported midway through the evening that
> > the NYT had calculated based on the returns up to that point that there
> > was a 91% chance that Trump was going to win.
> >
>
>
>
> Now now. The election is over, as the conservatives say to the
> democrats, don't try to relive it...:)
>
>
>
> > > > > > They have been
> > > > > > engaged in a non-stop vendetta against Trump since they night they were
> > > > > > forced to report he was President-elect. They never take a days off. Tune
> > > > > > in to any live program on MSNBC or CNN and it is a virtual certainty you
> > > > > > will see one of two things. One is an attack piece on Donald Trump.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Sad that you forget so easily that Trump was attacking the news media
> > > > > BEFORE he became prez, along with everyone else he could think of. And
> > > > > that's usually not too wise, but wisdom is not Trump's forte.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Of course he was. He was that rare Republican who was willing to fight
> > > > back when the media attacked him. The typical Republican politician curls
> > > > up into a fetal position when people in the media say nasty things about
> > > > them.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My experience watching the major channels is that most Republicans fight
> > > back continuously, and you can't stop them from talking and hogging the
> > > channel.
> > >
> >
> > Nonsense. It's the reason the Republicans caved to Obama on the budget
> > because they were afraid that if the government shut down, the media would
> > blame them. That would have been the case and they didn't want to fight
> > that battle.
> >
>
>
> Since they were the cause of the one case of the gov't being stopped, I
> can understand there sensitivity.
>
budget agreement, why is one more to blame than the other? Whenever there
has been a government shutdown, the Democrats were equally responsible yet
they never get any of the blame. That's because the media is largely in
the tank for them.
Anthony Marsh
Jul 31, 2017, 8:17:25 PM7/31/17
to
> Chris
>
>
>
>
mainframetech
Aug 1, 2017, 11:16:59 AM8/1/17
to
answers. Well, you don't, and actually, you seem to have very few for a
job that you say you did. Note: You probably worked in the mainstream
big corporation programming dept. and saw little of the real world.
> >
> > You will find black hat hackers and white hat hackers. And before
> > your time, we 'hacked' programs using 'patching' among other tools. I've
> > on a number of occasions hacked a program through the console while the
> > program was loaded, which is a second form of hacking.
> >
>
> Patching is a term I did hear frequently although primarily in regards to
> system software. I rarely if ever heard it used regarding application
> software.
>
the old days of first generation and EAM equipment, there were many ways
to accomplish a task, and we knew what there was to know about the
machines we had available. As well, in the 360 era we did some of that
stuff too. For instance I had to patch a 3705 Communications Network
unit, which had it's own assembler language, different from the 360
assembler. We used 'Superzap' a patching program distributed by IBM, but
written by a private person and submitted to them:
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/zosbasics/com.ibm.zos.zdatamgmt/zsysprogc_utilities_SPZAP.htm
You'll note in the program description that it speaks of 'patching'.
PBS programming and channels that are losing gov't funding. They are on
funding drives every quester now.
> > > > > > They agreed with the
> > > > > > general news coming out from everywhere except FOX.
> > > > >
> > > > > Surprise, surprise.
> > > > >
> > > > > > FOX was smart in that
> > > > > > they had a guaranteed audience, and they listened to that fake news and
> > > > > > believed every word, just like some folks believed the WCR.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess I'm supposed to believe that electronic and print media centers
> > > > > which have engaged in a vendetta against Trump since the night he was
> > > > > elected to fairly and accurately report the news. I'm supposed to believe
> > > > > in a network that was talking about impeaching Trump before he had even
> > > > > been declared the winner of the election. Right. Why would I expect people
> > > > > like that to tell me the truth about anything?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That an individual here and there was unhappy with Trump would be
> > > > expected given who Trump is and his history, but not many of the media
> > > > were that way.
> > >
> > > Here and there? Are you serious? The networks and cable news outlets are
> > > infested with such people.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Then you feel that many, many people were unhappy with Trump. I see.
> >
>
> In the liberal infested mainstream media that is certainly true.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Most were waiting to see how Trump would handle the job,
> > > > and now we know he can't.
> > >
> > > Bullshit. The attacks began the night of the election and have continued
> > > 24/7 ever since. Good luck finding any of these liberal propaganda
> > > machines having said one positive thing about Trump. EVER!!!
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Wow! Those pat phrases just spill out like water. "liberal propaganda
> > > machines". Give the brainwashing a rest. How easily you forget that Trump during the last half of the campaign insulted the media all over the place when he thought he was going to lose. And he kept it up after he became prez. And then he complains about their treatment of him. Never mind that he does wacky things just to get attention, and then complains when he gets it!
> >
>
> So you admit the mainstream media has it in for Trump.
>
the truth, but that's going to make Trump look dumb because he is. He
walked into a job he had no clue how to do, and in a government with no
clue how it works or how to get anything done with it. And on top of
that, he hired many people that also had no clue how to get things done.
And here he is hiring and firing every other week trying to get out of
the Muller piano which he knows is going to fall on him soon.
> > If you think Trump is being honest about his not having anything
> > illegal or damaging to himself that he's hiding, send him an email telling
> > him to come clean with everything and await the clearing of his name by
> > Mueller. So far, the whole Trump family and others have been lying about
> > Russian in meetings and such, and probably more to come. Get it all out
> > and stop the drip...drip...drip.
> >
>
> Why should he deny committing a crime for which no one has produced any
> evidence? There is a story about a young protégé of LBJ's who
> was making his first run at public office and his campaign was not going
> well so he turned to his mentor for advice. LBJ suggested he accuse his
> opponent of having sex with his pig. The protégé said he
> couldn't say that because it wasn't true. LBJ replied, "Make him deny it".
> That's what this whole Russia nothing burger is all about.
>
crimes committed so far by Trump and family that we publicly know about.
But Mueller will not let out the story until the end of his investigation,
so there is almost sure to be a ton of guilty evidence in his hands.
> > > > Of course, his foolish attacks on everyone
> > > > around him including the media is mistake. He can't get along with
> > > > anyone.
> > > >
> > >
> > > His "foolish attacks" got him elected much to the surprise and dismay of a
> > > those liberal commentators who were so smug before the election and so
> > > devastated afterward. Since I couldn't possibly watch everyone's election
> > > night coverage I was pleasantly surprised to see that all the network and
> > > cable news coverage has been posted on YouTube and one of the things I do
> > > for laughs is replay them and watch those liberal talking heads starting
> > > out the evening brimming with confidence and arrogance and then slowly
> > > melting down as the reality of the situation started sinking in. It really
> > > hit them hard when one of them reported midway through the evening that
> > > the NYT had calculated based on the returns up to that point that there
> > > was a 91% chance that Trump was going to win.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Now now. The election is over, as the conservatives say to the
> > democrats, don't try to relive it...:)
> >
>
> The Democrats aren't trying to relive it. They are trying to undo it.
>
to undo it too.
again that the Republicans stated clearly that they were going to shut
down the gov't if they didn't get something they wanted. It was a clear
blackmail attempt.
"The last government shutdown was in October, 2013, and was widely blamed
on conservative Republicans in the House, with a major assist from Senator
Ted Cruz, who demanded that Obamacare had to be defunded, a ludicrous
strategy given that Barack Obama was President. Congress failed to pass
the necessary legislation, and the government closed for two weeks before
Republicans came back to the table."
think so, and you're spreading manure once again.
Chris
bigdog
Aug 1, 2017, 11:41:59 PM8/1/17
to
that neither one of us has the answers. The way things were done when you
got into the business were largely obsolete by the time I got into the
business, and when I got out in the early 2000s, my skill set was largely
becoming obsolete.
>
>
>
> > >
> > > You will find black hat hackers and white hat hackers. And before
> > > your time, we 'hacked' programs using 'patching' among other tools. I've
> > > on a number of occasions hacked a program through the console while the
> > > program was loaded, which is a second form of hacking.
> > >
> >
> > Patching is a term I did hear frequently although primarily in regards to
> > system software. I rarely if ever heard it used regarding application
> > software.
> >
>
>
> I'm sure you never got close to the systems programming area.
was sent back to applications programming where I spent the rest of my
career.
> But in
> the old days of first generation and EAM equipment, there were many ways
> to accomplish a task, and we knew what there was to know about the
> machines we had available.
early pioneers of personal computing had to be geeks in order to function.
They couldn't just buy a new computer with lots of apps preloaded. They
had to get into the nuts and bolts. When I got into the field one had to
be able to navigate their way through a core dump. That quickly became a
lost art I by the time I got out I had forgotten how to do it. It just
wasn't necessary any more.
> As well, in the 360 era we did some of that
> stuff too. For instance I had to patch a 3705 Communications Network
> unit, which had it's own assembler language, different from the 360
> assembler. We used 'Superzap' a patching program distributed by IBM, but
> written by a private person and submitted to them:
>
360 had been replace by the 370. Assembler code was no longer being used.
We had a few subroutines still in use that had been coded in Assembler
which I had to modify but Assembler was fast becoming the Latin of
programming languages. It was helpful to understand it to give you a clue
as to what was happening internally just as learning Latin can be useful
in understanding English derivatives.
> https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/zosbasics/com.ibm.zos.zdatamgmt/zsysprogc_utilities_SPZAP.htm
>
> You'll note in the program description that it speaks of 'patching'.
>
discussion?
networks and there was no platform for niche programming that didn't have
the broad appeal needed to be part of the network lineup. Now we have
hundreds of cable channels, mostly niche programming which makes PBS
obsolete. Sesame Street could easily find a home on a cable outlet. So
could just about every program offered on PBS. About the only thing PBS
airs that couldn't transfer to cable are its pledge drives. Unfortunately,
PBS has their lobbyists and Congress will continue to feed the dinosaur ad
infinitum.
>
>
> > > > > > > They agreed with the
> > > > > > > general news coming out from everywhere except FOX.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Surprise, surprise.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > FOX was smart in that
> > > > > > > they had a guaranteed audience, and they listened to that fake news and
> > > > > > > believed every word, just like some folks believed the WCR.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I guess I'm supposed to believe that electronic and print media centers
> > > > > > which have engaged in a vendetta against Trump since the night he was
> > > > > > elected to fairly and accurately report the news. I'm supposed to believe
> > > > > > in a network that was talking about impeaching Trump before he had even
> > > > > > been declared the winner of the election. Right. Why would I expect people
> > > > > > like that to tell me the truth about anything?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That an individual here and there was unhappy with Trump would be
> > > > > expected given who Trump is and his history, but not many of the media
> > > > > were that way.
> > > >
> > > > Here and there? Are you serious? The networks and cable news outlets are
> > > > infested with such people.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Then you feel that many, many people were unhappy with Trump. I see.
> > >
> >
> > In the liberal infested mainstream media that is certainly true.
> >
>
>
> Ah, the buzzwords...:)
>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Most were waiting to see how Trump would handle the job,
> > > > > and now we know he can't.
> > > >
> > > > Bullshit. The attacks began the night of the election and have continued
> > > > 24/7 ever since. Good luck finding any of these liberal propaganda
> > > > machines having said one positive thing about Trump. EVER!!!
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Wow! Those pat phrases just spill out like water. "liberal propaganda
> > > > machines". Give the brainwashing a rest. How easily you forget that Trump during the last half of the campaign insulted the media all over the place when he thought he was going to lose. And he kept it up after he became prez. And then he complains about their treatment of him. Never mind that he does wacky things just to get attention, and then complains when he gets it!
> > >
> >
> > So you admit the mainstream media has it in for Trump.
> >
>
>
> No, I believe a few hosts do, not the industry altogether.
majority of their programming is compromised of hit pieces about Trump.
The network news programs do cover other subjects but with the cable news
programs, the anti-Trump stories dominate their live programming. If you
and I were to make a bet in which you and I watched CNN or MSNBC for 12
straight hours and you gave me $1 for every they ran an anti-Trump story
and I gave you $5 every time they ran a story about something else, at the
end of the 12 hours, I have no doubt I would be way ahead.
> They tell the truth,
Now that's funny.
> but that's going to make Trump look dumb because he is.
prospects for even being nominated much less elected are so smart. Who's
laughing now? Trump outsmarted all of them which is one more reason they
hate him. He showed the country they weren't nearly as smart as they
pretended to be.
> He walked into a job he had no clue how to do,
ever came to the White House with more executive experience than Trump.
He's running the executive branch the way he would run a business. He
gives his people a mission and if they fail to accomplish it he holds them
accountable.
> and in a government with no
> clue how it works or how to get anything done with it. And on top of
> that, he hired many people that also had no clue how to get things done.
>
now are underestimating him as a president. They made the same mistakes
with Reagan. Then never thought he could get elected either and then were
amazed when he succeeded in doing many of the things he set out to do
despite having a hostile Congress for most of his tenure.
>
> And here he is hiring and firing every other week trying to get out of
> the Muller piano which he knows is going to fall on him soon.
>
doesn't put much faith in evidence. You prefer assumptions.
>
>
> > > If you think Trump is being honest about his not having anything
> > > illegal or damaging to himself that he's hiding, send him an email telling
> > > him to come clean with everything and await the clearing of his name by
> > > Mueller. So far, the whole Trump family and others have been lying about
> > > Russian in meetings and such, and probably more to come. Get it all out
> > > and stop the drip...drip...drip.
> > >
> >
> > Why should he deny committing a crime for which no one has produced any
> > evidence? There is a story about a young protégé of LBJ's who
> > was making his first run at public office and his campaign was not going
> > well so he turned to his mentor for advice. LBJ suggested he accuse his
> > opponent of having sex with his pig. The protégé said he
> > couldn't say that because it wasn't true. LBJ replied, "Make him deny it".
> > That's what this whole Russia nothing burger is all about.
> >
>
>
>
> I think you've forgotten again that I've given you a list of the
> crimes committed so far by Trump and family that we publicly know about.
> But Mueller will not let out the story until the end of his investigation,
> so there is almost sure to be a ton of guilty evidence in his hands.
>
lottery ticket. I don't look at the winning numbers right away. That way I
can go on believing I might actually win for a while. As soon as I look at
the winning numbers, reality sets in. I'm not sure why they call them
winning numbers. For almost all us who play, they are the losing numbers.
>
>
>
> > > > > Of course, his foolish attacks on everyone
> > > > > around him including the media is mistake. He can't get along with
> > > > > anyone.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > His "foolish attacks" got him elected much to the surprise and dismay of a
> > > > those liberal commentators who were so smug before the election and so
> > > > devastated afterward. Since I couldn't possibly watch everyone's election
> > > > night coverage I was pleasantly surprised to see that all the network and
> > > > cable news coverage has been posted on YouTube and one of the things I do
> > > > for laughs is replay them and watch those liberal talking heads starting
> > > > out the evening brimming with confidence and arrogance and then slowly
> > > > melting down as the reality of the situation started sinking in. It really
> > > > hit them hard when one of them reported midway through the evening that
> > > > the NYT had calculated based on the returns up to that point that there
> > > > was a 91% chance that Trump was going to win.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Now now. The election is over, as the conservatives say to the
> > > democrats, don't try to relive it...:)
> > >
> >
> > The Democrats aren't trying to relive it. They are trying to undo it.
> >
>
>
>
> LOL! Well, if you had not been brainwashed by Trump, you'd be trying
> to undo it too.
>
were screaming bloody murder that the Republicans were trying to stage a
coup de tat against a duly elected President. Now the shoe is on the other
foot and they are more than happy to talk about impeachment but you won't
hear any of them calling it a coup de tat.
Republicans for the shutdown. I already knew that. The truth is if the
Democrats had agreed to what the Republicans wanted there wouldn't have
been a shutdown but of course the media won't blame them. It's because the
Republicans wouldn't accept what the Democrats wanted that the government
was shutdown. It was all the Republicans fault that the two sides couldn't
reach a budget deal. It's always the Republicans who are supposed to cave
in and if they don't, it's their fault if the government shuts down.
Of course it is a myth that the government ever shutdown. Essential
services continued and nobody lost their jobs.
going even though as Van Jones stated, Russia is a nothing burger. The
longer Mueller can go without showing his cards, the longer the media can
milk the story.
mainframetech
Aug 2, 2017, 10:25:21 PM8/2/17
to
had reason to do patching here and there as any systems programmer had to
do at times. And that's 'systems programmer' in the older definition, not
the simple job of specifying the parameters of a system that is
automatically generated as the title became.
In the case mentioned earlier, I had to patch a 3705 comm Network
Control unit. We had a case where modems were dropping client comm lines,
and I tracked it down to the 3705. It was necessary to first find the
problem in the 3705, then interpret the assembler hex code into
understandable instructions, then patch the code on the mainframe that
would be loaded out to the 3705 when the command was given. Once the
'superzap' program was used to patch the 3705 control program on disk on
the mainframe, it would then allow for 7 times the wait time for
connection, and the problem was solved. But that's systems programming in
the older sense. the 3705 had a different instruction set than the normal
360, so it took a day to figure that out. That's an example of white hat
'hacking', where you go into a program and modify it to do what you need
it to do, differently than the original program specs.
There was no program listing or deck or file to modify, it had to be
done without such amenities, and it's called 'hacking' using 'patching' to
solve the problem.
fastest online realtime system in the industry we were in. It was all
multitask re-entrant assembler language, and I made sure all my people
were conversant in that language and COBOL as well for the mundane
reporting and such. Because of that we were considered the 'Cadillac' of
our industry. And that 370 system used the 3705 I mentioned above. The
mainstream was sold a bill of goods by IBM and others to sue COBOL for
their online system, so that their dumb old COBOL programmers could work
in the online environment, but CICS was a dog and managed to sell many
large IBM mainframes to support the slow as a pig system.
A wise business decision by IBM, just like PL/1, which also sold IBM
hardware to those foolish companies that shifted over to that language.
> We had a few subroutines still in use that had been coded in Assembler
> which I had to modify but Assembler was fast becoming the Latin of
> programming languages. It was helpful to understand it to give you a clue
> as to what was happening internally just as learning Latin can be useful
> in understanding English derivatives.
>
operating systems? While they have developed a 'C' compiler and can run
those programs, the IBM mainframes still use direct machine code compiled
from assembler instructions. As well, companies that write sophisticated
software like antivirus and special utility programs write in assembler
too. It's not a dead language, it's been moved upscale to the serious
programming level.
And as to having lost any programming abilities, I still program in
Visual Basic 6.0 and Visual C++ on my PC for fun. I experiment with HTML
and similar languages to keep up my knowledge of what's happening these
days.
> > https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/zosbasics/com.ibm.zos.zdatamgmt/zsysprogc_utilities_SPZAP.htm
> >
> > You'll note in the program description that it speaks of 'patching'.
> >
>
> Anyplace when it talks about hacking which was the starting point of this
> discussion?
>
https://www.lifewire.com/hackers-good-or-bad-3481592
because the last thing they want is for PBS to continue to uncover their
games on the public. PBS supports many necessary investigational programs
like Frontline, Nova, etc.
because he said things people liked and that gave them hope, though some
of them now are realizing it was a pig in a poke. He said he would
protect their healthcare, by making sure that SS, Medicare and Medicaid
wouldn't be touched! Thn he was out on the tube demanding of the Senate
that they pass the healthcare bill that would take healthcare away form
many millions of people, some of whom would die form that loss. And those
people were mainly his voters!
> > He walked into a job he had no clue how to do,
>
> The position is often called Chief Executive and nobody in recent times if
> ever came to the White House with more executive experience than Trump.
> He's running the executive branch the way he would run a business. He
> gives his people a mission and if they fail to accomplish it he holds them
> accountable.
>
berates their employee publicly, you do it privately, but Trump does it in
public, like with Sessions. No manager talks openly with the adversary
companies, like having Russians into the oval office where they could
leave all kinds of spy devices, and then give away your own companies
secrets to the adversaries.
Trump has been bankrupted 6 times, go see if you can find any
billionaire that was bankrupted once. Trump is a bad business manager
based on the proof, not fake news, the proof. His efforts in the White
House certainly show his lack of management skills.
> > and in a government with no
> > clue how it works or how to get anything done with it. And on top of
> > that, he hired many people that also had no clue how to get things done.
> >
>
> Liberals just never learn. They underestimated Trump as a candidate and
> now are underestimating him as a president. They made the same mistakes
> with Reagan. Then never thought he could get elected either and then were
> amazed when he succeeded in doing many of the things he set out to do
> despite having a hostile Congress for most of his tenure.
>
completely different skills. Getting elected was mostly a lucky thing
because Trump's promises were believed. But now he has to do the job, and
he can't find his ass with both hands and a rear view mirror! He is
constantly making mistakes and hanging himself on some new foolish
comment, and I'm sure Mueller is rubbing his hands together with glee.
