I was only using Bill as example as a qualified politician yet he was a liar and a pervert. There are plenty of other examples. It's really no shock to anyone when we learn of scandals of the rich and famous. In the past candidates have dropped out over much less than we already know about these two. They are both constantly being called out for their bullshit and nothing seems to phase their supporters. No matter what kind of dirt that might come out on them in the next couple weeks the vote would not change if the election was tomorrow.
Are you really saying that educated people who hold important positions and political office can't also be corrupt? Just for starters Hillary used the loophole that makes it legal for congress to insider trade to earn millions. Her husband was equally educated and held important offices and had interns blowing him in the oval office. Trump has been grabbing pussy, Bill was inserting cigars in them. I remember the endless hearings and scandals when Nixon was in office. No one would say he was not corrupt yet history has been kind to him. He did have some important accomplishments.
Won't do that because I can't stand either candidate. I can't even decide which is worse. If there was a third choice of the zombie apocalypse I would vote for that. I have never seen such outrageously unqualified candidates in my life and my first vote was for George McGovern.
I would not buy an 8 track player or a Betamax (or any VCR). These are obsolete and the only interest in them might be as collector items. Yahoo is on the verge of bankruptcy if they are not already and AOL is dead. Why would Verizon even want them? They will have to pass these expenses on to subscribers.
Both sides have a small minority of staunch supporters but for most voters I think it will come down to who you hate the least. They are both unqualified frauds. Whoever wins, brace for years of scandals that will make Watergate and slick Willie's BJs pale in comparison.
Yes, Hillary is a criminal liar. Trump is a liar and a complete fraud. I guess the only thing Hilary has over Trump is she doesn't sound like an insane nut job off his meds. Hilary belongs in prison, not the white house. Trump belongs in a padded room and heavily sedated. Maybe I should start checking into countries to emigrate to unless one of them drops out and someone qualified gets elected. Unless that happens this country is going straight down the shitter.
A lot of this began under Clinton (Democrat), Was greatly expanded under Bush (Republican) and Obama (Democrat) let it go on and even tried to defend it for a while after the Snowden leaks. Obama has a special hard on for whistleblowers. Now tell me it matters who is elected.
How would James Clapper issuing a statement clear anything up? He perjured himself to congress. When confronted he said he gave the "least untrue" answer that he could. He committed a felony and was never charged and he kept his job. No one will ever believe another word out of his mouth. In fact because of him every denial and explanation from any of the three letter agencies will be called into question.
Re: Re: This would only catch really dumb terrorists
Agreed, but terrorism is always what they to justify any snooping. Targeted surveillance has worked in a few cases but most of the time the feds still blow it. Before 9/11 they were wiretapping the house that was used to relay messages between Al-Qaeda leaders and operatives. The NSA knew that known terrorists made it into the country with legal visas. They not only failed to share intelligence with the FBI but they somehow lost track of them much of the time. A flight instructor informed authorities of mid eastern men who wanted to fly but did not want to learn to land a plane. The no fly list is such a joke that these men with known terrorist ties were allowed to board using their real names. Many other mistakes were made that could have prevented the attack. The feds have the mentality of "collect it all" that has NEVER worked.
Any terrorists who don't use encryption would have to be incredibly ignorant to spell out their plots using the keywords these programs are looking for. It really isn't hard to figure out what words and phrases would be on the naughty list. Don't you think they would at least use some sort of code? Criminals have been doing this for ages from Mafia families to street level drug dealers. What a colossal waste of time and money.
I will certainly agree that there is a risk of malware installing free programs and some people are better off with this site. I use a lot of really good free software but I never install anything without research. Even legitimate programs sometimes come with additional options that you have to uncheck. It's not necessarily malware but just annoying when you discover something you did not need and have to uninstall it. Jdownloader is an excellent safe program, but in the early days of version 2 they came under heavy criticism for bundling extra crap with the upgrade. They apologized on their site and released a clean install. There are some people who will click on anything. I have the advantage having a son who is a computer genius who taught me a lot or I might be the same way. There are probably YouTube download programs that are trojans or at least adware.
