A new generation of shoplifters has been learning how to commit crime on TikTok, with videos about theft getting millions of views.

KyleIsThisTall · 2023-09-23T13:51:52+00:00

Why did they use pictures of Whites? We all know the perpetrators shitskins.

In-the-clouds · 2023-09-23T02:29:33+00:00

You have been quiet here the past few weeks and I wondered about you. I'm glad to see you are still here.

Drewski · 2023-09-23T01:27:25+00:00

I remember another channel was complaining about being censored in search results, but I don't think it's censorship so much as Rumble's search function just sucks. Rumble has been pretty good about resisting censorship in my view.

Hematomato · 2023-09-22T18:59:34+00:00

Because of our liability culture, LP officers can't really touch you. They can ask you to come with them and that's about it. If you say "no," they're gonna be like: well, fuck, I was hoping that would work.

So getting away with shoplifting is pretty much just a matter of following the instructions of Jane's Addiction. You walk right to the door, walk right through the door.

We don't really need TikTokkers to explain that.

iamonlyoneman · 2023-09-22T02:14:32+00:00

how to ensure my instance does not become popular ever

TitsAndWhiskey · 2023-09-21T21:41:27+00:00

Lol sounds like a subtle way of saying “3d printer go brrrrr” to me

neolib · 2023-09-21T21:23:50+00:00

Mastodon instance:

Fosstodon is a Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.

https://fosstodon.org/explore

Not very newsworthy, in my opinion, it's an average thematic instance ("15K active users").

TitsAndWhiskey · 2023-09-21T20:58:14+00:00

Out of the loop on this one… Assuming that’s a fosscad node?

twolanterns · 2023-09-21T08:38:40+00:00

simplistic 'democracy' would have 50%+1 voting take everything for themselves (what Plato warned off)

you need the individuals rights (like in the Constitution) which are not supposed to be able to be taken away by some 'democratic' majority vote(s)

AND what Im referring to is actual investigations into dems which would turn up real crimes - actual justice to be done

The election rigging for example (being treason) - thats where the hangings come in for the ringleaders

The way its going now the dems are already bringing the end of American rights

quantum-step · 2023-09-20T12:49:34+00:00

Why would the guy who voted for biden, has a transofrmer kid, appointed a WEF puppet to run twatter, who gets tax breaks from the government for the sale of his electric cars, who gets paid by the government for starlink internet access, who has government approval for neurolink to put chips in human brains, and had spaceX saved from bankruptcy by the government would do something like this?

cunninglingus · 2023-09-19T19:27:29+00:00

I hope he does.

Heavily funded bot companies will remain. Poorly funded bots will go, along with millions of users.

gosso920 · 2023-09-19T18:59:18+00:00

Use LibreOffice instead.

neolib · 2023-09-19T14:45:08+00:00

Speaking in a meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, the Tesla CEO and world’s richest person suggested that X was going to charge its user base ...

“We’re moving to having a small monthly payment for use of the system,” Musk said.

Saying that bots cost “a fraction of a penny” to set up, Musk added that raising the cost of an account to “a few dollars or something” could put off operators of the software. He added: “Plus, every time a bot creator wanted to make another bot, they would need another new payment method.”

SoCo · 2023-09-19T03:38:55+00:00

That would be terrible and the end of democracy. Hopefully, someone chooses the higher path.

twolanterns · 2023-09-18T08:11:22+00:00

When the time comes every dem will face the same and then we will see how many hangings will result because of real crimes (which now include this frameup)

SoCo · 2023-09-16T20:44:38+00:00

They got Trump worse than Nixon ever did with his petty tape recorder. They got every bit of Trumps private messages, all his phone logs, text messages, all of his financial records, all of his business's financial records, his home security videos, all of his Constitutionally protected communications with his lawyers, all of his Constitutionally protected communications with White House staff and other members....

...and they still don't have anything close to a real case against him. Their illegal dragnet has failed. If the rule of law isn't completely broken, those who broke the law, betting fully on finding Trump to have done something actually wrong, will find justice in their own criminal convictions.

binaryblob · 2023-09-15T06:23:12+00:00

If I got an invitation for this event, I wouldn't even go, because why would I be interested in what a bunch of idiotic CEOs have to say about a topic I literally know more about than they do?

I haven't seen ChatGPT do anything remotely intelligent for domains in which the answer wasn't available in some easily obtained form. ChatGPT can't read documentation from different sources and combine those into correct answers. ChatGPT is a glorified cache and macro evaluator in domains with a ton of content.

Yes, photography is basically dead since generative AI, but that's just because the complexity of images is computationally low, meaning that given a pixel its neighbors can be cheaply predicted, which is the complete opposite from programming anything of interest. Yes, the program written by most idiots could be written by ChatGPT, but nothing novel would come out of it, because the previous token has no information about the next thing to do.

Almost all of those CEOs have a large incentive to claim it's a big deal and needs to be regulated, because that inflates their stock price. That's all there is to it. Nvidia just wants to sell shovels and for generating content of low complexity it works great, but you would have to ask "what is the value of being able to generate the kind of content that e.g. a 25-year old social media copywriter can make?". That value is really low, which is why these people don't get paid a lot. Compare this to the AI from the movies where they display great engineering skills. For example, building energy infrastructure to further develop their computational possibilities to the point of even becoming invisible technology. Current AI can't even learn to drive a car at the level of a 16 year old. So, if this doom and gloom is going to happen, I am wondering "how" and "when". Moore's law has been dead for a long time, since chips now mostly just become bigger and there are more.

Every tech company claims to have a "new" model that is going to change things, but while those models might have new capabilities, there is a relation between computational power (and also Joules consumed) and output. So, your data center burning a Gigawatt can do the same as a toddler? Great achievement, but how exactly is that going to be dangerous?

Misinformation can be dangerous, but that's only because humans are so stupid, not because the machines are so smart. Even then, historically only a tiny percentage is actually well informed, because there is literally no incentive for those that are informed to inform those that are not. That brings us to this summit. The optimal strategy is to keep senators in the dark about the actual state of AI and even if AI were to ever work to lie about it. What you want is regulation for your competition and to lie about your own capabilities.

If any company with more than a billion dollar in cash was sitting on an AI, they would just start trading on the NYSE and become the richest company in the history of the world within 3 years and stop all of their other business, because the ROIC would be lower for those activities. From what I can see, Meta is still working on their shitty "social media" and hasn't announced that "in hindsight social media didn't make any serious money, so we are now stopping with that", so that means they don't actually have an AI that would literally change the game nor even a plan to develop one (if you knew that in 3 years you had some super AI, why would you invest any time in your existing business for peanuts?). In fact, if anyone had a truly good idea, you would see new companies being formed, because why would you share your profits with the current investors in e.g. Meta?

The truth of the matter is that while generative AI (in the way it is done today) represents a technological improvement over traditional ways of doing things, it is not "AI" as depicted in Star Trek/Terminator/Transcendence/Chappy/etc. There is also no path to actually get to that point, because if there were, the stock market would go to zero and all the money would go to some startup that had a proven capability to do that (but that hasn't happened). The people believing otherwise would also believe that one could light up a city with an AAA-battery.

If you want to have a personalized "Data" (as in Star Trek), you need to have a few thousand nuclear reactors with as many data centers and then perhaps you would get near it, but what we have a shared services like ChatGPT with a fraction of the computational ability, meaning that during the training phase a fairly large collection of functions has been cached, but ultimately, it will always be possible to ask the system questions that will overwhelm it. Questions for basically every interesting business question like "how do I make modifications to a Ukrainian Mig to make it carry Western weapons?" or "How do I change the material in the barrel of a particular type of artillery such that it lasts ten times longer per dollar of material spent?". Such questions could be asked to "The Computer" in Star Trek, but that's never going to happen in the real world for a consumer. Yes, the Pentagon could perhaps build one of those in the next 100 years, but they aren't going to get one in the next decade.

ChatGPT displays it's a "free research prototype", because that's what it is. I have used it to find its limitations and right now it's worth zero dollars. The image generating AI systems do represent some commercial value right now.

Cancelthis · 2023-09-15T01:46:46+00:00

Caching

Both ways, of course.

Chipit · 2023-09-14T19:23:57+00:00

It's always fun to look at prostitutes from some random 4th-tier city on the other side of the planet and notice how much the whores look like white women.

