Slashdot Mirror

Even the KKK deserves their freedom of speech.

nobody has been jailed, which is the only thing the first amendment guarantees. what the first amendment does not guarantee is your ability to spread your message regardless of its value.

I think everyone is already aware that the KKK exists.

*gasp!* are you calling Donald Trump a liar?! ;)

Their algorithms are ... worrisome.

http://www.npr.org/2014/07/04/...

They can, and HAVE, manipulated their algorithms to affect 100M+ americans mood.

They can, and HAVE, manipulated their algorithms in political events. In 2012, it was just TO vote. In 2016, it very easily could be HOW to vote.

http://fowler.ucsd.edu/massive...

Now imagine if those in control of the algorithms want to lean a race one way or another. A few less articles about Hillary, a few more good articles about Trump. Say -1/+1 every week, until the election. Subtle, but a clear influence pushing neutral folks to FBs leaning.

I'm a Republican and a Trump supporter. I post updates linked to political articles I like and unfollow people who hold radical far-left beliefs. Even still, my facebook is inundated with updates on the right side-bar about "NAZI REPUBLICANS" and "EVIL TRUMP". Whatever Facebook is talking about publicly to influence the elections and politics of its users, is a moot point. They already are.

Their algorithms are ... worrisome.

http://www.npr.org/2014/07/04/...

They can, and HAVE, manipulated their algorithms to affect 100M+ americans mood.

They can, and HAVE, manipulated their algorithms in political events. In 2012, it was just TO vote. In 2016, it very easily could be HOW to vote.

http://fowler.ucsd.edu/massive...

Now imagine if those in control of the algorithms want to lean a race one way or another. A few less articles about Hillary, a few more good articles about Trump. Say -1/+1 every week, until the election. Subtle, but a clear influence pushing neutral folks to FBs leaning.

An article I found on Digg today talks about how Greenland has the world's highest suicide rate and why they think that is, and what's being done about it.
Part of it is cultural disruption. Sounds similar to what the Canadian Native people are going through, also with high suicide rate.
I personally think a major cause is a lack of hope. When you have hope, you can struggle on. When you don't, the tasks you face seem impossible. Everyone needs hope. Some people buy a lottery ticket just for that little bit of hope, even though they know they probably won't win.
This is where people need to be there for each other. I'm glad this topic was raised today and has given a lot of people a chance to get something off their chest and discuss it openly.
In case someone is reading this thinking of suicide, please don't. Sleep on it. Go for a walk. Start a conversation with someone.

Just to play Devil's advocate a bit here, but isn't this exactly the way the system is supposed to work?

Having information on someone is what puts them in the "no security interest" category, rather than the "unknown" category. In reviewing that information, crimes like copyright infringement may be discovered, and that puts the person in a different category entirely.

Now, if understand the typical Slashdotter's perspective, the government shouldn't be allowed to gather information on people of "no security interest", but they can't know who that is without gathering information. Naturally, then, we will lobby to prohibit all gathering of information, and when successful, we will mock the government's eventual failure to find people who are of "security interest" with their then-nonexistent capabilities.

The problem is that "security interest" changes over time.

Once upon a time, in the Weimar Republic, there was no security interest in people with a certain sexual orientation, political party membership, or ethnic heritage. It's just census data tabulated by IBM: Until it became a matter of security interest

Once upon a time, in Canada and the United States, thousands of American and Canadian citizens - and their children - were doing just fine until they, too, became a matter of security interest

Once upon a time, in a country called Cambodia, it was safe to be a doctor, or a teacher, or a banker. Or a Buddhist, Muslim, or Christian. Democratic Kampuchea regarded all non-agrarian workers as matter of security interests, and liquidated two million people -- about 20% of the country's population.

If you're a Republican who feels that "religious liberty" is important - imagine Hillary or Sanders as President. Still wanna preach fire and brimstone against the godless heathens?

If you're a Democrat who feels that the separation of church and state is important - imagine Trump's notion of deporting all the Muslims, or Ted Cruz and his advisers who believe that homosexuality is a threat to the nation's moral fiber.

The great lesson of the 20th century is that you are far more likely to be murdered by your own government - whether it be right wing or left wing doesn't matter - than you are by a random person on the street, a terrorist, or even an enemy soldier during a time of warfare. A state that wishes to protect its people must view data as a toxic liability, not as an asset: data collected today, even if such collection is done with the best of intentions and most stringent of safeguards -- can be lethal tomorrow. It has happened before and it will happen again. No society is immune. Not even ours.

