Nalod wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Comey is a liar. They reviewed how many emails in 8 days?

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/795448080317419520

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/795448692354535425

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/795449346779181057

and this is exactly why no one can take you seriously. Ever.

General Flynn is an advisor to Trump, hardly a good source for this type of opinion or examination of fact.

This is also 2016 not 1971 and we have computers and laptops that are really fast. So fast most undergrad students could take a 5 day period and write from scratch a very simple program to compare one set of emails with another (that have undoubtedly been put into some sort of very nice database). With a more senior level person, this task should be able to get completed in about a day, and yet it still took a week. The question really remains as to why it took so long, that's the follow up scandal here, along with the initial announcement of this distraction.

You get led along fairy easily and are also damaging to the discourse of too many things to count, a political spammer of sorts, and it's very hurtful to yourself and plenty of others and very certainly to the fabric of our country. I call out Guns and BRIGGS the same way. A group of lemmings of another sort.

It's really easy to read up on these things and not look for a conclusion that suits your viewpoint. Take the information, look at opinion, look at who is writing the opinion, look at what others are saying about the opinion (but not NY Post or Fox or the other garbage sites you post) and come to a conclusion. Use Google, it's really easy.

Martin don't call me a lemming unless you do it to my face. I've never said personal sht to you in 15 years here. It's only your opinion and if it's personal keep it to you self and I don't give a fck if you own the site or not . Don't say sht about me personally you don't know me thank you

Briggs is the EarthmanSurfer?

Wouldn't be the first time he's created another account to argue the same point- bizarre

earthmansurfer wrote:

Nalod wrote:

Briggs is the EarthmanSurfer?

LOL, I'm the "for peace" guy, remember.
That would be a nice feet being that I'm in Germany (or at least posting on German time). And to change the styles so much, I guess possible, hmmm.

And what do you think will happen in Germany if Trump weakens NATO like Putin wants..Putin is buzzing fight jets off the UK as we speak...Trump didn't want to admit or didn't know Putin took over Crimea or invaded Ukraine...

Nalod wrote:We should not allow illegal immigrants to buy Anti Freeze.
That alone should help.
If he was homeless American, would it matter?

Unfortunately absolute majority of people do not understand how economy works.
Economy and society as a whole is complex self-regulated system which people (even the most powerful one) can only marginally affect.
And for the most part this interventions just temporarily make sings a little better, then much worth, and then are dis-appearing as a waves from the stone thrown in the ocean.
We all trying to control things that we have no control off while we cannot even control our-self. Is it pathetic or what?

Bonn1997 wrote:Hillary's up 3.2 points in the RCP average and 3.4 in the 538 average. And those were polls from before the FBI cleared her. If she gets a 2 point bounce from that and 2 points from her superior on the ground operations, maybe she'd have a 7 point landslide.

I still think it will be a mini landslide but the ambiguous, bogus Comey letter definitely has swayed things. Don't think it'll effect the top of the ticket but it could have swayed some state votes which will definitely hurt Hilary in the first 2 years or more if senate is not secured.

Bonn1997 wrote:Hillary's up 3.2 points in the RCP average and 3.4 in the 538 average. And those were polls from before the FBI cleared her. If she gets a 2 point bounce from that and 2 points from her superior on the ground operations, maybe she'd have a 7 point landslide.

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:The Twitter post was about the information. I saw the information, not the poster, it was a good point, still is - it was in part, statistics. I mean it is ad hominem to just attack the person and not the message. Look at the message.

I could have found a better source saying that, but just look at the points, they are valid. This argument is like saying "It can't be true because it is not MSM."

I did not even know who General Micheal T Flynn was, I was more caught by the content of his post. (I noticed he was a General though.)
Does it really matter who says "It took them 18 months to go through 30,000 emails and they did 650,000 in 8 days."?
That just caught my attention but ok, some were duplicates, but how many? It seems the public is being left in the dark. Is it National Security? lol

The Twitter post was not information. It was a lie. And you fell for it.

