This doesn't read like a failure to replicate to me. It seems more like they did replicate the effect, but don't think it's caused by the experimental inputs, and propose an alternative hypothesis. Previous experiments reported the odd behavior with power levels and direction. The only thing new about this experiment (aside from yet another location replicating the basic results) is that they have a new possible explanation for why it does what it does.
Fair enough. If they are right, we understand it a bit more, and it won't work in space. But I'd like to see more experiments conducted to verify their explanation. Because, to borrow a phrase, it still moves.
Supporting my conclusion that Page is the informaant
Remember, the FBI doesn't need to actually prosecute the person they put surveillance on. All they need to do is convince a court he might be a Russian agent, and then tell him to get in contact with the people (or someone close to the people) they want to listen to. And the FBI has used Page as an informant before. If they don't mention that to the court, they can use his associations with Russians to suggest he should be spied on. And he then becomes a walking wiretap without even the need to wear a physical wire. If you want to listen to someone's phone calls, just have your patsy Page give their secretary a call. The two-hop rule means you can then evesdrop on the principal.
That adds the DNI to the list of confirmed agencies involved. And it means that there is going to be a paper trail at the other agencies. How did they justify paying him? What was the work product? Was it accurate, or fraudulent? Who at the CIA (besides, obviously, the person at the top) was involved? Who at the State Department authorized this?
The list of people to question about this just got a lot longer.
"Not so long ago, and not so far away, the Democrats -- some of whom are still alive in prison to this day! -- used the intelligence agencies of the United States in a coup attempt against the legitimately elected President Trump. The agencies involved were the FBI, CIA, NSA, DOJ, and many others. I can see you are puzzled, you don't recognize those names from your civics class? Those agencies are no longer around today; they were disbanded, their buildings demolished, and the earth upon which they had stood was salted, so that nothing would ever grow from their poisoned trees again..."
We already know British intelligence was involved to some degree, without having any details. We know the head of one of their intelligence agencies resigned shortly after Trump's election, after only a few months on the job. It would be too much of a coincidence for that to not be related.
The House Intel committee is now investigating former SecState Kerry's role in the dossier. Were any of Obama's cabinet officials not involved?
This is the problem with having massive government agencies that collect everything. Once they've got it, they can't keep it safe, and privacy is inevitably violated.
This is why the 4th Amendment should be read to mandate that they do not get access to it, at all, until they specifically go to a court and get specific permission for a specific person based on specific probable cause of a crime.
If he's right, it's not the first time Halper engaged in a little election meddling on both sides. And there are some very large payments from government accounts to him. It looks very much like the intelligence community is for hire and willingly takes money to help decide elections. That's a bigger scandal than even I expected.
Yes, elections. He apparently has close ties to the Bush family, which has surprisingly amiable relations with the Clintons. There are indications he meddled in the Reagan-Carter race, in the other direction, perhaps explained by his connection to the Bushes (George Bush Sr was Reagan's VP candidate). And if he'll do it twice, why wouldn't he or others do it much more often than that?
The claims from the intelligence community that revealing his name would jeopardize his life seems absurd and self-serving. Unless, you know, they think someone would object to him fixing elections for the intelligence community rather violently.
They ruled out terrorism as a motive already? Smells like bullshit to me. Not to mention media censorship; have there been any reports in major US media about this attack? No?
Oh, and remind me again how this doesn't happen in the Europe?
And note how these are "automatic" rifles, not semiautomatic. That's the full military scary version that the gun control crowd likes to imply are heavily used in the United States. They aren't, but terrorists can get them even in gun control friendly Europe.
Twitter shadowbans author of article criticizing Twitter for shadowbans
None of these companies can be trusted to remain neutral arbiters of speech. The early success of the Internet was based on the use of open protocols that allowed many sites and systems to communicate via the agreed-upon standards like HTML and HTTP. What we have now are huge walled islands controlled by large companies with distinct political biases.
There are millions of peaceful, law-abiding gun owners in America.
How many of us are you willing to kill to get our guns?
Will you stop at murdering ten times the number of people who die in school shootings?
Will you stop at one hundred times that number? One thousand times?
If you kill one million gun owners for every student who died in a school shooting this year, you'll still have millions of formerly peaceful, law-abiding gun owners left over who will not be very happy with you. And the blood of their friends, their family, their children, their parents... all of it will be on your hands, Dave, because you said you were going to come and take our guns, right now. You're not going to wait to change the law or allow for due process, so when we respond, it will be self-defense against felony home invasion and theft.
At least, I assume you meant you, personally, right? You'll be on the front lines going door to door, right? Taking the risk yourself?
Oh, and while you're on the front lines to confiscate guns from peaceful, law-abiding Americans, will you be threatening them with a gun?
Oh, you say you won't be doing it personally? You'll send the police? Well, Dave, fuck you anyway.
UPDATE: He added a followup article, in which he claims his original article was "moderate" and that he just wants to "compromise". Sorry, no. We've compromised how many times over the past few decades? And every time you want something more as soon as the next inevitable tragedy rolls around. So, no. No more one-sided compromise. If you want something, at least consider giving us something we want in return. Because taking half of what we have left isn't compromise just because you left of half of what we started with.
It sounds like there are reporters out there who know the identity of the source who leaked those records. Find them and prosecute them. This bullshit has to stop.
IG report on Clinton email investigation will contain criminal referrals?
If it's just one, we're probably looking at McCabe, for interfering and delaying before finally recusing himself after taking a huge payoff in campaign cash for his wife.
Another report says no criminal referrals. Not sure who I believe there. I would hope it's as simple as the decision hasn't been made yet. The final version is still outstanding.
Trump is also demanding the FBI and DOJ release the documents requested by Congress.
And it looks like there will be an order to DOJ/FBI to release the documents to Congressional oversight, too. Personally, at this point, I'm curious who was making the decision to try to keep those documents held back, because it seems likely they have a vastly personal stake in hiding what those documents contain.
I'm not sure if I want to go that far. Any serious attempt at regulating the media would invite regulatory capture immediately, and backfire upon the small, indepedent bloggers and commentators. But to be honest... yes, I do think the media attention given to mass murders that happen at school contributes to them happening again and again and again.