Facts: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/05/14/152671813/50-years-of-government-spending-in-1-graph

NPR reporting http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/20/474983292/treasury-decides-to-put-harriet-tubman-on-20-bill that a portrait of Andrew Jackson will still be present on the back of the Tubman twenty.

What. The. Fuck. The US Treasury is offering an olive branch to the fans of a proud slave-holding author of genocide (Trail of Tears)? Jesus wept.

It took God 7 days to create the universe because he was operating on C.P. time.

https://www.google.com/search?... (pick your source)

Apparently, according to information being leaked about this, some of the emails were TOP SECRET//HCS which is a classification used for human gathered intelligence, from spies and the like. These things getting out would lead to serious problems, but Hillary and Obama apparently don't see it is a big deal.

http://www.npr.org/2016/01/08/...

She even had an email that was released where she was suggesting to an underling that they remove the classification headers and send something through unsecured methods. This is scarey stuff, even if it was only the talking points, she is still encouraging the underling to commit a felony offence to make things more convenient for her.

True, the South killed Detroit with it's institutional racism that was incorporated into the Federal government in the early 20th century.
For those who are interested: http://www.npr.org/2015/05/14/...

You sound ridiculous, vacillating from one defense to another.

No, if you could read, it's the same defense. You presented some claims, and have repeatedly failed to back it up with anything substantial.

It's not a problem to do so, but you made it clear from the start that you wanted to dismiss anything that didn't fit your political leanings as "news",

No if you could read, i asked that you give us all something more substantial than "the news". All your references have been "the news", and I rightly dismiss this as "the news" is not a reliable reference.

I would expect somebody commenting on American politics to be familiar with them,

Oh I'm familiar with them, I just wanted to understand which specific detail concerns you. Yet rather than enter into the discussion you continue to argue that "the news" explains your entire policital opinion.

The short version is

Fuck at last! Was that really so hard?

that a black guy got shot by a cop, there was an outcry that it was racist police brutality, and it made national news.

Good so far.

Brown was called "a gentle giant".

By a media organisation which we've already established is unreliable.

Then the police released video footage of Brown robbing a convenience store shortly before the incident, physically shoving the clerk when he confronted him.

By the police which are an interested party in the case.

Idiots like John Oliver then say this video is "irrelevant", like it wouldn't pertain at all to his character or state of mind.

Maybe he is right, maybe he is wrong. What is correct is that trial by media is a foolish proposition. This is why we have courts.

The officer was eventually cleared, both by local authorities and a federal investigation, with witness testimony matching forensic evidence that backed up the officer's account.

So the system works. What was your problem again?

And yet this Brown thug is still a poster child for Black Lives Matter.

I'm not across this organisation, but there must be millions of similar activist groups all across America, all with varying degrees of extreme views. Do you let all of them affect your opinion?

Oh, and if you use the word "thug" you're racist.

According to one guy. According to another guy, we are all really being mind controlled by aliens, and according to yet another guy we should be allowed to fuck children.
Do you see how it works yet? Once you boil down your argument, you've gotten all angry based one or two people's opinions. The courts opinion (the one that actually counts) aligns with your own, so why are you angry? Are you really arguing for people not to be allowed their own opinion, regardless of how stupid it is?

I'd really like to see some numbers on how his (Bezos) wealth breaks down, so I'd prefer more than your word on the matter. Beyond that, much of what he owns isn't just land, but is also real estate (homes, apartments, offices, the like) as is shown in the first posted article.

While we're at it, it's interesting to note that much of what has Trump's name on it isn't actually something he owns. He's a big fan of licensing his name and having no other involvement beyond that, which gives the illusion that he owns more than he actually does. This article in particular has some interesting things to note- particularly the latest assessment by Forbes of Trump's net worth. Trump himself states his net worth (depending on the day and his mood) between 8.6 and 10 billion dollars when you include his "brand". The Forbes assessment actually says it should be 3.2 billion, which puts the "brand" component at up to 5.4 or even 6.8 billion dollars- a much larger portion of his wealth than his real estate holdings. Doubly so when in the same article, Trump says his brand is worth 4 billion. So, no, according to Trump himself and the other sources available, most of his wealth does not come from real estate, local businesses or casinos. It comes from his brand and licensing.

