I'm basically done with defending WikiLeaks as well, after the shit they pulled with the leaks of Turkish data. Completely irresponsible, that one.

However, WikiLeaks doesn't need credibility -- the data does. And the data they published vis-á-vis Clinton/Podesta/DNC is, as of now, solid. There was one fake document, but that was shown to have been injected by someone other than WL.

"Strong bias" -- oh, I do have a strong bias. Plural, as in biases, actually. For instance, I'm disinclined to take anything the US intelligence agencies say at face value, given how they manufactured more than one casus belli. I don't put much weight into (un-)official statements in general, but especially since all the misinformation they spread about issues like the coup in Honduras or the actions of Nazi militias in Ukraine.

In this particular case, however, my argument is much simpler: Occam's razor seems much more likely than malicious intent. Propaganda outlets on both sides are run by people. Maybe the propaganda outlet Sputnik intentionally twisted the content of email, or maybe they just fucked up, like people are wont to do. Maybe someone intentionally fed Trump this bad info, maybe his people are just as incompetent as he is.

There are too many parts in this that include people who have more than once proven themselves to be utterly incompetent, or in complete ignorance of even the concept of truth. I don't think Trump gives a shit about truth or facts, he strikes me as the typical blowhard who spouts whatever shit comes to mind, and spins stories on the fly like a 4-year-old when caught red-handing.

No need for a conspiracy there, with all this incompetence, naiveté and plain disregard for facts.

So when they keep on pushing the Russian angle in this, it just seems like a desperate attempt to conjure up the old unifying enemy. Why worry about Russian propaganda when there's plenty on FOX and MSNBC/CNN? Why worry about Russian hackers when you accept the unbelievably insecure method of eletronic votes, partly without paper trails, and completely controlled by private companies?

It's just very strange to an outsider like me to see them focus on perceived external influences when the internals are a complete clusterfuck. And this presidential election is the biggest clusterfuck I've seen in 30 years, which doesn't mean much, admittedly.

That said, we can't just be looking at it from the outside with binoculars, not when people are back to full-blown Cold War rhetoric. When the ruling class in the US and/or the ruling class in Russia start their pissing contests and other forms of grandstanding, it's usually brown people who pay the price, like they have been in Syria for the last couple of years. And Libya. And Yemen. And Somalia. And Afghanistan, And Iraq. And Pakistan.

Personally, all the rhetoric about "standing up to Russian aggression" and similar nonsense makes me keenly aware that the bridge just outside my hometown was constructed with a shaft to place explosives in, to slow down advancing Soviet troops... so yes, I would very much like to bitch-slap all these warmongerers on both sides, but particularly the ones in the US since they are currently the ones racking up the highest death toll.

Edit: I should have made it clearer. Yes, WL is absolutely biased against Clinton and they do seem to act in support of Trump. Assange in particular. Which bums me out to no end, since I actually met the guy in person when they presented WL at the 26C3.

I had to look that word up. I'm dumb

1: to utter maliciously false statements, charges, or imputations about

That's the scariest bit. On the surface it looks like a peaceful farm, because when you're going past it, all you see is lovely green grass and sheep grazing, it looks lovely and peaceful.

You don't get to see the castration, horn removal, tail docking and mulesing without any sort of anesthetic - this happens to every single lamb.

You also don't get to see the workers having a bad day and abusing (after the product is removed from them). This might not happen to every sheep, but with around 30 sheep getting sheared an hour by each person, you can bet at that speed it's not a pleasant experience even without malicious intent.

Outsiders just see a lovely country side, with sheep grazing before and after the abuse.

ya, he pronounces it like 'mal' from malicious, not mol like molify. Is this a UK vs US thing?

Ahhh, OK. I thought they acted like a link and would just take you directly to a website.
Perhaps things have changed. I've been computing for decades, and it at least USED to be the case that you could be infected simply by opening a malicious web page. Since I have banked and shopped on my PC, I'm overly cautious to not get infected, and don't just assume that old security holes are plugged. That means not going to links I don't recognize, not installing software I don't need or know exactly what I'm installing and where it comes from, and never opening emails from people I don't know.
Even with all that paranoia, I've had attacks that froze my computer and demanded money to unfreeze it, and that somehow remained in effect after restarts, like it somehow installed itself into my startup file. I did not install anything those times, simply opened a web page that was (apparently) infected and was attacked. For many people, these attacks work and their computers are bricked and they are blackmailed. Had I not known how to clear my temporary files, including hidden files, and clean out my startup folder, I would have a dead PC. One instance required me to completely wipe and re-install windows to remove the infection, as it wouldn't boot up at all.
That's why I also backup all my files on a memory stick that remains unplugged.