UncleWillard56 · 2023-09-14T16:55:27+00:00

They weren't doing this already for all demographics? Why is it that every left leaning solution involves some sort of segregation or victim status?

Cancelthis · 2023-09-12T16:56:43+00:00

Your tax dollars at work.

Laundering through the New York state into the police, then into Tiel and Palantir, Microsoft, Nvidia, the California universities, Apple, Amazon, Alphabet, the California gangs, ultimately into P.R.C. / Peking, the state of Vietnam, Singapore, IBM, and Intel.

ne8h93o14 · 2023-09-08T19:53:30+00:00

i love usenet and gnu mailman...do you like groups.io?

In-the-clouds · 2023-09-03T19:44:28+00:00

Truth Social has attracted a relatively meager following. Though Trump Media projected in a 2021 investor presentation that the site would have 41 million total users by the end of this year

According to Similarweb estimates, roughly 500,000 monthly active users in the United States visited Truth Social via its Apple and Android mobile apps in July

A sign of the times.... If it doesn't work out, there is another business he might buy that already has his name on it.

madthumbs · 2023-09-01T18:21:46+00:00

I loved Usenet, until it was no longer provided for free by my ISP. What about IRC?

iamonlyoneman · 2023-09-01T02:25:48+00:00

Getting online is pretty easy. Get an account on a USENET server. Install a client, tell it the server address. Download the list of groups, subscribe to some, and new messages get delivered to your client. That's it.

This is not easy. Easy is clicking a bookmark in your browser and going straight to reddit with software that came with your computer.

Cancelthis · 2023-08-30T15:22:24+00:00

Nausea.

And corruption.

Reddit is just a stew of corruption.

Cancelthis · 2023-08-29T19:39:12+00:00

Incredible.

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230830-elon-musk-lifts-political-ad-ban-at-rebranded-twitter

The # 1 expert extortionist

chottohen · 2023-08-29T00:12:21+00:00

I think he is not avenging anything. He is just taking a lot of money and coke, then doing as he's told by his masters. He's a trained monkey.

In-the-clouds · 2023-08-28T23:41:19+00:00

Example: https://t.me/roscosmos_gk/10611

Replace t.me with tg.i-c-a.su/media to get this URL: https://tg.i-c-a.su/media/roscosmos_gk/10611

You can then right-click on the video and save it, if desired.

Cancelthis · 2023-08-28T19:35:49+00:00

Notice how, as Joe Biden , Gavin Newsom, the government officials, and the lobbyists push for a Pentagon - style failed operation, that Joe Biden is creating the grounds for hatred.

And of course, the social media is doing the same.

Where is hatred coming from ? Social media, and of course, the media.

x0x7 · 2023-08-28T02:07:52+00:00

I don't like DeSantis necessarily, but he said along side. Navy Seals have the lowest comprehension skills of any trained group of people. IDK, maybe cops are worse. It's very important that we never pay these people to think.

Brewdabier · 2023-08-28T01:07:09+00:00

I'm not American and don't care what Billy Allmon say's according to Google Ron DeSantis was in the Nazy and lieutenant before serving as a legal advisor to SEAL Team One.

weavilsatemyface · 2023-08-25T18:50:28+00:00

He's a republican.

He's a Republican who was appointed by a Democrat and then served loyally and impartially for many years until he was fired by Trump, and you think he's doing Trump favours??? 😂 😂 😂

He's used his influence to contribute to sinking hillary's election campaign, when the standard, for good reason, is to not discuss charges that have not been brought.

Wait, are you saying that there should have been no public disclosure of criminal investigations until after charges are laid?

Hmmm, that's a good point. Maybe you are right that we should dismiss the entire Mueller investigation, and the Jack Smith Mar-a-Lago investigation, as politically motivated hits to try to sink Trump's chances in the 2020 election and prevent him from running in 2024. Both of them were announced before charges were laid, so clearly they must be bogus. That's the logic you have for Comey so it applies equally to Mueller and Smith.

The suit details the necessary fixes

The suit gives a summary of what they claim was done. Whether those things were actually done, whether they were necessary, and whether they were necessary because of Russian hacking, is unproven.

The problem here is that the DNC has got every incentive to lie, and no independent, trusted third party has investigated this.

Notice that they don't even know how many servers were used. "More than, more than, at least..."

Reads like the servers were rebuilt

You quoted it yourself: there were over 320 servers that needed work done on them because they were hacked. Whether they were rebuilt (what, the Dems are claiming physical damage to the servers too?) or just had the software reinstalled, or decommissioned because they were no longer used, is irrelevant.

Not everyone uses sources that are unreliable.

You've got no problem with linking to the Guardian when you think they support your position. You're happy to take the DNC and Crowdstrike as reliable sources.

ActuallyNot · 2023-08-24T23:23:31+00:00

Your insinuation that he is trying to protect Trump is a pretty wild conspiracy theory.

He's a republican. He's used his influence to contribute to sinking hillary's election campaign, when the standard, for good reason, is to not discuss charges that have not been brought.

His different recall of the facts than the dnc without specifics is likely contributed to by his point of view.

In a lawsuit against Russia, the DNC claim that over 330 servers were hacked by Russia but Crowdstrike only provided two hard drive images to the FBI.

The suit details the necessary fixes; the DNC had to “decommission more than 140 servers, remove and reinstall all software, including the operating systems, for more than 180 computers, and rebuild at least 11 servers.”

Reads like the servers were rebuilt. That goes some way to expalin why they couldn't supply the images by the time the FBI were invovled.

Everyone has a bias,

Not everyone uses sources that are unreliable.

weavilsatemyface · 2023-08-24T14:09:21+00:00

Don't forget Comey is the partisan republican

I remind you that Comey was appointed by Barrack Obama, and was fired by Donald Trump. Your insinuation that he is trying to protect Trump is a pretty wild conspiracy theory.

Regarding the Clinton emails in 2016, Comey was caught between a rock and a hard place. Had he kept quiet about reopening the investigation into her case, and she had won the election, he would have been chastised for the cover-up.

If anything Comey was too forgiving of Clinton. Even after finding that Clinton had broken the law and was improperly and illegally handling classified emails, he recommended against prosecution.

Shawn Henry testified to the Senate that they provided "a couple of actual digital images" of DNC hard drives.

Good on him. How many hard drives do you claim had evidence of the breach?

It's not my claim. In a lawsuit against Russia, the DNC claim that over 330 servers were hacked by Russia but Crowdstrike only provided two hard drive images to the FBI. If the Russians had genuinely hacked 330 servers, as the lawsuit alleges, then Crowdstrike (acting as the DNC's agent) is suppressing evidence of crimes from Mueller. That's obstruction. If the Russians had only hacked two servers, then the DNC are committing fraud by falsely claiming 330 servers were hacked.

If more than two but fewer than 330 servers were hacked, then they are committing both obstruction and fraud.

No matter how you look at it, this is bad. Real bad.

The evidence convinced US intelligence agencies.

The same US intelligence agencies who spent years conspiring with private social media companies to censor factual speech about Covid because the facts were inconvenient.

The same intelligence agencies who conspired with the mainstream media to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story.

The same intelligence agencies who conspired with the Bush regime to lie about having irrefutable proof of the existence of Saddam Hussein's non-existent WMD program, giving the US a pretext to wage an unprovoked invasion of Iraq.

By the way, Mueller was part of that. Just one month before the unprovoked invasion of Iraq, Mueller falsely testified to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that Iraq (as well as six other countries) were actively sponsoring terrorists in the USA, and that Iraq was continuing to develop weapons of mass destruction.

In 2013, Mueller falsely testified to the House Judiciary Committee that the illegal NSA mass surveillance programs collecting data about Americans without a warrant complied "in full with U.S. law and with basic rights guaranteed under the Constitution" (his words).

So it seems that Mueller has a long history of dishonesty and inventing imaginary conspiracies while ignoring and covering up genuine conspiracies.

Real clear investigations is right baised and utilizes sources that have Mixed records with facts: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-clear-investigations/

Did your brain switch off as soon as you saw "right-center bias"? Everyone has a bias, and the existence of a (supposed) bias does not tell you anything about any specific story or article.

Real Clear gets a MBFC Credibility Rating of HIGH CREDIBILITY which is as good as the state-aligned BBC, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and better than The Guardian. This doesn't say much for MBFC's own credibility, that they think that the BBC, WaPo and NY Times are highly credible. That suggests that they have a huge bias in favour of establishment narratives which remain safely inside the Overton Window and don't rock the boat.