I also find the idea of only land and real estate holders having the ability to vote quite disturbing. I'm at a point in my life where I'm able to put time and effort into researching candidates and politics, but I don't have the money necessary to own real estate. I should not be prevented from having a say/having my voice heard just because I lack the funds to own something almost entirely irrelevant to most of the issues I care about. Since people who rent also don't own real estate, we'd lose many votes from the cities which would disenfranchise a great deal of minorities. Such a plan says that anyone poor, young, or not white, doesn't deserve a say in who represents them, even if they vastly outnumber the people who would be left with the vote.

Try to keep up: What did she do, when did she do it, what was the classified information and when, was it marked? Unfortunately, I can't figure out exactly what happened based on all the yelling.

For example, this NPR article says that 84 emails were retroactively classified, some to confidential, some to secret, some to top secret. That's bad. Is that different from someone receiving / sending marked documents? I think so. Do you think it's the same?

Give up. you sound ridiculous now.

You sound ridiculous, vacillating from one defense to another.

Burden, proof, claimant.

It's not a problem to do so, but you made it clear from the start that you wanted to dismiss anything that didn't fit your political leanings as "news", which is quite a hypocritical position to take given that you're commenting on a sensational news story on Slashdot, "How San Francisco Hazed a Tech Bro".

I gave you concrete examples of stories that achieved widespread and prolonged news coverage. I would expect somebody commenting on American politics to be familiar with them, or if not, to do a little fucking research on your own before dismissing it out of hand.

You could start by reading the Wikipedia page, which is backed up by references. The short version is that a black guy got shot by a cop, there was an outcry that it was racist police brutality, and it made national news.

Brown was called "a gentle giant". Then the police released video footage of Brown robbing a convenience store shortly before the incident, physically shoving the clerk when he confronted him. Idiots like John Oliver then say this video is "irrelevant", like it wouldn't pertain at all to his character or state of mind. The officer was eventually cleared, both by local authorities and a federal investigation, with witness testimony matching forensic evidence that backed up the officer's account. And yet this Brown thug is still a poster child for Black Lives Matter. Oh, and if you use the word "thug" you're racist.

I'd rather have a record made from X-ray film.

http://www.npr.org/2016/01/09/...

There is mounting evidence that copyright and patent protections do not serve there original intent:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

In fact, outside of trademarks, we are seeing quite the opposite. Here is a nice primer from the TED Radio Hour

Bravo to any system that seeks to subvert the onerous and unfair patent and copyright laws of the United States.

The CIA isn't "law enforcement". Spy agencies are pretty much the opposite of that.

And they've been doing surreptitious DNA analysis for a while now.

And yet the US has lead the way in shutting down probably the most infamous haven; the Swiss banks.

Yeah, I'm not so sure they are actually trying to fight this stuff. If they were then the three states that allow anonymous shell corporations would not be so popular. The US is rated third in the world for "Offshore" shell games.

The Tax Justice Network ranks the U.S. third in terms of the secrecy and scale of its offshore industry, behind Switzerland and Hong Kong but ahead of the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg.

I won't even consider wind, solar, or geothermal good alternatives since they currently cost more than nuclear power.

Are you sure that nuclear costs less. Just the other day I heard a radio program talking about how there are many nuclear plants in the US shutting down because they can't compete on price with the newer renewable energy plants like solar and wind. http://www.npr.org/2016/04/07/...

OTOH, if you want to find subversive text in all this, I find it a little bit racist to refer to her strictly as a "black" woman, when clearly she's extremely light skinned and only lightly exhibits the typical facial features of african heritage (which is a real thing before the SJ kneejerkers scream racism: http://johnhawks.net/explainer... , as did her parents, which strongly suggests a white lineage as well.
This doesn't matter academically of course, she did what she did because of who she was, not what she was, but why is it if someone has half, or even just 25% african heritage in the US, they're still typically considered simply "black' for all intents and purposes, and it's as if the Caucasian or Sino-Asian heritage is submersed and dismissed? Both Halley Berry and Obama, for example, are equally half white/black but they're flatly considered black by most accounts. Obama was even raised by his US mother and her parents, who were white. Few other than Morgan Freeman seem to comprehendf that Obama is actually 50/50.
This can work either for or against someone actually (as in the case of Obama, supporters and detractors alike), but why don't we just honestly refer to mixed race people as mulatto anymore, or maybe "mixed", when that's the simple truth of the matter?
It seems rather belittling to both races: the white aspect is ignored, and the black aspect is patronized, as the parent post pointed out.

