President Trump rolls back Huawei ban, kind of

[cliffordcooley]

They over-reached on that front, even though I do support countries banning them from building critical communication infrastructure.

Oh the irony, when one can't see how phones are a terminal for communication infrastructure.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

They over-reached on that front, even though I do support countries banning them from building critical communication infrastructure.

Oh the irony, when one can't see how phones are a terminal for communication infrastructure.

The point is there has never been an accusation of backdoors in their phones. which even their was would be stealking personal data, as opposed to being rooted in the national network on which government, business, defense, research would be affected by. Oh the irony indeed oh not seeing the difference.

 

[Capaill]

What got me was:
“We have a lot of great companies in Silicon Valley and based in different parts of the country, that make extremely complex equipment – we’re letting them sell to Huawei.”
Ok, so Trump is now ok with allowing the Chinese to get their hands on extremely complex equipment (currently) made by the US. Well done Trump! No harm can come from that.

Many people have claimed that Trump is a genius. In my opinion, Trump makes a decision based on the last person who talked to him.
Random person 1: Mr Trump. The Chinese are threatening our future. Do something!
Trump: Trade War. Block Huawei. Protect America.
Random person 2: Mr Trump. Blocking Huawei is threatening our future. Do something!
Trump: Huawei are our buddies! The department of commerce know nothing. Let's sell everything to the Chinese. But don't buy anything from them.
Random person 3: Mr Trump. Huawei are the only providers of 5G, we need them. Do something!
Trump: Democrats are *****s! Buy everything from Huawei. Heil America!

 

[IAMTHESTIG]

Trump may be a jackarse, and certainly making some poor decisions here and there - but at least he isn't a proxy-terrorist like Obama is. Notice there haven't been as many Islamic related terror attacks in the US since Trump was brought in. Coincidence?

 

[wiyosaya]

(Not to mention the comma was in the wrong place, behind "buffoonish", (the adjective), instead of "stuff", (the noun). (I wish I had the strength of character to just let that go. Sadly, I simply don't). (Although I removed the conditional conjunction, "if", from the statement, which did impact the syntax and comma placement a bit). So maybe, "my bad"?

Yup. Unnecessary clause. But then again, using buffoonish to describe him seems necessary!

EDIT: And the latest on the DC July 4th celebration - TANKS! https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-wants-tanks-on-national-mall-for-july-fourth-blowout-2019-7

 

[wiyosaya]

Trump may be a jackarse, and certainly making some poor decisions here and there - but at least he isn't a proxy-terrorist like Obama is. Notice there haven't been as many Islamic related terror attacks in the US since Trump was brought in. Coincidence?

IMO, probably not. Homeland Security, and all the agencies contained therein, is probably the more likely explanation.

As I understand it, there has been an increase in hate crimes in the US since 45 took office.

 

[psycros]

Trump may be a jackarse, and certainly making some poor decisions here and there - but at least he isn't a proxy-terrorist like Obama is. Notice there haven't been as many Islamic related terror attacks in the US since Trump was brought in. Coincidence?

IMO, probably not. Homeland Security, and all the agencies contained therein, is probably the more likely explanation.

As I understand it, there has been an increase in hate crimes in the US since 45 took office.

According to every public record I can find there has been no appreciable increase in such crimes - the media simply wants to make it seem that way so their reporting anything that remotely resembles a hate crime as long as its not against white people. That happens to be the most common kind in the US, incidentally - its about two to one vs the next most common type, anti-Semitic attacks (and yes, there is some crossover but I think the DOJ tries to make a distinction). Anti-black hate crimes happen less than half as often as anti-white, anti-Asian or anything else but most such incidents are racist gang-vs-gang activity which, amazingly, is usually not counted. I suspect that the Jews get it the worst and everyone else suffers about equally (although hate against Native Americans seems to have dropped almost to nothing in the last decade). Also, last I checked using a racial slur against someone is not a hate crime except in California and only under certain circumstances which I'm not clear on. I think it might be if you print and distribute it but I know there was a court case where racist speech was still ruled as being protected. If it wasn't then all the "kill all white people" entertainers and politicians would be locked up.