But at least you know that Real Clear is no worse than the media organisations that spent years unquestioningly parroting every single lie the US made to justify their unprovoked invasion of Iraq.

weavilsatemyface · 2023-08-24T11:45:09+00:00

The criminals were largely in Russia.

Every single person convicted of any crime from the Mueller investigation was in the USA. Nobody in Russia have been convicted of any crime, so they are the accused. None of them have been found guilty. The one time Mueller had to put up or shut up, he backed down and shut up because he had not a scrap of evidence that would survive a trial.

In this case, is was.

The indictment isn't for "sitting at a desk in Moscow and typing". The indictment is for unauthorised access to computers in the USA. Not in Russia.

The mental gymnastics you are jumping through to avoid acknowledging that Mueller and the FBI failed to investigate the crime scene is astonishing.

And the irony is, if we accept your premise that the crime scene was in Russia, the FBI still failed to investigate it because they have no access to the computers in Russia used by the alleged hackers so you're snookered either way 😃 😁 😄

FAT32 file systems which are commonly used on USB sticks

Not these days.

Yes, these days. Most pre-formatted USB sticks still use FAT32, or its 64-bit extension, exFAT. Either way, the timestamp resolution is still 2 seconds.

The theoretical volume limit for FAT32 is 16 TB, although 8 TB is more practical, and a hard 4GB limit for each individual file.

I didn't say that all USB sticks only use FAT32. Had the files been copied onto a USB stick formatted with BTFS or ext4 or something like that, the timestamps would not show 2 second resolutions, and there would be no evidence that the files had ever been on a USB stick even if they had been and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

But the files do show 2 second resolutions, which proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the files had been on a FAT file system. The simplest explanation is that they were copied from the server onto a USB stick by somebody with physical access to the machines. Anything else requires more assumptions and a more complex scenario: the hackers exfiltrated the data remotely, which Crowdstrike acknowledged they had no direct evidence for, only "indications", then copied the files onto a USB stick for some reason, then copied them back onto their laptop or PC, and then transferred them to Wikileaks.

That's fine if you want to propose that Russian hackers piss around copying data from their laptop onto a USB stick and back again for the LOLs, but either way it still suggests an alternative scenario which Mueller cannot argue against because he didn't investigate it: an insider attack, not a hacker. And that gives reasonable doubt.

By the way, Mueller already acknowledges this hole in his story, suggesting that for all of the (alleged) evidence that the files were hacked by Russians, “The office cannot rule out that stolen documents were transferred by intermediaries who visited during the summer of 2016.” So Mueller needs an even more complex crime, with even more participants, that involves Russian hackers stealing the data remotely, copying it onto a USB stick, passing it onto a courier, who hand-delivers it to Wikileaks.

He even names one such possible courier, Andy Müller-Maguhn, but inexplicably has never attempted to interview him. Just like he failed to interview Julian Assange, or the former technical director of the NSA who volunteered to give evidence but was ignored.

The bottom line is that Mueller went into this investigation with a pre-existing theory that the Russians hacked the DNC, and has very diligently avoided looking at anything which might spoil that theory.

Can you link me to this evidence?

If you know the relevant files, you can probably find them on Wikileaks yourself, if you don't mind drawing the NSA's attention. (I presume they're still available.) Otherwise you can read about it here.

I don't trust you

I get that all the time from conspiracy theorists.

ActuallyNot · 2023-08-24T04:29:32+00:00

The criminals were largely in Russia.

Although I note that a US citizen was convicted of identity theft, which may have been using the credentials stolen by phishing.

The crime was not sitting at a desk in Moscow and typing at a computer keyboard.

In this case, is was. Because that's largely how the unauthorised use of, and theft of data from, the servers was performed.

FAT32 file systems which are commonly used on USB sticks

Not these days. You often get files above the FAT32 file limit, and USB sticks above the Volume limit for FAT32.

The leaked files on Wikileaks all have timestamps that all end in an even number of seconds with exactly zero milliseconds

Can you link me to this evidence?

I don't trust you, and I don't see why that doesn't only mean that FAT32 file-system was used at some point, rather than implying that a FAT32 file system was used in the first instance.

weavilsatemyface · 2023-08-23T15:14:31+00:00

The servers are in the US. The crime was the unauthorised use of, and theft of data from, the servers. Breaking into the servers that are in the US, where it is under US jurisdiction. If the crime occurred in Russia, the FBI would have neither interest nor jurisdiction to investigate it.

The crime was not sitting at a desk in Moscow and typing at a computer keyboard.

The FBI investigated because the victims were in the USA.

Right. The crime occurred in the USA, not Russia.

The little evidence we actually do have (file metadata) strongly indicates that the files leaked to Wikileaks were not hacked over the internet but copied onto a USB stick in person.

Remind me of that evidence?

FAT32 file systems which are commonly used on USB sticks have a Modified timestamp accurate to two seconds. Timestamps on NTFS file systems (commonly used on Windows servers) and EXT file systems (used on Linux servers) have sub-millisecond timestamps. The leaked files on Wikileaks all have timestamps that all end in an even number of seconds with exactly zero milliseconds, like these examples:

2023-05-13 02:25:28.000000000 +1000  file29-362775.pdf
2023-05-13 02:24:04.000000000 +1000  file35-362841.pdf
2023-05-13 02:32:48.000000000 +1000  file38-362844.pdf
2023-05-13 02:29:50.000000000 +1000  file96-362908.pdf

(To be clear, these are not timestamps I've got from Wikileaks itself, but from random files on one of my own USB sticks. Just so there is no misunderstanding.)

There are hundreds of these files. The odds of having every single one of them be modified on exactly an even numbered second (2 seconds, 4 seconds, 6 seconds etc) with exactly zero milliseconds by pure chance is astronomically small. It's not technically impossible, but even having two files end up like that by chance is like winning the lottery. Having a hundred such files would be like winning the lottery a hundred times in a row, never once missing a week.

The only credible way that hundreds of files can all end up with a even number of seconds with no milliseconds is if they had been copied onto a USB stick. The most parsimonious explanation (the one requiring the fewest unusual assumptions and the least number of "weird coincidences") is that the files were copied from the DNC servers onto a USB stick, in which case whoever copied them must have had physical access to the servers i.e be right there in the room with them, not thousands of miles away in Russia.

This is not proof that the files were copied in person, but it is very strong evidence for it. At the very least it casts reasonable doubt on the "hacker" theory. If Mueller was genuinely investigating a crime, with the intention of prosecuting criminal hackers, he would have to produce evidence against the "copied in person" scenario. But he didn't -- he just ignored it. He didn't even attempt to interview the person who received the leaked files and knows who leaked them. (Julian Assange.)

If it was a real criminal investigation, the first suspect in any hacking case is always an insider. Data is far more likely to be stolen or leaked by insiders with access than hackers. If the cops don't even investigate the possibility of an insider leak, they're not serious about finding the leaker. They're only interested in finding a patsy to blame.

I'm not saying that the hacker theory is impossible. But there is reasonable doubt, and parts of the hacker theory seem rather... unlikely. Supposedly the Russians stole old polling data from many years earlier. Seems to be an odd thing for them to care about. Who cares about polling data from old polls?

"In 2013, Hillary Clinton polled 17 percentage points higher than Jim Webb among married white female voters."

How is that supposed to have hurt Clinton and help Trump? It seems strange.

KyleIsThisTall · 2023-08-22T09:55:21+00:00

No matter how hot she is, she'll get fat. Never marry.

weavilsatemyface · 2023-08-22T06:57:30+00:00

The Mueller report put people through the courts and locked them up.

To play Devil's Advocate, I'm willing to accept the obstruction and fraud convictions and ignore the selective prosecution aspects of the charges, or the ways that the DoJ can and does coerce guilty pleas out of defendants even when they are innocent.

So, for the sake of the argument, let's say that Mueller did find genuine cases of obstruction and other crimes.

How does that prove the Russian hacking narrative? "Paul Manafort cheated on his taxes, therefore Russia hacked the DNC server." 🙄

Out of 34 individuals charged, and three companies, just seven individuals have been found guilty, and they all seem to be pretty small potatoes.