Dunno... let's ask them. 'cause women had little part in producing this cheap-ass, smoke-screen, dog-whistle law (women make up only 22% of the NC legislature, sponsors Dan Bishop and Paul Stam are men, and, of course, the governor is a dick). In fact, this law pre-empts a local Charlotte law that was passed by that city's elected officials... so it looks like all that GOP noise about respectin' the people's will is a load of shite when a state politician sees a tax-free chance to get himself some TV time and name-recognition.

I really don't understand the "gee this is boilerplate" milquetoast shrug-and-bear it response. Boilerplate dogshit is what it arbitration clauses are.

These include details like waiving your right to a juried trial and agreeing to go into arbitration instead

Did you know you can opt-out in many cases?

"All things considered" has more on why these arbitration clauses are evil and you should always say "no".. So does the la times, the nation, lifehacker", and pretty much everywhere.

When you agree to arbitration you're agreeing to wave your right to a try in lieu of a system that is biased for business and rules against consumers 94% of the time

TIL that the Oculus Rift is toxic.

You are right, I think it is an American problem (I'm British, living in the USA).

The British libel laws seem to be a lot farther from common sense and to threaten free expression far more than anything the US courts do.

Less than 13% of US oil comes from the middle east.

Or they can get some J1 Visa workers to take the jobs.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB...

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/18/...

Here is a podcast that is a great example of how to do this and explains how easy it is.

http://www.npr.org/sections/mo...

Pure orange juice has about 8.5% of sugar and about 2% of other carbohydrates. That could be called 'very high'

Orange juice has less than half the calories from sugar as most sodas. 28 gm vs 72 gm per liter.

Also, "fruit drink" and "fruit juice" are totally different things. The former is basically soda without the carbonation. It is amazing how many people don't understand the difference. My wife bought "fruit drink" several times (because it was cheaper), and only stopped when I made her watch me pour it into the toilet.

Because only idiots respond to "Black Lives Matter" with "All Lives Matter". Black Lives Matter is short for 'Black Lives Matter, too", not "Only Black Lives Matter". Only a moron or a Republican apologist would totally ignore context to interpret it that wan.

You mean like or M. O'Malley?

"it will hand yet more power to the financial sector in that banks and related fintech companies will oversee all transactions."

Banks compete with each other and have to please me to keep my business. The real danger is the government. It already forces banks to snitch on customers, will gleefully confiscate "suspiciously large" amounts of cash, and are already talking about eliminating large bills to further discourage you from using cash.

While folks are up in arms about the FBI, the real threat to privacy is the taxman... Can never buy yourself enough civilization, can you?

This entire thread is based on a false idea that if people are thrown out of minimum wage jobs that they'll be unemployed forever.

This has been proven countless times since the 1700's to be absolutely false.

And because Malthus has been wrong a few times, that means that the earth can support an infinite number of people forever.

The problem is that there are already people who will never work again. Laid off from small town mills and manufacturing as their jobs. No where to go to get another job. Packing up and moving? Where? To get what job? These are 50 something year olds, who even if they get some sort of job training, who is going to hire an entry level worker who is near retirement age.

So what do they do? Untill we decide to go Logan's Run on people, or maybe Hunger games or simple target practice, we've allowed them on Social Security Disability. Which by the way, conveniently removes them from the unemployment picture. http://www.thisamericanlife.or... http://www.npr.org/sections/mo...

Once a technological innovation disrupts employment - the loom, the cotton gin, the computer, the combine planter/harvester, the robot - those who were displaced from employment find new jobs in higher paying sectors, at least in the aggregate.

Okay, what are the new jobs going to be. You've set up an inviolable truth, that all innivation will create new work. Elucidate. Teach those who are wrong, wrong because being wrong in the past means (according to you) the premise will always be wrong. You can try to diminish the argument all day long that way, but do what I did, Present some evidence of what ex fast food workers will do when there are no fast food work jobs any more.

Which by the way, sounds an awful lot like saying tht since man wasn't created to fly, he never will fly.