> >
> > And here he is hiring and firing every other week trying to get out of
> >
>
> Just what evidence has Mueller produced. Oh, I forgot. You're the guy who
> doesn't put much faith in evidence. You prefer assumptions.
>
Can it. You mean you don't understand the rules of the game for these
>
> Just what evidence has Mueller produced. Oh, I forgot. You're the guy who
> doesn't put much faith in evidence. You prefer assumptions.
>
investigations? Mueller is using the FBI for much of his investigative
work, as well as lawyers with specific backgrounds, for instance, he has
hired the best lawyer on the East coast familiar with finance and money
laundering crimes.
Everything they learn is kept totally secret until the final report. And
it looks like the Mueller organization is doing much better than the W.H.
people at avoiding leaks.
> >
> >
> > > > If you think Trump is being honest about his not having anything
> > > > illegal or damaging to himself that he's hiding, send him an email telling
> > > > him to come clean with everything and await the clearing of his name by
> > > > Mueller. So far, the whole Trump family and others have been lying about
> > > > Russian in meetings and such, and probably more to come. Get it all out
> > > > and stop the drip...drip...drip.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Why should he deny committing a crime for which no one has produced any
> > > evidence? There is a story about a young protégé of LBJ's who
> > > was making his first run at public office and his campaign was not going
> > > well so he turned to his mentor for advice. LBJ suggested he accuse his
> > > opponent of having sex with his pig. The protégé said he
> > > couldn't say that because it wasn't true. LBJ replied, "Make him deny it".
> > > That's what this whole Russia nothing burger is all about.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > I think you've forgotten again that I've given you a list of the
> > crimes committed so far by Trump and family that we publicly know about.
>
> Yes, you are good at making up shit for which you have no evidence.
>
>
> > But Mueller will not let out the story until the end of his investigation,
> > so there is almost sure to be a ton of guilty evidence in his hands.
> >
>
> Keep assuming. It's what you do best. It's kind of like when I buy a
> lottery ticket. I don't look at the winning numbers right away. That way I
> can go on believing I might actually win for a while. As soon as I look at
> the winning numbers, reality sets in. I'm not sure why they call them
> winning numbers. For almost all us who play, they are the losing numbers.
>
already known publicly, and I'm sure that Mueller will have them on his
list. But he will have much more to go with those.
like today the story of Trump having dictated Trump Jr.'s phony reason to
go to meeting with the Russians. Trump said he knew nothing about the
meeting, but turns out he was the one that supplied the phony reason for
Jr. to use with the questioning. Now we have him lying to congress.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
Aug 3, 2017, 10:45:24 AM8/3/17
to
nothing to hide?
bigdog
Aug 3, 2017, 9:35:46 PM8/3/17
to
efficiently. I learned Assembler and I had an understanding of how it
related to machine code but I never once had a need to patch machine code
and rarely had to work with an Assembler program. The only Assembler
programs I wrote from scratch were done at school. Times change and so do
the required skill sets.
such as COBOL and PL/1 were much easier to program in and application
software could be developed much more quickly. As mainframes became faster
and more powerful there simply wasn't a need to continue to code the way
things were done in the Stone Age. Again, that's progress.
>
>
>
> > We had a few subroutines still in use that had been coded in Assembler
> > which I had to modify but Assembler was fast becoming the Latin of
> > programming languages. It was helpful to understand it to give you a clue
> > as to what was happening internally just as learning Latin can be useful
> > in understanding English derivatives.
> >
>
>
>
> More news for you. What language do you think IBM uses for their
> operating systems? While they have developed a 'C' compiler and can run
> those programs, the IBM mainframes still use direct machine code compiled
> from assembler instructions. As well, companies that write sophisticated
> software like antivirus and special utility programs write in assembler
> too. It's not a dead language, it's been moved upscale to the serious
> programming level.
>
as Latin is still spoken by the College of Cardinals but neither is
commonplace. Schools aren't turning out Assembler programmers. That's not
where the demand is.
> And as to having lost any programming abilities, I still program in
> Visual Basic 6.0 and Visual C++ on my PC for fun. I experiment with HTML
> and similar languages to keep up my knowledge of what's happening these
> days.
>
sophisticated than my coffee machine since I retired. Whatever software I
need I can buy off the shelf or download from a website.
>
>
>
> > > https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/zosbasics/com.ibm.zos.zdatamgmt/zsysprogc_utilities_SPZAP.htm
> > >
> > > You'll note in the program description that it speaks of 'patching'.
> > >
> >
> > Anyplace when it talks about hacking which was the starting point of this
> > discussion?
> >
>
>
>
> Of course. Use Google or go here:
>
> https://www.lifewire.com/hackers-good-or-bad-3481592
>
connotation. What the article referred to as white hat hacking was more
commonly called patching in my day and I would bet that even today inside
of companies this authorized hacking is referred to by some other term.
causes.
> PBS supports many necessary investigational programs
> like Frontline, Nova, etc.
theories? Those too have found homes on cable channels such as The History
Channel and Discovery.
came across a bear. The one said, "Do you think we can outrun him?" to
which the other said, "I don't need to outrun the bear. I just need to
outrun you." Trump didn't need to be smart. He just needed to be smarter
than Hillary. He clearly was.
> He said he would
> protect their healthcare, by making sure that SS, Medicare and Medicaid
> wouldn't be touched! Thn he was out on the tube demanding of the Senate
> that they pass the healthcare bill that would take healthcare away form
> many millions of people, some of whom would die form that loss. And those
> people were mainly his voters!
>
that were the result of Obamacare can be kept in whatever replacement
Congress is able to agree upon. So until Congress finally acts and Trump
signs the bill, he has done nothing to undermine Medicare and there is no
indication that would happen. Politicians in both parties know cutting
benefits to seniors is the third rail of politics so there is almost no
chance that is going to happen. He campaigned on a plan to discontinue
Medicaid grants to states so it simply isn't true that he said Medicaid
wouldn't be touched.
"As a reminder, President Trump campaigned on a seven-part health plan.
With the following changes, he vowed to make health care great again.
1. Repeal the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare
2. Allow selling of health plans across state lines as long as health plans
follow state guidelines
3. Allow individuals to deduct health insurance premiums on their tax
returns
4. Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSA)
5. Require price transparency across the healthcare system
6. Discontinue federal grants to states for Medicaid
7. Allow expansion into free markets, including purchasing cheaper drugs
overseas, to decrease the cost of prescription medications"
Note item 6.
I would have provided the link to the full article but for some reason the
website would not allow me to copy and past it. If you are interested, it
is on verywell.com. You'll have to search their site for the article.
> > > He walked into a job he had no clue how to do,
> >
> > The position is often called Chief Executive and nobody in recent times if
> > ever came to the White House with more executive experience than Trump.
> > He's running the executive branch the way he would run a business. He
> > gives his people a mission and if they fail to accomplish it he holds them
> > accountable.
> >
>
>
>
> Trump was a failure as a business manager. I know that. No manager
> berates their employee publicly, you do it privately, but Trump does it in
> public, like with Sessions. No manager talks openly with the adversary
> companies, like having Russians into the oval office where they could
> leave all kinds of spy devices, and then give away your own companies
> secrets to the adversaries.
>
people in business, he has had setbacks but his successes have far
outweighed the losses. People who go to work for Trump know his style hand
what is demanded of them. If they do their jobs well they are rewarded
handsomely. He has many people in his organization who are very loyal to
him. As an example, Omarosa Manigault who was fired by Trump during the
first season of the Apprentice found other employment within his
organization and was brought back for several Celebrity Apprentice
contests. She campaigned enthusiastically for him in 2016. She now works
for him within the White House. Sounds like she doesn't think he is such a
terrible boss.
>
> Trump has been bankrupted 6 times, go see if you can find any
> billionaire that was bankrupted once.
bankruptcy. Since he is a multi-billionaire, he must be doing something
right.
> Trump is a bad business manager
> based on the proof, not fake news, the proof.
> His efforts in the White
> House certainly show his lack of management skills.
>
pan out?
>
>
>
> > > and in a government with no
> > > clue how it works or how to get anything done with it. And on top of
> > > that, he hired many people that also had no clue how to get things done.
> > >
> >
> > Liberals just never learn. They underestimated Trump as a candidate and
> > now are underestimating him as a president. They made the same mistakes
> > with Reagan. Then never thought he could get elected either and then were
> > amazed when he succeeded in doing many of the things he set out to do
> > despite having a hostile Congress for most of his tenure.
> >
>
>
>
> Please note that getting elected and managing the gov't of the USA are
> completely different skills. Getting elected was mostly a lucky thing
> because Trump's promises were believed.
keep. Like "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like
your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan".
> But now he has to do the job, and
> he can't find his ass with both hands and a rear view mirror! He is
> constantly making mistakes and hanging himself on some new foolish
> comment, and I'm sure Mueller is rubbing his hands together with glee.
>
made a fatal blunder. Yet he somehow managed to engineer arguably the
greatest upset in the history of presidential politics, rivaled only by
Truman's upset of Dewey in 1948. Things didn't go very smoothly for Reagan
his first two years either but in 1984 he managed to win 49 of 50 states.
Liberals fooled themselves into believing Trump wasn't a formidable
candidate and now they are saying the same things about him as president.
They never learn.
>
>
> > >
> > > And here he is hiring and firing every other week trying to get out of
> > > the Mueller piano which he knows is going to fall on him soon.
> > >
> >
> > Just what evidence has Mueller produced. Oh, I forgot. You're the guy who
> > doesn't put much faith in evidence. You prefer assumptions.
> >
>
>
>
> Can it. You mean you don't understand the rules of the game for these
> investigations? Mueller is using the FBI for much of his investigative
> work, as well as lawyers with specific backgrounds,
> for instance, he has
> hired the best lawyer on the East coast familiar with finance and money
> laundering crimes.
>
are talking about the staff lawyers on the WC but now you are presenting
these guys as white knights.
> Everything they learn is kept totally secret until the final report. And
> it looks like the Mueller organization is doing much better than the W.H.
> people at avoiding leaks.
>
evidence that Donald Trump has committed any crime. It's all innuendo.
Anthony Marsh
Aug 4, 2017, 6:06:08 PM8/4/17
to
Like Madoff.
>> Trump is a bad business manager
>> based on the proof, not fake news, the proof.
>
> I wish I could have failed as well as he has.
>
>> His efforts in the White
>> House certainly show his lack of management skills.
>>
>
> You people all thought he was a buffoon as a candidate too. How did that
> pan out?
>
Is that because it's not YOUR country?
>>
>>
>>
>>>> and in a government with no
>>>> clue how it works or how to get anything done with it. And on top of
>>>> that, he hired many people that also had no clue how to get things done.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Liberals just never learn. They underestimated Trump as a candidate and
>>> now are underestimating him as a president. They made the same mistakes
>>> with Reagan. Then never thought he could get elected either and then were
>>> amazed when he succeeded in doing many of the things he set out to do
>>> despite having a hostile Congress for most of his tenure.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Please note that getting elected and managing the gov't of the USA are
>> completely different skills. Getting elected was mostly a lucky thing
>> because Trump's promises were believed.
>
> Gee, I guess no candidate ever got elected by making promises he couldn't
> keep. Like "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like
> your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan".
>
I like his high tech solution.
>> But now he has to do the job, and
>> he can't find his ass with both hands and a rear view mirror! He is
>> constantly making mistakes and hanging himself on some new foolish
>> comment, and I'm sure Mueller is rubbing his hands together with glee.
>>
>
> How many times during the campaign did the liberal media claim Trump had
> made a fatal blunder. Yet he somehow managed to engineer arguably the
> greatest upset in the history of presidential politics, rivaled only by
Not the greatest upset. Barely won.
mainframetech
Aug 4, 2017, 10:45:53 PM8/4/17
to
continues to do the job it originally did, though it would be a newer
replacement. And there will still be code in that box that will handle
comm needs through the box, and you can be sure that IBM is not going to
publish the source code for the box. If problems arise the fixes will
have to be done directly to the programming that goes in that box. If IBM
were informed and decided to do a fix for the problem, it would take a
month or more and in the meantime you need to get the problem fixed.
General applications programming never had systems hardware/software
problems so you would never have seen those types of situations.
And the place where assembler is demanded is in the online realtime
world, which was usurped by IBM and their stupid CICS. Those companies
that had good responsive systems were always in assembler with multi-task
re-entrant code. You can't get decent re-entrant code in the other
languages. 'C' has some of the features, but not all.
> > their online system, so that their dumb old COBOL programmers could work
> > in the online environment, but CICS was a dog and managed to sell many
> > large IBM mainframes to support the slow as a pig system.
> >
> > A wise business decision by IBM, just like PL/1, which also sold IBM
> > hardware to those foolish companies that shifted over to that language.
> >
>
> I imagine Assembler code programs would run more efficiently but languages
> such as COBOL and PL/1 were much easier to program in and application
> software could be developed much more quickly. As mainframes became faster
> and more powerful there simply wasn't a need to continue to code the way
> things were done in the Stone Age. Again, that's progress.
>
A competent assembler programmer could produce a program doing a
> > in the online environment, but CICS was a dog and managed to sell many
> > large IBM mainframes to support the slow as a pig system.
> >
> > A wise business decision by IBM, just like PL/1, which also sold IBM
> > hardware to those foolish companies that shifted over to that language.
> >
>
> I imagine Assembler code programs would run more efficiently but languages
> such as COBOL and PL/1 were much easier to program in and application
> software could be developed much more quickly. As mainframes became faster
> and more powerful there simply wasn't a need to continue to code the way
> things were done in the Stone Age. Again, that's progress.
>
certain task as fast or faster than the COBOL and PL/1 people. I know
because I did a comparison in a real setting. I had to rewrite a PL/1
program into assembler. It took me 3 days to get it written and running,
and the original took a month to get running.
> > > We had a few subroutines still in use that had been coded in Assembler
> > > which I had to modify but Assembler was fast becoming the Latin of
> > > programming languages. It was helpful to understand it to give you a clue
> > > as to what was happening internally just as learning Latin can be useful
> > > in understanding English derivatives.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > More news for you. What language do you think IBM uses for their
> > operating systems? While they have developed a 'C' compiler and can run
> > those programs, the IBM mainframes still use direct machine code compiled
> > from assembler instructions. As well, companies that write sophisticated
> > software like antivirus and special utility programs write in assembler
> > too. It's not a dead language, it's been moved upscale to the serious
> > programming level.
> >
>
> I don't doubt that in some circles Assembler language is still used just
> as Latin is still spoken by the College of Cardinals but neither is
> commonplace. Schools aren't turning out Assembler programmers. That's not
> where the demand is.
>
and they go with the languages they have ben convinced to use by the
consultants.
COBOL on the mainframe under CICS, and various products on the PCs,
with 'C++' being used heavily for video games and other complex tasks, and
Visual Basic 6.0 for the simpler programs and systems.
> > And as to having lost any programming abilities, I still program in
> > Visual Basic 6.0 and Visual C++ on my PC for fun. I experiment with HTML
> > and similar languages to keep up my knowledge of what's happening these
> > days.
> >
>
> That's nice. I have had no need nor desire to program anything more
> sophisticated than my coffee machine since I retired. Whatever software I
> need I can buy off the shelf or download from a website.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > > https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/zosbasics/com.ibm.zos.zdatamgmt/zsysprogc_utilities_SPZAP.htm
> > > >
> > > > You'll note in the program description that it speaks of 'patching'.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Anyplace when it talks about hacking which was the starting point of this
> > > discussion?
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Of course. Use Google or go here:
> >
> > https://www.lifewire.com/hackers-good-or-bad-3481592
> >
>
> As the article noted, most people think of the term hacker in the negative
> connotation. What the article referred to as white hat hacking was more
> commonly called patching in my day and I would bet that even today inside
> of companies this authorized hacking is referred to by some other term.
>
break into our banking systems. They called it hacking when they went at
it. They were 'white hat hackers'.
games played by the Republicans on the public. Example is the recent
AHCA.
> > PBS supports many necessary investigational programs
> > like Frontline, Nova, etc.
>
> You mean lthose programs that exposed the fraudulent JFK conspiracy
> theories? Those too have found homes on cable channels such as The History
> Channel and Discovery.
>
stacks up against the world's leaders. Have you seen the latest leaks of
Trump's transcripts of his private chats with PM Turnbull of Australia and
his talk with the leader in Mexico? A whining child would do better.
Listen to them yourself and decide:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/03/politics/trump-pena-nieto-call-transcript/index.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/03/mega-leak-transcripts-trumps-foreign-leader-phone-calls-emerge.html
> > He said he would
> > protect their healthcare, by making sure that SS, Medicare and Medicaid
> > wouldn't be touched! Thn he was out on the tube demanding of the Senate
> > that they pass the healthcare bill that would take healthcare away form
> > many millions of people, some of whom would die form that loss. And those
> > people were mainly his voters!
> >
>
> Nothing Trump has proposed would affect SS. Any enhancements to Medicare
> that were the result of Obamacare can be kept in whatever replacement
> Congress is able to agree upon. So until Congress finally acts and Trump
> signs the bill, he has done nothing to undermine Medicare and there is no
> indication that would happen. Politicians in both parties know cutting
> benefits to seniors is the third rail of politics so there is almost no
> chance that is going to happen. He campaigned on a plan to discontinue
> Medicaid grants to states so it simply isn't true that he said Medicaid
> wouldn't be touched.
>
Medicare, and Medicaid. I think you got led astray. Here's videos with
Trump saying he'll protect the 3, and also of him saying that he knows
that the Republicans want to cut those 3:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFl0K0DxZFU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SKXQeD_nOs
This is Trump talking, so what's your comment? Is he lying, or simply
mistaken...? :)
> "As a reminder, President Trump campaigned on a seven-part health plan.
> With the following changes, he vowed to make health care great again.
>
> 1. Repeal the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare
> 2. Allow selling of health plans across state lines as long as health plans
> follow state guidelines
> 3. Allow individuals to deduct health insurance premiums on their tax
> returns
> 4. Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSA)
> 5. Require price transparency across the healthcare system
> 6. Discontinue federal grants to states for Medicaid
> 7. Allow expansion into free markets, including purchasing cheaper drugs
> overseas, to decrease the cost of prescription medications"
>
> Note item 6.
>
> I would have provided the link to the full article but for some reason the
> website would not allow me to copy and past it. If you are interested, it
> is on verywell.com. You'll have to search their site for the article.
>
statements that I linked to above. By stopping grants for Medicaid to the
states, the states will have to shut down their Medicaid because they
don't have the money to afford what the federal gov't has been paying for
all this time. If they suddenly got the bill they would go broke, so they
will have to throw people off or close Medicaid. They don't have the
ability to hold of paying their debts like the feds. I'm sure most people
didn't connect it when they saw that list. It's really what the 'death'
bill said, cut $800 Billion out of Medicaid and dump the bill on the
states. Sneaky!
> > > > He walked into a job he had no clue how to do,
> > >
> > > The position is often called Chief Executive and nobody in recent times if
> > > ever came to the White House with more executive experience than Trump.
> > > He's running the executive branch the way he would run a business. He
> > > gives his people a mission and if they fail to accomplish it he holds them
> > > accountable.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Trump was a failure as a business manager. I know that. No manager
> > berates their employee publicly, you do it privately, but Trump does it in
> > public, like with Sessions. No manager talks openly with the adversary
> > companies, like having Russians into the oval office where they could
> > leave all kinds of spy devices, and then give away your own companies
> > secrets to the adversaries.
> >
>
> It is laughable to say Trump is a failure as a business manager. Like all
> people in business, he has had setbacks but his successes have far
> outweighed the losses. People who go to work for Trump know his style hand
> what is demanded of them. If they do their jobs well they are rewarded
> handsomely. He has many people in his organization who are very loyal to
> him. As an example, Omarosa Manigault who was fired by Trump during the
> first season of the Apprentice found other employment within his
> organization and was brought back for several Celebrity Apprentice
> contests. She campaigned enthusiastically for him in 2016. She now works
> for him within the White House. Sounds like she doesn't think he is such a
> terrible boss.
>
praise him for anything he says and does.
> >
> > Trump has been bankrupted 6 times, go see if you can find any
> > billionaire that was bankrupted once.
>
> Trump has had companies that go bankrupt. He has never filed for personal
> bankruptcy. Since he is a multi-billionaire, he must be doing something
> right.
>
> > Trump is a bad business manager
> > based on the proof, not fake news, the proof.
>
> I wish I could have failed as well as he has.
>
Trump University. He had to pay back $25 million there. It was labeled a
scam by the suckers that got took. And to help him keep his millions, he
refuses to pay people back that perform services for him or his buildings.
He puts people out of work when he closes down his failed companies. He
saves money by telling everyone to buy American, then he buys Chinese and
East European for his own products. You're welcome to the moral and
ethical failings if you want them.