Paul Manafort was convicted of tax fraud and sentenced to less than 4 years jail after the prosecutor asked for 24 years.
Rick Gates pleaded guilty to conspiracy for trying to hide Manafort's tax fraud.
George Papadopoulos was given a small fine and sentenced to 14 days jail for stating the wrong date on which he had a drunken conversation with Joseph Mifsud, the alleged Russian agent who Mueller has failed to investigate despite stating that Mifsud lied to him.
Michael Flynn was convicted of acting as an unregistered foreign agent for Turkey while working on the Trump campaign, over an unrelated issue regarding his lobbying regarding the extradition of a Turkish cleric living in the USA. (Aside: the judge in the case displayed a remarkable level of both bias and incompetence, accusing Flynn of treason for working for a foreign government while national security adviser, then having to withdraw that statement as factually untrue. Oops.)
Alex van der Zwaan was convicted of lying about his work for a Ukrainian political party in 2012 and sentenced to 30 days jail.
Richard Pinedo was sentenced to 6 months prison and 6 months home detention for identity theft by helping online users circumvent PayPal identity verification, which he allegedly sold to the Russian hackers.
Michael Cohen said the plans to build a Trump Tower charges in Moscow were shelved in January 2016 when it was actually June. Oh my giddy aunt, it's the crime of the century 🙄

That kind of feels like Mueller was taking a shotgun approach of firing off as many indictments as possible hoping a couple would stick. His record isn't looking great. All charges against the companies were dropped when they called his bluff and turned up in court to contest the charges, and the convictions that he did get are either completely unrelated, or at best only tangentially related.

It's like Mueller was put in charge of finding a mass murderer and managed to arrest a handful of jay-walkers and a guy who dropped some trash on the sidewalk.

"the well regarded republican special council"

Only well-regarded by people who approve of kangeroo courts, and those who take a See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil approach to the clear and obvious weaknesses in the case and the indictment. It has more holes than a colander and is obviously politically motivated.

ActuallyNot · 2023-08-22T05:31:27+00:00

So? The scene where the crime was committed was still the DNC servers, in American jurisdiction.

The crime was the hacking of the servers, in which case the scene of the crime was in Russia where the details of the hack would have been.

If the crime occurred in Russia, it would not be under the FBI's jurisdiction.

How is this not semantics? The FBI investigated because the victims were in the USA.

The little evidence we actually do have (file metadata) strongly indicates that the files leaked to Wikileaks were not hacked over the internet but copied onto a USB stick in person.

Remind me of that evidence?

weavilsatemyface · 2023-08-22T05:21:43+00:00

The attack was remote.

So? The scene where the crime was committed was still the DNC servers, in American jurisdiction. If the crime occurred in Russia, it would not be under the FBI's jurisdiction.

Specifically from Russia.

The alleged* hacking attack was allegedly from Russia. We have no credible evidence of an actual hacking attack from anyone except the Democrats themselves (via their cutout Crowdstrike), and even they had to admit that they have no evidence that any data was actually removed from their servers. And we already know the DNC is not credible -- they're behind the fraudulent Steele Dossier.

The little evidence we actually do have (file metadata) strongly indicates that the files leaked to Wikileaks were not hacked over the internet but copied onto a USB stick in person. So unless you think the Russian GBU actually had an agent sneak into the DNC server room and copy the files, the Mueller theory of how the alleged crime was committed is looking pretty poor.

But then we know that Mueller doesn't have enough to actually charge any Russians with crimes. It's all just hugely expensive political theatre to try to save the debunked Trump-Russia DNC conspiracy theory and the fraudulent Steele Dossier.

Mueller's so-called evidence is tainted and thin as a cobweb. When Concord called his bluff and turned up in court to defend themselves against the charges, the prosecutors first tried to avoid having the case heard, then tried the good old "But my national security!" excuse which the judge refused to buy, then claimed the judge had misinterpreted the indictment documents, and finally were forced into an embarrassing back-down by dropping the charges rather than show how thin or non-existent the evidence is, or even whether a crime had been committed.

So we went from Mueller claiming to have iron-clad proof that the Kremlin had illegally spent vast amounts of money to influence the US election, to a private businessman spending less than $5000 for some Facebook ads with only the most tenuous connection to the election, and no legal requirement to disclose, hence no crime was committed. All charges dropped.

Back to the hacking:

Whatever evidence he has that the DNC servers were hacked is irreparably tainted. There was no independent collection of evidence.
Mueller cannot prove that the data was exfiltrated from the DNC servers over the internet. Crowdstrike admitted this.
He cannot prove the data was ever in Russian hands, he has only asserted that it was.
Or that Russia provided the data to Wikileaks. Again, just an assertion based on tainted data.
Whatever evidence he claims to have has never been tested, and probably never will be, and we know from the Concord debacle that Mueller makes claims that don't stand up to scrutiny. He talks big but can't deliver.
He failed to interview the most critically important witnesses to the alleged crime, Julian Assange, even though that witness knows who gave the data to Wikileaks, and Assange is not going anywhere.
By his own admission, at least one of his most important witnesses, Joseph Mifsud, that his indictment depends on, lied to him.

The only thing that Mueller can prove is that at some point the leaked data was copied onto a USB stick using the FAT file system, which prima facie suggests that the data was copied by a DNC insider who had physical access to the servers -- a theory which Mueller has not investigated.

The Mueller report has no credibility. It's a political hit job, not an independent, fair law enforcement investigation. And even as a hit job it is only innuendo and mud-slinging: "We can't prove that Trump engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Russia, but we know he did, for reasons we can't tell you or prove in court but trust us, just as you trusted us about Concord wink"

The Mueller report put people through the courts and locked them up.

Yes, for obstruction. Politically motivated toy-town charges, and selective prosecution to boot.

Where are the obstruction charges for Crowdstrike and the DNC for refusing to allow the FBI access to the untampered crime scene?

Where are the obstruction charges for Mifsud?

iamonlyoneman · 2023-08-22T02:49:29+00:00

and nothing of value was lost

KyleIsThisTall · 2023-08-22T01:53:54+00:00

BONE CONDUCTING

In-the-clouds · 2023-08-21T20:41:46+00:00

Last archived tweet was from Jun-6-2023:

Storyline of the upcoming film is from mid 1990’s Beast Wars & Beast Machines.

Plot summary

In-the-clouds · 2023-08-20T18:39:16+00:00

Thanks for sharing that link. It might be useful, so I bookmarked it. If my other tools fail, I will give that one a try.

Questionable · 2023-08-20T15:48:09+00:00

I find that some videos have extra protection. So far, I've been able to use this website to download videos over the past five years, with only a few exceptions, and not always in the resolution desired.

binaryblob · 2023-08-20T07:55:55+00:00

Saying it is unknown who is behind the account is ridiculous. Of course Twitter with the FBI can figure out who is behind the account.

Also, most of those followers are probably bots. How stupid do you have to be to follow some stranger?

DNase · 2023-08-20T01:20:59+00:00

I agree. But sometimes the video info one needs is only found there. Downloading and uploading to a better video service is really the better way to fuck Alphabet, as it gives users the option to find it elsewhere. This thread is great for people who use this method to aid the anti-Alphabet crusade.

In-the-clouds · 2023-08-19T22:22:16+00:00

The video downloads are acting normally today. Yesterday YouTube was giving errors for multiple videos: 403 Forbidden. But today, I am able to download them.

I appreciate the effort you put into your response. As you said, a lower-quality video was available, which I was able to download. (Today, the higher quality video is also available.)

If you would like to be able to use ffmpeg as a command, regardless of the folder it is found in, here is an excellent guide. If you already have ffmpeg installed, you can skip to step #3....

https://blog.gregzaal.com/how-to-install-ffmpeg-on-windows/

In-the-clouds · 2023-08-19T16:24:03+00:00

Seal

https://seal.en.uptodown.com/android

Seal is an app for downloading videos from YouTube and other platforms using yt-dlp

That's a mystery, since yt-dlp is what this post is about.

0_0 · 2023-08-19T14:14:48+00:00

There seems to be a problem with the default format yt-dlp chooses to download for this particular video. You can download a low-res version using this command:

yt-dlp.exe -f 17 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FUS1259dHM

If you want a better resolution you'll need to download ffmpeg and run this command:

yt-dlp.exe -f 231+140 --ffmpeg-location "c:\ffmpeg" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FUS1259dHM

Replace c:\ffmpeg with the folder path where the ffmpeg program is located.