This is going to happen, but there needs to be something for the new leisure class to do. You need to tell us what that is.

Yes, it certainly seems that way. Unlike in some other cases, this time the government is doing everything "by the book" FBI do have a proper warrant and all of the backing of the Judiciary, that the 4th Amendment may require. Apple's continuing resistance can only be explained by either utter legal illiteracy or desire for publicity.

Considering the sheer size of the multi-billion dollar corporation, we can dispense with the former option...

Are you kidding me? You think the DOJ either forcing Apple to write malware to compromise their customers' security, or demanding their security signing keys, is "by the book" and in line with the Constitution?

Yes, it certainly seems that way. Unlike in some other cases, this time the government is doing everything "by the book" FBI do have a proper warrant and all of the backing of the Judiciary, that the 4th Amendment may require. Apple's continuing resistance can only be explained by either utter legal illiteracy or desire for publicity.

Considering the sheer size of the multi-billion dollar corporation, we can dispense with the former option...

Not so good with teh Googles, eh? Here, LMGTFY:

"Most Americans still think Apple should comply with FBI orders, new poll shows "

"Poll: Apple Should Help FBI Unlock Terrorism Suspect's iPhone"

"More Support for Justice Department Than for Apple in Dispute Over Unlocking iPhone"

The most insightful thing Curt Carver says is at the very beginning of his article:

Candidly, the people that have been loyal to the organization, that are active employees, that are eager and hungry to learn – those are the ones that I’m willing to invest in to keep.

What he doesn't get is that Silicon Valley is the antithesis of that. There was a time where Silicon Valley didn't exist, and IBM and Bell Labs were king. According to this PBS Documentary, the culture at that time was that talent was nurtured, not bought. You got your desk, you were a pencil pusher, and if you had ambition, you climbed the ladder, but you remained loyal to the company that provided for you. Then William Shockley broke away from Bell Labs, ventured out to California to make them a reality, and formed Shockley Semiconductor Laboratories. In a twist of irony, the very people he recruited to break ranks from Bell Labs (The "Traitorous Eight" as they came to be called, quit to form their own company, Fairchild Semiconductor. (And exactly 18 months later, interestingly.)

Silicon Valley has always been about venturists who seek opportunity wherever they can find it. If that's Silicon Valley's own undoing, so be it. Let the snake consume its own tail.

Perhaps you'd rather listen to Darrel Issa take NPR's David Green to school on the subject?

You clearly didn't consider the facts entirely - any tiny loss made up of seaweed making inroads in river deltas (which you can still grow around BTW, there are a number of plants with high salt tolerance).

You're missing part of the point - hundreds of square miles of arable land were lost when the Mediterranean sea level rose. More is being lost as the levels rise. This is just one very fertile area, true, but it is a main one for roughly 100M people.

But even if it killed everything in 30 miles of a river, the vast increase in aria be land with a longer northern growing season makes up for it by several orders of magnitude.

This is an excellent example of "Truth by Blatant Assertion" (TBBA). For starters, note that vast areas of highly productive arable land in the US, for instance, will likely become desert or arid resulting in significantly less production. Weather patterns further north are currently not exactly pro-agriculture even if things warmed up. The tundra areas especially are relatively dry. It is only supposition that there will be increases of arable land that will offset the known losses that will occur. Even if there were significant increases in the far northern hemisphere, it doesn't help the hundreds of millions (billions?) that don't live in there and will be unlikely to be able to move there.

It's only common sense that more energy into a system means more life. That's what life does best.

Apparently your common sense is broken. See Venus for starters.

Well, while I agree with you in principle, coffee is an outlier. After decades of trying to find the cloud to go with the silver lining researchers have been unable to find much evidence for serious harm from sustained heavy coffee usage. You won't get high blood pressure or ulcers; and far from causing cancer there is now solid evidence that coffee protects you from liver and pancreatic cancers.

As for the caffeine, the only serious issue still on the table is possibly higher miscarriage rates. Aside from that the negative effects of caffeine are minor: sleeplessness if taken too late, jitteriness if taken in unaccustomed amounts, withdrawal if you decide to go cold turkey. So don't go cold turkey, drink away and enjoy the benefits.