> > His efforts in the White
> > House certainly show his lack of management skills.
> >
>
> You people all thought he was a buffoon as a candidate too. How did that
> pan out?
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > > and in a government with no
> > > > clue how it works or how to get anything done with it. And on top of
> > > > that, he hired many people that also had no clue how to get things done.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Liberals just never learn. They underestimated Trump as a candidate and
> > > now are underestimating him as a president. They made the same mistakes
> > > with Reagan. Then never thought he could get elected either and then were
> > > amazed when he succeeded in doing many of the things he set out to do
> > > despite having a hostile Congress for most of his tenure.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Please note that getting elected and managing the gov't of the USA are
> > completely different skills. Getting elected was mostly a lucky thing
> > because Trump's promises were believed.
>
> Gee, I guess no candidate ever got elected by making promises he couldn't
> keep. Like "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like
> your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan".
>
learned later that the plans many people had were insurance co. scams and
the quality level of Obamacare wouldn't support them. It was actually to
their advantage that the plans were discarded, since they probably
wouldn't have paid off in an accident. And when the bad plans went, the
doctors that only were listed with those plans (why were they all they
could get signed up with?) went too, unless they were signed up with
another plan that the person chose.
> > But now he has to do the job, and
> > he can't find his ass with both hands and a rear view mirror! He is
> > constantly making mistakes and hanging himself on some new foolish
> > comment, and I'm sure Mueller is rubbing his hands together with glee.
> >
>
> How many times during the campaign did the liberal media claim Trump had
> made a fatal blunder. Yet he somehow managed to engineer arguably the
> greatest upset in the history of presidential politics, rivaled only by
> Truman's upset of Dewey in 1948. Things didn't go very smoothly for Reagan
> his first two years either but in 1984 he managed to win 49 of 50 states.
> Liberals fooled themselves into believing Trump wasn't a formidable
> candidate and now they are saying the same things about him as president.
> They never learn.
>
are leaving him. Not a lot yet, but some are leaving. He's down to 32%
approval and 61% disapproval.
> > > > And here he is hiring and firing every other week trying to get out of
> > > > the Mueller piano which he knows is going to fall on him soon.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Just what evidence has Mueller produced. Oh, I forgot. You're the guy who
> > > doesn't put much faith in evidence. You prefer assumptions.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Can it. You mean you don't understand the rules of the game for these
> > investigations? Mueller is using the FBI for much of his investigative
> > work, as well as lawyers with specific backgrounds,
>
> Like being contributors for Hillary's campaign.
>
> > for instance, he has
> > hired the best lawyer on the East coast familiar with finance and money
> > laundering crimes.
> >
>
> Amazing how you disparage the integrity of the legal profession when you
> are talking about the staff lawyers on the WC but now you are presenting
> these guys as white knights.
>
decided to work on.
> > Everything they learn is kept totally secret until the final report. And
> > it looks like the Mueller organization is doing much better than the W.H.
> > people at avoiding leaks.
> >
>
> So you are just going to assume they have the goods on Trump.
>
disregard for protecting himself when he should be quiet, I think he and
the kiddies have learned to simply go about their business and ignore the
law and simple pay off where necessary to get out of problems. But not
this problem. It's an easy assumption to make because I've already listed
some of the crimes to you in the past that are already on the books as far
as I'm concerned.
> > > > > > If you think Trump is being honest about his not having anything
> > > > > > illegal or damaging to himself that he's hiding, send him an email telling
> > > > > > him to come clean with everything and await the clearing of his name by
> > > > > > Mueller. So far, the whole Trump family and others have been lying about
> > > > > > Russian in meetings and such, and probably more to come. Get it all out
> > > > > > and stop the drip...drip...drip.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Why should he deny committing a crime for which no one has produced any
> > > > > evidence? There is a story about a young protégé of LBJ's who
> > > > > was making his first run at public office and his campaign was not going
> > > > > well so he turned to his mentor for advice. LBJ suggested he accuse his
> > > > > opponent of having sex with his pig. The protégé said he
> > > > > couldn't say that because it wasn't true. LBJ replied, "Make him deny it".
> > > > > That's what this whole Russia nothing burger is all about.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think you've forgotten again that I've given you a list of the
> > > > crimes committed so far by Trump and family that we publicly know about.
> > >
> > > Yes, you are good at making up shit for which you have no evidence.
> > >
> > >
> > > > But Mueller will not let out the story until the end of his investigation,
> > > > so there is almost sure to be a ton of guilty evidence in his hands.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Keep assuming. It's what you do best. It's kind of like when I buy a
> > > lottery ticket.
This thread is getting too long.
Chris
bigdog
Aug 6, 2017, 12:02:32 AM8/6/17
to
out in the real world. I worked a good part of my career as a consultant
and as such I worked in a lot of different shops and NOBODY was coding in
Assembler.
Assembler. I'm sure there were a few old timers who were still coding in
assembler just as I'm sure there are still people who are fluent in Latin
but they are few and far between. My only exposure to Assembler in the 25
years I worked in the field was to modify a couple called subroutines that
had been coded in Assembler many years earlier. I felt like an
archeologist.
malicious hackers.
while and that is saying something.
> that often shows up the
> games played by the Republicans on the public. Example is the recent
> AHCA.
>
Democrats too?
gave him no chance of being elected.
> Have you seen the latest leaks of
> Trump's transcripts of his private chats with PM Turnbull of Australia and
> his talk with the leader in Mexico? A whining child would do better.
> Listen to them yourself and decide:
>
countries rather than humbling himself to them the way Obama did for 8
years.
wasn't going to touch them. As is these programs are unsustainable and the
longer we wait to address them the deeper the pain is going to be.
>
>
>
>
> > "As a reminder, President Trump campaigned on a seven-part health plan.
> > With the following changes, he vowed to make health care great again.
> >
> > 1. Repeal the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare
> > 2. Allow selling of health plans across state lines as long as health plans
> > follow state guidelines
> > 3. Allow individuals to deduct health insurance premiums on their tax
> > returns
> > 4. Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSA)
> > 5. Require price transparency across the healthcare system
> > 6. Discontinue federal grants to states for Medicaid
> > 7. Allow expansion into free markets, including purchasing cheaper drugs
> > overseas, to decrease the cost of prescription medications"
> >
> > Note item 6.
> >
> > I would have provided the link to the full article but for some reason the
> > website would not allow me to copy and past it. If you are interested, it
> > is on verywell.com. You'll have to search their site for the article.
> >
>
>
> I believe you found that list. However, it conflicts with his
> statements that I linked to above.
eliminating federal grants.
> By stopping grants for Medicaid to the
> states, the states will have to shut down their Medicaid because they
> don't have the money to afford what the federal gov't has been paying for
> all this time.
taxpayers. Trump also intends to cut federal taxes so it will be up to the
states to raise taxes if necessary to offset the loss of federal funding.
It means decentralization of the government which would be a positive
move. Why should taxpayers send their dollars to the federal government
only to have the feds send it back to the states in the form of grants.
Why not have the taxpayers send more of their dollars directly to their
state governments and less to the feds. The reason is obvious. Power. By
controlling the purse strings the feds wield power over the states that
was not intended under the Constitution.
> If they suddenly got the bill they would go broke, so they
> will have to throw people off or close Medicaid. They don't have the
> ability to hold of paying their debts like the feds. I'm sure most people
> didn't connect it when they saw that list. It's really what the 'death'
> bill said, cut $800 Billion out of Medicaid and dump the bill on the
> states. Sneaky!
>
taxes in conjunction with cutting spending, the states can decide how much
of that revenue the taxpayers aren't sending they need to recoup.
mainframetech
Aug 6, 2017, 8:23:01 PM8/6/17
to
from IBM that use assembler, like the antivirus and utility companies, all
right out there with products that require assembler. It looks like your
consulting career was only with the less knowledgeable places. My shop
(for instance) never needed a consultant since we had the best of the
assembler whizzes available.
consultants and supposed gurus in the field sold the programming directors
and managers on using CICS so that their mundane COBOL programmers could
pretend to be online programmers. Sadly, they sold a bill of goods.
CICS still requires knowledge of realtime online systems to do properly.
So what happened was that many suckers put up CICS systems and had to buy
much more IBM hardware to support the pig. A few installations had the
knowledge to do the more intelligent work using assembler and saved on the
hardware and on the customer satisfaction. I can't tell you how many
customer service calls I've made where they couldn't get information from
their system in any timely manner. And when I ask if it's CICS, they
often say yes.
The terrible thing is that the people that sold all these companies on
making dumb COBOL programmers become online programmers didn't realize
that assembler can be taught and even enjoyed by programmers in an
installation. I did it for years. My people knew all any one could ask
of them, and when the company was sold, they all found high level
assembler jobs at top salary. Assembler can be done quickly, and can be
documented well. And when the dust settles, COBOL and CICS still can't
allow a truly re-entrant or refreshable program to be written and applied.
Those that were sold on that method wouldn't even know what those 2 words
meant. I know, because I came into a shop where they even had assembler
and 2 consultants had been pretending that they had written re-entrant
code for the company for years. They were unhappy with me when I proved
they had written serially reusable code instead.
The kind of junk you find in CICS which can't handle more than that.
The way they try to say they get around it is that they bring in more than
one copy of the code in question and let multiple transactions get
executed simultaneously. Of course, that requires much more memory, and
IBM just smiles...and holds out their hand for a check.
a Frontline program called "The Vaccine War". It sucked up completely to
the drug industry. The other side wasn't even mentioned in any meaningful
way.
> > that often shows up the
> > games played by the Republicans on the public. Example is the recent
> > AHCA.
> >
>
> If they are neutral reporters, why don't they show up the games played by
> Democrats too?
>
provong it:
"PolitiFact rated 32% of Republican claims as “false” or
“pants on fire,” compared to 11% of Democratic claims
– a 3 to 1 margin. Conversely, Politifact rated 22% of Democratic
claims as “entirely true” compared to 11% of Republican
claims – a 2 to 1 margin.
A majority of Democratic statements (54%) were rated as mostly or entirely
true, compared to only 18% of Republican statements. Conversely, a
majority of Republican statements (52%) were rated as mostly or entirely
false, compared to only 24% of Democratic statements."
From: https://www.mediaite.com/online/politifact-says-republicans-lie-three-times-more-often-than-democrats-according-to-new-study/
and:
"Fifty-two percent of Republican claims reviewed by the Tampa Bay Times
fact-checking operation were rated "mostly false," “false”
or “pants on fire,” versus just 24 percent of Democratic
statements, according to George Mason University's Center for Media and
Public Affairs. By the same token, 54 percent of Democratic statements
were rated as "mostly true" or "true," compared to just 18 percent of
Republican statements."
From: http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/05/study-politifact-says-republicans-lie-more-164943
Do you suppose those figures also apply to the Republican LNs vs. the
democratic CTs?
Putin?
> > http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/03/politics/trump-pena-nieto-call-transcript/index.html
> >
> > http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/03/mega-leak-transcripts-trumps-foreign-leader-phone-calls-emerge.html
> >
> >
> >
> > > > He said he would
> > > > protect their healthcare, by making sure that SS, Medicare and Medicaid
> > > > that they pass the healthcare bill that would take healthcare away from
> > > > many millions of people, some of whom would die form that loss. And those
> > > > people were mainly his voters!
> > > >
> > >
> > > Nothing Trump has proposed would affect SS. Any enhancements to Medicare
> > > that were the result of Obamacare can be kept in whatever replacement
> > > Congress is able to agree upon. So until Congress finally acts and Trump
> > > signs the bill, he has done nothing to undermine Medicare and there is no
> > > indication that would happen. Politicians in both parties know cutting
> > > benefits to seniors is the third rail of politics so there is almost no
> > > chance that is going to happen. He campaigned on a plan to discontinue
> > > Medicaid grants to states so it simply isn't true that he said Medicaid
> > > wouldn't be touched.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > I saw the video of Trump saying that he would protect all 3 of SS.
> > Medicare, and Medicaid. I think you got led astray. Here's videos with
> > Trump saying he'll protect the 3, and also of him saying that he knows
> > that the Republicans want to cut those 3:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFl0K0DxZFU
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SKXQeD_nOs
> >
> >
> > This is Trump talking, so what's your comment? Is he lying, or simply
> > mistaken...? :)
>
> He said he wouldn't do a big number on those programs. He didn't say he
> wasn't going to touch them. As is these programs are unsustainable and the
> longer we wait to address them the deeper the pain is going to be.
>
He clearly said he would protect them and NOT TOUCH them, here's the
> > > > people were mainly his voters!
> > > >
> > >
> > > Nothing Trump has proposed would affect SS. Any enhancements to Medicare
> > > that were the result of Obamacare can be kept in whatever replacement
> > > Congress is able to agree upon. So until Congress finally acts and Trump
> > > signs the bill, he has done nothing to undermine Medicare and there is no
> > > indication that would happen. Politicians in both parties know cutting
> > > benefits to seniors is the third rail of politics so there is almost no
> > > chance that is going to happen. He campaigned on a plan to discontinue
> > > Medicaid grants to states so it simply isn't true that he said Medicaid
> > > wouldn't be touched.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > I saw the video of Trump saying that he would protect all 3 of SS.
> > Medicare, and Medicaid. I think you got led astray. Here's videos with
> > Trump saying he'll protect the 3, and also of him saying that he knows
> > that the Republicans want to cut those 3:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFl0K0DxZFU
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SKXQeD_nOs
> >
> >
> > This is Trump talking, so what's your comment? Is he lying, or simply
> > mistaken...? :)
>
> He said he wouldn't do a big number on those programs. He didn't say he
> wasn't going to touch them. As is these programs are unsustainable and the
> longer we wait to address them the deeper the pain is going to be.
>
video of him saying exactly that:
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/03/10/trump-promises-not-to-cut-medicaid-newday.cnn
If you believe other than that, you've been suckered.
bigdog
Aug 7, 2017, 4:31:35 PM8/7/17
to
much demand for assembler programmers by 1980. I got in the field in 1977
and assembler just wasn't being used in business applications. I worked
for in government and for banks, retailers, utility companies, and
conglomerates and none of them used assembler in developing applications.
What the geeks at the software companies were using I have no knowledge
of.
systems the way you did it back in the 1960s. That's not the kind of
business we were in. The technology was constantly changing and the demand
for skills kept changing with it. If you didn't change with it you got
left behind.
> The terrible thing is that the people that sold all these companies on
> making dumb COBOL programmers become online programmers didn't realize
> that assembler can be taught and even enjoyed by programmers in an
> installation.
isn't a practicable skill.
> I did it for years. My people knew all any one could ask
> of them, and when the company was sold, they all found high level
> assembler jobs at top salary. Assembler can be done quickly, and can be
> documented well. And when the dust settles, COBOL and CICS still can't
> allow a truly re-entrant or refreshable program to be written and applied.
> Those that were sold on that method wouldn't even know what those 2 words
> meant.
> I know, because I came into a shop where they even had assembler
> and 2 consultants had been pretending that they had written re-entrant
> code for the company for years. They were unhappy with me when I proved
> they had written serially reusable code instead.
>
>
> The kind of junk you find in CICS which can't handle more than that.
> The way they try to say they get around it is that they bring in more than
> one copy of the code in question and let multiple transactions get
> executed simultaneously. Of course, that requires much more memory, and
> IBM just smiles...and holds out their hand for a check.
>
development tools and the filled our needs nicely which is to say it
filled the needs of the end user and that is really all that matters. The
end use doesn't care what goes on under the covers or what language was
used to develop it. All he wants to know is whether the system worked and
filled his business requirements.
which they were authorized to do.
> "PolitiFact rated 32% of Republican claims as “false” or
> “pants on fire,” compared to 11% of Democratic claims
> – a 3 to 1 margin. Conversely, Politifact rated 22% of Democratic
> claims as “entirely true” compared to 11% of Republican
> claims – a 2 to 1 margin.
neutral? Because they say they are?
>
> A majority of Democratic statements (54%) were rated as mostly or entirely
> true, compared to only 18% of Republican statements. Conversely, a
> majority of Republican statements (52%) were rated as mostly or entirely
> false, compared to only 24% of Democratic statements."
>
> From: https://www.mediaite.com/online/politifact-says-republicans-lie-three-times-more-often-than-democrats-according-to-new-study/
>
> and:
>
> "Fifty-two percent of Republican claims reviewed by the Tampa Bay Times
> fact-checking operation were rated "mostly false," “false”
> or “pants on fire,” versus just 24 percent of Democratic
> statements, according to George Mason University's Center for Media and
> Public Affairs. By the same token, 54 percent of Democratic statements
> were rated as "mostly true" or "true," compared to just 18 percent of
> Republican statements."
>
> From: http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/05/study-politifact-says-republicans-lie-more-164943
>
newsflash for you. You do know the Tampa Bay Times endorsed Hillary
Clinton, don't you. So much for their unbiased reporting.
> Do you suppose those figures also apply to the Republican LNs vs. the
> democratic CTs?
>
assassination any more. It's history as far as they are concerned. I also
don't think one's political leanings determine their views on the question
of conspiracy. Vincent Bugliosi was a liberal extremist who thought George
W. Bush should have been charged with war crimes.
mainframetech
Aug 8, 2017, 12:38:45 PM8/8/17
to
them were sought after throughout my whole career. Not for mundane
business applications, but for high level projects and software for IBM
and many other companies that wrote complex software as utilities and
Various serious applications. You might not see their ads for people
since you were looking in the business application area.
all through my career. But it wasn't wanted for the simple business
applications, it was mainly for intelligent realtime online applications
where service to customers was primary. My final place of business was a
CICS shop, but also had an online system in assembler. I used CICS at
times when a problem arose and someone had to figure it out. I even
backslid and used COBOL at times also when the problem program was on that
language. But right to the end I was needed as a systems programmer, even
though I had reached the level of Senior VP of company operations. They
came to me when a problem couldn't be figured out, and the salary was
commensurate with the abilities. And all around the "industry" assembler
was still in demand, but for a smaller number of experts in that area.
Remember, assembler underlies ALL other languages, and they all
generate assembler programs.
> > The terrible thing is that the people that sold all these companies on
> > making dumb COBOL programmers become online programmers didn't realize
> > that assembler can be taught and even enjoyed by programmers in an
> > installation.
>
> I'm sure there are places that still teach Latin but being fluent in it
> isn't a practicable skill.
>
> > I did it for years. My people knew all any one could ask
> > of them, and when the company was sold, they all found high level
> > assembler jobs at top salary. Assembler can be done quickly, and can be
> > documented well. And when the dust settles, COBOL and CICS still can't
> > allow a truly re-entrant or refreshable program to be written and applied.
> > Those that were sold on that method wouldn't even know what those 2 words
> > meant.
>
> Nor did they need to.
>
some of the base level languages, though 'C' has some validity for being
efficient. And debugging goes much faster as well. The clunkers need to
buy all kinds of software programs written in assembler that will go in
and analyze the bugs in a COBOL CICS program and recommend a fix.
> > I know, because I came into a shop where they even had assembler
> > and 2 consultants had been pretending that they had written re-entrant
> > code for the company for years. They were unhappy with me when I proved
> > they had written serially reusable code instead.
> >
> >
> > The kind of junk you find in CICS which can't handle more than that.
> > The way they try to say they get around it is that they bring in more than
> > one copy of the code in question and let multiple transactions get
> > executed simultaneously. Of course, that requires much more memory, and
> > IBM just smiles...and holds out their hand for a check.
> >
>
> I coded CICS in numerous applications as well as a number of other online
> development tools and the filled our needs nicely which is to say it
> filled the needs of the end user and that is really all that matters. The
> end use doesn't care what goes on under the covers or what language was
> used to develop it. All he wants to know is whether the system worked and
> filled his business requirements.
>
request, they get itchy. Of course, that happens often in CICS and the
company is locked into IBM and has to get bigger iron to run the silly
thing, and pay a mint for it too!
necessary service for online companies.
> >
>
> That's what the liberals pretend.
>
> > "PolitiFact rated 32% of Republican claims as “false” or
> > “pants on fire,” compared to 11% of Democratic claims
> > – a 3 to 1 margin. Conversely, Politifact rated 22% of Democratic
> > claims as “entirely true” compared to 11% of Republican
> > claims – a 2 to 1 margin.
>
> Who rates PolitiFact? Why would you assume any of these fact checkers are
> neutral? Because they say they are?
>
Ah! We've reached the point where we hear the whine "They all
>
> That's what the liberals pretend.
>
> > "PolitiFact rated 32% of Republican claims as “false” or
> > “pants on fire,” compared to 11% of Democratic claims
> > – a 3 to 1 margin. Conversely, Politifact rated 22% of Democratic
> > claims as “entirely true” compared to 11% of Republican
> > claims – a 2 to 1 margin.
