surfingtheweb
Re:Commentary: Don't be so sure Russia hacked the Clinton emails
on Friday November 16, 2018 @07:04PM (#18472974)
What does Joe Biden mean when he says "Hope not"? What action could the US Government take against Assange or Russia without the American public knowing? Why would Biden hope that the American public doesn't find out? Is he afraid we would disapprove of the action he is referring to?
This statement has stumped me since I first watched the interview in 2016. What type of covert activities could the US take part in to remedy Clinton's lost election?
Re:The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange
on Friday November 16, 2018 @06:59PM (#18472955)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-cyberwar-commentar...
"...Vice President Joe Biden said on NBC’s Meet the Press that “we’re sending a message” to Putin and “it will be at the time of our choosing, and under the circumstances that will have the greatest impact.” When asked if the American public would know a message was sent, Biden replied, “Hope not.”
This statement has haunted me since I first watched Biden's interview in 2016. What are Biden's plans to avenge Clinton's lost campaign? I've always thought it has something to do with Assange, but aside from discretely murdering Assange, I can't think of anything the US could do to avenge Hilary's loss that the public wouldn't know about. Clinton asked why we couldn't just drone Assange. Maybe they'll make his death look like an accident or a health issue?
Re:The Places in America Where Most Income Goes to Rent
on Wednesday August 08, 2018 @05:16PM (#17719564)
Is the $2000 amount the monthly rent, or the total purchase price of an apartment in Detroit?
Re:Power Worth Less Than Zero Spreads as Green Energy Floods the Grid
on Tuesday August 07, 2018 @11:44PM (#17713059)
Is there a way to implement gravity batteries on a household-level scale? Shouldn't we all be using solar to lift a weight during the day that will lower during the night to feed the grid?
Re:The Never-Ending War on Fake Reviews
on Thursday May 31, 2018 @04:43PM (#17200052)
I think it was more heavily popularized immediately after Wikileaks' DNC email leaks by the people who opposed the guy you're talking about. Then, the guy you're talking about adopted it as a counter-attack in order to devalue the term. His campaign turned the weapon back on its source. If you were paying attention to how the term "fake news" evolved, it started as a weapon for the left and then was adopted by the right. It's a great way to censor or discredit information that is inconvenient for you, regardless of your political leaning.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2015-05-01%202...
Re:Early images of Netflix.com show how far it has come in 20 years
on Saturday April 14, 2018 @05:55PM (#16839759)
For the time being, I still use netflix, amazon, and hulu streaming services. If you've ever used the apps for any of those services on roku, apple tv, or a smart tv, you're likely frustrated by how difficult it is to find something relevant to watch. I often think, "Who thought this UI was good?" That thought leads to, "What if the interface is purposely bad?" and "Why doesn't Hulu want me to find anything to watch?"
I don't know how licensing works with these streaming services. I'm beginning to think that because these companies license content from third parties, they have an incentive to discourage people from watching anything. Maybe if you don't watch, then they pay less in licensing fees. The ideal profit scenario is for you to subscribe to Netflix's service, but not consume any content. If you pay Netflix, but never watch anything, they don't have to expend the costs to deliver content to you (licensing and bandwidth). This gives Netflix an incentive to create algorithms that obfuscate content rather than a smart algorithm that suggests relevant content.
Does anyone else get this feeling? Does anyone know if licensing agreements are set up on a pay-per-play basis between studios and netflix?
Re:Is the social media bubble about to burst?
on Wednesday March 28, 2018 @02:12PM (#16700232)
Is it a bad thing for voters to have more information about how the election process really works?
Regardless of whether the DNC is a private or public entity, it misrepresented its process to voters. Most voters assumed that the DNC was a neutral third-party arbiter that existed to reflect the will of the voters. It is not naive to assume that your vote means something, even in the primaries. Well, it didn't used to be naive. The DNC destroyed the illusion of choice and wants to restore it by blaming a foreign power.
What actions are we okay with the DNC taking and hiding from voters? Would we want to know if the DNC was using foreign funding to push Trump as the Republican nominee? It doesn't sound illegal, but it isn't honest.
Voters who appreciated seeing the DNC emails would agree that it would be nice to see RNC emails as well. Is anyone is arguing against that?