Now I've made lifestyle changes which have for the most part eliminated my craving for caffeine. Since there's diabetes in my family I've lost weight, increased exercise, and improved my diet. Consequently I don't need caffeine to power through my afternoon fog any more; I can take it or leave it. But the evidence for the health benefits of coffee are so overwhelming -- particularly for liver and pancreatic function -- that I've deliberately reintroduced heavy coffee drinking to my daily routine. I brew about 60-90 grams of grounds every day by various methods -- the equivalent of about 4-6 cups of drip coffee. If I have to skip I miss it, but because of the other changes I've made a day without coffee is not the brain-numbing torture it once would have been.

If Dr. Oz claimed that something does all the good things coffee does with so few drawbacks, I'd chalk it up to him being a lying bastard. But coffee's the real deal.

Enforcing such a clause is illegal if your company is subject to the NRLA (hint: most US companies are): http://www.npr.org/2014/04/13/...

but http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2013/12/legal-to-prohibit-employees-from-discussing-salary.html

"For example, employers: Can legally bar employees from talking about their salaries to people outside the company, the website Ask A Manager advises. That's because the NLRA only protects employee discussions within the company."

I think there may be an extra California law about this, though. There often is.

Enforcing such a clause is illegal if your company is subject to the NRLA (hint: most US companies are): http://www.npr.org/2014/04/13/...

Poor, yes. Stupid, no. The got the Olympics. I'd say they outsmarted everyone.

Considering the Olympics long history of causing its host cities to hemorrhage money, I would be to differ.

Being an Olympic (of FIFA championship, for that matter) host city is great if you've got money to burn and just want the prestige. But for poorer countries/cities it's usually a losing proposition. You end up with a huge debt at the end and a bunch of facilities that can't be used for anything else.

I thought a "hacker" built stuff and a "cracker" broke stuff.

There has been an attempt to get that usage adopted, but it's failed.

Basically, the definition of "cracker" as "A poor and usually bigotted white person living in the south" is so well accepted in America that it hasn't been possible to graft a new definition on.

see: ubran dictionary or NPR

...so you dilute the history and knowledge of throwing technology together to make the next generation... ...by bringing "racism" into what should be a purely technological discussion?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Cracker
" Originally the white slave driver because he would "crack" the whip, hence the noun cracker.
Yo homey pick the cotton faster cuz here comes ole Mr.Cracker with his whip! "

The concept behind "hacking" is quite clear: We come up with cool shit using things like the unix command "echo."

The concept behind "cracking" is quite clear: We re-establish our "fair use" of what we bought. It's very quite simple. As they try (and fail) to hack upon us, we hack upon them.

Example: Old CSS is old and busted. How can they stop me legally "time-shifting" and making "archival copies" now?

What does this have to do with busting a weakness in some celeb's cloud?

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

In this AC's humble opinion, the "crack" of Ringo's org is poorly named and poorly represented. This changes nothing in society.

Freaking password reset? Ninja, please.

I thought a "hacker" built stuff and a "cracker" broke stuff.

There has been an attempt to get that usage adopted, but it's failed.

Basically, the definition of "cracker" as "A poor and usually bigotted white person living in the south" is so well accepted in America that it hasn't been possible to graft a new definition on.

see: ubran dictionary or NPR

If you want to say it's shockingly bad, first establish what a proper percentage should be. It is apparently a similar result to other basic science questions in which Americans may out-perform other countries:

To the question "Does the Earth go around the Sun, or does the Sun go around the Earth," 26 percent of those surveyed [Americans] answered incorrectly. . . . Only 66 percent of people in a 2005 European Union poll answered the basic astronomy question correctly. However, both China and the EU fared significantly better (66 percent and 70 percent, respectively) on the question about human evolution.

-- NPR

  What result should we expect when surveying a large population of non-STEM individuals who, received their science education (if any) 40 years ago under different standards and haven't looked back since, may not ever have achieved high school diploma, may not have the reasoning skills to understand abstract scientific theories, or may just be joshing with the pollster? What result are we striving for? And, most importantly, how will achieving that result affect our scientific output?

I am open to the idea that this represents a significant problem, but I have a suspicion that it is really not as big of an issue as people who live-and-breath science like to perceive. Some hard data on the externalities would be nice.

http://www.npr.org/sections/it...

It is illegal to store classified information on an insecure server. The notion that she was unaware spy satellite photos and stuff so sensitive it can never be released to the public was classified because it wasn't marked as such is bullshit especially considering her position and time with the government. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Hillary is trying to pull the "I didn't see any speed limit signs" card when she was caught doing 100+ on the highway. She was doing something illegal, had to have known it was illegal, and has been intentionally obfuscating the investigation at every turn.

