Knicks · Where the heck is Hillary Clinton? (page 188)

Nalod @ 11/7/2016 1:57 PM
We should not allow illegal immigrants to buy Anti Freeze.
That alone should help.
If he was homeless American, would it matter?
earthmansurfer @ 11/7/2016 2:10 PM
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.

smackeddog @ 11/7/2016 2:10 PM
Nalod wrote:
BRIGGS wrote:
martin wrote:
earthmansurfer wrote:Comey is a liar. They reviewed how many emails in 8 days?


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

smackeddog @ 11/7/2016 2:11 PM
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.

Hilary Clinton has hacked BRIGGS account to undermine you both?....

holfresh @ 11/7/2016 2:15 PM
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...

Bonn1997 @ 11/7/2016 2:15 PM
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.
arkrud @ 11/7/2016 2:16 PM
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?

earthmansurfer @ 11/7/2016 2:20 PM
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.

martin @ 11/7/2016 2:21 PM
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.

earthmansurfer @ 11/7/2016 2:24 PM
TheGame wrote:
earthmansurfer wrote:
holfresh wrote:
You can't be against war and be a Trump supporter...Trump wants allow nuclear weapons in the Middle East...Do you think we stay on the sidelines for that one..He said he wants to put boots on the ground in Iraq/Syria...

Sure I can be against War and for Trump. A lot of people are. You are taking things out of context, I linked to that article yesterday or the day before about his nuclear comments. He was saying they are in the world, they are deterrents. He was not talking about using them. Regarding boots on the ground, personally, I am against that.

Regardless, Hillary has an agressive record and words to go with it, I am much more concerned about her starting a war than Trump.

I am not saying Trump is the savior, we might very well have a war with him or ANYONE as president, with Hillary, it is all but guaranteed.
A vote for Hillary is a vote for war imo.

You really don't pay attention to what Trump actually says. Trump directly asked the question why do we have nukes if we are not going to use them, and indicated that he was willing to use them. Now any person with half a brain knows why no one uses nukes. Once one country uses them, everyone will. The fact that Trump did not grasp this fact should scare you, but I guess deleted emails are more important.

Hillary has actually made war. If it is true about what Trump said (and I would not support nuclear war or war), Hillary still has him beat and it ain't close.
He is finishing up 1/4 mile and she is about done with mile 26. That is how I compare their corruption, warmongering, etc. (+- 3%)

fishmike @ 11/7/2016 2:25 PM
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.

It will be an electorate landslide regardless. I suspect she wins every swing state and a couple red ones.
earthmansurfer @ 11/7/2016 2:25 PM
holfresh wrote:
I know you don't care about Trump's stance on nuclear..I just wanted to show you your reasoning for supporting Trump is complete BS and not what you say it is...
I intentionally just said nuclear because that exactly how he says it..He doesn't say nuclear weapons or war..just nuclear...

Thanks I watched that and if true, it disappoints, but see my comment above.

martin @ 11/7/2016 2:27 PM
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-...

some of these are fun:

meloshouldgo @ 11/7/2016 2:29 PM
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.

Nate Silver is intentionally skewing the 538 poll. There's a Huff Post article on it.

earthmansurfer @ 11/7/2016 2:31 PM
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.

meloshouldgo @ 11/7/2016 2:34 PM
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.

That's not true. All they had to do was match the contents of the new emails to the old ones to see if they were repeats. This isn't some exercise in looking for for unknown phrases. If the entire contents of both sets of emails were parsed out and stored as data the search could be run overnight.

earthmansurfer @ 11/7/2016 2:43 PM
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-...

some of these are fun:

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 @ 11/7/2016 2:47 PM
meloshouldgo 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.

That's not true. All they had to do was match the contents of the new emails to the old ones to see if they were repeats. This isn't some exercise in looking for for unknown phrases. If the entire contents of both sets of emails were parsed out and stored as data the search could be run overnight.

See my comment above to Martin. You have the same misunderstanding. I am not talking about checking for duplicates, that is easy as Snowden states.
We are talking about searching those emails... DEEPLY.

And what did they search for? It takes a lot of work to look for corruption as they, of course, hide it.

martin @ 11/7/2016 2:49 PM
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-...

some of these are fun:

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

BRIGGS @ 11/7/2016 3:18 PM
Madison CT Hand HS

Trump 51%
Clinton 39%
the others the rest.