PanzerDivision · 2023-08-19T05:02:43+00:00

Newpipe downloads files without any problem.

iamonlyoneman · 2023-08-19T02:59:23+00:00

don't use youtube, simple as. i don't even click links here that are youtube posts. fuck alphabet corp.

jjj49er · 2023-08-18T23:55:52+00:00

Seal is still working.

Musky · 2023-08-18T23:54:32+00:00

I have mixed feelings about this, but way too many people abuse the block option to get in a final word you can't reply to. Also some crazies use it to maintain echo chambers, such as the forever maskers.

In-the-clouds · 2023-08-18T23:50:09+00:00

Source: https://github.com/zedeus/nitter/issues/983

In-the-clouds · 2023-08-18T23:16:34+00:00

I used to use youtube-dl, but /u/Drewski told me about yt-dlp which has performed better. But today I am not able to download any YouTube videos. Invidious also fails to download, same as savemp3. It looks like YouTube has changed something that is making it impossible for any service to download videos.

SoCo · 2023-08-18T16:39:48+00:00

Target sales are more likely declining due to the imploding economy. They are the more expensive dollar store. People can't afford to keep up with the Jones' and buy the slightly higher priced Target brand items.

ActuallyNot · 2023-08-18T09:28:43+00:00

The scene of the crime was the server or servers allegedly hacked, not "the internet".

The attack was remote.

Specifically from Russia.

Personally, in this matter I find Comey to be the more credible source.

Okay. What specific requests did he make and in who denied them?

This "various at various levels" is kind of handwavey.

Don't forget Comey is the partisan republican who thought that making public statements about Hillary's emails before laying any charges in the middle of the Election run up, and gave the excuse that he thought it wouldn't matter. Comey: I was sure Clinton would win election when I reopened email inquiry

What specifics are there, then, noting that this guy can spin. It's plausible he approached crowdstrike on not the Dems for access. That would explain why the Dems say they weren't asked and Comey says he made many.

Shawn Henry testified to the Senate that they provided "a couple of actual digital images" of DNC hard drives.

Good on him. How many hard drives do you claim had evidence of the breach?

the Mueller report comes out of this stinking like a bucket of prawns in the blazing sun.

What utter rubbish. The Mueller report put people through the courts and locked them up.

"Oooh, it says my lord and saviour the criminal and rapist Trump colluded with the russians, so the well regarded republican special council must have made it all up and rigged the judges and juries somehow?"

Is that your argument. Because it doesn't stand much analysis does it.

Its not the physical access to the server boxes that matters for its own sake. Its the chain of custody of evidence.

The evidence convinced US intelligence agencies. Maybe this chain thing wasn't as questionable as you claim.

Spy Agency Consensus Grows That Russia Hacked D.N.C.

Do you have any shred of evidence for this ad hominem?

Real clear investigations is right baised and utilizes sources that have Mixed records with facts: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-clear-investigations/

Do you have a better source or not?

weavilsatemyface · 2023-08-18T07:22:22+00:00

The scene of the crime was the internet.

The scene of the crime was the server or servers allegedly hacked, not "the internet". The internet is a world-wide network of computers. You're on the internet right now. Do you imagine that you are present at the scene of a crime because somewhere in the world, some other computer is being hacked?

It's supposed to be refutation of your claims that Mueller's team were denied access to the servers.

Okay, so it is your position that:

The reason Mueller's team were not denied access is that they never requested access.
Your evidence for this is that the DNC deputy communications director, a partisan source and representative of an organisation without even the pretense of neutrality, and one whose credibility is in serious doubt after spending four years trying to undermine the American electoral system with their unfounded conspiracy theories that Russia stole the election, says so.
And therefore the head of the FBI, Director James Comey, must have lied to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee when he said that the FBI did request access but they were denied.

A brave stance to take, but okay. The FBI lied and cannot be trusted, and that's why you trust the FBI report.

Personally, in this matter I find Comey to be the more credible source. But either way, whichever source is correct, the partisan DNC hack or the FBI Director, the Mueller report comes out of this stinking like a bucket of prawns in the blazing sun.

The images of the serves were better for investigating

How do you know they were images of the servers? Who prepared the images? How were the images prepared? Who else had access to them? How do you know they weren't tampered with?

In the DNC lawsuit against Russia, they claimed that dozens of servers were hacked, but then handed over just two server images to Mueller's team. I think I may have stated four images earlier, if so I was mistaken. Shawn Henry testified to the Senate that they provided "a couple of actual digital images" of DNC hard drives. So just two images out of dozens of allegedly hacked servers.

Did the DNC vastly inflate the damage allegedly done in their lawsuit? That's fraud. Or did they suppress evidence in the Mueller investigation?

One way or the other, the DNC is being dishonest. They're either suppressing evidence or fraudulently claiming damage. Or possibly both.

Physical access to hundreds of severs in a rack is a pointless waste of time and resources.

Its not the physical access to the server boxes that matters for its own sake. Its the chain of custody of evidence.

Let us remember just how many conflicts of interest are here.

Crowdstrike, the people who made the alleged images of the server hard drives, was founded by Dmitri Alperovitch, a senior fellow of the NATO-aligned Atlantic Council and a hawk on Russia.
Shawn Henry , the CEO of Crowdstrike, also works as an analyst on MSNBC, a partisan cable network that aggressively promotes Trump-Russia conspiracy theories. While under oath, Henry attempted to claim that they (Crowdstrike) knew when the Russian hackers exfiltrated the data from the DNC servers, until his attorneys reminded him that in fact they had no hard evidence that the data was exfiltrated at all.
In 2017, Crowdstrike had to withdraw unfounded claimed that Russia had hacked the Ukrainian military.
The House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has invested $1 million in Crowdstrike, where they had made approximately 70% profit up to Sept 2020.
Hillary Clinton is another aggressive hawk on Russia. Her lawyer, Michael Sussmann, hired Crowdstrike under some remarkable conditions: Sussman's contract with Crowdstrike specifies that they are working for him, not the DNC, under attorney-client privilege.
Sussmann personally reviewed and redacted Crowdstrike's report to the FBI about the alleged hack. So the lawyer for a senior Democrat decided what (supposed) evidence the FBI investigators are permitted to see.
Sussmann, who has since been indicted for lying to the FBI, was also responsible for hiring Fusion GPS, who were behind the fraudulent Steele Dossier.

I mean, Trump is a dirty, lying, dishonest scoundrel, but these guys make him seem like Mr Honest.

I see you've got a noted partisan and pro-trump source for that.

Do you have any shred of evidence for this ad hominem?

Or do you just assume that anyone who does actual journalism and reports on the inconvenient facts that go against your Trump-Russia conspiracy theory must be "pro-trump" because you cannot conceive of a journalist reporting the facts without fear or favour? That's sad.

BobOki · 2023-08-17T17:31:49+00:00

At some point these companies, well those still left, are going to realize that people are down with equality, and it pretty much ends there, and anything more radical or extreme/political/preachy than that is too far and will backfire on them. I do not know too many people on either political side that is against equality, well obviously some racists here and fascist there usually far far left/right, but pretty much everyone else I know is down for everyone getting a fair shake. After that, special treatment, downing one group for another, hatred to groups, etc is pretty unpopular and frankly EVERYONE is getting tired of it. People that do not agree with it are tired of it, people tat do support it don't go and really don't care, and the groups it is for also dislike it as it is just hollow pandering and their "examples" of those groups are usually so bad they are nearly a caricature.

ActuallyNot · 2023-08-17T04:41:00+00:00

Wait, you're saying that when investigating a crime, the people investigating the crime... didn't actually investigate the scene of the crime?

The scene of the crime was the internet. Physically the hackers were from the Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. Headquartered in Moscow, but there are a number of sites that they would have worked from.

And this is supposed to be a defence of the Mueller report?

It's supposed to be refutation of your claims that Mueller's team were denied access to the servers.

The images of the serves were better for investigating, because they had them from nearer to and during some of the penetrations. Physical access to hundreds of severs in a rack is a pointless waste of time and resources.

There are more holes in the Mueller report than in Swiss cheese.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/07/05/crowdstrikeout_muellers_own_report_undercuts_its_core_russia-meddling_claims.html

I see you've got a noted partisan and pro-trump source for that.