On an editorial note, I would not have read the Diary of Anne Frank had I not been forced to in school, and 30 years of alcohol abuse and Prozac has mostly wiped away most of the memories of the books I was forced to read in school. So if any of my past English teachers are reading, yeah, thanks for that. And also, Herman Melville just wrote all that shit about the whale because he liked to hear himself talk. There. I said it. So whatever. Anne Frank can keep her damn copyright for all I care, and for all the good it'll do her.

One particular email drew scrutiny Friday — a June 17, 2011, exchange between Clinton and adviser Jake Sullivan. In that email string, she tells Sullivan she did not receive the evening's talking points — typically specifics used to speak to the press and for briefings.

"They say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it," he writes to Clinton. She responds, "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."

If the lands are public, then trying to maintain them in a way that caters to the religious feelings of any group amounts to an establishment of religion; that's unacceptable as well.

Or to put it another way; If Christians wanted to put up the 10 commandments on public lands, like the state capitol, other religious groups would fight to get their religious symbol put up, like satanists with Baphomet.

The argument was the same in Oklahoma with satanists and the 10 commandments; If the government gives special treatment to a religion, it amounts to establishing or sanctioning that religion.

It's not that simple.

Anyone who asks politely would be given this link to NOAA's 2015 response to all those accusations. As you can see, the data in Karl et al. 2015 are public, and all the AC's accusations were prebunked last year after another conspiracy theorist belched them out. Of course, that didn't matter because conspiracy theorists don't seem interested in facts. All they seem to want to do is baselessly accuse scientists of fraud...

couple things:

-No, it was not illegal to run a private server, and you show a lack of understanding of the laws, particularly of the FOIA.
-and no, none of it was classified at the time it was sent . reclassification up and down the scale can and does happen after the fact, but the key point you just just say it's so doesn't make it so, and thus far no one has stated it was classified when sent, only that maybe something should have been.

( http://www.npr.org/sections/it... )

The Laws

At issue are four sections of the law: the Federal Records Act, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the National Archives and Records Administration's (NARA) regulations and Section 1924 of Title 18 of the U.S. Crimes and Criminal Procedure Code.

In short:
The Federal Records Act requires agencies hold onto official communications, including all work-related emails, and government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records.
FOIA is designed to "improve public access to agency records and information."
The NARA regulations dictate how records should be created and maintained. They stress that materials must be maintained "by the agency," that they should be "readily found" and that the records must "make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress."
Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. "Knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine or a year in prison.

The Federal Records Act

[..]Addressing the Federal Records Act, NPR's Scott Horsley reported last month on the question of whether Clinton's exclusive reliance on a private email account violated it. Here's some of what he reported: "A State Department spokeswoman says Hillary Clinton did not break any rules by relying solely on her personal email account. Federal law allows government officials to use personal email so long as relevant documents are preserved for history."

The law was amended in late 2014 to require that personal emails be transferred to government servers within 20 days. But that was after Clinton left office.

FOIA — You Can't Always Get What You Want

[..]The Justice Department weighed in, calling it "sheer speculation" that "Clinton withheld any work-related emails from those provided to the Department of State." What's more, Justice wrote, "FOIA creates no obligation for an agency to search for and produce records that it does not possess and control."

In fact, the department refers to a past fight over former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's notes, as Josh Gerstein points out. Notes and tapes of Kissinger's conversations were sent to the Library of Congress — rather than leaving them to the State Department — restricting their public access. FOIA requests were denied by the State Department because they were under the aegis of the Library of Congress. Kissinger declined to turn the documents over to archivists' requests.

What's more, the Supreme Court held that the Kissinger documents did not have to be turned over under FOIA — even though they were notes taken while Kissinger was at State — because State did not have possession of them.

Then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, writing for the majority in 1980: "We hold today that, even if a document requested under the FOIA is wrongfully in the possession of a party not an 'agency,' the agency which received the request does not 'improperly withhold' those materials by its refusal to institute a retrieval action. When an agency has demonstrated that it has not 'withheld'requested records in violation of the standards established by Congress, the federal courts have no authority to order the production of such records under the FOIA."

NARA

The National Archives is wher