 

[wiyosaya]

According to every public record I can find there has been no appreciable increase in such crimes - the media simply wants to make it seem that way so their reporting anything that remotely resembles a hate crime as long as its not against white people. That happens to be the most common kind in the US, incidentally - its about two to one vs the next most common type, anti-Semitic attacks (and yes, there is some crossover but I think the DOJ tries to make a distinction). Anti-black hate crimes happen less than half as often as anti-white, anti-Asian or anything else but most such incidents are racist gang-vs-gang activity which, amazingly, is usually not counted. I suspect that the Jews get it the worst and everyone else suffers about equally (although hate against Native Americans seems to have dropped almost to nothing in the last decade). Also, last I checked using a racial slur against someone is not a hate crime except in California and only under certain circumstances which I'm not clear on. I think it might be if you print and distribute it but I know there was a court case where racist speech was still ruled as being protected. If it wasn't then all the "kill all white people" entertainers and politicians would be locked up.

You may not like the source of the reference, however, there is a link to statistics that the FBI publishes. https://slate.com/technology/2018/11/hate-crimes-fbi-data-insufficient.html
And to save you time, here is that link - https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2017-hate-crime-statistics-released-111318
But, even this source says that we don't know - only that the FBI statistics tell a story that hate crimes are on the rise, and in 2017 were the highest since 2008.

I think it interesting that 2008 just happens to the year before Obama entered office.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

If you want "real news", you should be commenting over at CBS or FOX. But, do you see the paradox involved? FOX normally agrees with Trump, so its reporting is "legitimate". Whereas other outlets may fare much worse in the eyes of "our supreme leader". In other words, if Dictator Trump doesn't like the slant of a story, it's, "fake news".

We're not at the CBS, NBC, or ABC, or Fox websites. So, whether it suits your agenda or not, you may have to abide a bit of bias or editorializing in any piece you see in the Techspot "news".

Wow! I point out the bias in the story and all of a sudden I'm a FOX new supporter of 'Dictator Trump'??!! And I have an agenda I'm trying to support?

You just made a ton of assumptions, used your imagination a bit and went off about it.

I know TS is biased... I know the cable news stations are too (did I call their reporting 'real news anywhere?)

My agenda is knowing both sides of the story - and when I find a news source who believes in that, I'll let you know. In this case - the roll back of these restrictions was something China asked for as part of the trade negotiations. The assumption that Trump is going against his advisers (as made by the author) is a bias. Which is fine! There's nothing wrong with bias, but an author's opinion isn't news.

 

[captaincranky]

Wow! I point out the bias in the story and all of a sudden I'm a FOX new supporter of 'Dictator Trump'??!! And I have an agenda I'm trying to support?

I'm not sure that's precisely what I said or meant, but I will check. Perhsaps I was in one of my "cranky" moods.

The fact remains is I'm pretty fed up with a bunch of mouthy noobs who, (IM (biased)HO), who join, make a half dozen posts, and start telling our staff what they should be writing, and how they "expected more of Techspot". My feelings are they should go f**k themselves, on their way to Tom's Hardware. But since it would be inappropriate to express those sentiments to them directly, I guess you might have to grin and bear a bit of the crossfire.

You just made a ton of assumptions, used your imagination a bit and went off about it.

I know TS is biased... I know the cable news stations are too (did I call their reporting 'real news anywhere?)

It depends you know, if you're going to "call bias", and assess a penalty, or are just pointing it out.

Techspot doesn't field a team of on location reporters, so everything is basically "found news",and bias abounds.

When I was a boy, my father always had a copy of "Time" magazine in the bathroom. If you read that alone, it would seem like direct, accurate reporting on events. But if you read the same topics in "Newsweek", the takeaway was polar opposite. Time was republican, and Newsweek democratically skewed, the reporters were simply more skilled at hiding the bias.