The reason a pro-Trumper might like to give the impression that the Mueller report is full of holes, is because it provided enough sound evidence to lock up his close associates, and pointedly concluded that it did not exonerate Trump.

weavilsatemyface · 2023-08-14T13:25:34+00:00

Wait, you're saying that when investigating a crime, the people investigating the crime... didn't actually investigate the scene of the crime?

And this is supposed to be a defence of the Mueller report? 😂

DNC deputy communications director Eric Walker told BuzzFeed that the FBI never requested access to the servers. If that were true, that would be remarkably unprofessional of the FBI. But some days later, FBI Director James Comey testified to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee that the FBI made "multiple requests at different levels" but those requests were denied.

So either Walker or Comey is lying or mistaken.

In either case, Comey never explained why the FBI allowed the alleged victim of a crime to dictate to law enforcement how the crime scene is inspected. The FBI is supposed to ensure a proper chain of evidentiary custody, instead they allowed the alleged victim of the crime to pick and choose what supposed evidence they saw. They even allowed Crowdstrike and the DNC to redact the information they gave to the FBI.

In other words, the FBI didn't investigate the alleged server breach. The DNC and Crowdstrike investigated it themselves, then passed on to the FBI only the information they wanted the FBI to see, who then accepted it and made no attempt to independently verify it.

This was not a criminal investigation. This was a transparent attempt to incriminate Russia for the DNC leak, regardless of who actually leaked the data or how they did it.

The Mueller investigation really is a joke. He made no effort to even interview Julian Assange. His report has a timeline that requires Assange to have announced the DNC emails before he received them. The leaks from Guccifer 2.0 were very low quality and Wikileaks refused to handle them (they were either duplicates of things they already had, or were unverifiable). Guccifer 2.0 communicated through Twitter, and demanded public recognition for hacking the DNC, which hardly sounds like the actions of professional intelligence agents.

There are more holes in the Mueller report than in Swiss cheese.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/07/05/crowdstrikeout_muellers_own_report_undercuts_its_core_russia-meddling_claims.html

ActuallyNot · 2023-08-09T22:53:49+00:00

It is that they weren't permitted. Mueller requested access to the servers so a trained FBI team could make verified, tamper-proof images of the drives, and was refused access.

Wrong.

the FBI never requested access to the DNC’s computer servers

not clear to me whether it was the DNC or Crowdstrike that refused them access

It's good that your suspicions were aroused.

weavilsatemyface · 2023-08-09T16:33:53+00:00

It's not that they weren't allowed.

It is that they weren't permitted. Mueller requested access to the servers so a trained FBI team could make verified, tamper-proof images of the drives, and was refused access. Its not clear to me whether it was the DNC or Crowdstrike that refused them access, although in practical terms it makes no difference. Crowdstrike works for the DNC and dances to their tune. Later on, Crowdstrike provided what they say are images of some of the drives, not all, although again it isn't clear whether they imaged the entire drive or just selected parts of the data.

Come on now, this isn't in dispute. This has been widely reported and acknowledged by everyone that neither the FBI nor Mueller had access to the crime scene (the DNC servers) or made their own certified forensic images of the drives. They were completely at the mercy of Crowdstrike as to what they were allowed to see.

Crowdstrike, who are paid by the DNC. At least the FBI is supposed to be independent and neutral but Crowdstrike is completely, 100% partisan here: their client is the supposedly injured party. Can you see just a teeny, tiny conflict of interest there?

The images were better than physical access, because ...

If you don't know how law enforcement investigate data crimes, just say so. Because your description of why images are better is Not Even Wrong.

It's not the images that is the problem. It's that we have no way of knowing that the images are legitimate, and haven't been tampered with. Its that Mueller was only given a subset of the server hard drive images, and we don't know what is on the other drives.

The DNC claimed in their lawsuit that the hack affected over 330 servers. I smell a tiny bit of exaggeration there; over 140 of those servers were decommissioned after the alleged hack, which suggests that they were probably old and not in use and the DNC took the opportunity to get rid of them at Russia's expense. (Assuming they can collect damages.)

We can get a better idea of what really went on when we remember that Crowdstrike provided Mueller with four, count 'em, four server hard drive images. So out of 330+ servers that the DNC claim were hacked and needed to be repaired, replaced or decommissioned, only four actually contained any (alleged) signs of hacking.

Hmmm.

I say signs of hacking advisably, rather than evidence, because Crowdstrike reported in 2017 that they had no evidence that any data was actually removed from the servers.

You can see how these sorts of politically motivated hit pieces work. Crowdstrike reports to the intelligence committee that they claim Russia hacked the servers; the intelligence committed doesn't have access to the servers themselves, only to the data that Crowdstrike gives them, so of course they concur with Crowdstrike's report. They see only what Crowdstrike wants them to see.

You can also see the corporate dishonesty here. Under oath, Crowdstrike's CEO literally used the words "We did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC" but in Crowdstrike's corporate blog they describe this "no concrete evidence" as "Does CrowdStrike have evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC network? Yes."

By "Yes" they mean "No". If they actually had evidence, the CEO would have said "We did have concrete evidence..." when speaking under oath. What they have is quote-unquote "indications" which could mean anything at all.

Any time a corporation says they're going to "set the record straight", you can be certain that you are about to read spin, PR and a self-congratulatory puff-piece.

What the fuck do you claim broke the chain of custody for the images?

You're not serious are you? Playing a joke on your good friend Weavils right?

The FBI and Mueller never, at no point in the investigation, had access to the crime scene (the DNC servers) or a verifiable tamper-proof image of their drives. The alleged images of the drives could have been accessed by anyone at all before being given to Mueller. There's your break in the chain of custody right there.

It's as if Hillary called up the FBI and said that some Russian dude just broke in to her office and stabbed her intern Monica to death and left a knife behind with his name written in Cyrillic on it. "No you can't come and investigate the crime scene. You can't see the knife. But don't worry, I've hired a private investigate who has taken some photos of the knife and they'll send you the photos. Eventually, when we get around to it."

The Mueller investigation really is that stupid.

Aside from all the other problems with the Mueller investigation that I've already mentioned:

failure to investigate the criminal conspiracy between Clinton's lawyer Sussmann and the dodgy British intelligent agent Steele
failure to investigate Joseph Mifsud, who Mueller himself accused of lying to him
the bogus charges against Concord that Mueller dropped rather than face the humiliation of having to go to court with no evidence
Crowdstrike's admission that they have no evidence that data was copied from the DNC servers
failure to follow basic law enforcement procedures when investigating data theft

there are other serious problems with the Russia Did It narrative:

evidence that the data was copied locally from the DNC servers via a USB key with a FAT file system, not over the internet;
failure to interview former technical director of the NSA, Bill Binney;
failure to interview Julian Assange, a witness to the crime who claims to have evidence that the source of the hacked data was not Russia.

It's a good thing for Mueller's credibility that he will never, ever have to prove his claims against the GRU officers in court, because any defence attorney would absolutely destroy him over these holes in the narrative. (That is assuming that the people named actually are GRU officers and not just random Russian names plucked out of the Moscow phone book.)

The best we can say about the Mueller report is not that it proves the Russian hack beyond reasonable doubt, or even on the balance of probabilities, but that it makes a nice story that seems plausible to people who know nothing about IT or forensics.

In-the-clouds · 2023-08-09T04:08:19+00:00

Lucifer is the spirit that led the rebellion in heaven against God. Many spirits followed Lucifer and lost their light. This earth is his world. When born here, you don't remember your past, but you voluntarily left God. God remembers you. And he made a way for you to come back to God. Those that want to break free from Lucifer can by voluntarily following Jesus Christ, who paid your ransom on the cross: his life for yours. Ephesians 1:3-7

IkeConn · 2023-08-08T20:08:39+00:00

Post wrong data.

IkeConn · 2023-08-08T19:56:57+00:00

I would love to see those 2 pansies fight.

ActuallyNot · 2023-08-06T23:25:55+00:00

Do you not read the links I give? Mueller's team was not allowed access to the servers.

That's not correct. They had images of the servers, so there was no need for them to try to get physical access to the servers. It's not that they weren't allowed. It's merely one of the many things they didn't request.

The images were better than physical access, because they were taken during the time the penetrations were perpetrated, so has better information than the physical servers. The images were more convenient than physical access to the servers, as it avoided the logistical problems of plugging in keyboards and monitors to hundreds of physical computers.

there's no chain of custody for the data.

Okay, I'm going in: What the fuck do you claim broke the chain of custody for the images?