Being paranoid, I may go a bit farther than I need to, but better safe than sorry. I can't afford to have my identity stolen or my PC bricked.

I still can't fathom why the women weren't prosecuted as well....and successfully. They claimed as a group that he was a pedophile, publicly and repeatedly. THAT'S actionable harassment. There's no way this guy didn't feel harassed and like his life/safety were/are in danger.

Also, he should be at the least making an official complaint about the prosecutor, and sue her for malicious prosecution and abuse of office if not suing them for all his losses AND punitive damages. What the hell was she thinking, and what was her office thinking allowing her to proceed?

I appreciate that his intentions were cute, but (if I had a daughter) I'd be inclined to assume malicious intent and go ballistic.

Thanks goodness I don't have a daughter. I'd be one of those helicopter gunship parents.

I thought I even saw feathers around 1:05. I do wonder what kind of injuries these are causing to the birds. I know it's not human maliciousness, but it's generally at this exact point that we should recognize it's going to be a problem and address it.

Anyone remember the manatee thing?
http://www.livescience.com/19639-manatee-hearing-boats.html

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=manatee+boat+injury

Wait...didn't he just state that Obama and Hilary were negligent (intentionally so out of lack of basic care, ie., negligent instead of malicious) and kind of go out of his way to declare their innocence...but then the Benghazi trials that were intentional (and very very legal) are simply bashed and not defended for their legality. I get why everyone would separate these two, but the common points; 1-Both are ludicrous failures of morals, 2-Both are two reasons our government is full of bullshit...

Just because something is annoying does not give anyone the right to destroy property. I'm glad it seemed to end as a funny interaction between strangers, rather than an act of maliciousness.

I dont think drones will be too much of an annoyance in the future. Their noise is the single most complained about aspect, so I'm sure someone will adapt the technology to dampen the sound.

Obviously that has it's own scary implications, but if that's not the direction we're headed in, drone use will probably be delegated to open airfields, just like RC enthusiasts.

So pretty much win-win for those who hate them.

the common misconception by our lantern is that because we become outraged and incensed over the actions of bad cops being..well..bad,we do not have the capacity to understand that there are far more GOOD cops performing their duties with honor and conviction.

this is not only insulting and offensive....it is dishonest.

while i can understand lanterns desire to defend his chosen profession,being motivated by his own,personal understandings.i cannot understand his almost knee-jerk reactions to criticisms when they are warranted and that somehow all of us harbor this incredibly small and narrow view of police officers.that we do not have the capacity to realize that not all cops are bad,violent,thuggish brutes.

what lantern fails to realize,possibly because he is so close to the situation,is WHY we become so outraged.
police wield immense power over ordinary citizens.they hold in their pocket the power and authority of the state.most cops are aware of this and act accordingly,with honor and integrity,the statistics bear this out.

so when a cop over-reaches said authority,or performs acts of violence against an unarmed citizen,or lies about his actions to avoid the consequences (be they malicious or accidental).

it really pisses us off.

the argument is still:power vs powerlessness.
or in many cases with police over-reach:power vs the vulnerable.

think about it this way lantern:
if a grown man abuses or molests a child,that man is vilified and condemned by society.hell,they KILL men like that in prison!

why?

because it is a total abuse of power and authority,perpetrated upon the innocent and vulnerable.this act is viewed by society as to be so venal and grotesque as to warrant the most harshest of punishments.

that young child trusted the adult to protect them.to keep them from harm.that adult betrayed that trust.

we even,in this society,blame the other adults in the situation for not interceding,because we view the protection of the vulnerable as everyones duty,and to abdicate that duty makes you complicit and henceforth....guilty.

now i am not saying that police are child molesters.
what i AM saying is that to abuse the power and authority of your station upon the innocent and vulnerable is the exact same betrayal of trust.

which is why we become outraged.

you also seem to miss why we become outraged at the supposed good cops looking the other way when bad cops break the law.basically you are the complicit housewife who allowed her baby to be molested.you share in the guilt,even though you did not perpetrate the offense,you allowed it to go unpunished.

choices have consequences and standing up and taking responsibility for those choices is the cornerstone of not only being a man but a decent human being.yet time and time again we see bad cops lying,creating false evidence,even having other cops as co-conspirators in their fabrications,all to avoid the consequences of their actions.

this is NOT what men do.
this is what children do and it is up to the parent to correct this devious,weak and irresponsible behavior.a parents job is to teach their offspring accountability.that their actions will have consequences...sometimes dire..and to accept those consequences like a man.