>
> Who rates PolitiFact? Why would you assume any of these fact checkers are
> neutral? Because they say they are?
>
lied"...:)
> >
> > A majority of Democratic statements (54%) were rated as mostly or entirely
> > true, compared to only 18% of Republican statements. Conversely, a
> > majority of Republican statements (52%) were rated as mostly or entirely
> > false, compared to only 24% of Democratic statements."
> >
> > From: https://www.mediaite.com/online/politifact-says-republicans-lie-three-times-more-often-than-democrats-according-to-new-study/
> >
> > and:
> >
> > "Fifty-two percent of Republican claims reviewed by the Tampa Bay Times
> > fact-checking operation were rated "mostly false," “false”
> > or “pants on fire,” versus just 24 percent of Democratic
> > statements, according to George Mason University's Center for Media and
> > Public Affairs.
bigdog
Aug 9, 2017, 8:25:46 AM8/9/17
to
how things were done in that environment. I can say that there was almost
zero demand for assembler programmers in business applications by 1980.
Companies just weren't using it anywhere that I worked and I saw no ads
looking for assembler programmers. Only a small fraction of the jobs in
the data processing field were in system software development so the
demand for those kinds of programmers had to be very low.
skill I saw zero demand for.
> Remember, assembler underlies ALL other languages, and they all
> generate assembler programs.
>
generated Assembler code which in turn was converted to machine code. The
practice of printing out the assembler code was dropped when it became
evidence it was just a waste of paper since nobody paid any attention to
it. That went the way of navigating through core dumps to find problems.
That became a lost art for the most part. I learned to do that in school
but can't recall ever doing that in the field.
>
>
>
> > > The terrible thing is that the people that sold all these companies on
> > > making dumb COBOL programmers become online programmers didn't realize
> > > that assembler can be taught and even enjoyed by programmers in an
> > > installation.
> >
> > I'm sure there are places that still teach Latin but being fluent in it
> > isn't a practicable skill.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! Doctors and lawyers can use it, and do.
>
>
>
> > > I did it for years. My people knew all any one could ask
> > > of them, and when the company was sold, they all found high level
> > > assembler jobs at top salary. Assembler can be done quickly, and can be
> > > documented well. And when the dust settles, COBOL and CICS still can't
> > > allow a truly re-entrant or refreshable program to be written and applied.
> > > Those that were sold on that method wouldn't even know what those 2 words
> > > meant.
> >
> > Nor did they need to.
> >
>
>
>
> If you want efficiency and saving money, and service, you need to use
> some of the base level languages, though 'C' has some validity for being
> efficient. And debugging goes much faster as well. The clunkers need to
> buy all kinds of software programs written in assembler that will go in
> and analyze the bugs in a COBOL CICS program and recommend a fix.
>
would tell you what the problem was and the line of code it occurred at.
From there you walked through the program to figure out what went wrong.
In the old days one might have navigated through a core dump using the
registers and displacement to find the address of the problem but that
became a lost art. I might have done it that way my first few years in the
field but I can't remember. I know by the time I retired I had forgotten
just about everything I ever learned about reading core dumps to debug
programs.
>
>
>
> > > I know, because I came into a shop where they even had assembler
> > > and 2 consultants had been pretending that they had written re-entrant
> > > code for the company for years. They were unhappy with me when I proved
> > > they had written serially reusable code instead.
> > >
> > >
> > > The kind of junk you find in CICS which can't handle more than that.
> > > The way they try to say they get around it is that they bring in more than
> > > one copy of the code in question and let multiple transactions get
> > > executed simultaneously. Of course, that requires much more memory, and
> > > IBM just smiles...and holds out their hand for a check.
> > >
> >
> > I coded CICS in numerous applications as well as a number of other online
> > development tools and the filled our needs nicely which is to say it
> > filled the needs of the end user and that is really all that matters. The
> > end use doesn't care what goes on under the covers or what language was
> > used to develop it. All he wants to know is whether the system worked and
> > filled his business requirements.
> >
>
>
> Good point, when the user gets a pig that takes a long time answering a
> request, they get itchy.
applications and the running joke was you could hit the enter key and go
to to lunch before you got a response but that quickly went away as
hardware became faster and software more efficient. Response times became
almost instantaneous. Do you really think the end user notices if the
response time is a few hundred nanoseconds longer?
> Of course, that happens often in CICS and the
> company is locked into IBM and has to get bigger iron to run the silly
> thing, and pay a mint for it too!
>
date. Why would they keep outdated hardware and software. I remember
starting out working on a 370 mainframe but I couldn't even tell you what
the various shops I worked at went to because it wasn't important to what
I did.
the word hacking until it become part of the lexicon of internet
applications and the havoc that could be done through malware. I never
heard it used in regard to any sort of authorize in house testing of
system vulnerability.
Anthony Marsh
Aug 9, 2017, 6:38:00 PM8/9/17
to
claviger
Aug 10, 2017, 9:04:25 AM8/10/17
to
So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
or US Gov employees?
mainframetech
Aug 10, 2017, 9:06:36 AM8/10/17
to
that leads directly to the reason you didn't se any ads for true systems
programmers. First, only one system programmer would be required for a
programming staff of fifty programmers. And they tended to stay where
they landed because they were treated well and paid well, because of their
value. An example of that was when I was at Citibank as an online
programmer, they had systems dept. of3 men and they walked around whenever
and wherever they anted, usually in sandals and jeans. The dress code was
suits and ties in those days. They came and went whenever they pleased
except when there was an emergency in their area. Their job included
assembler coding for special routine to add to the IBM operating systems,
and debugging IBM system dumps of the operating system.
The people in question often changed jobs only when someone else was
lost from their position for some reason. They kept in touch with each
other and were a small in club and there's no doubt you would rarely see,
if at all hear of them, since they didn't deign to talk to applications
people.
When I started my first job as a trainee operator at NY Life
insurance, my first programming job was to write an operating system for
the 1401 emulator on a S/360 model 30. I was transferred to the systems
division in another building, and when they refused to put me there
permanently, I left for Citibank. And every where I went as a system
programmer from the beginning an on, I was in demand, not necessarily
because of my personal ability, but for my job title of systems
programmer. That was true right up through the 80's after which I was an
officer of the company and wasn't strictly one of the system programmers,
though I trained many other to those tasks, including writing a complete
online, realtime, multitask system that served hundreds of terminals of
many different kinds.
So you may not have seen what was going on in the serious systems area,
but it was happening. If you no longer see ads for people with assembler,
it's because they teach themselves from an interest in programming, and
mention it during interviews, or answer the special ads. I know, I taught
myself to program the 360 and 370 machines and languages, the 40xx series
and many others.
Chris
FNG
Aug 10, 2017, 2:46:42 PM8/10/17
to
Since this seems to be the tech section:
Has anyone discussed feeding all publically available data into IBM's
Watson AI? (With the known caveat that it could 'Skynet' on us and decide
that humans are the the problem...)
The logs from the processing would be interesting even if no real results
were achieved.
Has anyone discussed feeding all publically available data into IBM's
Watson AI? (With the known caveat that it could 'Skynet' on us and decide
that humans are the the problem...)
The logs from the processing would be interesting even if no real results
were achieved.
bigdog
Aug 10, 2017, 5:57:42 PM8/10/17
to
in other disciplines was doing was of little concern to me. Just because
the jobs are related doesn't mean expertise in one area translates to
another. It's kind of like expecting an ER doctor to do the job of a
forensic pathologist.
> First, only one system programmer would be required for a
> programming staff of fifty programmers. And they tended to stay where
> they landed because they were treated well and paid well, because of their
> value. An example of that was when I was at Citibank as an online
> programmer, they had systems dept. of3 men and they walked around whenever
> and wherever they anted, usually in sandals and jeans. The dress code was
> suits and ties in those days. They came and went whenever they pleased
> except when there was an emergency in their area. Their job included
> assembler coding for special routine to add to the IBM operating systems,
> and debugging IBM system dumps of the operating system.
>
> The people in question often changed jobs only when someone else was
> lost from their position for some reason. They kept in touch with each
> other and were a small in club and there's no doubt you would rarely see,
> if at all hear of them, since they didn't deign to talk to applications
> people.
>
programming early in my career but budget cuts killed the training I would
have required and layoffs in the applications programming staff resulted
in me being reassigned back to applications programming so my days as a
systems programmer were very brief.
> When I started my first job as a trainee operator at NY Life
> insurance, my first programming job was to write an operating system for
> the 1401 emulator on a S/360 model 30. I was transferred to the systems
> division in another building, and when they refused to put me there
> permanently, I left for Citibank. And every where I went as a system
> programmer from the beginning an on, I was in demand, not necessarily
> because of my personal ability, but for my job title of systems
> programmer. That was true right up through the 80's after which I was an
> officer of the company and wasn't strictly one of the system programmers,
> though I trained many other to those tasks, including writing a complete
> online, realtime, multitask system that served hundreds of terminals of
> many different kinds.
>
> So you may not have seen what was going on in the serious systems area,
> but it was happening. If you no longer see ads for people with assembler,
> it's because they teach themselves from an interest in programming, and
> mention it during interviews, or answer the special ads. I know, I taught
> myself to program the 360 and 370 machines and languages, the 40xx series
> and many others.
>
else's job. I often wonder how my career might have gone differently had I
been allowed to remain in systems programming but that's water under the
bridge. I did well enough and saved and invested well enough to retire at
age 49. I've never looked back since. My years in data processing might as
well have been in a different life.
Anthony Marsh
Aug 10, 2017, 5:58:38 PM8/10/17
to
On 8/10/2017 9:04 AM, claviger wrote:
>
> So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
> attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
Hillary did not hack anything. The Russians did and you give them a
>
> So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
> attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
pass, because they did it for Trump.
> believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
> White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
> the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
Do you think it was the Democrats who broke into the Watergate?
You seem to have trouble understanding what an enemy is.
If you're going to put Hilary in jail then you have to put Colin Powell
in jail and all of Trump's people.
This was before the election so they were only staffers. But some still
had security clearances.
> or US Gov employees?
>
>
>
mainframetech
Aug 11, 2017, 9:51:53 AM8/11/17
to
answers.
Chris
mainframetech
Aug 11, 2017, 9:52:35 AM8/11/17
to
17 intelligence agencies all agreed that Russia did the hacking of the
DNC, and probably the RNC too. and then gave much of the email info over
to Wikileaks. The hacks we know of for sure was to the email of John
Podesta who was Hillary's Campaign manager. I seriously doubt that
Hillary had any of the knowledge needed to hack anything.
Chris
John McAdams
Aug 11, 2017, 9:56:51 AM8/11/17
to
On 11 Aug 2017 09:52:34 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 9:04:25 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>> So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
>> attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
>> believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
>> White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
>> the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
>> or US Gov employees?
>
>
>
> So you also have become a Trump? He doesn't want to believe that the
>17 intelligence agencies all agreed that Russia did the hacking of the
>DNC, and probably the RNC too.
The "17 intelligence agencies" claim is bogus.
It was three.
The media retracted that:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/pageoneplus/corrections-june-29-2017.html
https://apnews.com/6f05b3a81e134568902e015e666726f6
Seems that's like a lot of JFK factoids.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
>On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 9:04:25 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>> So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
>> attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
>> believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
>> White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
>> the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
>> or US Gov employees?
>
>
>
> So you also have become a Trump? He doesn't want to believe that the
>17 intelligence agencies all agreed that Russia did the hacking of the
>DNC, and probably the RNC too.
It was three.
The media retracted that:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/pageoneplus/corrections-june-29-2017.html
https://apnews.com/6f05b3a81e134568902e015e666726f6
Seems that's like a lot of JFK factoids.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
bigdog
Aug 11, 2017, 12:54:58 PM8/11/17
to
On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 2:46:42 PM UTC-4, FNG wrote:
are beyond the capabilities of human beings. What they do is process data
faster than humans ever could. It's called artificial intelligence because
the computers have no innate intelligence. They only know what they are
fed. Any "solution" a computer could come up with would reflect the bias
of the person programming it.
To put it another way, computers are a great tool for doing one task a
million times. They are a very inefficient way to perform a task once.
claviger
Aug 11, 2017, 1:03:00 PM8/11/17
to
On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 4:58:38 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 8/10/2017 9:04 AM, claviger wrote:
> >
> > So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
> > attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
> Hillary did not hack anything.
How can you possibly read the preceding sentence and come to the
> On 8/10/2017 9:04 AM, claviger wrote:
> >
> > So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
> > attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
> Hillary did not hack anything.
conclusion I said Hillary was the hacker not the hackee? Are you
dyslexic?
> The Russians did and you give them a pass, because they did it for Trump.
hackers do? Can Trump control what Chinese, North Korean, or American
hackers do? How about Democrat, Liberal, or Sanders hackers? He can't
even control the Republican Party! Or should that be the Repugnican
Party?
> > believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
> > White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
> > the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
> The Russians are the enemies who hacked the Democrats.
Wasn't that long ago when Liberals were not so concerned about Communism,
even when the primary method to achieve unity was eliminate the
competition, Trotsky being a well known example.
> Do you think it was the Democrats who broke into the Watergate?
Democrats employed. Don't know if wanted to use them too, embarrass the
Democrats, or frustrated they couldn't get any hot dates in DC.
> You seem to have trouble understanding what an enemy is.
it does get confusing. I thought dope dealers and murderers were the
enemy, but Liberals don't agree with those categorical definitions.
> If you're going to put Hilary in jail then you have to put Colin Powell
> in jail and all of Trump's people.
pertaining to National Security they should be punished. The Obama regime
ignored this gross negligence so the voters exacted requite punishment
during the election. Ditsy Hillary did not get a second chance to ignore
Federal Law. Even though her boss didn't care, the voters did.
What did Trump's people do?
> This was before the election so they were only staffers. But some still
> had security clearances.
acting Secretary of State.
So now can you tell me what information about Hillary we didn't already
know the Russians were able to hack that affected the election? She
stopped having interviews with reporters for 9 months into the election.
The public considered that a tacit admission of guilt. Otherwise why
would she avoid face time with the media that most politicians are
addicted to?
mainframetech
Aug 11, 2017, 2:31:37 PM8/11/17
to
> > First, only one system programmer would be required for a
> > programming staff of fifty programmers. And they tended to stay where
> > they landed because they were treated well and paid well, because of their
> > value. An example of that was when I was at Citibank as an online
> > programmer, they had systems dept. of3 men and they walked around whenever
> > and wherever they anted, usually in sandals and jeans. The dress code was
> > suits and ties in those days. They came and went whenever they pleased
> > except when there was an emergency in their area. Their job included
> > assembler coding for special routine to add to the IBM operating systems,
> > and debugging IBM system dumps of the operating system.
> >
> > The people in question often changed jobs only when someone else was
> > lost from their position for some reason. They kept in touch with each
> > other and were a small in club and there's no doubt you would rarely see,
> > if at all hear of them, since they didn't deign to talk to applications
> > people.
> >
>
> That's nice. I was slated to move from applications and to systems
> programming early in my career but budget cuts killed the training I would
> have required and layoffs in the applications programming staff resulted
> in me being reassigned back to applications programming so my days as a
> systems programmer were very brief.
>
IBM on parts of the operating system and how they worked in abstract for
the most part. Once in a while there was a lab, but not often. Usually
lectures. I took a number of them, but much of the job was learned from
the logic manuals that IBM started to distribute to IBM customers. After
a while they began sending out only reduced versions with less of the
logic and more verbal descriptions without the logic diagrams and it
became harder to get information from them. The logic manuals the machine
logics became like gold and were kept carefully and often had to be signed
out to look at them in many companies.
> > When I started my first job as a trainee operator at NY Life
> > insurance, my first programming job was to write an operating system for
> > the 1401 emulator on a S/360 model 30. I was transferred to the systems
> > division in another building, and when they refused to put me there
> > permanently, I left for Citibank. And every where I went as a system
> > programmer from the beginning an on, I was in demand, not necessarily
> > because of my personal ability, but for my job title of systems
> > programmer. That was true right up through the 80's after which I was an
> > officer of the company and wasn't strictly one of the system programmers,
> > though I trained many other to those tasks, including writing a complete
> > online, realtime, multitask system that served hundreds of terminals of
> > many different kinds.
> >
> > So you may not have seen what was going on in the serious systems area,
> > but it was happening. If you no longer see ads for people with assembler,
> > it's because they teach themselves from an interest in programming, and
> > mention it during interviews, or answer the special ads. I know, I taught
> > myself to program the 360 and 370 machines and languages, the 40xx series
> > and many others.
> >
>
> People need to learn what they need to know for their jobs, not somebody
> else's job. I often wonder how my career might have gone differently had I
> been allowed to remain in systems programming but that's water under the
> bridge. I did well enough and saved and invested well enough to retire at
> age 49. I've never looked back since. My years in data processing might as
> well have been in a different life.
at 66 one day before my SS kicked in.
Chris
bigdog
Aug 11, 2017, 8:31:21 PM8/11/17
to
wrote a report indicating the leaking of DNC emails was likely an inside
job, not the result of Russian hacking. You can read the whole article if
you like.
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
The most telling line in the whole article is this one:
"We are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with
long records of deception."
Sounds like they are referring to the deep state.
claviger
Aug 11, 2017, 8:32:24 PM8/11/17
to
On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 8:52:35 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 9:04:25 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
> > attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
> > believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
> > White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
> > the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
> > or US Gov employees?
> So you also have become a Trump? He doesn't want to believe that the
> 17 intelligence agencies all agreed that Russia did the hacking of the
> DNC, and probably the RNC too. and then gave much of the email info over
> to Wikileaks.
From what I've read on this newsgroup several countries are hacking at
> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 9:04:25 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
> > attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
> > believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
> > White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
> > the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
> > or US Gov employees?
> So you also have become a Trump? He doesn't want to believe that the
> 17 intelligence agencies all agreed that Russia did the hacking of the
> DNC, and probably the RNC too. and then gave much of the email info over
> to Wikileaks.
other countries, friend and foe, including the USA. So hacking is now
part of the age old profession of spying and sabotage, correct? Knowing
this to be the case why would Hillary be so injudicious to have a private
server unprotected by US Government firewalls? It appears her lack of
sound judgement exposed the US State Department and her own campaign to
risk from unfriendly hackers.
> The hacks we know of for sure was to the email of John Podesta who was
> Hillary's Campaign manager.
tricks on Bernie Sanders came from?
> I seriously doubt that Hillary had any of the knowledge needed to hack
> anything.
> Chris
Anthony Marsh
Aug 11, 2017, 8:38:56 PM8/11/17
to
On 8/11/2017 9:56 AM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 11 Aug 2017 09:52:34 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 9:04:25 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>>> So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
>>> attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
>>> believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
>>> White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
>>> the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
>>> or US Gov employees?
>>
>>
>>
>> So you also have become a Trump? He doesn't want to believe that the
>> 17 intelligence agencies all agreed that Russia did the hacking of the
>> DNC, and probably the RNC too.
>
> The "17 intelligence agencies" claim is bogus.
>
No. Trump said he checked into it and there are not even 17 intelligence
> On 11 Aug 2017 09:52:34 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 9:04:25 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>>> So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
>>> attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
>>> believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
>>> White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
>>> the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
>>> or US Gov employees?
>>
>>
>>
>> So you also have become a Trump? He doesn't want to believe that the
>> 17 intelligence agencies all agreed that Russia did the hacking of the
>> DNC, and probably the RNC too.
>
> The "17 intelligence agencies" claim is bogus.
>
agencies in the US. Trump claims there are only 3 intelligence agencies
in the US. That is because he has no intelligence. Anyone who ever
believes anything that Ttump says had no intelligence.
> It was three.
>
> The media retracted that:
>
John McAdams
Aug 11, 2017, 8:43:08 PM8/11/17
to
On 11 Aug 2017 20:38:55 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Tony whines about how I'm "attacking the media," but refuses to accept
(and probably doesn't read) the links below of both AP and the New
York Times backing away from that "13 agencies" factoid.
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/pageoneplus/corrections-june-29-2017.html
>>
>> https://apnews.com/6f05b3a81e134568902e015e666726f6
>>
>> Seems that's like a lot of JFK factoids.
>>
Tony will never admit he's wrong.
I'm still waiting for evidence that "Farewell America" was banned in
the U.S.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 8/11/2017 9:56 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 11 Aug 2017 09:52:34 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>
>No. Trump said he checked into it and there are not even 17 intelligence
>agencies in the US. Trump claims there are only 3 intelligence agencies
>in the US. That is because he has no intelligence. Anyone who ever
>believes anything that Ttump says had no intelligence.
>
>> It was three.
>>
>> The media retracted that:
>>
>
>Always atttack the Media. Never admit any fact.