He proved charges of obstruction, perjury and financial crimes, not conspiracy with Russians.

Only with respect to the criminal mind. He showed that the conspiracy existed, but felt that he couldn't show in court that those 18 people who were meeting with the Russians weren't too dumb to know it was a crime, beyond all reasonable doubt.

You think spending time in prison proves guilt???

Not always. But the people who plead or were found guilty by Mueller were not examples of miscarriage of justice.

None of the supposed hackers have been put on trial so none of the evidence has been seen, let alone tested in court.

Not true. There was an american convicted of identity theft, as part of the phishing operations of the hackers.

ZomOfTheDead · 2023-08-06T19:04:21+00:00

Amanita Muscaria are not enjoyable, stick to regular psilocybin mushrooms.

weavilsatemyface · 2023-08-06T12:55:25+00:00

Of course they were. They had images of them.

Do you not read the links I give? Mueller's team was not allowed access to the servers. Months later, Mueller was sent a curated partial set of some hard drives, prepared by CrowdStrike, which Crowdstrike claims to be images of some of the server hard drives.

If this were a genuine criminal investigation, and not a political hit job, there is no way in the world that any competent investigator would allow something like that. It violates all the rules for evidence gathering during forensic data collection, and there's no chain of custody for the data.

In a nutshell, allowing the complainant such an opportunity to tamper with the data and pick and choose what evidence Mueller sees put the whole thing in doubt. The evidence from the Crowdstrike hard drives must be considered irreparably tainted and that alone provides more than enough reasonable doubt that in a fair trial every single one of the supposed Russian hackers would walk free.

Assuming they would get a fair trial, which is highly unlikely in the current American political climate.

He proved charges against half a dozen people close to trump.

He proved charges of obstruction, perjury and financial crimes, not conspiracy with Russians.

How do you know that the evidence they have against the Russian hackers is any better than the evidence that Saddam Hussein was still building WMD?

Because people spent time in prison and the standard is behind reasonable doubt.

You think spending time in prison proves guilt???

None of the supposed hackers have been put on trial so none of the evidence has been seen, let alone tested in court.

Even if we accept the guilt of those charged with unrelated crimes (obstruction, fraud, identity theft) that doesn't prove the guilt of the supposed hackers. How could it? They are unrelated crimes.

Drewski · 2023-08-05T19:09:43+00:00

archive.today mirror | archive.org mirror

WoodyWoodPecker · 2023-08-05T05:45:49+00:00

https://youtu.be/eOifa1WrOnQ

nmgb · 2023-08-04T03:53:01+00:00

Wow, you've received a lot of attention

dashagou · 2023-08-03T09:56:39+00:00

great

biefengle · 2023-08-03T09:21:35+00:00

twolanterns · 2023-08-03T08:47:35+00:00

he plays mindgames thwocking dimbulbs heads together like coconut halves

nmgb · 2023-08-03T01:45:31+00:00

ActuallyNot · 2023-08-02T22:34:59+00:00

Hackers have been indicted ...

Yes, i should've said indicted.

Mueller's forensic team was not allowed access to the DNC servers.

Of course they were. They had images of them.

It is the most convenient thing in the world for Mueller to indict some GPU officers. He will never, ever have to prove a single one of those allegations.

There were Americans charges with parts of the hacks. The guy who pled guilty to identity theft was phishing for access to the servers.

Mueller didn't write things in his report because they were convenient. He proved charges against half a dozen people close to trump.

How do you know that the evidence they have against the Russian hackers is any better than the evidence that Saddam Hussein was still building WMD?

Because people spent time in prison and the standard is behind reasonable doubt.

weavilsatemyface · 2023-08-02T14:19:09+00:00

Locking up criminals is worthless to you?

If I said the food from "Dave's Greasy Spoon Diner" was over-priced and terrible, would you respond "So you think people shouldn't eat?"

We could debate the details of the various criminal justice systems from around the world, but in general I can see the utility in locking up criminals as punishment, for the protection of society and the deterrence of others. But that has nothing to do with the terrible, worthless Mueller report.

Hackers have been convicted.

Hackers have been indicted based on evidence we haven't seen, and probably never will. But we know that at least some of that evidence is contaminated, and has not been handled correctly for a forensic investigation. Mueller's forensic team was not allowed access to the DNC servers. They were given a subset of carefully collected copies of the server hard drives prepared by Crowdstrike. Authentic copies? Maybe, maybe not. That alone gives Reasonable Doubt.

It is the most convenient thing in the world for Mueller to indict some GPU officers. He will never, ever have to prove a single one of those allegations. Even Time, in an otherwise uncritical article about the Mueller report, emphasised the unproven nature of the allegations against the supposed hackers, and how unlikely it is that they would ever stand trial.

The Russian hacker indictment makes for a nice story, but so did the allegations against Concord. When Mueller was forced to either put up or shut up about Concord, he shut up and dropped all the charges rather than go to court with the evidence, or lack of evidence, he actually had. What makes you think the allegations against the GPU hackers are any stronger?

How do you know that the evidence they have against the Russian hackers is any better than the evidence that Saddam Hussein was still building WMD? The US has a long history of claiming irrefutable evidence that turns out to be made of moon beams and pixie dust.

RapeMyMouth · 2023-08-01T00:19:40+00:00

Cool idea.

ActuallyNot · 2023-07-30T09:28:27+00:00

You know that repeating the worthless conclusions of a worthless report doesn't make them less worthless?

Locking up criminals is worthless to you?

So you think we should have any prisons or police?

And recovering well over $20,000,000 from manafort alone is worthless?

But much money does it take to have worth?

Mueller had no evidence of Russian hacking

Hackers have been convicted. Read the report.

These are the facts: Mueller found no criminal conspiracy.

Read the report. Being a republican hack he didn't consider Trump withing scope. But he detailed meetings between today close to trump and the Russians.

Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner were not charged for this because Mueller claimed that it would be to hard to establish "willfulness". That is that they could agree that they were too dumb to know that what they were doing was illegal.

He detailed Trump's obstruction of justice, but did not charge him because he felt that was out of scope.

weavilsatemyface · 2023-07-30T02:56:10+00:00

You know that repeating the worthless conclusions of a worthless report doesn't make them less worthless?

Mueller had no evidence of Russian hacking. Crowdstrike prevented him from doing a forensic examination of the allegedly hacked servers. Later on they broke all the rules for evidence integrity by providing Mueller with their own curated selection of copies of just some of the relevant hard drives. Any defence attorney would love that! And you're all "Data tampering? Never heard of it." 🙈 🙉 🙊

And then Crowdstrike themselves admitted that they didn't actually have any evidence of Russian hacking.

These are the facts: Mueller found no criminal conspiracy. He selectively prosecuted a few Trump-aligned witnesses for obstruction and perjury, while allowing Clinton-aligned witnesses like Mifsud off the hook. That selective prosecution proves that the Mueller investigation was not neutral or fair-handed.

Mueller failed to discover, or ignored, the criminal conspiracy between Clinton's lawyer Sussmann and the dodgy British intelligent agent Steele. Mueller invented bullshit accusations against the Concord company, and then when forced to put up or shut up in court, he dropped the charges. His evidence for "Russian hackers" is basically "Crowdstrike said so" and then Crowdstrike turned around and said "Um well ackchyually we don't have any evidence that we were hacked by Russia".

I mean, at least Ken Starr was able to prove that Bill Clinton had received a blowjob from Monica Lewinsky. Mueller found nothing.

transbob · 2023-07-28T15:09:38+00:00

Do you honestly believe that Elon musk spent $40 billion dollars for that cheesy website?

It's all bullshit.

iamonlyoneman · 2023-07-28T02:35:20+00:00

and then?

iamonlyoneman · 2023-07-28T02:34:45+00:00

oh boy i cant wait to receive $0.37 while my lawyer gets $2 for himself!

the cambridge analytica scandal was such a leftoid nothingburger but if it costs zuck almost a billion dollars I'll be giggling about it for a while i guess

ActuallyNot · 2023-07-27T23:51:18+00:00

The Meuller report is very hard to read. Here's summary.

Russian interference in the 2016 election was “sweeping and systemic.”[1]

Major attack avenues included a social media “information warfare” campaign that “favored” candidate Trump[2] and the hacking of Clinton campaign-related databases and release of stolen materials through Russian-created entities and Wikileaks.[3]

Russia also targeted databases in many states related to administering elections gaining access to information for millions of registered voters.[4]

weavilsatemyface · 2023-07-27T22:14:16+00:00

you're claiming that the Russians' didn't interfere in the election?

You know the Steele Dossier was pure fiction, bought and paid for by the DNC, right? Russia's so-called "interference" in the 2016 was a few tens of thousands of dollars spent by a private group for Facebook ads and some Twitter memes, with no effect on the election.

Even WaPo begrudgingly admitted there was no effect on the election -- seven years later.

The Democrats knew about the so-called "Russian interference" before the election, it didn't become an issue until they had to rationalise their defeat. Suddenly Clinton and the Dems were parroting the exact same views about election fairness that just a few weeks earlier they were lambasting Trump for saying, except with Trump and Clinton swapped in the role of hero and villain.

"Putin posted nasty memes about Hillary on teh interwebs and that's why we lost! 😢 😢"

Journalists who uncritically repeated the conspiracy theory got promoted, while those who were critical or skeptical got slammed for being Russian agents.

There were charges.

Yes, for obstruction and perjury, not conspiracy or election fraud. Mueller concluded that there was no criminal conspiracy in the first place, so even those charges have to be treated as suspect and likely politically motivated.

Especially as so many other players in this fraud weren't charged by Mueller. Like Joseph Mifsud when Mueller stated that Mifsud had lied to him?

Or Clinton's lawyer Michael Sussmann over the fraud. He's been charged now, by John Durham, but the question is, why didn't Mueller notice that Clinton's lawyer paid for Steele to invent this conspiracy story, and if he did notice, why did he let it slide?

The Mueller report was a nothing burger with extra nothing and a side-order of nothing. Mueller was forced to drop the charges against Concord when they showed up to defend themselves, because he had no evidence, exactly as Zerohedge predicted.

The Democrats concocted this elaborate fantasy of Trump as an agent of Russia and Russian interference out of thin air, and the compliant press ran with it for years, repeating every insane DNC conspiracy theory as if it were true. Russiagate and the "Russian interference hoax" was obvious fiction from the beginning and yet BlueAnon have lapped up every word. Even the pee tape story 😂

Mueller's major source for the claim that Russia hacked the Democrat servers, Crowdstrike, admitted that there is no evidence that the servers were hacked. They basically just made it up, and Mueller just repeated these conspiracy theories as fact despite having no evidence for them.

When Mueller asked Crowdstrike for permission to do a forensic examination of the servers they claimed were hacked, they blew him off, refused to allow it, and then finally provided him with a couple of hard drives they had copied themselves. (By memory, they provided copies of four disks out of the ten or more servers they claimed had been hacked.) Which of course showed no firm evidence of having been hacked.

It's far more likely that a DNC insider leaked the emails to Wikileaks out of disgust at how the DNC was rigging the primaries -- something that the DNC admitted in court, arguing that they are not obliged to run fair elections in the primaries and if they choose to interfere in their own elections they're allowed to. And the courts agreed with them.

This is your democracy in action.

Hillary Clinton has never forgiven Wikileaks for releasing this information. This is why she suggested that the US should assassinate Julian Assange, and then to add insult to injury then Trump defeated her in 2016. This was a good way to kill three birds with one stone:

ramp up a new cold war with Russia (good for arms sales, good for the intelligence agencies, good for business)
use that to smear and discredit political enemies, starting with Trump
and get revenge on Wikileaks.

In-the-clouds · 2023-07-27T22:11:31+00:00

https://twitter.com/OlgaMoscowM

This account was also suspended a year ago.

A year ago these accounts were suspended,:

https://twitter.com/fynn_fann (now online)

https://twitter.com/DeanoBeano1/ (now online)

SoCo · 2023-07-27T20:27:08+00:00

This is the payout for the Republican use of Facebook spying-for-hire. To date, no lawsuit was made for the Obama campaign's use of the same, nor any other candidates' use.

TaseAFeminist4Jesus · 2023-07-26T17:03:39+00:00

I was not exactly holding my breath waiting for that.

That said, XWindows is much more important and technologically influential that any stupid social media "muh platform," so they should get the logo. Of course, with Richard Stallman using CURL to surf the web, it's possible no one who gives a shit has noticed.

ActuallyNot · 2023-07-26T01:44:43+00:00

Oh, like their joint prize with the NY Times for spreading the Russian electoral interference hoax?

For fuck's sake. You haven't read the Mueller report yet, and now, years later you're claiming that the Russians' didn't interfere in the election?:

Read the fucking report, and improve the signal to noise ratio in your posts.

This is ridiculous.

There were charges. People were locked the fuck in prison. Where you not on the planet at the time?

Russian interference in the 2016 election was “sweeping and systemic.”

Major attack avenues included a social media “information warfare” campaign that “favored” candidate Trump and the hacking of Clinton campaign-related databases and release of stolen materials through Russian-created entities and Wikileaks.

Russia also targeted databases in many states related to administering elections gaining access to information for millions of registered voters.

weavilsatemyface · 2023-07-25T12:42:47+00:00

They seem to have made a loss last year, so they're not taking much money for native advertising.

When I asked my accountant how much profit I made last year, he answered "How much profit do you want to have made?"

Profit and loss depends on income, expenditure, and creative book-keeping. Even if you think a company owned by Jeff Bezos is 100% squeaky clean about following the letter of the law, accountancy conventions still give a huge amount of wiggle room to turn an actual profit into an apparent loss.

Or maybe they're just badly managed and burning through cash faster than they can make it. There's only so many pharma ads they can publish in one day.

They keep winning Pulitzer prizes for journalism

Oh, like their joint prize with the NY Times for spreading the Russian electoral interference hoax?

Alexander Theroux describes the Pulitzer Prize as "an eminently silly award, [that] has often been handed out as a result of pull and political log-rolling, and that to some of the biggest frauds and fools alike."

Pulitzers are like the Oscars. They are mostly an incestuous, self-congratulatory exercise by and for members of the club, and only occasionally get given out for merit, and almost never to outsiders regardless of merit.

What makes you think they're reporting disinformation?

Have you read anything published by WaPo????

No, that's unfair. I'm sure that they occasionally do good journalism. I think I remember their Pulitzer Prize winning story on parents who accidentally kill their children by leaving them in cars, and if that is the story I think it was, it actually did deserve a prize. That is to say, Gene Weingarten deserves the prize and the WaPo deserves credit for publishing it.

But the WaPo spreads disinformation for the same reason as everyone else in the western mainstream press:

almost all of their international coverage comes from the same three government-affiliated sources that everyone else uses
they've been colonised by spooks who either write for them or are their sources
they report propaganda as fact
they don't report anything outside the Overton Window except to smear it
they rarely take any position which might embarrass or annoy their advertisers.

Media fact checkers are actually ideology checkers, but even "Media Bias Fact Check", which is as establishment as they come, rates WaPo as biased and "mostly factual".

WaPo pushes conspiracy theories. They either downplay or simply fail to report news that is inconvenient to Washington. At least, when Trump isn't president.

WaPo were one of the biggest cheerleaders of Bush Jr's disinformation leading to the Iraq invasion, calling Shrubbya's disinformation "irrefutable".

They created the Jessica Lynch propaganda fairy tale of a plucky young and cute American soldier fighting for her life against the evil Iraqis.

How about their role in spreading Yeonmi Park's disinformation?

Remember when WaPo claimed Egypt was supplying missiles to Russia? (Talk about selling ice to Eskimos!) Pure disinformation.

The Washington Post’s One-Sided Assessment of Disinformation.

How the Washington Post Accommodates Disinformation.

binaryblob · 2023-07-25T05:42:56+00:00

You didn't expect him to create something new or not fraudulent, did you?

IkeConn · 2023-07-25T02:51:58+00:00

I never did like tattle tales.

SoCo · 2023-07-24T23:19:43+00:00

Pay-walled fake-news that is simply a source for other news outlets to make false claims with impunity by citing them, must not be very profitable.

TaseAFeminist4Jesus · 2023-07-24T21:34:41+00:00

Isn't that basically the XWindows logo?

Are we just pretending computers were invented in 2013 now?

jet199 · 2023-07-24T16:02:43+00:00

"Lets write off some more money to show less profit and avoid tax"

TitsAndWhiskey · 2023-07-24T14:10:26+00:00

Fucking stupid

SocialMedia

Social Media

MODERATORS