On level, I'm a engineer with good database skills - not even a super expert with resources like the FBI and I just told you that 650K emails would have taken less than a day to sort, search and compare.

What does a man who is a general tell you about his computer skills? Nothing. Why did you believe him? Why did you not look for other information about the General (a Trump advisor, and BTW why did that not scream out to you as a not reliable source of unbiased information?) or about how long it takes computers to comb through information.

You just believed a source who you didn't know anything about, didn't know his qualifications, and you readily swallowed up what he was selling, following all of that over the cliff.

He turned out to be a Trump advisor, a General with near zero computer skills who had zero knowledge of what the FBI received, looked through or found. You believed him and tried to pass it off as something

I'm an ex-IT database warehouse guy. I know they have come a long way since I stopped, but we are not talking just about simple searches. But these searches would have taken a real long time for a simple reason: They don't know what they are looking for. The communications would generally be a bit cryptic. That is normal when breaking the law. 8 days, just not possible. They would have had to studied the emails, looking for words that are out of place or used repeatedly out of context, something along those lines but they have experts for that. You need human intervention to really get a grip on this and that would take quite a while. Do we really think if any of us were being investigated over thousands of emails, even if they worked on it 24/7, that they could ever finish in 8 days? That is joke. I question (as I bet we all do), why he did this to begin with 8 days ago, it certainly has hurt Hillary.

You don't need to be an en expert to do simple math and a General is "generally" trained to be a leader and have the qualities of all that go with that. Math would certainly be high on that list, as would logic, etc. I would not discount him because he is not what you want him to be. Nothing wrong with someone who is on Trumps side analyzing that data, after all, Trump did say the election is rigged. And there has been a lot of evidence of that over the years. Oh Bush and Florida, the memories...

Don't get lost in the details, the picture is pretty plain.

My guess is you are an IT guy but not really a database guy or programmer, please let me know.

You search on To and From (Hilary or Hilary), Subject line, date, contents. It's an easy match to all of the other emails they have in their database. You don't need to read the contents of 650K emails, that's the mistake you are making and why I suspect you are not a database guy.

http://www.geekwire.com/2016/fbi-650000-emails-edward-snowden/

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/795435387321655296

some of these are fun:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/JZdziarski/status/795405346651115520

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/ditzkoff/status/795403577271455744

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Nalod wrote:

Briggs is the EarthmanSurfer?

LOL, I'm the "for peace" guy, remember.
That would be a nice feet being that I'm in Germany (or at least posting on German time). And to change the styles so much, I guess possible, hmmm.

And what do you think will happen in Germany if Trump weakens NATO like Putin wants..Putin is buzzing fight jets off the UK as we speak...Trump didn't want to admit or didn't know Putin took over Crimea or invaded Ukraine...

I will answer the same for Trump as for Hillary here. Let the experts in the military and your cabinet help with these decisions.
You know, how Hillary pressured Obama into Libya as Secretary of State. Hopefully with a better support team than Obama had (chosen).

I am just playing the odds regarding war, I think with Hillary it is a greater chance. Trump I can see being devisive at home and that can lead to a different war. He
needs to get things under control, but Hillary has already shown us what she is capable regarding war and she has FAILED MISERABLY. Really, look at the mess that Libya
now is and the generals told her this would happen. Voting for Iraq and Afghanistan was just sad, and I know others did it. Let's get some peaceful people in there.
We have the tech, we have the military power to defend ourselves. Let's stop invading other countries and make America great again. That would be great for the world.

We are not the world police. The Ukraine and that area, right next to Russia is not our business. Bring the world into this. Let's discuss it, no more war.

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:The Twitter post was about the information. I saw the information, not the poster, it was a good point, still is - it was in part, statistics. I mean it is ad hominem to just attack the person and not the message. Look at the message.