>
Irony alert!
>On 8/11/2017 9:56 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 11 Aug 2017 09:52:34 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>
>No. Trump said he checked into it and there are not even 17 intelligence
>agencies in the US. Trump claims there are only 3 intelligence agencies
>in the US. That is because he has no intelligence. Anyone who ever
>believes anything that Ttump says had no intelligence.
>
>> It was three.
>>
>> The media retracted that:
>>
>
>Always atttack the Media. Never admit any fact.
>
Tony whines about how I'm "attacking the media," but refuses to accept
(and probably doesn't read) the links below of both AP and the New
York Times backing away from that "13 agencies" factoid.
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/pageoneplus/corrections-june-29-2017.html
>>
>> https://apnews.com/6f05b3a81e134568902e015e666726f6
>>
>> Seems that's like a lot of JFK factoids.
>>
I'm still waiting for evidence that "Farewell America" was banned in
the U.S.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Aug 12, 2017, 11:01:07 AM8/12/17
to
On 8/11/2017 1:02 PM, claviger wrote:
> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 4:58:38 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 8/10/2017 9:04 AM, claviger wrote:
>>>
>>> So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
>>> attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
>> Hillary did not hack anything.
>
> How can you possibly read the preceding sentence and come to the
> conclusion I said Hillary was the hacker not the hackee? Are you
> dyslexic?
>
You snip out the context to create false impressions.
> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 4:58:38 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 8/10/2017 9:04 AM, claviger wrote:
>>>
>>> So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
>>> attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
>> Hillary did not hack anything.
>
> How can you possibly read the preceding sentence and come to the
> conclusion I said Hillary was the hacker not the hackee? Are you
> dyslexic?
>
You have no reason to blame Hillary for anything. She did not hack
anything. The Russians did. The Russians also hacked the Republicans,
but did not leak anything about the Republicans. Why?
>> The Russians did and you give them a pass, because they did it for Trump.
>
> Did Trump ask them to do that? Can Trump control what Putin or Russian
Don't you have a TV in your cave?
> hackers do? Can Trump control what Chinese, North Korean, or American
> hackers do? How about Democrat, Liberal, or Sanders hackers? He can't
> even control the Republican Party! Or should that be the Repugnican
> Party?
>
of the standard jokes about Republicans and Democrats being the same. Some
people say that, but is obviously not true.
What may be true is that there are extremists or corrupt people in both
parties.
Christopher Shays made an excellent point the other day that Congress does
not reflect the American People. He notes that political opinion of
Americans is like a Bell curve with extremes tapering off on both sides,
but a broad consensus in the middle, but there is no longer any middle in
Congress, just extremes on either side.
>
>>> believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
>>> White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
>>> the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
>> The Russians are the enemies who hacked the Democrats.
>
> Proving how much Putin has changed the political philosophy of Russia.
> Wasn't that long ago when Liberals were not so concerned about Communism,
> even when the primary method to achieve unity was eliminate the
> competition, Trotsky being a well known example.
>
>> Do you think it was the Democrats who broke into the Watergate?
>
> No, it was silly plumbers looking for the master list of prostitutes
> Democrats employed. Don't know if wanted to use them too, embarrass the
> Democrats, or frustrated they couldn't get any hot dates in DC.
>
already confessed to what they actually did and why that it no longer
holds any water.
>> You seem to have trouble understanding what an enemy is.
>
> Well yes when Liberals tell us the Police and Military are the real enemy
The one I liked best was a show where the radical just refers to anyone
in authority as THE SUITS.
> it does get confusing. I thought dope dealers and murderers were the
> enemy, but Liberals don't agree with those categorical definitions.
>
They usually can't kill people and get away with it the way the police
and military do. Street punks are not usually interested in taking about
people's civil rights, just their money.
Very few ghetto jails have lasted more than a week.
>> If you're going to put Hilary in jail then you have to put Colin Powell
>> in jail and all of Trump's people.
>
> Yes, when any employee violates State Department rules and regulations
> pertaining to National Security they should be punished. The Obama regime
> ignored this gross negligence so the voters exacted requite punishment
> during the election. Ditsy Hillary did not get a second chance to ignore
Napping again?
> Federal Law. Even though her boss didn't care, the voters did.
Were the details of Chelsea's wedding plans a threat to National Security?
>
> What did Trump's people do?
>
on their political opponent. Nothing released about Trump. Nothing
released about Bernie. Money laundering. This was the first time that the
FBI has executed a pre-dawn raid on someone's house to obtain records that
he failed to disclose about connections with Russians as head of a
political campaign. Not the same as sleeper agents, but similar.
>
>> This was before the election so they were only staffers. But some still
>> had security clearances.
>
> No comparison to flagrant disregard of National Security rules by an
> acting Secretary of State.
>
>
> So now can you tell me what information about Hillary we didn't already
> know the Russians were able to hack that affected the election? She
> stopped having interviews with reporters for 9 months into the election.
Hillary talked to the press all the time.
> The public considered that a tacit admission of guilt. Otherwise why
> would she avoid face time with the media that most politicians are
> addicted to?
>
Why does Trump refuse to have a Press Conference? Isn't that a tacit
admission of guilt?
Do you understand what suborning perjury means? Telling his son-in-law
to lie.
mainframetech
Aug 12, 2017, 10:28:50 PM8/12/17
to
training from birth on news and other input to develop their personalities
and their intelligence.
They've ben programmed to react to many stimuli like anyone would, and
they follow that training. But many have been given the ability to
analyze situations that might be new to them and react however their
learning has led to do.
Anthony Marsh
Aug 12, 2017, 10:55:30 PM8/12/17
to
On 8/11/2017 8:43 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 11 Aug 2017 20:38:55 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 8/11/2017 9:56 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 11 Aug 2017 09:52:34 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> No. Trump said he checked into it and there are not even 17 intelligence
>> agencies in the US. Trump claims there are only 3 intelligence agencies
>> in the US. That is because he has no intelligence. Anyone who ever
>> believes anything that Ttump says had no intelligence.
>>
>>> It was three.
>>>
>>> The media retracted that:
>>>
>>
>> Always atttack the Media. Never admit any fact.
>>
>
> Irony alert!
>
> Tony whines about how I'm "attacking the media," but refuses to accept
> (and probably doesn't read) the links below of both AP and the New
> York Times backing away from that "13 agencies" factoid.
>
I read all that crap. So now after you've been proven wrong you move the
> On 11 Aug 2017 20:38:55 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 8/11/2017 9:56 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 11 Aug 2017 09:52:34 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> No. Trump said he checked into it and there are not even 17 intelligence
>> agencies in the US. Trump claims there are only 3 intelligence agencies
>> in the US. That is because he has no intelligence. Anyone who ever
>> believes anything that Ttump says had no intelligence.
>>
>>> It was three.
>>>
>>> The media retracted that:
>>>
>>
>> Always atttack the Media. Never admit any fact.
>>
>
> Irony alert!
>
> Tony whines about how I'm "attacking the media," but refuses to accept
> (and probably doesn't read) the links below of both AP and the New
> York Times backing away from that "13 agencies" factoid.
>
goal posts and claim that it wasn't 17, it was only 13? The point
remains that Trump there are not even 17 intelligence agencies there are
only 3.
>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/pageoneplus/corrections-june-29-2017.html
>>>
>>> https://apnews.com/6f05b3a81e134568902e015e666726f6
>>>
>>> Seems that's like a lot of JFK factoids.
>>>
>
> Tony will never admit he's wrong.
>
> I'm still waiting for evidence that "Farewell America" was banned in
> the U.S.
>
> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
John McAdams
Aug 12, 2017, 11:01:03 PM8/12/17
to
On 12 Aug 2017 22:55:29 -0400, Anthony Marsh
the mainstream media agreed about Russian hacking?
Has to be a mistake on your part, since you never intentionally admit
*anything.*
>
>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/pageoneplus/corrections-june-29-2017.html
>>>>
>>>> https://apnews.com/6f05b3a81e134568902e015e666726f6
>>>>
>>>> Seems that's like a lot of JFK factoids.
>>>>
>>
>> Tony will never admit he's wrong.
>>
>> I'm still waiting for evidence that "Farewell America" was banned in
>> the U.S.
>>
>
>I gave you the quote.
>
From an Amazon discussion board!
Just admit you were blowing smoke, Tony.
You repeated a silly conspiacy factoid, and now when you are called
out don't have the decency to admit you were wrong.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 8/11/2017 8:43 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 11 Aug 2017 20:38:55 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/11/2017 9:56 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>>>> On 11 Aug 2017 09:52:34 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> No. Trump said he checked into it and there are not even 17 intelligence
>>> agencies in the US. Trump claims there are only 3 intelligence agencies
>>> in the US. That is because he has no intelligence. Anyone who ever
>>> believes anything that Ttump says had no intelligence.
>>>
>>>> It was three.
>>>>
>>>> The media retracted that:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Always atttack the Media. Never admit any fact.
>>>
>>
>> Irony alert!
>>
>> Tony whines about how I'm "attacking the media," but refuses to accept
>> (and probably doesn't read) the links below of both AP and the New
>> York Times backing away from that "13 agencies" factoid.
>>
>
>I read all that crap. So now after you've been proven wrong you move the
>goal posts and claim that it wasn't 17, it was only 13? The point
>remains that Trump there are not even 17 intelligence agencies there are
>only 3.
Now you are *admitting* there were only three, and not the 17 agencies
>On 8/11/2017 8:43 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 11 Aug 2017 20:38:55 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/11/2017 9:56 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>>>> On 11 Aug 2017 09:52:34 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> No. Trump said he checked into it and there are not even 17 intelligence
>>> agencies in the US. Trump claims there are only 3 intelligence agencies
>>> in the US. That is because he has no intelligence. Anyone who ever
>>> believes anything that Ttump says had no intelligence.
>>>
>>>> It was three.
>>>>
>>>> The media retracted that:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Always atttack the Media. Never admit any fact.
>>>
>>
>> Irony alert!
>>
>> Tony whines about how I'm "attacking the media," but refuses to accept
>> (and probably doesn't read) the links below of both AP and the New
>> York Times backing away from that "13 agencies" factoid.
>>
>
>I read all that crap. So now after you've been proven wrong you move the
>goal posts and claim that it wasn't 17, it was only 13? The point
>remains that Trump there are not even 17 intelligence agencies there are
>only 3.
the mainstream media agreed about Russian hacking?
Has to be a mistake on your part, since you never intentionally admit
*anything.*
>
>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/pageoneplus/corrections-june-29-2017.html
>>>>
>>>> https://apnews.com/6f05b3a81e134568902e015e666726f6
>>>>
>>>> Seems that's like a lot of JFK factoids.
>>>>
>>
>> Tony will never admit he's wrong.
>>
>> I'm still waiting for evidence that "Farewell America" was banned in
>> the U.S.
>>
>
>I gave you the quote.
>
Just admit you were blowing smoke, Tony.
You repeated a silly conspiacy factoid, and now when you are called
out don't have the decency to admit you were wrong.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Aug 12, 2017, 11:14:03 PM8/12/17
to
On 8/11/2017 8:32 PM, claviger wrote:
> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 8:52:35 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 9:04:25 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>>> So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
>>> attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
>>> believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
>>> White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
>>> the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
>>> or US Gov employees?
>> So you also have become a Trump? He doesn't want to believe that the
>> 17 intelligence agencies all agreed that Russia did the hacking of the
>> DNC, and probably the RNC too. and then gave much of the email info over
>> to Wikileaks.
>
> From what I've read on this newsgroup several countries are hacking at
> other countries, friend and foe, including the USA. So hacking is now
> part of the age old profession of spying and sabotage, correct? Knowing
Not exactly. It's also old fashioned crime, stealing information and now
> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 8:52:35 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 9:04:25 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>>> So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
>>> attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
>>> believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
>>> White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
>>> the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
>>> or US Gov employees?
>> So you also have become a Trump? He doesn't want to believe that the
>> 17 intelligence agencies all agreed that Russia did the hacking of the
>> DNC, and probably the RNC too. and then gave much of the email info over
>> to Wikileaks.
>
> From what I've read on this newsgroup several countries are hacking at
> other countries, friend and foe, including the USA. So hacking is now
> part of the age old profession of spying and sabotage, correct? Knowing
ransom ware.
> this to be the case why would Hillary be so injudicious to have a private
> server unprotected by US Government firewalls? It appears her lack of
and go to a secure location. Inconvenient and not easy to do quickly and
in the middle of the night.
> sound judgement exposed the US State Department and her own campaign to
> risk from unfriendly hackers.
>
>> The hacks we know of for sure was to the email of John Podesta who was
>> Hillary's Campaign manager.
>
> Who did the hacking on Podesta? Is this where confirmation about dirty
> tricks on Bernie Sanders came from?
>
Which dirty tricks on Bernie?
>> I seriously doubt that Hillary had any of the knowledge needed to hack
>> anything.
>> Chris
>
> Who said she did? When did this come up?
>
>
Anthony Marsh
Aug 12, 2017, 11:14:37 PM8/12/17
to
On 8/11/2017 8:31 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 9:52:35 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 9:04:25 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>>> So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
>>> attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
>>> believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
>>> White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
>>> the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
>>> or US Gov employees?
>>
>>
>>
>> So you also have become a Trump? He doesn't want to believe that the
>> 17 intelligence agencies all agreed that Russia did the hacking of the
>> DNC, and probably the RNC too. and then gave much of the email info over
>> to Wikileaks. The hacks we know of for sure was to the email of John
>> Podesta who was Hillary's Campaign manager. I seriously doubt that
>> Hillary had any of the knowledge needed to hack anything.
>>
>
> Your timing is really, really bad. Just two days ago The Nation magazine
> wrote a report indicating the leaking of DNC emails was likely an inside
> job, not the result of Russian hacking. You can read the whole article if
> you like.
>
Nonsense. Why don't you just go ahead and cite Brietbart? Any rightwing
> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 9:52:35 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 9:04:25 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>>> So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
>>> attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
>>> believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
>>> White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
>>> the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
>>> or US Gov employees?
>>
>>
>>
>> So you also have become a Trump? He doesn't want to believe that the
>> 17 intelligence agencies all agreed that Russia did the hacking of the
>> DNC, and probably the RNC too. and then gave much of the email info over
>> to Wikileaks. The hacks we know of for sure was to the email of John
>> Podesta who was Hillary's Campaign manager. I seriously doubt that
>> Hillary had any of the knowledge needed to hack anything.
>>
>
> Your timing is really, really bad. Just two days ago The Nation magazine
> wrote a report indicating the leaking of DNC emails was likely an inside
> job, not the result of Russian hacking. You can read the whole article if
> you like.
>
nut will do.
> https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
>
> The most telling line in the whole article is this one:
>
> "We are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with
> long records of deception."
>
> Sounds like they are referring to the deep state.
>
John McAdams
Aug 12, 2017, 11:20:37 PM8/12/17
to
On 12 Aug 2017 23:14:36 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>> https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
>>
>> The most telling line in the whole article is this one:
>>
>> "We are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with
>> long records of deception."
>>
>
>Nothing new about that.
>
So you agree.
>> Sounds like they are referring to the deep state.
>>
>
>
>More Bannon paranoia.
>
So you agree, and then turn around and call the whole idea "Bannon
paranoia."
You are arguing with yourself ALL IN ONE POST!
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 8/11/2017 8:31 PM, bigdog wrote:
>> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 9:52:35 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 9:04:25 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>>>> So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
>>>> attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
>>>> believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
>>>> White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
>>>> the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
>>>> or US Gov employees?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So you also have become a Trump? He doesn't want to believe that the
>>> 17 intelligence agencies all agreed that Russia did the hacking of the
>>> DNC, and probably the RNC too. and then gave much of the email info over
>>> to Wikileaks. The hacks we know of for sure was to the email of John
>>> Podesta who was Hillary's Campaign manager. I seriously doubt that
>>> Hillary had any of the knowledge needed to hack anything.
>>>
>>
>> Your timing is really, really bad. Just two days ago The Nation magazine
>> wrote a report indicating the leaking of DNC emails was likely an inside
>> job, not the result of Russian hacking. You can read the whole article if
>> you like.
>>
>
>Nonsense. Why don't you just go ahead and cite Brietbart? Any rightwing
>nut will do.
>
You have no *idea* how silly you look calling THE NATION "right wing."
>On 8/11/2017 8:31 PM, bigdog wrote:
>> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 9:52:35 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 9:04:25 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>>>> So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
>>>> attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
>>>> believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
>>>> White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
>>>> the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
>>>> or US Gov employees?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So you also have become a Trump? He doesn't want to believe that the
>>> 17 intelligence agencies all agreed that Russia did the hacking of the
>>> DNC, and probably the RNC too. and then gave much of the email info over
>>> to Wikileaks. The hacks we know of for sure was to the email of John
>>> Podesta who was Hillary's Campaign manager. I seriously doubt that
>>> Hillary had any of the knowledge needed to hack anything.
>>>
>>
>> Your timing is really, really bad. Just two days ago The Nation magazine
>> wrote a report indicating the leaking of DNC emails was likely an inside
>> job, not the result of Russian hacking. You can read the whole article if
>> you like.
>>
>
>Nonsense. Why don't you just go ahead and cite Brietbart? Any rightwing
>nut will do.
>
>> https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
>>
>> The most telling line in the whole article is this one:
>>
>> "We are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with
>> long records of deception."
>>
>
>Nothing new about that.
>
>> Sounds like they are referring to the deep state.
>>
>
>
>More Bannon paranoia.
>
paranoia."
You are arguing with yourself ALL IN ONE POST!
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mainframetech
Aug 12, 2017, 11:42:13 PM8/12/17
to
state."
So on the one hand we have 3 intelligence agencies saying that they've
done their homework and found that the Russians hacked the DNC and RNC,
and put the bulk of Podesta's emails into Wikileaks for distribution,
which was agreed to by the other intel agencies, and on the other hand we
have the one article saying it was the democrats that did it. Who to
believe? :)
Check with Politifact:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/06/17-intelligence-organizations-or-four-either-way-r/
Chris
mainframetech
Aug 12, 2017, 11:43:13 PM8/12/17
to
On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 8:32:24 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 8:52:35 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 9:04:25 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > > So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
> > > attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
> > > believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
> > > White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
> > > the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
> > > or US Gov employees?
> > So you also have become a Trump? He doesn't want to believe that the
> > 17 intelligence agencies all agreed that Russia did the hacking of the
> > DNC, and probably the RNC too. and then gave much of the email info over
> > to Wikileaks.
>
> From what I've read on this newsgroup several countries are hacking at
> other countries, friend and foe, including the USA. So hacking is now
> part of the age old profession of spying and sabotage, correct? Knowing
> this to be the case why would Hillary be so injudicious to have a private
> server unprotected by US Government firewalls? It appears her lack of
> sound judgement exposed the US State Department and her own campaign to
> risk from unfriendly hackers.
>
And a committee of Republicans held hearings on Hillary for a year and
> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 8:52:35 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 9:04:25 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > > So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
> > > attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
> > > believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
> > > White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
> > > the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
> > > or US Gov employees?
> > So you also have become a Trump? He doesn't want to believe that the
> > 17 intelligence agencies all agreed that Russia did the hacking of the
> > DNC, and probably the RNC too. and then gave much of the email info over
> > to Wikileaks.
>
> From what I've read on this newsgroup several countries are hacking at
> other countries, friend and foe, including the USA. So hacking is now
> part of the age old profession of spying and sabotage, correct? Knowing
> this to be the case why would Hillary be so injudicious to have a private
> server unprotected by US Government firewalls? It appears her lack of
> sound judgement exposed the US State Department and her own campaign to
> risk from unfriendly hackers.
>
a half, and couldn't nail her for anything. They proved she was clean by
not finding anything to hang their little hats on.
> > The hacks we know of for sure was to the email of John Podesta who was
> > Hillary's Campaign manager.
>
> Who did the hacking on Podesta? Is this where confirmation about dirty
> tricks on Bernie Sanders came from?
>
in with agreement with the finding) that it was the Russians that did the
hacking of the DNC and the RNC, but only saw to the publishing of the DNC
emails.
John McAdams
Aug 12, 2017, 11:50:55 PM8/12/17
to
On 12 Aug 2017 23:42:12 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
leftists, and blamed for the murder of JFK.
> So on the one hand we have 3 intelligence agencies saying that they've
>done their homework and found that the Russians hacked the DNC and RNC,
>and put the bulk of Podesta's emails into Wikileaks for distribution,
>which was agreed to by the other intel agencies, and on the other hand we
>have the one article saying it was the democrats that did it. Who to
>believe? :)
>
> Check with Politifact:
>
>http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/06/17-intelligence-organizations-or-four-either-way-r/
>
I'm afraid Politifact is biased. Note how they try to spin the "17
agencies" as correct.
