O.T.: Interesting article in the New Yorker

Thanks Bill, a most illuminating story!

I'm sure it will be denounced as fake as it alleges corruption on high and we can't have that, can we? I mean who could suspect these people of being dishonorable?

Other than by the courts and their own public admissions that is...

John :-#(#

Interesting indeed.

Tim

-- Seven Transistor Labs, LLC Electrical Engineering Consultation and Contract Design Website:

Honor has nothing to do with anything, it's all about what they can get away with without being fined or imprisoned.

If he kept his phone in a Farady bag, how could it ring?

There is obviously no hard evidence that Trump colluded with Russians. If such existed, it would have been leaked by now.

These left-wing publications are All Trump, All the Time. NY Times, Wash Post, NPR, LA Times, Sf Chron, AP, CNN, all keep whining about losing the election. Whenever I see the word Trump in a NY times article, I skip it. There's very little then left to read. Marketplace used to be business and financial news, now it's Trump bashing.

This morning's Forum program was potentially interesting, but rapidly switched to Trump insults, so I turned it off.

He'd probably take it out when he wanted to use it.

There have been quite a lot of leaks suggesting that Russia colluded with Trump.

Mueller is in the business of tracking down those leaks and turning at least some of them into hard evidence. The fact that he hasn't got much of it sufficiently well documented yet doesn't mean that he won't get around to it.

John Larkin doesn't really seem to understand the distinction between a "leak" and "hard evidence". Hard evidence has a provenance, and leaks - by their nature - don't.

They aren't happy that Russian interventions made a difference to the results. Democracy is supposed to reflect the opinions of the electorate, not the opinions of some foreign power.

Since Trump's recent escapade into protectionism is likely to damage the market, if he carries through, his delusions are relevant.

Well documented reporting of Trump's antics don't make him look good. You may not like listening to reports of what he has done wrong, but you'll have to look a long way for reports of anything he has done right.

So you only read articles that praise Trump?

That puts you in the same fantasyland he is in.

Interesting gafflebab; from the article "..he kept his phones in a Faraday bag?a pouch, of military-tested double-grade fabric, designed to block signal detection.". Such stupidity! Put a cell phone in a container that blocks RF? Doesn't the dimwit know that prevents signal reception AKA incoming calls? Not to mention transmission AKA outgoing calls? Maybe the salesman of that crap was a DumboCrat..

gned to

Of course he does. He is also probably aware that a mobile phone talks to i ts local cell tower every few minutes to make sure that that tower is still local, creating a record of where the phone carrier has been.

The aim is to keep the mobile phones totally inactive when the user wants t hem to be inactive, which can't be guaranteed if they aren't wrapped in a F araday bag - mobile phones are more complicated than land-lines (which have also been known to active when their owners were unaware of the fact).

How would he even make an outgoing call if the phone were still in a bag de signed to block signal detection (and thus transmission).

The dumbness is all Robert Baer's, the Baer of very little brain.

Please try to use a little simple logic; engineers are supposed to do that.

The sources that I named would never praise Trump. But as I said, I'm tired of All Trump All the Time. Don't they have reporters that can gather actual news about something else? There's hardly any science reported any more; the reporters all likely skipped or flunked science courses.

The NY Times, Wash Post, NPR, LA Times, Sf Chron, AP, CNN are trying to tell you something about your president. They often do fact-finding to see how much truth there is in DT. Often very little.

You should listen. You often repeat the crap he spouts.

I don't go to these sites for science articles. The few articles that exist are probably mangled beyond comprehension.

If you want science, try

and other similar sites. These can also end up garbled and illegible, but you can go to the source for more information.

As you have said, much of the science news articles are puff pieces designed to attract investment. There is little chance the technology will ever see daylight.

They are also supposed to be able to do rather more, which is what Steve Wilson was doing.

You can't know that. If Trump ever woke up to the fact that he's totally incapable of delivering the kind of performance that a US president ought to deliver, and resigned, he might earn some favourable comment.

Of course you are. But having a loud-mouthed attention-seeking buffoon in the Oval Office, where he's well-placed to draw a great deal of attention, doesn't leave the reporters with a lot of choice.

English-language science reporting isn't done by people with any training in science - they were taught journalism, and see science reporting as a fairly low rung on the ladder that leads up to foreign correspondent.

Dutch science reporters are much better. I've just read

Govert Schilling is a Dutch science reporter (but the book is in English) and it is a brilliant piece of work. Of course the Ligo results that prompted the book were also brilliant.

The people who write for the New Scientist also do well - but the only one we knew all that well was primarily a scientist, and only moon-lighted as a writer (though she was rather good at it).

That doesn't reflect well on you, I'm afraid. Nor, for that matter, on the validity of your views w.r.t. Trump's behaviour.

It is possible that Trump himself did not collude, though unlikely. It would be more than sufficient for Putin to have in the white house a clueless person with an ego in need of soothing on a 5 minute basis. Given the weak opposition they must have decided it was doable - and they did it.

At the moment the US services are put in an unenviable position - they know they have in charge someone put there by the Russians but they cannot publicly admit this has happened, not as long as they don't have to, this would officially make them the laughing stock of the world.

Nobody who has not lived under the soviet regime can be perceptive enough to grasp how they work (I'd much rather not have had the "privilege" to acquire that perception). These people are liars above all, it is a way of life. They are proud to be good enough liars, they see this as part of a "game". To them success in life does not mean making it by what you do; it only means making it by cheating skillfully enough, they have grown up without ever having been exposed to anything else.

The sad reality is that the evil empire does gather strength and is, well, only biting back - for now.

Dimiter

====================================================== Dimiter Popoff, TGI

No, they generate mostly poorly written snark and insults, and multiply rumors and unattributed leaks. If four people have heard the same unverified rumor, the NYT cites "multiple sources."

DT didn't cause this horrible drop in the quality of journalism, but he gives them lots of stuff to work with. Mostly all they have to work with.

The buisness tax cut is real. We just decided on a lot of raises and giant bonuses for our employees as a consequence, and some really cool equipment purchases. Assad has stopped dropping poison gas on villages. Kim is running sacred. The US is producing lots of oil and NG, and AGW is no longer driving federal policy.

Cite that, just once.

Even Mueller concluded that the russkies did not sucessfully influence the presidential election. Look it up.

So they tried and failed but got what they wanted, I see.

Cool facts: there are people that work in the media that are just as nasty and vindictive as Trump is, except that they're media executives instead of President.

When an abusive person starts shit with other abusive people, a shitstorm is the predictable result. Don Henley wrote a song about it:

This has not been stated by Mueller that I can find, rather it has been claimed by the POTUS and his VP:

If I am mistaken on this please feel free to share the public citation(s).

Even if the Russians did not swing election, hey sure seemed to be trying - and isn't that interesting? Don't your legal people need to get to the bottom of it?

And shouldn't the proper response from the White House be "No Comment" when these matters are still before the courts?

John

Nobody knows what some Russians may have done, or what they wanted. Mueller says that they promoted both Trump and Sanders, and at least once worked against Trump. Their activities started before anyone knew that Trump intended to run for President.

This sounds like a chaotic rumor mill to me. Mueller has indicted Russians who he can't access, for doing things that make no sense. This is nonsense and hysteria.

If you filter noise deliberately enough, you'll find what you want to find. There's a lot of that going around.