I could have found a better source saying that, but just look at the points, they are valid. This argument is like saying "It can't be true because it is not MSM."

I did not even know who General Micheal T Flynn was, I was more caught by the content of his post. (I noticed he was a General though.)
Does it really matter who says "It took them 18 months to go through 30,000 emails and they did 650,000 in 8 days."?
That just caught my attention but ok, some were duplicates, but how many? It seems the public is being left in the dark. Is it National Security? lol

The Twitter post was not information. It was a lie. And you fell for it.

On level, I'm a engineer with good database skills - not even a super expert with resources like the FBI and I just told you that 650K emails would have taken less than a day to sort, search and compare.

What does a man who is a general tell you about his computer skills? Nothing. Why did you believe him? Why did you not look for other information about the General (a Trump advisor, and BTW why did that not scream out to you as a not reliable source of unbiased information?) or about how long it takes computers to comb through information.

You just believed a source who you didn't know anything about, didn't know his qualifications, and you readily swallowed up what he was selling, following all of that over the cliff.

He turned out to be a Trump advisor, a General with near zero computer skills who had zero knowledge of what the FBI received, looked through or found. You believed him and tried to pass it off as something

I'm an ex-IT database warehouse guy. I know they have come a long way since I stopped, but we are not talking just about simple searches. But these searches would have taken a real long time for a simple reason: They don't know what they are looking for. The communications would generally be a bit cryptic. That is normal when breaking the law. 8 days, just not possible. They would have had to studied the emails, looking for words that are out of place or used repeatedly out of context, something along those lines but they have experts for that. You need human intervention to really get a grip on this and that would take quite a while. Do we really think if any of us were being investigated over thousands of emails, even if they worked on it 24/7, that they could ever finish in 8 days? That is joke. I question (as I bet we all do), why he did this to begin with 8 days ago, it certainly has hurt Hillary.

You don't need to be an en expert to do simple math and a General is "generally" trained to be a leader and have the qualities of all that go with that. Math would certainly be high on that list, as would logic, etc. I would not discount him because he is not what you want him to be. Nothing wrong with someone who is on Trumps side analyzing that data, after all, Trump did say the election is rigged. And there has been a lot of evidence of that over the years. Oh Bush and Florida, the memories...

Don't get lost in the details, the picture is pretty plain.

My guess is you are an IT guy but not really a database guy or programmer, please let me know.

You search on To and From (Hilary or Hilary), Subject line, date, contents. It's an easy match to all of the other emails they have in their database. You don't need to read the contents of 650K emails, that's the mistake you are making and why I suspect you are not a database guy.

http://www.geekwire.com/2016/fbi-650000-emails-edward-snowden/

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/795435387321655296

some of these are fun:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/JZdziarski/status/795405346651115520

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/ditzkoff/status/795403577271455744

Do you understand what Snowden actually said? He was asked how to de-duplicate those 650,000 emails. I make no argument that you can de-duplicate emails in less than a day with powerful enough computers (hashing can take time. See Bitcoin. ;-)

He is not talking about searching those emails. And you question my database skills?

I worked with very large databases in the semi-early days of the net - say during the internet bubble. I played with Database warehouses too. But I was basically using relational databases to do the job of database warehouses, that is why I phrased it as I did. I wasn't a programmer (didn't enjoy it enough to try much) and my scripting skills were just adequate. I was extremely proficient with performance and tuning, sizing db's and things a bit more abstract like that (no programming - ouch!). I did system administration (a bit) and security. Mostly on Unix and Linux. Worked with Sybase, Oracle, IBM DB2, Sybase IQ (ware house) and some others that I forget now.

If you know what you are searching for it is easy. If you don't, it can only find what you ask it to (or for things that stand out and such).

Maybe address my post the page before. You addressed nothing I said and starting questioning and accusing.

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:The Twitter post was about the information. I saw the information, not the poster, it was a good point, still is - it was in part, statistics. I mean it is ad hominem to just attack the person and not the message. Look at the message.