My agenda is knowing both sides of the story - and when I find a news source who believes in that, I'll let you know. In this case - the roll back of these restrictions was something China asked for as part of the trade negotiations. The assumption that Trump is going against his advisers (as made by the author) is a bias. Which is fine! There's nothing wrong with bias, but an author's opinion isn't news.

No it's a misstatement of fact, not bias. Trump simply fires advisors who don't agree with him. He fires FBI directors, and he puts turds and flunkies like Ajit Pai in charge of the FCC. Couple that with that fact I"m sure a psychiatrist would come up with the same diagnoses that I as a layman do, that he's a pathological liar. (Not to mention how bad he is at covering it up).

So the moral of the story is, each week, read Time and Newsweek all the way through, article for article. Just be sure to put a belt around you head so it can't explode from the confusion.

I like the political articles here more than the AMD vs Intel sh!t. Now there's bias from all parties at a virtually intolerable level.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

The fact remains is I'm pretty fed up with a bunch of mouthy noobs who, (IM (biased)HO), who join, make a half dozen posts, and start telling our staff what they should be writing, and how they "expected more of Techspot". My feelings are they should go f**k themselves, on their way to Tom's Hardware.

Lol!

When I was a boy, my father always had a copy of "Time" magazine in the bathroom. If you read that alone, it would seem like direct, accurate reporting on events. But if you read the same topics in "Newsweek", the takeaway was polar opposite. Time was republican, and Newsweek democratically skewed, the reporters were simply more skilled at hiding the bias.

You can feel better at least that TIME isn't republican anymore - now they're just left-leaning sensational. Although in complete fairness I totally stopped reading them back when Bush was in office. They blamed him for everything, and the final straw was hurricane Katrina. They pinned the storm on him...Not the cleanup, or the response, the actual storm.

No it's a misstatement of fact, not bias. Trump simply fires advisors who don't agree with him. He fires FBI directors, and he puts turds and flunkies like Ajit Pai in charge of the FCC. Couple that with that fact I"m sure a psychiatrist would come up with the same diagnoses that I as a layman do, that he's a pathological liar. (Not to mention how bad he is at covering it up).

See... I would have said this what I'd expect from a pathological liar . (funny as that is though, I think Hillary was far worse, Benghazi, vanishing emails, her foundation... it was endless) I can't disagree with the other stuff he's done. Comey should never have passed judgement on Clinton's email crimes (a complete over-reach) - and he probably cost her the election. I still think Pai is right, and Net Neutrality being gone is now a year old and not a single bad thing has happened or we'd all be protesting about it. Trump is probably a narcissist and likely has delusions of grandeur, but maybe we need a little more crAzY when dealing with North Korea and Iran. Obama's plan of been paying hundreds of millions to have Iran and NK empty promises does nothing. (Except make Obama look good, which was probably was the point.)

You want to rip on Trump, pick the real stuff... like separating families at the border. The more everyone tries to invent a scandal to pin on him, the more he looks like a winner when the truth comes out in the end. People see through the BS far better than the media thinks.

 

[captaincranky]

I still think Pai is right, and Net Neutrality being gone is now a year old and not a single bad thing has happened or we'd all be protesting about it. Trump is probably a narcissist and likely has delusions of grandeur, but maybe we need a little more crAzY when dealing with North Korea and Iran.

We don't seem to be getting that from "The Donald",. All he's managed to accomplish with North Korea, is blow a lot of sunshine up a petty tyrant's a**, to no avail, or gain, or concession, or compromise..and so forth.

Obama's plan of been paying hundreds of millions to have Iran and NK empty promises does nothing. (Except make Obama look good, which was probably was the point.)

Actually my impression of the Obama administration was that it was heavily Negro centric, and that his self image was, "hey. look at me I'm the first black president of the US". Which is a show he took on the road, along with a vestigial slave's demeanor, whereas he tried to please everybody he came into contact with, giving away the ranch and the farm in the process.

You want to rip on Trump, pick the real stuff... like separating families at the border. The more everyone tries to invent a scandal to pin on him, the more he looks like a winner when the truth comes out in the end. People see through the BS far better than the media thinks.