And they have not seen the NATION article.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
>On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 8:31:21 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 9:52:35 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>>
>> Your timing is really, really bad. Just two days ago The Nation magazine
>> wrote a report indicating the leaking of DNC emails was likely an inside
>> job, not the result of Russian hacking. You can read the whole article if
>> you like.
>>
>> https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
>>
>> The most telling line in the whole article is this one:
>>
>> "We are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with
>> long records of deception."
>>
>> Sounds like they are referring to the deep state.
>
>
> Oh Lordee! Yet another buzz/code word of the Republicans..."deep
>state."
>
You don't seem to understand that "Deep State" has mostly been used by
>On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 8:31:21 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 9:52:35 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>>
>> Your timing is really, really bad. Just two days ago The Nation magazine
>> wrote a report indicating the leaking of DNC emails was likely an inside
>> job, not the result of Russian hacking. You can read the whole article if
>> you like.
>>
>> https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
>>
>> The most telling line in the whole article is this one:
>>
>> "We are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with
>> long records of deception."
>>
>> Sounds like they are referring to the deep state.
>
>
> Oh Lordee! Yet another buzz/code word of the Republicans..."deep
>state."
>
leftists, and blamed for the murder of JFK.
> So on the one hand we have 3 intelligence agencies saying that they've
>done their homework and found that the Russians hacked the DNC and RNC,
>and put the bulk of Podesta's emails into Wikileaks for distribution,
>which was agreed to by the other intel agencies, and on the other hand we
>have the one article saying it was the democrats that did it. Who to
>believe? :)
>
> Check with Politifact:
>
>http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/06/17-intelligence-organizations-or-four-either-way-r/
>
agencies" as correct.
And they have not seen the NATION article.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
claviger
Aug 13, 2017, 9:37:12 AM8/13/17
to
On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 7:38:56 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 8/11/2017 9:56 AM, John McAdams wrote:
> > On 11 Aug 2017 09:52:34 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 9:04:25 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> >>> So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
> >>> attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
> >>> believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
> >>> White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
> >>> the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
> >>> or US Gov employees?
> >> So you also have become a Trump? He doesn't want to believe that the
> >> 17 intelligence agencies all agreed that Russia did the hacking of the
> >> DNC, and probably the RNC too.
> > The "17 intelligence agencies" claim is bogus.
> No. Trump said he checked into it and there are not even 17 intelligence
> agencies in the US. Trump claims there are only 3 intelligence agencies
> in the US. That is because he has no intelligence. Anyone who ever
> believes anything that Ttump says had no intelligence.
Name those 17 agencies.
> On 8/11/2017 9:56 AM, John McAdams wrote:
> > On 11 Aug 2017 09:52:34 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 9:04:25 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> >>> So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
> >>> attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
> >>> believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
> >>> White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
> >>> the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
> >>> or US Gov employees?
> >> So you also have become a Trump? He doesn't want to believe that the
> >> 17 intelligence agencies all agreed that Russia did the hacking of the
> >> DNC, and probably the RNC too.
> > The "17 intelligence agencies" claim is bogus.
> No. Trump said he checked into it and there are not even 17 intelligence
> agencies in the US. Trump claims there are only 3 intelligence agencies
> in the US. That is because he has no intelligence. Anyone who ever
> believes anything that Ttump says had no intelligence.
claviger
Aug 13, 2017, 2:04:41 PM8/13/17
to
On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 10:01:07 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 8/11/2017 1:02 PM, claviger wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 4:58:38 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 8/10/2017 9:04 AM, claviger wrote:
> >>>
> >>> So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
> >>> attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
> >> Hillary did not hack anything.
> >
> > How can you possibly read the preceding sentence and come to the
> > conclusion I said Hillary was the hacker not the hackee? Are you
> > dyslexic?
> You snip out the context to create false impressions.
I responded directly to your comment.
> On 8/11/2017 1:02 PM, claviger wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 4:58:38 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 8/10/2017 9:04 AM, claviger wrote:
> >>>
> >>> So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
> >>> attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
> >> Hillary did not hack anything.
> >
> > How can you possibly read the preceding sentence and come to the
> > conclusion I said Hillary was the hacker not the hackee? Are you
> > dyslexic?
> You snip out the context to create false impressions.
> You have no reason to blame Hillary for anything. She did not hack
> anything.
> The Russians did. The Russians also hacked the Republicans,
> but did not leak anything about the Republicans. Why?
member of NATO.
> >> The Russians did and you give them a pass, because they did it for Trump.
Hillary signed off on the uranium deal.
> > Did Trump ask them to do that? Can Trump control what Putin or Russian
> Yes, he did. He openly asked them to find her e-mails.
> Don't you have a TV in your cave?
losing the election. They keep on insulting the voters.
> > hackers do? Can Trump control what Chinese, North Korean, or American
> No need to control. Just ask his buddy Putin who does control them.
Trump?
> > hackers do? How about Democrat, Liberal, or Sanders hackers? He can't
> > even control the Republican Party! Or should that be the Repugnican
> > Party?
> I guess that's supposed to be a joke, but I don't think it conforms to any
> of the standard jokes about Republicans and Democrats being the same.
> Some people say that, but is obviously not true.
years.
> What may be true is that there are extremists or corrupt people in both
> parties.
this newsgroup.
> Christopher Shays made an excellent point the other day that Congress does
> not reflect the American People. He notes that political opinion of
> Americans is like a Bell curve with extremes tapering off on both sides,
> but a broad consensus in the middle, but there is no longer any middle in
> Congress, just extremes on either side.
> >>> believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
> >>> White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
> >>> the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
> >> The Russians are the enemies who hacked the Democrats.
> > Proving how much Putin has changed the political philosophy of Russia.
> > Wasn't that long ago when Liberals were not so concerned about Communism,
> > even when the primary method to achieve unity was eliminate the
> > competition, Trotsky being a well known example.
> >> Do you think it was the Democrats who broke into the Watergate?
> > No, it was silly plumbers looking for the master list of prostitutes
> > Democrats employed. Don't know if wanted to use them too, embarrass the
> > Democrats, or frustrated they couldn't get any hot dates in DC.
> I liked that hoax very much when it came out, but so many people have
> already confessed to what they actually did and why that it no longer
> holds any water.
> >> You seem to have trouble understanding what an enemy is.
> > Well yes when Liberals tell us the Police and Military are the real enemy
> Sometimes, not always. Sometimes they just say The MAN.
> The one I liked best was a show where the radical just refers to anyone
> in authority as THE SUITS.
wear it.
> > it does get confusing. I thought dope dealers and murderers were the
> > enemy, but Liberals don't agree with those categorical definitions.
> No, they don't have enough authority to be the ENEMY.
> They usually can't kill people and get away with it the way the police
> and military do.
> Street punks are not usually interested in taking about people's civil rights,
> just their money.
> Very few ghetto jails have lasted more than a week.
juries.
> >> If you're going to put Hilary in jail then you have to put Colin Powell
> >> in jail and all of Trump's people.
> > Yes, when any employee violates State Department rules and regulations
> > pertaining to National Security they should be punished. The Obama regime
> She didn't. Colin Powell didn't. You are just making up crap.
right?
> > ignored this gross negligence so the voters exacted requite punishment
> > during the election. Ditsy Hillary did not get a second chance to ignore
> Oh really? You mean the public voted Obama out? How did I miss that?
> Napping again?
extend his legacy, so the answer is yes.
> > Federal Law. Even though her boss didn't care, the voters did.
> Only because of Russian propaganda.
that attracted the voters in the NYSM/NYD Campaign she ran and
ran and ran and ran away from the press.
> Were the details of Chelsea's wedding plans a threat to National Security?
> > What did Trump's people do?
> Take money from the Russians. Collude with the Russians to try to get dirt
> on their political opponent. Nothing released about Trump. Nothing
> released about Bernie. Money laundering. This was the first time that the
> FBI has executed a pre-dawn raid on someone's house to obtain records that
> he failed to disclose about connections with Russians as head of a
> political campaign. Not the same as sleeper agents, but similar.
did in Russia or will he become a bigger thief than Demokrats and
Republicons.
> >> This was before the election so they were only staffers. But some still
> >> had security clearances.
> > No comparison to flagrant disregard of National Security rules by an
> > acting Secretary of State.
> Never happened.
> > So now can you tell me what information about Hillary we didn't already
> > know the Russians were able to hack that affected the election? She
> The Wedding Plans. You think that is Top Secret SCI?
are the only person in North America who believes that excuse. The people
who voted for her didn't care. You actually believe her story. How
embarrassing.
> > stopped having interviews with reporters for 9 months into the election.
> Silly. Trump didn't have a press conference for a long time.
> Hillary talked to the press all the time.
between her last two press conferences?
> > The public considered that a tacit admission of guilt. Otherwise why
> > would she avoid face time with the media that most politicians are
> > addicted to?
> Guilt about what? You have no crime.
Federal Statutes then gross negligence and misconduct, and should be
forced to resign. Not a good role model at all.
> Why does Trump refuse to have a Press Conference? Isn't that a tacit
> admission of guilt?
> Do you understand what suborning perjury means? Telling his son-in-law
> to lie.
bigdog
Aug 13, 2017, 10:13:19 PM8/13/17
to
On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 10:28:50 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 12:54:58 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 2:46:42 PM UTC-4, FNG wrote:
> > > Since this seems to be the tech section:
> > >
> > > Has anyone discussed feeding all publically available data into IBM's
> > > Watson AI? (With the known caveat that it could 'Skynet' on us and decide
> > > that humans are the the problem...)
> > >
> > > The logs from the processing would be interesting even if no real results
> > > were achieved.
> >
> > Even the most powerful computers are incapable of figuring things out that
> > are beyond the capabilities of human beings. What they do is process data
> > faster than humans ever could. It's called artificial intelligence because
> > the computers have no innate intelligence. They only know what they are
> > fed. Any "solution" a computer could come up with would reflect the bias
> > of the person programming it.
> >
> > To put it another way, computers are a great tool for doing one task a
> > million times. They are a very inefficient way to perform a task once.
>
>
> You've been away too long. Computers using AI programs have been
> training from birth on news and other input to develop their personalities
> and their intelligence.
>
They still only know what they've been told and they can only reason the
> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 12:54:58 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 2:46:42 PM UTC-4, FNG wrote:
> > > Since this seems to be the tech section:
> > >
> > > Has anyone discussed feeding all publically available data into IBM's
> > > Watson AI? (With the known caveat that it could 'Skynet' on us and decide
> > > that humans are the the problem...)
> > >
> > > The logs from the processing would be interesting even if no real results
> > > were achieved.
> >
> > Even the most powerful computers are incapable of figuring things out that
> > are beyond the capabilities of human beings. What they do is process data
> > faster than humans ever could. It's called artificial intelligence because
> > the computers have no innate intelligence. They only know what they are
> > fed. Any "solution" a computer could come up with would reflect the bias
> > of the person programming it.
> >
> > To put it another way, computers are a great tool for doing one task a
> > million times. They are a very inefficient way to perform a task once.
>
>
> You've been away too long. Computers using AI programs have been
> training from birth on news and other input to develop their personalities
> and their intelligence.
>
way they've been programmed to reason.
> They've ben programmed to react to many stimuli like anyone would, and
> they follow that training. But many have been given the ability to
> analyze situations that might be new to them and react however their
> learning has led to do.
learning has led to do". That means they will reason just as they've been
programmed to reason which follows my statement that any AI solution would
reflect the bias of the person doing the programming.
bigdog
Aug 13, 2017, 10:14:37 PM8/13/17
to
even the three intelligence agencies no being cited as having determined
the Russians hacked the DNC computers were actually just people within
those agencies leaking information which had not been vetted by an agency
wide review. Note the last two sentences in the passage below:
"The Intelligence Community Assessment, the supposedly definitive report
featuring the “high confidence” dodge, was greeted as
farcically flimsy when issued January 6. Ray McGovern calls it a disgrace
to the intelligence profession. It is spotlessly free of evidence, front
to back, pertaining to any events in which Russia is implicated. James
Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, admitted in May
that “hand-picked” analysts from three agencies (not the
17 previously reported) drafted the ICA. There is a way to understand
“hand-picked” that is less obvious than meets the eye: The
report was sequestered from rigorous agency-wide reviews. This is the way
these people have spoken to us for the past year."
It is hardly just one article that is reporting this. This news has been
out there for about a month now but has been dismissed by left wing news
organizations as fake news from the right. The significance of this
article is that it is coming from one of the most far left publications in
this country. That makes it hard to dismiss this as nothing more than
right wing propaganda.
bigdog
Aug 13, 2017, 10:15:33 PM8/13/17
to
what the Intelligence Community Assessment alleges is not physically
possible. The transfer rate of the data indicates it was copied internally
to a thumb drive or similar external device. The 22.7 megabytes per second
transfer rate was far beyond what could have been achieved through even
the fastest internet connection. It had to have been done from inside the
DNC by somebody who had access to the data.
mainframetech
Aug 13, 2017, 10:25:37 PM8/13/17
to
On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 11:50:55 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
> On 12 Aug 2017 23:42:12 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 8:31:21 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> >> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 9:52:35 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> >>
> >> Your timing is really, really bad. Just two days ago The Nation magazine
> >> wrote a report indicating the leaking of DNC emails was likely an inside
> >> job, not the result of Russian hacking. You can read the whole article if
> >> you like.
> >>
> >> https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
> >>
> >> The most telling line in the whole article is this one:
> >>
> >> "We are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with
> >> long records of deception."
> >>
> >> Sounds like they are referring to the deep state.
> >
> >
> > Oh Lordee! Yet another buzz/code word of the Republicans..."deep
> >state."
> >
>
> You don't seem to understand that "Deep State" has mostly been used by
> leftists, and blamed for the murder of JFK.
>
I hear it used all the time on FOX, but rarely on the other stations.
> On 12 Aug 2017 23:42:12 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 8:31:21 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> >> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 9:52:35 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> >>
> >> Your timing is really, really bad. Just two days ago The Nation magazine
> >> wrote a report indicating the leaking of DNC emails was likely an inside
> >> job, not the result of Russian hacking. You can read the whole article if
> >> you like.
> >>
> >> https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
> >>
> >> The most telling line in the whole article is this one:
> >>
> >> "We are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with
> >> long records of deception."
> >>
> >> Sounds like they are referring to the deep state.
> >
> >
> > Oh Lordee! Yet another buzz/code word of the Republicans..."deep
> >state."
> >
>
> You don't seem to understand that "Deep State" has mostly been used by
> leftists, and blamed for the murder of JFK.
>
So no matter who coined it, FOX loves to use it.
> > So on the one hand we have 3 intelligence agencies saying that they've
> >done their homework and found that the Russians hacked the DNC and RNC,
> >and put the bulk of Podesta's emails into Wikileaks for distribution,
> >which was agreed to by the other intel agencies, and on the other hand we
> >have the one article saying it was the democrats that did it. Who to
> >believe? :)
> >
> > Check with Politifact:
> >
> >http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/06/17-intelligence-organizations-or-four-either-way-r/
> >
>
> I'm afraid Politifact is biased. Note how they try to spin the "17
> agencies" as correct.
>
see.
John McAdams
Aug 13, 2017, 10:28:25 PM8/13/17
to
On 13 Aug 2017 22:25:36 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
point.
Note that the NEW YORK TIMES and the ASSOCIATED PRESS admit it was
only 3 agencies, but PolitiFact won't admit that.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
>On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 11:50:55 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 12 Aug 2017 23:42:12 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>
>> > So on the one hand we have 3 intelligence agencies saying that they've
>> >done their homework and found that the Russians hacked the DNC and RNC,
>> >and put the bulk of Podesta's emails into Wikileaks for distribution,
>> >which was agreed to by the other intel agencies, and on the other hand we
>> >have the one article saying it was the democrats that did it. Who to
>> >believe? :)
>> >
>> > Check with Politifact:
>> >
>> >http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/06/17-intelligence-organizations-or-four-either-way-r/
>> >
>>
>> I'm afraid Politifact is biased. Note how they try to spin the "17
>> agencies" as correct.
>>
>
>
>
> So you've used your opinion of Politifact to fend off the comment. I
>see.
>
You've used your opinion of PolitiFact as authoritative to make a
>On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 11:50:55 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 12 Aug 2017 23:42:12 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>
>> > So on the one hand we have 3 intelligence agencies saying that they've
>> >done their homework and found that the Russians hacked the DNC and RNC,
>> >and put the bulk of Podesta's emails into Wikileaks for distribution,
>> >which was agreed to by the other intel agencies, and on the other hand we
>> >have the one article saying it was the democrats that did it. Who to
>> >believe? :)
>> >
>> > Check with Politifact:
>> >
>> >http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/06/17-intelligence-organizations-or-four-either-way-r/
>> >
>>
>> I'm afraid Politifact is biased. Note how they try to spin the "17
>> agencies" as correct.
>>
>
>
>
> So you've used your opinion of Politifact to fend off the comment. I
>see.
>
point.
Note that the NEW YORK TIMES and the ASSOCIATED PRESS admit it was
only 3 agencies, but PolitiFact won't admit that.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
bigdog
Aug 13, 2017, 10:32:13 PM8/13/17
to
On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 11:43:13 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 8:32:24 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 8:52:35 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 9:04:25 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > > > So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
> > > > attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
> > > > believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
> > > > White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
> > > > the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
> > > > or US Gov employees?
> > > So you also have become a Trump? He doesn't want to believe that the
> > > 17 intelligence agencies all agreed that Russia did the hacking of the
> > > DNC, and probably the RNC too. and then gave much of the email info over
> > > to Wikileaks.
> >
> > From what I've read on this newsgroup several countries are hacking at
> > other countries, friend and foe, including the USA. So hacking is now
> > part of the age old profession of spying and sabotage, correct? Knowing
> > this to be the case why would Hillary be so injudicious to have a private
> > server unprotected by US Government firewalls? It appears her lack of
> > sound judgement exposed the US State Department and her own campaign to
> > risk from unfriendly hackers.
> >
>
>
>
> And a committee of Republicans held hearings on Hillary for a year and
> a half, and couldn't nail her for anything. They proved she was clean by
> not finding anything to hang their little hats on.
>
Fortunately for Hillary, lack of sound judgement is not a crime.
> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 8:32:24 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 8:52:35 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 9:04:25 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > > > So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
> > > > attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
> > > > believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
> > > > White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
> > > > the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
> > > > or US Gov employees?
> > > So you also have become a Trump? He doesn't want to believe that the
> > > 17 intelligence agencies all agreed that Russia did the hacking of the
> > > DNC, and probably the RNC too. and then gave much of the email info over
> > > to Wikileaks.
> >
> > From what I've read on this newsgroup several countries are hacking at
> > other countries, friend and foe, including the USA. So hacking is now
> > part of the age old profession of spying and sabotage, correct? Knowing
> > this to be the case why would Hillary be so injudicious to have a private
> > server unprotected by US Government firewalls? It appears her lack of
> > sound judgement exposed the US State Department and her own campaign to
> > risk from unfriendly hackers.
> >
>
>
>
> And a committee of Republicans held hearings on Hillary for a year and
> a half, and couldn't nail her for anything. They proved she was clean by
> not finding anything to hang their little hats on.
>
>
> > > The hacks we know of for sure was to the email of John Podesta who was
> > > Hillary's Campaign manager.
> >
> > Who did the hacking on Podesta? Is this where confirmation about dirty
> > tricks on Bernie Sanders came from?
> >
>
>
>
> The intel agencies agreed (yes, 3 did the work, and the others weighed
> in with agreement with the finding) that it was the Russians that did the
> hacking of the DNC and the RNC, but only saw to the publishing of the DNC
> emails.
>
It had to have been transferred internally to a device such as a thumb
drive. That would indicate an internal leak, not an external hack.
Anthony Marsh
Aug 14, 2017, 10:13:21 AM8/14/17
to
On 8/13/2017 2:04 PM, claviger wrote:
> On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 10:01:07 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 8/11/2017 1:02 PM, claviger wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 4:58:38 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>> On 8/10/2017 9:04 AM, claviger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
>>>>> attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
>>>> Hillary did not hack anything.
>>>
>>> How can you possibly read the preceding sentence and come to the
>>> conclusion I said Hillary was the hacker not the hackee? Are you
>>> dyslexic?
>> You snip out the context to create false impressions.
>
> I responded directly to your comment.
>
>> You have no reason to blame Hillary for anything. She did not hack
>> anything.
>
> Who said she did? Did you make this up?
>
It's a preemptive argument to point out your hypocrisy. You attack Hillary
> On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 10:01:07 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 8/11/2017 1:02 PM, claviger wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 4:58:38 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>> On 8/10/2017 9:04 AM, claviger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
>>>>> attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
>>>> Hillary did not hack anything.