I could have found a better source saying that, but just look at the points, they are valid. This argument is like saying "It can't be true because it is not MSM."

I did not even know who General Micheal T Flynn was, I was more caught by the content of his post. (I noticed he was a General though.)
Does it really matter who says "It took them 18 months to go through 30,000 emails and they did 650,000 in 8 days."?
That just caught my attention but ok, some were duplicates, but how many? It seems the public is being left in the dark. Is it National Security? lol

The Twitter post was not information. It was a lie. And you fell for it.

On level, I'm a engineer with good database skills - not even a super expert with resources like the FBI and I just told you that 650K emails would have taken less than a day to sort, search and compare.

What does a man who is a general tell you about his computer skills? Nothing. Why did you believe him? Why did you not look for other information about the General (a Trump advisor, and BTW why did that not scream out to you as a not reliable source of unbiased information?) or about how long it takes computers to comb through information.

You just believed a source who you didn't know anything about, didn't know his qualifications, and you readily swallowed up what he was selling, following all of that over the cliff.

He turned out to be a Trump advisor, a General with near zero computer skills who had zero knowledge of what the FBI received, looked through or found. You believed him and tried to pass it off as something

I'm an ex-IT database warehouse guy. I know they have come a long way since I stopped, but we are not talking just about simple searches. But these searches would have taken a real long time for a simple reason: They don't know what they are looking for. The communications would generally be a bit cryptic. That is normal when breaking the law. 8 days, just not possible. They would have had to studied the emails, looking for words that are out of place or used repeatedly out of context, something along those lines but they have experts for that. You need human intervention to really get a grip on this and that would take quite a while. Do we really think if any of us were being investigated over thousands of emails, even if they worked on it 24/7, that they could ever finish in 8 days? That is joke. I question (as I bet we all do), why he did this to begin with 8 days ago, it certainly has hurt Hillary.

You don't need to be an en expert to do simple math and a General is "generally" trained to be a leader and have the qualities of all that go with that. Math would certainly be high on that list, as would logic, etc. I would not discount him because he is not what you want him to be. Nothing wrong with someone who is on Trumps side analyzing that data, after all, Trump did say the election is rigged. And there has been a lot of evidence of that over the years. Oh Bush and Florida, the memories...

Don't get lost in the details, the picture is pretty plain.

My guess is you are an IT guy but not really a database guy or programmer, please let me know.

You search on To and From (Hilary or Hilary), Subject line, date, contents. It's an easy match to all of the other emails they have in their database. You don't need to read the contents of 650K emails, that's the mistake you are making and why I suspect you are not a database guy.

http://www.geekwire.com/2016/fbi-650000-emails-edward-snowden/

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/795435387321655296

some of these are fun:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/JZdziarski/status/795405346651115520

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/ditzkoff/status/795403577271455744

Do you understand what Snowden actually said? He was asked how to de-duplicate those 650,000 emails. I make no argument that you can de-duplicate emails in less than a day with powerful enough computers (hashing can take time. See Bitcoin. ;-)

He is not talking about searching those emails. And you question my database skills?

I worked with very large databases in the semi-early days of the net - say during the internet bubble. I played with Database warehouses too. But I was basically using relational databases to do the job of database warehouses, that is why I phrased it as I did. I wasn't a programmer (didn't enjoy it enough to try much) and my scripting skills were just adequate. I was extremely proficient with performance and tuning, sizing db's and things a bit more abstract like that (no programming - ouch!). I did system administration (a bit) and security. Mostly on Unix and Linux. Worked with Sybase, Oracle, IBM DB2, Sybase IQ (ware house) and some others that I forget now.

If you know what you are searching for it is easy. If you don't, it can only find what you ask it to (or for things that stand out and such).

Maybe address my post the page before. You addressed nothing I said and starting questioning and accusing.

march on to that cliff brother