The Democrats are allowing traitors like Julian Castro to run for president. Mr Castro would like to do away with illegal immigration on a statutory basis, and throw the southern border wide open.

Well, you can't convince m that Mr Castro doesn't have a strong racial bias. and it's been my contention for years that the Mexicans are trying to take back the territory they lost in the war, one overcrowded trailor park at a time. As a "presidential candidate" Castro gets my vote as a racist ansd a traitor, and I would rather vote for Trump again than him..

However, it seems all the little game-boys here often miss the most important line in a story. A few weeks ago, one paragraph stated that "Russia and China were forming some sort of coalition". Now if Russia and China align on anything, you can bet they'll gladly include North Korea, (and Iran). If that ever happens, you'll have the possibility of a war machine which would make "the Axis Powers" of WWII, look like an old Jewish ladies Mahjong club.

None of these paranoid ramblings are really beyond to goals of Vladimir Putin. Remember, the Ukraine was, "just a test, no reason to adjust your news channel".

.

 

[wiyosaya]

I think Hillary was far worse, Benghazi, vanishing emails, her foundation... it was endless) I can't disagree with the other stuff he's done.

Perhaps you should take a look at this - https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2017/08/mediacloud

 

[wiyosaya]

However, it seems all the little game-boys here often miss the most important line in a story. A few weeks ago, one paragraph stated that "Russia and China were forming some sort of coalition". Now if Russia and China align on anything, you can bet they'll gladly include North Korea, (and Iran). If that ever happens, you'll have the possibility of a war machine which would make "the Axis Powers" of WWII, look like an old Jewish ladies Mahjong club.

None of these paranoid ramblings are really beyond to goals of Vladimir Putin. Remember, the Ukraine was, "just a test, no reason to adjust your news channel".
.

Honestly, I think this is the biggest threat with 45. If it goes down this path, there may be no return. I would not be surprised if there are just enough sharks, er, um, hawks out there who actually think that any form of nuclear war is survivable.

I expect that you will all over me for this one, but with Iran in the mix and 45's general demeanor, it's beginning to look a lot like we may be facing what is written in Revelations, IMO.

I've already made up my mind. Though I may not like the candidate the competition runs, I will definitely be voting against 45.

 

[captaincranky]

....[ ]....I've already made up my mind. Though I may not like the candidate the competition runs, I will definitely be voting against 45.

In all sincerity, IMO, it's more necessary to change the makeup of the senate. If you could swing 10+ seats in the senate, you could then impeach the smuck, whether he gets reelected or not. I think you need 60 votes to override a veto, but 2/3rds to impeach. (Not sure, that's from memory, or possibly 2/3rds in either case). You really only need a simple majority to thwart most of his draconian plans.

And again, I feel that should be the focus of the election, have both houses of congress firmly in the democratic column.

Other than Biden, the field of Democrats running is too inexperienced, and far too liberal to rely on getting rid of Trump, with any single candidate...

The largest percentage are running on pure ego, while imagining they smell "blood in the water.". The rest are niche, single issue, extremists.

"Vote for me, I won't let your a** get grabbed at work ever again".. That's your entire platform? Good, luck with that,.

Trump is stacking the Supreme Court, and he's even become emboldened enough to insult and undermine their decisions. He's going to take another run at putting the citizenship question on the census questionnaire. And tomorrow well, this military themed parade / celebration is something you might expect from Kim Jong Un.or Vladimir Putin.

In my lifetime I've never seen anything like the hubris and egomania of Trump. He's never been president, he's merely campaigned to be "the next president", since January 22, 2017

Nobody does "anthems for the apocalypse" better than Dragonforce:

I have to say, there's only 5 of these guys and they make a 100 piece military band playing Sousa sound like Alvin and the Chipmunks

 

[Capaill]

And tomorrow well, this military themed parade / celebration is something you might expect from Kim Jong Un.or Vladimir Putin.

Didn't Trump's tweet say something about "our great Military Leaders"? That instantly struck me as such a North Korean thing to say.