My question is still: Why not just rip it yourself with so many free apps available? Are there that many people unaware of these tools? I would much rather watch a video of the artist performing than just listen to a track. If you only want the audio for your mp3 player or phone or podcast that's simple. Copy the YouTube link and Jdownloader will give you all the options. Video, audio, subtitles, description, etc. I don't need this site. I guess maybe someone who is really technologically challenged might. I thought pretty much everyone was aware that it easy to download from YouTube and many other video sites but I guess I could be wrong.
What was the point of this site? Who needs a web site to download audio tracks ripped from YouTube when there are so many applications that can download both audio and video yourself? There is no DRM on YouTube and if they do implement it there will be ways to defeat it in a matter of days, if not hours. YouTube itself is a site offering free downloads of copyrighted music. If all you want is audio there are thousands of sites where you can find it in better quality than ripped from them.
Re: The justice system doesn't even use forensics to detect culprits.
Even when there is strong evidence that the wrong person was convicted it can take years to free an innocent man. There have been cases where DNA, police or prosecutorial misconduct, jury tampering, or new evidence comes to light. Testimony by jailhouse snitches who are rewarded with charged dropped or reduced are taken as facts. Even when someone else confesses and there is strong evidence that it true it is not enough. Victims and witnesses have admitted to lying sometimes under pressure or threats by investigators. Often authorities don't like to admit they were wrong. Sometimes there is a conviction and crimes with very distinct signatures and details that were never released continue. Even when they catch the right person it is an uphill battle to get the wrongful conviction overturned. TV crime shows that portray these situations and the next day the prisoner is freed with the judge apologizing are far from reality. Often they have to go through retrials and sometimes are falsely convicted again. It can take years and sometimes they die in prison or are executed before they are exonerated. The child abuse hysteria in the 1980's saw dozens of innocent people convicted. Children were interviewed and encouraged to invent crimes and even the most ridiculous stories were believed. It was claimed "children don't lie about these things." They do when improper methods are used and are pushed to make up fantasies of satanic rituals and are told the lie "your friend already told what happened." Tapes have been released where their persistent denials that anything happened are met with displeasure and unbelief. Eventually tell what they think the interviewer wants to hear.
Re: Can we get this standard used in climate science?
Whatever statistics presented can be explained by normal fluctuations throughout known history. When I was in school in the 60's we were taught that the earth was heading toward another ice age. That was because we were in a normal cooling cycle even though the years of WWII and after saw the greatest increase in manufacturing in all history. I could accept evidence of global warming but the link to it being caused by man is weak. Natural events like volcanoes, forest fires and even cow farts produce more C02 and other pollutants than we ever could. Emission controls are a good thing because they do reduce a lot of toxins but they can do little to change the climate. I have never understood the claim that emission controls help prevent global warming. Five gases are measured in testing, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, oxygen, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide (CO2). You want the first four to be as low as possible but CO2 high, ideally over 13%. I thought CO2 was the big bad culprit in greenhouse gases yet a properly running car produces more of it.
Juries tend to believe eyewitness testimony and have often convicted on that with no other evidence. If the witness knew the suspect well beforehand or multiple witnesses testified the were certain I might give it some consideration. The vast majority of prisoners cleared by DNA were sent up by a faulty ID by one witness. Often these identifications are made when the witness only saw the suspect for a few seconds, in poor lighting or from a distance. I bought groceries just yesterday and chatted with the check out clerk for several minutes. If I was asked to pick her out of a lineup today I doubt I could do it. At best I could give generalities like height, race or approximate age. The practice of using the "six pack" of photos should be be outlawed. Prosecutors try to give the idea that trauma of the crime somehow indelibly records images in the victim's mind and that is bullshit. If anything it causes them to fixate on the first resemblance they see and then point at them from the witness stand. Fictional TV series often show the police sketch looking just like the perp. On real crime shows like The First 48 or Forensic Files that is rarely the case. I had to laugh at one they actually released that looked just like Freddy Fudd from Bugs Bunny cartoons. Who can forget the famous Unabomber sketch that looked more like Michael Jackson than Ted Kaczynski?