>>>
>>> How can you possibly read the preceding sentence and come to the
>>> conclusion I said Hillary was the hacker not the hackee? Are you
>>> dyslexic?
>> You snip out the context to create false impressions.
>
> I responded directly to your comment.
>
>> You have no reason to blame Hillary for anything. She did not hack
>> anything.
>
> Who said she did? Did you make this up?
>
for doing nothing criminal and you give the Russians and Trump a pass.
>> The Russians did. The Russians also hacked the Republicans,
>> but did not leak anything about the Republicans. Why?
>
> Yes the Russians are equal opportunity spies who probably hack every
> member of NATO.
>
>>>> The Russians did and you give them a pass, because they did it for Trump.
>
> That is their prerogative. It could have been the other way around since
> Hillary signed off on the uranium deal.
>
>>> Did Trump ask them to do that? Can Trump control what Putin or Russian
>> Yes, he did. He openly asked them to find her e-mails.
>> Don't you have a TV in your cave?
>
> Yes but got bored with all the whining by Liberals making excuses for
> losing the election. They keep on insulting the voters.
>
>>> hackers do? Can Trump control what Chinese, North Korean, or American
>> No need to control. Just ask his buddy Putin who does control them.
>
> Putin controls China, North Korea, and America? Then why does he need
> Trump?
>
The old Divide and Conquer.
>>> hackers do? How about Democrat, Liberal, or Sanders hackers? He can't
>>> even control the Republican Party! Or should that be the Repugnican
>>> Party?
>> I guess that's supposed to be a joke, but I don't think it conforms to any
>> of the standard jokes about Republicans and Democrats being the same.
>> Some people say that, but is obviously not true.
>
> Didn't used to be, but Republicans rolled over and played dead for 8
> years.
>
>> What may be true is that there are extremists or corrupt people in both
>> parties.
>
> No kidding. You seem to fit that category with your extreme invective on
> this newsgroup.
>
>> Christopher Shays made an excellent point the other day that Congress does
>> not reflect the American People. He notes that political opinion of
>> Americans is like a Bell curve with extremes tapering off on both sides,
>> but a broad consensus in the middle, but there is no longer any middle in
>> Congress, just extremes on either side.
>
> Yes the Middle Class gets screwed by Democraps and Repubnocans.
>
You sound like Bannon. Are you secretly Steve Bannon?
>>>>> believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
>>>>> White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
>>>>> the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
>>>> The Russians are the enemies who hacked the Democrats.
>>> Proving how much Putin has changed the political philosophy of Russia.
>>> Wasn't that long ago when Liberals were not so concerned about Communism,
>>> even when the primary method to achieve unity was eliminate the
>>> competition, Trotsky being a well known example.
>>>> Do you think it was the Democrats who broke into the Watergate?
>>> No, it was silly plumbers looking for the master list of prostitutes
>>> Democrats employed. Don't know if wanted to use them too, embarrass the
>>> Democrats, or frustrated they couldn't get any hot dates in DC.
>> I liked that hoax very much when it came out, but so many people have
>> already confessed to what they actually did and why that it no longer
>> holds any water.
>
> SOP for Democats. Meow for more.
>
>>>> You seem to have trouble understanding what an enemy is.
>>> Well yes when Liberals tell us the Police and Military are the real enemy
>> Sometimes, not always. Sometimes they just say The MAN.
>> The one I liked best was a show where the radical just refers to anyone
>> in authority as THE SUITS.
>
> You are way behind the times. Madonna started that. If the suit fits,
> wear it.
>
White Collar.
>>> it does get confusing. I thought dope dealers and murderers were the
>>> enemy, but Liberals don't agree with those categorical definitions.
>> No, they don't have enough authority to be the ENEMY.
>
> Liberals had the authority for 8 loooooooong years.
>
>> They usually can't kill people and get away with it the way the police
>> and military do.
>
> Ted Kennedy and O J Simpson.
>
military.
>> Street punks are not usually interested in taking about people's civil rights,
>> just their money.
>
> Like owning a wallet. Kind of like Congress.
>
>> Very few ghetto jails have lasted more than a week.
>
> Did Liberal judges turn them loose on technicalities? Or maybe Liberal
> juries.
>
>>>> If you're going to put Hilary in jail then you have to put Colin Powell
>>>> in jail and all of Trump's people.
>>> Yes, when any employee violates State Department rules and regulations
>>> pertaining to National Security they should be punished. The Obama regime
>> She didn't. Colin Powell didn't. You are just making up crap.
>
> Do you come from a parallel universe where right is wrong and wrong is
> right?
>
>>> ignored this gross negligence so the voters exacted requite punishment
>>> during the election. Ditsy Hillary did not get a second chance to ignore
>> Oh really? You mean the public voted Obama out? How did I miss that?
>> Napping again?
>
> He endorsed and campaigned for Hillary to take credit for her victory and
> extend his legacy, so the answer is yes.
>
>>> Federal Law. Even though her boss didn't care, the voters did.
>> Only because of Russian propaganda.
>
> How so? What propaganda? It was straight talk by a non politician
> that attracted the voters in the NYSM/NYD Campaign she ran and
> ran and ran and ran away from the press.
>
BTW, Trump also runs away from the press. Hillary did not do as much
running as you claim.
>> Were the details of Chelsea's wedding plans a threat to National Security?
>
> Only a putz would believe that story.
>
>>> What did Trump's people do?
>> Take money from the Russians. Collude with the Russians to try to get dirt
>> on their political opponent. Nothing released about Trump. Nothing
>> released about Bernie. Money laundering. This was the first time that the
>> FBI has executed a pre-dawn raid on someone's house to obtain records that
>> he failed to disclose about connections with Russians as head of a
>> political campaign. Not the same as sleeper agents, but similar.
>
> Wow! So we really do live in Amerika. Will Putin lower tax rates like he
> did in Russia or will he become a bigger thief than Demokrats and
> Republicons.
>
Putin is part of the Russian Mafia.
>>>> This was before the election so they were only staffers. But some still
>>>> had security clearances.
>>> No comparison to flagrant disregard of National Security rules by an
>>> acting Secretary of State.
>> Never happened.
>
> It happened, the reason for her runaway marathon dodging the press.
>
>>> So now can you tell me what information about Hillary we didn't already
>>> know the Russians were able to hack that affected the election? She
>> The Wedding Plans. You think that is Top Secret SCI?
>
> She admitted it. Her only excuse, it was all boring wedding stuff. You
> are the only person in North America who believes that excuse. The people
theories.
> who voted for her didn't care. You actually believe her story. How
> embarrassing.
>
>>> stopped having interviews with reporters for 9 months into the election.
>> Silly. Trump didn't have a press conference for a long time.
>
> Measured in hours.
>
>> Hillary talked to the press all the time.
>
> Yes, every 9 months she had a press conference. How many babies were born
> between her last two press conferences?
>
>>> The public considered that a tacit admission of guilt. Otherwise why
>>> would she avoid face time with the media that most politicians are
>>> addicted to?
>> Guilt about what? You have no crime.
>
> Violating Federal law is a crime. If not technically as defined in
> Federal Statutes then gross negligence and misconduct, and should be
> forced to resign. Not a good role model at all.
>
You have a weird imagination.
No one forced the issue when Hillary was still Secretary of State.
Neither did they say anything when many others did exactly the same thing.
>> Why does Trump refuse to have a Press Conference? Isn't that a tacit
>> admission of guilt?
>
> What's sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose.
>
you think Hillary is. Not a good argument.
>> Do you understand what suborning perjury means? Telling his son-in-law
>> to lie.
>
> Yes I do. Mark Lane perfected that concept.
>
Pee-Wee Herman.
>
>
Anthony Marsh
Aug 14, 2017, 10:30:53 AM8/14/17
to
in front of Congress and explicitly pushed back on the idea that “17
intelligence agencies agreed,” stating flatly that it was just three.
Fact Check:
The intelligence community is comprised of 17 agencies including the
FBI, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of Naval
Intelligence (ONI). Another of these agencies – the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence (DNI) – speaks on behalf of the
intelligence community and orchestrated the January report.
“The [intelligence community assessment] was a coordinated product from
three agencies: CIA, NSA and the FBI, not all 17 components of the
intelligence community,” said former Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper during a congressional hearing in May. “Those three under
the aegis of my former office.”
A handful of experienced analysts were chosen from the three agencies to
investigate and draw independent conclusions. Each agency reached the
same verdict about Russian interference.
So while the DNI published the report as an intelligence community
assessment, Clapper clarified at the hearing that the report reflects
the views of those three agencies alone. In fact, when questioned by
Democratic Senator Al Franken, Clapper resisted the notion that all 17
agencies had reached a consensus.
Franken: The intelligence communities have concluded, all 17 of
them, that Russia interfered with this election. And we all know how
that’s right.
Clapper: Senator, as I pointed out in my statement, Senator
Franken, it was- there were only three agencies that directly involved
in this assessment plus my office.
Franken: But all 17 signed on to that?
Clapper: Well, we didn’t go through that process. This was a
special situation because of the time limits and […] the sensitivity of
the information, we decided – it was a conscious judgment – to restrict
it to those three. I’m not aware of anyone who dissented, or disagreed
when it came out.
Now, try to mimic Trump and say there are only 3 intelligence agencies.
John McAdams
Aug 14, 2017, 10:33:10 AM8/14/17
to
On 14 Aug 2017 10:30:52 -0400, Anthony Marsh
You don't even know what you posted!!
Clapper admits there were only three agencies, and the others did
*not* sign on.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Clapper admits there were only three agencies, and the others did
*not* sign on.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Aug 14, 2017, 10:33:36 AM8/14/17
to
On 8/13/2017 9:37 AM, claviger wrote:
The term "Intelligence Community" was first used during Lt. Gen. Walter
Bedell Smith's tenure as Director of Central Intelligence (1950–1953).[5]
History
Intelligence is information that agencies collect, analyze, and
distribute in response to government leaders' questions and
requirements. Intelligence is a broad term that entails:
Collection, analysis, and production of sensitive information to
support national security leaders, including policymakers, military
commanders, and Members of Congress. Safeguarding these processes and
this information through counterintelligence activities. Execution of
covert operations approved by the President. The IC strives to provide
valuable insight on important issues by gathering raw intelligence,
analyzing that data in context, and producing timely and relevant
products for customers at all levels of national security—from the
war-fighter on the ground to the President in Washington.[6]
Executive Order 12333 charged the IC with six primary objectives:[7]
Collection of information needed by the President, the National
Security Council, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and
other executive branch officials for the performance of their duties and
responsibilities;
Production and dissemination of intelligence;
Collection of information concerning, and the conduct of activities
to protect against, intelligence activities directed against the U.S.,
international terrorist and/or narcotics activities, and other hostile
activities directed against the U.S. by foreign powers, organizations,
persons and their agents;
Special activities (defined as activities conducted in support of
U.S. foreign policy objectives abroad which are planned and executed so
that the "role of the United States Government is not apparent or
acknowledged publicly", and functions in support of such activities, but
which are not intended to influence United States political processes,
public opinion, policies, or media and do not include diplomatic
activities or the collection and production of intelligence or related
support functions);
Administrative and support activities within the United States and
abroad necessary for the performance of authorized activities and
Such other intelligence activities as the President may direct from
time to time.
Organization
Members
The IC is headed by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), whose
statutory leadership is exercised through the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence (ODNI). The 16 members of the IC are:[8]
The official seals of U.S. Intelligence Community members.
Agency Parent Agency Federal Department Date est.
Twenty-Fifth Air Force United States Air Force Defense 1948
Intelligence and Security Command United States Army Defense 1977
Central Intelligence Agency none Independent agency 1947
Coast Guard Intelligence United States Coast Guard Homeland Security 1915
Defense Intelligence Agency none Defense 1961
Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence none Energy 1977
Office of Intelligence and Analysis none Homeland Security 2007
Bureau of Intelligence and Research none State 1945
Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence none Treasury 2004
Office of National Security Intelligence Drug Enforcement
Administration Justice 2006
Intelligence Branch Federal Bureau of Investigation Justice 2005
Marine Corps Intelligence Activity United States Marine Corps Defense
1978
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency none Defense 1996
National Reconnaissance Office none Defense 1961
National Security Agency/Central Security Service none Defense 1952
Office of Naval Intelligence United States Navy Defense 1882
John McAdams
Aug 14, 2017, 10:34:45 AM8/14/17
to
On 14 Aug 2017 10:33:35 -0400, Anthony Marsh
You just posted a message with Clapper saying all those agencies did
*not* sign on to the assessment.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
*not* sign on to the assessment.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Aug 14, 2017, 12:53:03 PM8/14/17
to
On 8/12/2017 11:50 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 12 Aug 2017 23:42:12 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 8:31:21 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>>> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 9:52:35 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>>>
>>> Your timing is really, really bad. Just two days ago The Nation magazine
>>> wrote a report indicating the leaking of DNC emails was likely an inside
>>> job, not the result of Russian hacking. You can read the whole article if
>>> you like.
>>>
>>> https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
>>>
>>> The most telling line in the whole article is this one:
>>>
>>> "We are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with
>>> long records of deception."
>>>
>>> Sounds like they are referring to the deep state.
>>
>>
>> Oh Lordee! Yet another buzz/code word of the Republicans..."deep
>> state."
>>
>
> You don't seem to understand that "Deep State" has mostly been used by
> leftists, and blamed for the murder of JFK.
>
Not exactly. Are you thinking of Deep Politics?
> On 12 Aug 2017 23:42:12 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 8:31:21 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>>> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 9:52:35 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>>>
>>> Your timing is really, really bad. Just two days ago The Nation magazine
>>> wrote a report indicating the leaking of DNC emails was likely an inside
>>> job, not the result of Russian hacking. You can read the whole article if
>>> you like.
>>>
>>> https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
>>>
>>> The most telling line in the whole article is this one:
>>>
>>> "We are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with
>>> long records of deception."
>>>
>>> Sounds like they are referring to the deep state.
>>
>>
>> Oh Lordee! Yet another buzz/code word of the Republicans..."deep
>> state."
>>
>
> You don't seem to understand that "Deep State" has mostly been used by
> leftists, and blamed for the murder of JFK.
>
>> So on the one hand we have 3 intelligence agencies saying that they've
>> done their homework and found that the Russians hacked the DNC and RNC,
>> and put the bulk of Podesta's emails into Wikileaks for distribution,
>> which was agreed to by the other intel agencies, and on the other hand we
>> have the one article saying it was the democrats that did it. Who to
>> believe? :)
>>
>> Check with Politifact:
>>
>> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/06/17-intelligence-organizations-or-four-either-way-r/
>>
>
> I'm afraid Politifact is biased. Note how they try to spin the "17
> agencies" as correct.
>
Funny that you say that Politifact is biased. You mean anti-Trump?
John McAdams
Aug 14, 2017, 12:54:35 PM8/14/17
to
On 14 Aug 2017 12:53:02 -0400, Anthony Marsh
And Clapper said it was only three agencies.
>Funny that you say that Politifact is biased. You mean anti-Trump?
>
Yes. Anti-Republican. Anti-conservative.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>Funny that you say that Politifact is biased. You mean anti-Trump?
>
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Aug 14, 2017, 2:58:38 PM8/14/17
to
valid
By Lauren Carroll on Thursday, July 6th, 2017 at 4:26 p.m.
President Donald Trump, during a visit to Poland, said he believes
Russia may have interfered with the US election, along with other
countries. (AP/July 6, 2017)
President Donald Trump, speaking in Poland July 6, downplayed the
strength of the intelligence community???s conclusion that Russia meddled
in the election to his benefit.
He justified his doubt by noting that the New York Times and the
Associated Press recently corrected stories to clarify that four
agencies, rather than 17, were directly involved in the January
intelligence assessment about Russia???s interference in the election.
"I heard it was 17 agencies. I said, boy, that???s a lot. Do we even have
that many intelligence agencies? Right, let???s check that," Trump told
NBC???s Hallie Jackson. "We did some heavy research. It turned out to be
three or four. It wasn???t 17. ... I agree, I think it was Russia, but I
think it was probably other people and/or countries, and I see nothing
wrong with that statement. Nobody really knows. Nobody really knows for
sure."
It???s valid for Trump to criticize news organizations for not being
specific enough in their reports (more on that in a bit). But this does
not invalidate the report by the CIA, FBI, NSA and Director of National
Intelligence, nor their "high confidence" in their judgment that Russia
engaged in an influence campaign directed at the election.
Relevance over quantity
Trump asked if the federal government really does have 17 intelligence
organizations. Yes, it does.
They are as follows: Air Force Intelligence, Army Intelligence, Central
Intelligence Agency, Coast Guard Intelligence, Defense Intelligence
Agency, Energy Department, Homeland Security Department, State
Department, Treasury Department, Drug Enforcement Administration,
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Marine Corps Intelligence, National
Geospatial Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, National
Security Agency, Navy Intelligence and the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence.
And some Trump moron here challenged me to name all the fictitous 17
intelligence agencies. He can't even Google.
> Chris
>
John McAdams
Aug 14, 2017, 3:00:19 PM8/14/17
to
On 14 Aug 2017 14:58:35 -0400, Anthony Marsh
But only three agencies had any role in determining whether Russia was
behind the hacks.
The Clapper testimony you posted showed that.
The NEW YORK TIMES and the Associated Press admitted that.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
behind the hacks.
The Clapper testimony you posted showed that.
The NEW YORK TIMES and the Associated Press admitted that.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
Aug 14, 2017, 3:32:58 PM8/14/17
to
On 14 Aug 2017 10:30:52 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>Fact Check:
>
>The intelligence community is comprised of 17 agencies including the
>FBI, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of Naval
>Intelligence (ONI). Another of these agencies – the Office of the
>Director of National Intelligence (DNI) – speaks on behalf of the
>intelligence community and orchestrated the January report.
>
>“The [intelligence community assessment] was a coordinated product from
>three agencies: CIA, NSA and the FBI, not all 17 components of the
>intelligence community,” said former Director of National Intelligence
>James Clapper during a congressional hearing in May. “Those three under
>the aegis of my former office.”
>
>A handful of experienced analysts were chosen from the three agencies to
>investigate and draw independent conclusions. Each agency reached the
>same verdict about Russian interference.
>
>So while the DNI published the report as an intelligence community
>assessment, Clapper clarified at the hearing that the report reflects
>the views of those three agencies alone. In fact, when questioned by
>Democratic Senator Al Franken, Clapper resisted the notion that all 17
>agencies had reached a consensus.
>
"Those three agencies alone."
> Franken: The intelligence communities have concluded, all 17 of
>them, that Russia interfered with this election. And we all know how
>that’s right.
>
> Clapper: Senator, as I pointed out in my statement, Senator
>Franken, it was- there were only three agencies that directly involved
>in this assessment plus my office.
>
> Franken: But all 17 signed on to that?
>
> Clapper: Well, we didn’t go through that process.
"We didn't go through the process!"
>This was a
>special situation because of the time limits and […] the sensitivity of
>the information, we decided – it was a conscious judgment – to restrict
>it to those three. I’m not aware of anyone who dissented, or disagreed
>when it came out.
>
>
>Now, try to mimic Trump and say there are only 3 intelligence agencies.
>
>
Only three agencies (and not 17) produced any assessment of Russian
interference in the U.S. election.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 8/13/2017 9:37 AM, claviger wrote:
>> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 7:38:56 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>> On 8/11/2017 9:56 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>>>> On 11 Aug 2017 09:52:34 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> The "17 intelligence agencies" claim is bogus.
>>> No. Trump said he checked into it and there are not even 17 intelligence
>>> agencies in the US. Trump claims there are only 3 intelligence agencies
>>> in the US. That is because he has no intelligence. Anyone who ever
>>> believes anything that Ttump says had no intelligence.
>>
>> Name those 17 agencies.
>>
>>
>
>Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper himself appeared
>in front of Congress and explicitly pushed back on the idea that “17
>intelligence agencies agreed,” stating flatly that it was just three.
>
Note "pushed back."
>On 8/13/2017 9:37 AM, claviger wrote:
>> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 7:38:56 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>> On 8/11/2017 9:56 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>>>> On 11 Aug 2017 09:52:34 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> The "17 intelligence agencies" claim is bogus.
>>> No. Trump said he checked into it and there are not even 17 intelligence
>>> agencies in the US. Trump claims there are only 3 intelligence agencies
>>> in the US. That is because he has no intelligence. Anyone who ever
>>> believes anything that Ttump says had no intelligence.
>>
>> Name those 17 agencies.
>>
>>
>
>Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper himself appeared
>in front of Congress and explicitly pushed back on the idea that “17
>intelligence agencies agreed,” stating flatly that it was just three.