Now this is what Im hoping for tomorrow--a sneaky aggressive quiet vote and no one see's it coming.

DrAlphaeus @ 11/7/2016 3:28 PM
earthmansurfer wrote:
earthmansurfer wrote:My basic position is that a Hillary presidency will mean war with Russia (amongst other nations). A few here have questioned that, but let's look at something very very basic:

Hillary supports a no fly zone in Syria. That is her basic position. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/o...
+
Hillary was for attacking Libya, against Obama's wishes. This is while she was SOS. Imagine when she is president?
+
A top US General (Joint Chiefs of Staff) has said:

“Right now… for us to control all of the airspace in Syria would require us to go to war against Syria and Russia,” See 20 second clip below.

We have no right to control the Airspace in Syria with Russia there as a "guest" of Syria. We can't do that, the military definitely doesn't want that, but Hillary does.

Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party presidential nominee and former US secretary of state, has said that if she becomes president cyberattacks against US interests will be treated "like any other attack" – and that includes military action.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/clinton-us-shou...
+
Hillary later said Russia is behind the Wikileaks emails.
=
Do you see the clear picture? Please see the writing on the wall.

So, in my mind a vote for Hillary, is a vote for war.

I'd like to see some feedback here. This is what matters most, to all of us.

I agree with a lot of what akrud says here, at least in the sense that all out war with Russia — to think we survived the Cold War and a couple decades of a post-Cold War peace to finally get in an all out hot war... while it's not impossible to imagine, it's hard to fathom the insane decisions that would have to happen on both sides to get us there. Syria def looks like the proxy war of the future unfortunately. You have a rather generous definition of the word "war". Unless I read you incorrectly, you called the 2014 air strikes in Syria to rescue James Foley and other hostages a "war". Essentially any engagement of our military is war you are saying. The DoD used to be called the Department of War, so I suppose I can see your point. It's just a very, very broad one.

So in general I get your point EMS about your fears of Clinton, as you make it over and over. I am part of the political spectrum (I suppose) that has wagged its finger at Clinton for her hawkishness for 15 years. I also suspect a lot of that is like the "soft on crime" accusation of Democrats — head Republicans off at the pass with the war rattles — but maybe it's genuine or influenced by fireside chats with Kissinger, I don't know. But since you are so utterly opposed to Clinton, I just think you continually give Trump a pass. You conceded many pages ago that you don't share some of my specific concerns domestically as a Black man living stateside.

The original post by BRIGGS is about Hillary but it is also about BRIGGS exhorting ethnic minorities like Blacks and Latinos to give Trump a chance. For all of your posts maybe I missed where you gave some careful consideration what Trump's history in private enterprise, bombastic rhetoric including his birther obsession, labeling Obama and Hillary the founders of ISIS, and his very loose handling of truth and facts. You seem able to give Trump a pass — oh well he didn't mean this or that, and if he did, well, that's disappointing — and I wonder why you are willing to roll the dice on him. What is it about him you seem to trust?

There are a lot of rich people who stay out of the limelight, help out in the background. The limelight is Trump's primary source of nutrition. To say "well for him such a big wealthy guy to want to do this job and help the little guy" — maybe he just loves the spotlight and headlines so much and fears more than anything irrelevance and not being talked about that this whole presidential race timed with where we are as a society with media technology is why we are where we are.

I don't know. Anyway, those are my two cents. If you want to consider the other aspect of the OP for a while — what Trump means for ethnic minorities (well, I think the Chinese get it, right BRIGGS?) maybe that would be a nice change of pace. Maybe try seeing if you can put yourself in a different perspective. I "get" to a certain point why people would favor Trump. Again, 10 years ago hating Trump would be like hating Mr. Wonderful on Shark Tank: he was a low-stakes reality TV character I had no ill will towards. You can use database Google Fu to see the various things I've said about his candidacy in this thread and another thread BRIGGS had about Trump being No. 2 in the GOP polls a year ago when BRIGGS said he didn't trust DT with nukes. If any of those points make an impression, would be cool to hear an acknowledgement of some common ground.

That's about all I got. Honestly don't have the energy to try to make adults do anything they don't want to do. If this thread represents our new reality of ideological hashtag blinders, I guess this thread has been good practice for a grim future.

Page 188 of 279
Back to Knicks Forum
2026 © UltimateKnicks.com