so when we see bad cops being irresponsible and suffering zero consequences..

it pisses us off.

and when we see you defend these bad cops.trying to perform mental gymnastics to abdicate bad policing,we take you to task.

yes yes...
we all know good cops can make a mistake.
that there are mitigating circumstances and that we were not there.some cops become so distraught over a single mistake that they may leave the force,or tragically,take their own life.

we all understand this and it is not we take issue with.
we take issue with the coward who will not take responsibility.
we take issue with the lying.
we take issue with the systematic refusal of a "justice" system which allows these bad cops to abuse their authority with impunity.
we take issue with the brutish and thuggish behavior.
we take issue with the unnecessary violence.

we are full aware that there are some fantastic cops out there,but we call out the bad cops for being bad.

and you should as well.
because they besmirch the very profession you are employed in and their behavior tarnishes the reputation of the job you perform with honor and integrity.

all good cops should be calling to the carpet every cop that over-steps his authority,abuses his power,perpetrates violence for no other reason than to be violent.if you guys did that we would have far less youtube videos revealing the subtle rot in your institution.(not so subtle anymore,thank you camera phones!).

we realize that these bad cops do not represent you lantern,so do not feel the urge to defend every single cop video.those bad cops can own their actions...if they had any balls,which they do not.

stop defending these pussies.
they are performing their duties poorly.they are making your job not only harder but less safe and they leave a stain on the job you love (at least i think you love it).

so,
just stop.
and realize we totally understand and that we wont stop calling bad cops out for being bad.

/end rant

*doublepromote

Lmao. Do you live in Egypt, Lantern? Because clearly you're in.. Denial!

Who exactly are those assholes "protecting"? The elevator?

How do you know those kids are criminals?
What crime did they commit while waiting for the elevator?

And why the hell would the city settle a lawsuit for $50,000 if Jaleel Fields, the young man arrested, was some known dangerous thug/drug dealer those officers were "checking up on"?

Did you even read the article Radx post? You know, for like.. facts and context surrounding the video?

No? cause:

In the lawsuit, Fields accused the city and the two officers of violating his civil rights by falsely arresting and maliciously prosecuting him and using excessive force.

..after the video was shown to the DA, all Jaleel's charges were dismissed.

First: disorderly conduct. Police claimed he obstructed "pedestrian traffic" by blocking the elevator doors, which is interesting because the only thing this audio-free New York City Housing Authority video shows absolutely for sure is that Jaleel Fields went out of his way to let people off the elevator.

The second offense? According to Grieco, the police cited Jaleel for telling one of his friends that he didn't have to talk to the police. They called this "obstructing governmental administration."

So "OGA" here presumably would be 5'7", 130-pound Jaleel Fields intimidating the two brawny officers out of performing the "official function" of messing with two other kids in the elevator of their own building.

A spokesman for the New York City Law Department.. declined to comment on the specifics of the case, saying only..

"After reviewing all the evidence, we determined that a settlement was in the best interest of the city."

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/videos/a-bad-arrest-on-video-jaleel-fields-20150526#ixzz3bH56yN17

Hah! So right, tell me again about how you're somehow totally-not-a-racist..

Even tho every assumption you just made here was based on stereotypes, prejudice, and your bias toward fellow boys in blue.

Did I mention that the city dismissed all charges and settled a lawsuit for $50,000 after seeing video evidence that literally everything those two officers said was a lie?

But incidence like this aren't worth talking about or being upset about because..
black people kill black people and Barack Obama is president, right?

lol, you asshat.

How does that make any sense? They aren't being malicious. They're teenagers whose brains haven't developed an understanding of consequences. They probably do care about other people's lives, but have a feeling of invincibility, like many teenagers do.

I'm not sure it matters if it is "true" hate or not. It is a malicious act, the intent is to do harm. Aside from that, misogyny is also defined as the mistreatment of women, so ya, I don't think it is a misnomer at all in this case.

It's a user-by-user decision. Some people may not care/worry about inserting our JS embed into their sites. We, as a site, do care/worry.

Iframes can also be potentially harmful, which is why we never used to accept any, but now accept just a few (from sources we feel are very unlikely to have anything malicious in them).

I don't feel we'd need to take an anti-JS-embed stance as a general principle just because we don't want to risk using JS embeds of unknown origin ourselves.

Think of it this way: If my kids received apples on Halloween, I'd throw them out for fear they contain razor blades. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't necessarily hand out apples myself. And if I did that and recipient kids' parents threw my apples out, I wouldn't hold it against them.