>
>Fact Check:
>
>The intelligence community is comprised of 17 agencies including the
>FBI, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of Naval
>Intelligence (ONI). Another of these agencies – the Office of the
>Director of National Intelligence (DNI) – speaks on behalf of the
>intelligence community and orchestrated the January report.
>
>“The [intelligence community assessment] was a coordinated product from
>three agencies: CIA, NSA and the FBI, not all 17 components of the
>intelligence community,” said former Director of National Intelligence
>James Clapper during a congressional hearing in May. “Those three under
>the aegis of my former office.”
>
>A handful of experienced analysts were chosen from the three agencies to
>investigate and draw independent conclusions. Each agency reached the
>same verdict about Russian interference.
>
>So while the DNI published the report as an intelligence community
>assessment, Clapper clarified at the hearing that the report reflects
>the views of those three agencies alone. In fact, when questioned by
>Democratic Senator Al Franken, Clapper resisted the notion that all 17
>agencies had reached a consensus.
>
> Franken: The intelligence communities have concluded, all 17 of
>them, that Russia interfered with this election. And we all know how
>that’s right.
>
> Clapper: Senator, as I pointed out in my statement, Senator
>Franken, it was- there were only three agencies that directly involved
>in this assessment plus my office.
>
> Franken: But all 17 signed on to that?
>
> Clapper: Well, we didn’t go through that process.
>This was a
>special situation because of the time limits and […] the sensitivity of
>the information, we decided – it was a conscious judgment – to restrict
>it to those three. I’m not aware of anyone who dissented, or disagreed
>when it came out.
>
>
>Now, try to mimic Trump and say there are only 3 intelligence agencies.
>
>
interference in the U.S. election.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Aug 14, 2017, 3:33:38 PM8/14/17
to
>>> Sounds like they are referring to the deep state.
>>>
>>
>>
>> More Bannon paranoia.
>>
>
> So you agree, and then turn around and call the whole idea "Bannon
> paranoia."
>
> You are arguing with yourself ALL IN ONE POST!
>
> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
Anthony Marsh
Aug 14, 2017, 3:34:21 PM8/14/17
to
On 8/12/2017 11:01 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 12 Aug 2017 22:55:29 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 8/11/2017 8:43 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 11 Aug 2017 20:38:55 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>>>>>
>>>>> The media retracted that:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Always atttack the Media. Never admit any fact.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Irony alert!
>>>
>>> Tony whines about how I'm "attacking the media," but refuses to accept
>>> (and probably doesn't read) the links below of both AP and the New
>>> York Times backing away from that "13 agencies" factoid.
>>>
>>
>> I read all that crap. So now after you've been proven wrong you move the
>> goal posts and claim that it wasn't 17, it was only 13? The point
>> remains that Trump there are not even 17 intelligence agencies there are
>> only 3.
>
> Now you are *admitting* there were only three, and not the 17 agencies
> the mainstream media agreed about Russian hacking?
>
No, I am admitted that you always misrepresent what I say.
Clapper explained it.
nnn
> Has to be a mistake on your part, since you never intentionally admit
> *anything.*
>
>>
>>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/pageoneplus/corrections-june-29-2017.html
>>>>>
>>>>> https://apnews.com/6f05b3a81e134568902e015e666726f6
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems that's like a lot of JFK factoids.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Tony will never admit he's wrong.
>>>
>>> I'm still waiting for evidence that "Farewell America" was banned in
>>> the U.S.
>>>
>>
>> I gave you the quote.
>>
>
> From an Amazon discussion board!
>
Discussion group? You're blowing smoke.
Amazon was selling the book.
> Just admit you were blowing smoke, Tony.
>
> You repeated a silly conspiacy factoid, and now when you are called
> out don't have the decency to admit you were wrong.
>
> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> On 12 Aug 2017 22:55:29 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 8/11/2017 8:43 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 11 Aug 2017 20:38:55 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/11/2017 9:56 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>>>>> On 11 Aug 2017 09:52:34 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No. Trump said he checked into it and there are not even 17 intelligence
>>>> agencies in the US. Trump claims there are only 3 intelligence agencies
>>>> in the US. That is because he has no intelligence. Anyone who ever
>>>> believes anything that Ttump says had no intelligence.
>>>>
>>>>> It was three.
>>>
>>>> On 8/11/2017 9:56 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>>>>> On 11 Aug 2017 09:52:34 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No. Trump said he checked into it and there are not even 17 intelligence
>>>> agencies in the US. Trump claims there are only 3 intelligence agencies
>>>> in the US. That is because he has no intelligence. Anyone who ever
>>>> believes anything that Ttump says had no intelligence.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The media retracted that:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Always atttack the Media. Never admit any fact.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Irony alert!
>>>
>>> Tony whines about how I'm "attacking the media," but refuses to accept
>>> (and probably doesn't read) the links below of both AP and the New
>>> York Times backing away from that "13 agencies" factoid.
>>>
>>
>> I read all that crap. So now after you've been proven wrong you move the
>> goal posts and claim that it wasn't 17, it was only 13? The point
>> remains that Trump there are not even 17 intelligence agencies there are
>> only 3.
>
> Now you are *admitting* there were only three, and not the 17 agencies
> the mainstream media agreed about Russian hacking?
>
No, I am admitted that you always misrepresent what I say.
Clapper explained it.
nnn
> Has to be a mistake on your part, since you never intentionally admit
> *anything.*
>
>>
>>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/pageoneplus/corrections-june-29-2017.html
>>>>>
>>>>> https://apnews.com/6f05b3a81e134568902e015e666726f6
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems that's like a lot of JFK factoids.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Tony will never admit he's wrong.
>>>
>>> I'm still waiting for evidence that "Farewell America" was banned in
>>> the U.S.
>>>
>>
>> I gave you the quote.
>>
>
> From an Amazon discussion board!
>
Discussion group? You're blowing smoke.
Amazon was selling the book.
> Just admit you were blowing smoke, Tony.
>
> You repeated a silly conspiacy factoid, and now when you are called
> out don't have the decency to admit you were wrong.
>
> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
John McAdams
Aug 14, 2017, 3:40:41 PM8/14/17
to
On 14 Aug 2017 15:34:20 -0400, Anthony Marsh
*You* posted his testimony.
Here you are arguing with yourself, yet again.
>> Has to be a mistake on your part, since you never intentionally admit
>> *anything.*
>>
>>>
>>>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/pageoneplus/corrections-june-29-2017.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://apnews.com/6f05b3a81e134568902e015e666726f6
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seems that's like a lot of JFK factoids.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tony will never admit he's wrong.
>>>>
>>>> I'm still waiting for evidence that "Farewell America" was banned in
>>>> the U.S.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I gave you the quote.
>>>
>>
>> From an Amazon discussion board!
>>
>
>Discussion group? You're blowing smoke.
>Amazon was selling the book.
>
So point us to exactly where is was. I understood you to say a
discussion board.
The blurb here says:
https://www.amazon.com/Farewell-America-Plot-Kill-JFK/dp/1883955327/
"importation of the book through Canada was squelched, allegedly at
the instigation of the FBI."
But of course, nobody at Amazon vetted that supposed information. It's
probably just PR hype from the (questionable) publisher.
>> Just admit you were blowing smoke, Tony.
>>
>> You repeated a silly conspiacy factoid, and now when you are called
>> out don't have the decency to admit you were wrong.
>>
Tony will never admit anything.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 8/12/2017 11:01 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 12 Aug 2017 22:55:29 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Always atttack the Media. Never admit any fact.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Irony alert!
>>>>
>>>> Tony whines about how I'm "attacking the media," but refuses to accept
>>>> (and probably doesn't read) the links below of both AP and the New
>>>> York Times backing away from that "13 agencies" factoid.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I read all that crap. So now after you've been proven wrong you move the
>>> goal posts and claim that it wasn't 17, it was only 13? The point
>>> remains that Trump there are not even 17 intelligence agencies there are
>>> only 3.
>>
>> Now you are *admitting* there were only three, and not the 17 agencies
>> the mainstream media agreed about Russian hacking?
>>
>
>No, I am admitted that you always misrepresent what I say.
>Clapper explained it.
Yes, Clapper explained it was only three agencies.
>On 8/12/2017 11:01 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 12 Aug 2017 22:55:29 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Always atttack the Media. Never admit any fact.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Irony alert!
>>>>
>>>> Tony whines about how I'm "attacking the media," but refuses to accept
>>>> (and probably doesn't read) the links below of both AP and the New
>>>> York Times backing away from that "13 agencies" factoid.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I read all that crap. So now after you've been proven wrong you move the
>>> goal posts and claim that it wasn't 17, it was only 13? The point
>>> remains that Trump there are not even 17 intelligence agencies there are
>>> only 3.
>>
>> Now you are *admitting* there were only three, and not the 17 agencies
>> the mainstream media agreed about Russian hacking?
>>
>
>No, I am admitted that you always misrepresent what I say.
>Clapper explained it.
*You* posted his testimony.
Here you are arguing with yourself, yet again.
>> Has to be a mistake on your part, since you never intentionally admit
>> *anything.*
>>
>>>
>>>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/pageoneplus/corrections-june-29-2017.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://apnews.com/6f05b3a81e134568902e015e666726f6
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seems that's like a lot of JFK factoids.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tony will never admit he's wrong.
>>>>
>>>> I'm still waiting for evidence that "Farewell America" was banned in
>>>> the U.S.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I gave you the quote.
>>>
>>
>> From an Amazon discussion board!
>>
>
>Discussion group? You're blowing smoke.
>Amazon was selling the book.
>
discussion board.
The blurb here says:
https://www.amazon.com/Farewell-America-Plot-Kill-JFK/dp/1883955327/
"importation of the book through Canada was squelched, allegedly at
the instigation of the FBI."
But of course, nobody at Amazon vetted that supposed information. It's
probably just PR hype from the (questionable) publisher.
>> Just admit you were blowing smoke, Tony.
>>
>> You repeated a silly conspiacy factoid, and now when you are called
>> out don't have the decency to admit you were wrong.
>>
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Aug 14, 2017, 3:42:05 PM8/14/17
to
Anthony Marsh
Aug 14, 2017, 3:43:01 PM8/14/17
to
> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
John McAdams
Aug 14, 2017, 3:45:39 PM8/14/17
to
On 14 Aug 2017 15:42:59 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Yes, exactly. They admitted it was actually three agencies.
And so did Clapper IN TESTIMONY YOU POSTED.
So here you are arguing with yourself again.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
And so did Clapper IN TESTIMONY YOU POSTED.
So here you are arguing with yourself again.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Aug 14, 2017, 3:46:11 PM8/14/17
to
mainframetech
Aug 14, 2017, 4:31:03 PM8/14/17
to
like many do to back up their data, would it then be downloaded to another
machine at a later time to browse the data, or review it for some reason?
It might then be picked up through standard hacking methods which may or
may not have been noticed as the data is copied away. The best hacking is
done without the knowledge of the hackee.
Chris
mainframetech
Aug 14, 2017, 4:31:44 PM8/14/17
to
the other agencies looked at their work and decided to go along with it.
I can understand the opinion you have of Politifact, since a study came
out with the fact that their work has shown that Republicans lie 3 times
more often than the Democrats.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/study-politifact-says-republicans-lie-three-times-more-often-than-dems
Chris
John McAdams
Aug 14, 2017, 4:38:15 PM8/14/17
to
On 14 Aug 2017 16:31:43 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
agencies.
Tony posted this:
> Franken: The intelligence communities have concluded, all 17 of
>them, that Russia interfered with this election. And we all know how
>that’s right.
>
> Clapper: Senator, as I pointed out in my statement, Senator
>Franken, it was- there were only three agencies that directly involved
>in this assessment plus my office.
>
> Franken: But all 17 signed on to that?
>
> Clapper: Well, we didn’t go through that process. This was a
>I can understand the opinion you have of Politifact, since a study came
>out with the fact that their work has shown that Republicans lie 3 times
>more often than the Democrats.
>
>http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/study-politifact-says-republicans-lie-three-times-more-often-than-dems
>
Their *claims* are to that effect. But (1.) some of their judgments
are horribly tendentious. Note they have refused to back off of the
"17 agencies" business, and (2.) there are lots of lies from both
Democrats and Republicans, and they have *chosen* to focus on supposed
lies of Republicans.
It's run by liberal journalists. Were you not aware of that?
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
>On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 10:28:25 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 13 Aug 2017 22:25:36 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > So you've used your opinion of Politifact to fend off the comment. I
>> >see.
>> >
>>
>> You've used your opinion of PolitiFact as authoritative to make a
>> point.
>>
>> Note that the NEW YORK TIMES and the ASSOCIATED PRESS admit it was
>> only 3 agencies, but PolitiFact won't admit that.
>>
>
>
> My understanding from the news is that the 2 agencies did the work and
>the other agencies looked at their work and decided to go along with it.
No, the "finding" was promulgated without any input from the other
>On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 10:28:25 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 13 Aug 2017 22:25:36 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > So you've used your opinion of Politifact to fend off the comment. I
>> >see.
>> >
>>
>> You've used your opinion of PolitiFact as authoritative to make a
>> point.
>>
>> Note that the NEW YORK TIMES and the ASSOCIATED PRESS admit it was
>> only 3 agencies, but PolitiFact won't admit that.
>>
>
>
> My understanding from the news is that the 2 agencies did the work and
>the other agencies looked at their work and decided to go along with it.
agencies.
Tony posted this:
> Franken: The intelligence communities have concluded, all 17 of
>them, that Russia interfered with this election. And we all know how
>that’s right.
>
> Clapper: Senator, as I pointed out in my statement, Senator
>Franken, it was- there were only three agencies that directly involved
>in this assessment plus my office.
>
> Franken: But all 17 signed on to that?
>
>special situation because of the time limits and […] the sensitivity of
>the information, we decided – it was a conscious judgment – to restrict
>it to those three. I’m not aware of anyone who dissented, or disagreed
>when it came out.
Note: "didn't go through that process."
>the information, we decided – it was a conscious judgment – to restrict
>it to those three. I’m not aware of anyone who dissented, or disagreed
>when it came out.
>I can understand the opinion you have of Politifact, since a study came
>out with the fact that their work has shown that Republicans lie 3 times
>more often than the Democrats.
>
>http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/study-politifact-says-republicans-lie-three-times-more-often-than-dems
>
are horribly tendentious. Note they have refused to back off of the
"17 agencies" business, and (2.) there are lots of lies from both
Democrats and Republicans, and they have *chosen* to focus on supposed
lies of Republicans.
It's run by liberal journalists. Were you not aware of that?
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mainframetech
Aug 14, 2017, 4:39:08 PM8/14/17
to
On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 10:13:19 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 10:28:50 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 12:54:58 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 2:46:42 PM UTC-4, FNG wrote:
> > > > Since this seems to be the tech section:
> > > >
> > > > Has anyone discussed feeding all publically available data into IBM's
> > > > Watson AI? (With the known caveat that it could 'Skynet' on us and decide
> > > > that humans are the the problem...)
> > > >
> > > > The logs from the processing would be interesting even if no real results
> > > > were achieved.
> > >
> > > Even the most powerful computers are incapable of figuring things out that
> > > are beyond the capabilities of human beings. What they do is process data
> > > faster than humans ever could. It's called artificial intelligence because
> > > the computers have no innate intelligence. They only know what they are
> > > fed. Any "solution" a computer could come up with would reflect the bias
> > > of the person programming it.
> > >
> > > To put it another way, computers are a great tool for doing one task a
> > > million times. They are a very inefficient way to perform a task once.
> >
> >
> > You've been away too long. Computers using AI programs have been
> > training from birth on news and other input to develop their personalities
> > and their intelligence.
> >
>
> They still only know what they've been told and they can only reason the
> way they've been programmed to reason.
>
Ah! You've come onto the answer by accident! Actually, the AI
machines were indeed programmed to learn new things and to add to their
stock of programming from the inputs given them. Watson, the IBM machine
is one of those that have ben given free rein to learn many new things
about mankind and is being used as an intelligent helper in business:
http://tinyurl.com/y6vtflbu
> > They've been programmed to react to many stimuli like anyone would, and
> > they follow that training. But many have been given the ability to
> > analyze situations that might be new to them and react however their
> > learning has led to do.
>
> The key phrases are "they follow that training" and "react however their
> learning has led to do". That means they will reason just as they've been
> programmed to reason which follows my statement that any AI solution would
> reflect the bias of the person doing the programming.
WRONG again! The reasoning that was given to them is true, but they
add to their ability to reason by learning new things and applying them to
their further reactions. Try and think how humans do it. They've been
using something called 'neural networks' that learn very much like humans
learn.
They are taught from birth how to reason, and their experience helps
them refine that ability. The same (nowadays) is the case for some
computers:
https://www.wired.com/story/our-machines-now-have-knowledge-well-never-understand/
Chris
> On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 10:28:50 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 12:54:58 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 2:46:42 PM UTC-4, FNG wrote:
> > > > Since this seems to be the tech section:
> > > >
> > > > Has anyone discussed feeding all publically available data into IBM's
> > > > Watson AI? (With the known caveat that it could 'Skynet' on us and decide
> > > > that humans are the the problem...)
> > > >
> > > > The logs from the processing would be interesting even if no real results
> > > > were achieved.
> > >
> > > Even the most powerful computers are incapable of figuring things out that
> > > are beyond the capabilities of human beings. What they do is process data
> > > faster than humans ever could. It's called artificial intelligence because
> > > the computers have no innate intelligence. They only know what they are
> > > fed. Any "solution" a computer could come up with would reflect the bias
> > > of the person programming it.
> > >
> > > To put it another way, computers are a great tool for doing one task a
> > > million times. They are a very inefficient way to perform a task once.
> >
> >
> > You've been away too long. Computers using AI programs have been
> > training from birth on news and other input to develop their personalities
> > and their intelligence.
> >
>
> They still only know what they've been told and they can only reason the
> way they've been programmed to reason.
>
Ah! You've come onto the answer by accident! Actually, the AI
machines were indeed programmed to learn new things and to add to their
stock of programming from the inputs given them. Watson, the IBM machine
is one of those that have ben given free rein to learn many new things
about mankind and is being used as an intelligent helper in business:
http://tinyurl.com/y6vtflbu
> > They've been programmed to react to many stimuli like anyone would, and
> > they follow that training. But many have been given the ability to
> > analyze situations that might be new to them and react however their
> > learning has led to do.
>
> The key phrases are "they follow that training" and "react however their
> learning has led to do". That means they will reason just as they've been
> programmed to reason which follows my statement that any AI solution would
> reflect the bias of the person doing the programming.
WRONG again! The reasoning that was given to them is true, but they
add to their ability to reason by learning new things and applying them to
their further reactions. Try and think how humans do it. They've been
using something called 'neural networks' that learn very much like humans
learn.
They are taught from birth how to reason, and their experience helps
them refine that ability. The same (nowadays) is the case for some
computers:
https://www.wired.com/story/our-machines-now-have-knowledge-well-never-understand/
Chris
Anthony Marsh
Aug 14, 2017, 7:30:01 PM8/14/17
to
You can't admit any fact, can you?
You delete my messages and call me a liar in violation of the rules,
then post the same thing that I was trying to post.
> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
John McAdams
Aug 14, 2017, 7:34:18 PM8/14/17
to
On 14 Aug 2017 19:30:00 -0400, Anthony Marsh
They were not asked. You don't read what you post.
Here is what you posted:
> Franken: The intelligence communities have concluded, all 17 of
>them, that Russia interfered with this election. And we all know how
>that’s right.
>
> Clapper: Senator, as I pointed out in my statement, Senator
>Franken, it was- there were only three agencies that directly involved
>in this assessment plus my office.
>
> Franken: But all 17 signed on to that?
>
> Clapper: Well, we didn’t go through that process. This was a
>special situation because of the time limits and […] the sensitivity of
>the information, we decided – it was a conscious judgment – to restrict
>it to those three. I’m not aware of anyone who dissented, or disagreed
>when it came out.
Note: "didn't go through that process."
The process was "restricted to those three."
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Here is what you posted:
> Franken: The intelligence communities have concluded, all 17 of
>them, that Russia interfered with this election. And we all know how
>that’s right.
>
> Clapper: Senator, as I pointed out in my statement, Senator
>Franken, it was- there were only three agencies that directly involved
>in this assessment plus my office.
>
> Franken: But all 17 signed on to that?
>
> Clapper: Well, we didn’t go through that process. This was a
>special situation because of the time limits and […] the sensitivity of
>the information, we decided – it was a conscious judgment – to restrict
>it to those three. I’m not aware of anyone who dissented, or disagreed
>when it came out.
Note: "didn't go through that process."
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages