Slashdot Mirror

Why don't you try education and common sense?

Yes, that should do the trick.

Enraged Killer: I was going to go into that club and kill everyone whose behavior I find distasteful, but thanks be to my teachers who made me realize that violence is the wrong way to solve my problems!

My friends on the left say that the only solution is to ban all guns. My friends on the right say the only solution is to ban all immigrants. They're all looking for a one-size-fits-all easy answer to a complex problem. The thing is, society is messy. Another reply in this thread said that there aren't just good guys and bad guys; people are good sometimes and bad sometimes. That's exactly it. Banning guns won't work because (a) that genie has left the bottle and (2) criminals can always get guns, especially now that they can print them; banning immigrants won't work because (a) doing so would punish the innocent as well as the guilty, thus taking away the freedom that makes this country what it is and (2) criminals can always sneak in no matter how high we build the wall; education and common sense won't work because rage and fanaticism are toxic to common sense (see above hypothetical situation); more guns won't work because then you have a crowd of frightened, angry vigilantes firing into a random mix of killers and innocent bystanders. One of my friends mentioned a statistic today that for every attack thwarted by armed self-defense, 34 additional deaths occur because of armed self-defense.

You can't stop or even measurably reduce terrible things happening, because human beings are chaotic and irrational. The best we can do is find a balance of laws that prevent honest people from doing terrible things while they're thinking rationally, without stifling freedom so much that we are a police state. Too much regulation and even honest people will rebel against authoritarianism; too little regulation and criminals can get away with murder. The hard part is finding that balance between the two extremes.

10 (or 11, I can't remember) Muslim countries kill homosexuals as a criminal punishment

Amazing Islamaphobia fail there. It is true there are 11 countries in the world where you can be executed for being gay (those in the article + Uganda now), and they are all in Africa or countries adjacent to it. However, 2 of those 11 are primarily Christian countries. In at least one of those the law in question was passed at the suggestion and urging of US-based Christian groups. The punishment is cribbed straight out of the Christian holy book: stoning.

It isn't the religion. Its the culture in that part of the world.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

The father of the shooter is a bit curious also. He has a string of YouTube videos mostly discussing politics in Afghanistan, and according to the Washington Post

Seddique Mateen, who has been referred to as Mir Seddique in early news reports, hosted the “Durand Jirga Show” on a channel called Payam-e-Afghan, which broadcasts from California. In it, the elder Mateen speaks in the Dari language on a variety of political subjects. He doesn't always make much sense. Dozens of videos are posted on a channel under Seddique Mateen's name on YouTube. A phone number and post office box that are displayed on the show were traced back to the Mateen home in Florida. Mateen also owns a nonprofit organization under the name Durand Jirga, which is registered in Port St. Lucie, Fla. In one video, Mateen expresses gratitude toward the Afghan Taliban, while denouncing the Pakistani government. “Our brothers in Waziristan, our warrior brothers in [the] Taliban movement and national Afghan Taliban are rising up,” he said. “Inshallah the Durand Line issue will be solved soon.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/12/orlando-shooting-suspects-father-hosted-a-political-tv-show-and-even-tried-to-run-for-the-afghan-presidency

Oh shit, this is getting into the realm of the surreal. WTF is going on with this family? :/

Seddique Mateen, who has been referred to as Mir Seddique in early news reports, hosted the “Durand Jirga Show” on a channel called Payam-e-Afghan, which broadcasts from California. In it, the elder Mateen speaks in the Dari language on a variety of political subjects. He doesn't always make much sense. Dozens of videos are posted on a channel under Seddique Mateen's name on YouTube. A phone number and post office box that are displayed on the show were traced back to the Mateen home in Florida. Mateen also owns a nonprofit organization under the name Durand Jirga, which is registered in Port St. Lucie, Fla.

In one video, Mateen expresses gratitude toward the Afghan Taliban, while denouncing the Pakistani government.

“Our brothers in Waziristan, our warrior brothers in [the] Taliban movement and national Afghan Taliban are rising up,” he said. “Inshallah the Durand Line issue will be solved soon.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/12/orlando-shooting-suspects-father-hosted-a-political-tv-show-and-even-tried-to-run-for-the-afghan-presidency

• We use SSL for video streams. Protecting users is the most important thing we can do at Google, and without SSL, bad actors were able to use unencrypted YouTube streams as a source of invading the privacy of our users ( U.S. firm helped the spyware industry build a potent digital weapon for sale overseas). Obviously this isn't the only reason to go SSL, but non-SSL communications simply aren't an option in the modern internet anymore.
• We use signed URLs with relatively short expiry. This is to largely to protect the CDN from abuse.

Neither of these is *targeted* at cache-busting, but both have that effect; with the GGC program in place, we don't make it a primary goal to make the raw streams cachable, because we simply don't wish to have ISPs do caching that way, and instead prefer GGCs, which give better user performance where we can use them.

In any case, if you are having trouble finding someone to talk to, please feel free to let me know, and I'll see what I can do, if anything.

-- Christopher Schmidt, YouTube Quality of Experience

The two laws you mention ban weapons based largely on APPEARANCE, not functionality, and they don't mention at all the type of guns most often used in murders. You're advocating "scary looking" guns. Exactly what difference do you think a barrel shroud or folding stock would make?

Here's a look at the effectiveness of the "assault weapons" ban from the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Protip: if you want to shed light on unpopular truths, more people will listen and accept these truths if you don't immediately invite their mental defenses through the use of racist terms.

You could have said something like:

This article shows objective statistics that nearly half of all gun deaths in America are blacks. This suggests that the gun-violence problem in America might be due to factors other than the simple prevalence of guns, especially since we don't see similar rates in other gun-owning countries like Switzerland and the Czech Republic. It is clearly worth researching the root causes, rather than jumping to conclusions based on nothing but fear.

White people very rarely kill other white people. The suicide rate for whites is six times higher than the homicide rate. For blacks, the reverse is true. See https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/02/white-men-are-twice-as-likely-to-die-from-a-gun-suicide-than-a-homicide-for-black-men-its-very-different/.

I've never heard, nor can I easily find, reference to "strip mine" with regard to data.

Washington Post had a better title of "Creepy startup will help landlords, employers and online dates strip-mine intimate data from your Facebook page", but also used strip mine data.

Strip mining is a very intrusive process that removes the easily visible stuff right at the surface and digs deep to get to the valuable material underneath after sorting through it, and ultimately leaves a giant ugly hole. Seems like that fits this company's description as it pertains to data very well.

write some nonsense down on an application, take it to a judge who rubber-stamps a warrant, and then grab all of the information they can about you

Actually, no, it is not. You can challenge evidence obtained with such a warrant and avoid conviction.

There has to be checks and balances on the system.

Of course, there should be!

Once you even consider the idea, that having "too much" money is wrong, you've enabled a civil forfeiture somewhere...

It is not all lost — Nebraska, for one, has officially abolished civil forfeiture already. But it is certainly disheartening, that such an obvious injustice sprung up and continues to exist in the US, while people get fired up over complete nonsense and outright lies instead.

True, but those are things that are actually relatively easy to test for.

I'm not sure how true that is; the image recognition problems involved in my red light example are not trivial, after all.

In any case, this still relies on someone thinking to test for all relevant failure cases and writing those tests properly. Unfortunately, almost no-one else in the software industry manages testing so reliably.

With the control software for modern cars being as large and complex as it is, it's hard to imagine that nothing serious will slip through. And with cars, it only takes one sufficiently nasty bug for "fatal error" to become all too literal.

That's a movie plot threat.

Not so much, unfortunately. I picked that specific example precisely because a proof of concept already exists.

It would be nice to think that terrorists are too dumb with IT to actually pull something like that off, but that's like assuming that a 15-year-old script kiddie is too dumb to install ransomware on someone else's system. In reality, the tools to do so are a few clicks away from any number of dubious sites, and they require no great skill or understanding to use.

"Elementy McElementface"

Or, perhaps 'ginsburgium'
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

There are some details that you left out that actually enhance the case you made:

1. As a US Senator at the time, Hillary VOTED for the war in which these vets served and many were wounded. Trump, regardless of what one thinks of his statements about his position on the war, had no actual role in or responsibility for sending the soldiers to war. As a result, SHE is the one who has actual moral culpability.

2. Clinton funnels her charity through the Clinton foundation which has a bad reputation for siphoning-off up to 80% of funds for "overhead". Trump just had his regular people handle the matter. As a result, every dollar Trump reports as donated goes in-full and is likely twice as big when it reached the vet as a dollar Hillary reports as donated.

3. In the 1980s when Nancy Reagan was in the White House as Ron's first lady, Democrats routinely criticized Nancy for her expensive wardrobe. Nancy was a former Hollywood actress of the silver screen era and made a lot of the political women in DC look a bit shabby. There were articles in the New York Times and other lefty outlets that made a big issue out of the costs of her clothes and claimed this was proof she and Ron were elitists who were out of touch with normal people. Then when it was discovered that she had NOT spent enormous sums on the clothes but had borrowed them from the designers, THAT became the new meme about how awful she was. The left-wing press used every detail of the woman's clothes as proof she was evil. With Hillary the ranting is even louder of course....oh, no... wait....{crickets}

People who do not pay attention do not realize just how dishonest, hypocritical, biased and untrustworthy the so-called mainstream press (New York Times, Washington Post, etc) are and therefore why so many Republicans and/or conservatives (NOT the same thing) do not trust them.

Well said, sir. But I respectfully point out that the key to your analysis is "if".
IF all the infrastructure for monitoring, enforcing, and monetizing data caps results in an angered, unsatisfied customer,
and IF that angered consumer has choice to go elsewhere where caps and their operating costs are absent (admittedly, in the U.S., that's a big "if"),
and IF the company finds itself abandoning this cost structure as being too unpopular with its customers,
THEN the marginal profit is never realized - instead you just have sunk costs in equipment and complexity, and billing staff to lay off.
But I suppose, the accountants can spin that into a win as a write-down. Not sure. Not a tax attorney.
Then again, IF the ambitious VP who came up with this scheme in the first place can keep the fiasco going long enough to get himself hired somewhere else at a higher salary before things go south for the company, then, well, mission accomplished.

I really, really, want to see more management and owners considering the points of view of their customers, and seeking first to provide the best product or service as a means to accomplishing the end of greater profit and market-share.
But unfortunately, another model can be successful as well. I call it "Fuck the customer, any which way you can." and it begins with the question, "can we corner the market?"
The local cupcake store probably cannot - they had better make consumer satisfaction their top priority.
But telecommunications, for example, BEGINS with arranging a contract with a local municipality for a de-facto monopoly, because of all that nonsense of telephone poles and rights-of-way and hundreds of miles of wires going through people's neighborhoods.
There's nothing preventing your local cable company from putting customer satisfaction as their top priority, even at the expense of some profit distributions to shareholders, but somewhere in some exclusive, expensive country club where they still permit smoking in the bar, some member of the board asks over his 12-year-old Scotch, "why bother?"
That is, IF the company has achieved the un-holy grail of market capture (kind of like achieving "air superiority" in war),
THEN, the Board has to ask itself a question: re-invest profits into customer satisfaction for customers who don't have any alternative anyway, OR take a bigger cut for themselves and re-invest the rest into protecting their market-lock position, say, with lobbyists, lawsuits, press campaigns, all of which might impress Wall Street to raise the value of the stock because stock analysts love companies who have achieved market capture.
Particularly IF the Board bows down to the Milton Friedman principle, THEN there will simply be no question to which course or action to take, and any dissenters will be politely asked to take their "Blowin' in the Wind" hippie let's-get-along wasteful leave-good-money-on-the-ground goody-goody-two-shoes asses elsewhere. This ain't no charity we're running here. This is Business, only (grizzled, one-track, money-worshipping crush-your-enemies dead-on-the-inside greed-is-good kneel-before-the-glory-of-Ayn-Rand) grown-ups allowed.
Not that I'm getting all long-winded here. And there's absolutely NOTHING wrong with making money, particularly in return for providing excellent goods and services for your customers. A little "marginal profit"? Why not? We all gotta eat, feed the kids, take some time off so we don't go insane.
But there is a mechanism available in our "free market" that permits shit to happen. And it starts where there's an opportunity to either work without competition, or else where the competition can be made to disappear. Then your customers become your captives. And then, you can fuck them. Because they're captives

As opposed to the facists on the left.

Actually, he said the intelligent thing to say when you don't know about something.

Are you shitting me? Are you seriously trying to suggest that there are Americans alive now who were born in the 1940s and who have never heard about the fucking Ku Klux Klan?

It could be that in this instance Trump didn't know who David Duke was

Well, yeah, I guess that could be the case, but Trump did know who David Duke was in 1991, and also in 2000 when Trump specifically cited Duke as the reason why he didn't want to accept the Reform Party nomination. Even called him a "Klansman", now what the hell do you think "Klansman" means?

What do you think is more likely, that Trump does not know what the KKK is or who David Duke is, or that he's a lying sack of shit?

I used to think Scott Adams was an intelligent and insightful man.
Now I'm not so sure.

Yes, Trump has had a tremendously sexist mysoginst past.

Yes, Trump also has a racist past.

His kids have appeared on white nationalist radio.

> My only question is---if Trump is so racist, sexist, and prone to violent reactions--why hasn't that popped up in his past?

Like his first wife saying he raped her? (and his lawyer defended him by saying it is not rape if she's his wife)
Yes she stopped calling it rape, but she has not recanted her description of events which are clearly rape.

Or when the feds sued him for not renting to minorities?

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

The Swiss vote 'No'

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-swiss-vote-idUSKCN0YR0CW/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/referendum-offered-money-for-nothing-and-the-swiss-say-no/2016/06/05/2c09f1d8-2b24-11e6-b9d5-3c3063f8332c_story.html

You mean like Trump has a plan to have Mexico pay for the wall? :)

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Bernie is kidding himself if he thinks that will be easy or simple.

Now I will say, we COULD have free college in this country, if we wanted to, but not using the current system. Too much "for profit" in the system. Same reason Obamacare doesn't work.

Actually, Comcast may have to allow that. But only because the government is considering forcing them to.

Here is a Washington Post article about that: https://www.washingtonpost.com... (It really should have included a disclosure that the owner of the Washington Post also owns Amazon.com, which is likely to produce an open cable box if this proposal passes.) And here is an earlier article on The Verge with more speculations on what it would mean: http://www.theverge.com/2016/1...

voted for Obama and cheered as Harry Reid exercised the "nuclear option" to eliminate Republican filibusters in the Senate in 2013. The specific point of that action was to pack the federal courts of appeals that cover the DC area (and thus are the ones that rule on cases challenging the power of the federal government over individuals) with "progressive" judges. Obama and Reid were absolutely committed to packing the 4th circuit and they did it. The Republicans had been using the filibuster to prevent that court from being packed. There are 19 judges on that court now (thanks in part to Obama adding more seats) and 12 of them were put there by Carter, Clinton, or Obama (the remaining 7 were put there by Republicans).

This is a progressive ruling, completely consistent with "early 20th century progressive" ideology which favors totalitarian governance, and put in place by a court stuffed full of progressive judges. It's absolutely disingenuous for ANY progressive/Hillary/Obama supporter to complain about this ruling; it's EXACTLY what you support when you support those politicians. To complain is on par with jumping off a cliff and then complaining that you are going to hit the ground and it will hurt - in both cases you took the action and it had completely predictable and inevitable consequences. If you hate this ruling and think you are a progressive then you have no understanding of "progressive" political ideology and probably just stupidly fell into it because the word sounded like "progress" and your teachers/professors successfully propagandized you; If you'd ever bothered to turn off the Kardashians and READ A BOOK about 20th century progressivism you'd have known better. Any ACTUAL progressive would be celebrating this ruling.

Too bad whomever took that pic can't, you know, take a better picture. So we could maybe actually read it, instead of just being able to make out a few words. I notice #2 says "Communications", and #4 says "Residential Legal Notices". My assumption is they want everyone to friend them so they can start serving notice via Facebook. This is still not generally accepted; as far as I can tell there is only a single court case in regards to this, and that was for divorce papers, in New York, and under VERY specific circumstances. Circumstances that are outlined in New York's Domestic Relations Law; and even this FB idea is only as a "last resort" if you can't locate them...basically only if you can show the other party is hiding out and avoiding being served.

Part of me wishes that this had actually gone through, and then City Park had tried to evict someone by ONLY notifying them via Facebook. As I doubt this is a recognized avenue of service, the resulting court case could have helped start the case law showing this isn't going to fly.

I think it's sad that you believe the examples you presented don't happen to caucasians too.

Ok, I'll bite. Per capita, do the different ethnic groups in this country experience the same level of racism?

Minorities do no have a monopoly on being treated poorly by others.

We are not talking about merely being treated poorly by others. We are talking about systemic abuse and roadblocks that some groups experience at a much greater frequency than others.

Furthermore, I provided specific examples the nature and frequency of which are backed by history. Unlike you, I did not just talk about people being treated badly. Bad treatment is something that affects all poor people regardless of race. But there is a very specific subset of mistreatment that occurs again and again, with some groups getting the brunt of it, which is part of this country's history.

I refer, again, to last year story about lending discrimination (link here.) A better article about this specific case can be found here .

I will also refer to you to the lawsuit brought against Toyota for discriminating against Blacks and Asians (link here.)

I will also refer to you to the recent case in Denver of six Black employees and one White whistleblower against a warehouse with a habit of calling blacks “lazy, stupid Africans” and punishing those who complained. Link here.)

Again, this is not about, as you put it, believing bad shit doesn't happen to Caucasians. This is beyond what we think of bad shit happening in life. This is methodical, hard-to-eradicate racism whose targets are very specific.

I believe everyone should get treated fair, and about all, equally. Unless you are saying that all groups are systematically getting the same levels bad treatment (and you can prove it), your argument has no leg to stand on.

Trump: “I was not at all critical of him. I was not at all. In fact, frankly, he’s complaining about the fact that we’re losing some of the most talented people. They go to Harvard. They go to Yale. They go to Princeton. They come from another country, and they’re immediately sent out. I am all in favor of keeping these talented people here so they can go to work in Silicon Valley.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/21/donald-trump-flip-flops-then-flips-and-flops-more-on-h-1b-visas/

Trump: “I was not at all critical of him. I was not at all. In fact, frankly, he’s complaining about the fact that we’re losing some of the most talented people. They go to Harvard. They go to Yale. They go to Princeton. They come from another country, and they’re immediately sent out. I am all in favor of keeping these talented people here so they can go to work in Silicon Valley.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/21/donald-trump-flip-flops-then-flips-and-flops-more-on-h-1b-visas/

Trump has also admitted to using the service industry's equivalent to H1Bs at his hotels in Florida. He's possibly the only candidate to actually HIRING temporary foreign workers directly.

consider how much whining we hear on Slashdot about H1B workers. That's the white-collar equivalent

H1B are held down by the threat of immediate deportation if they step out of line as well as loss of green card which they wait at least 7 years for now. I personally want to replace H1B with a fast-track green card. Like 12 months. So they can compete on equal footing with everyone else. I can't speak for any of the reactionaries, but if they made that change to H1B I would support removing all caps on H1B visas.

Trump is the only front-runner clearly and vehemently opposed to the current H1B abuse t

You have a funny definition of "clearly and vehemently."
Like everything except muslims and walls, Trump has flip-flop-flipped on H1B, sometimes on the same day.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Why do we need restrictions on moving physical and digital goods across borders?

Because every country has the right to regulate its economy and society the way it wants, for example by forbidding trashy TV shows and movies, mass immigration - because not every country wants to become a "multicultural" cesspool - GMO food, hormone-powered beef, or spyware like facebook. And obviously every government is supposed to favor local producers over foreign ones, using tariffs and other trade barriers. And if you don't like these rules you either move to another country, or you go to jail, there's no third option.

Plus, given the recent catastrophic track record of you neoliberal jerks (the subprime crisis, the greatest recession in 80 years, and massive wealth inequality), protectionism is getting pretty popular right now, that's probably why all the candidates to the presidency of your country seem to oppose trade treaties, something they would have never said in the '90s.

And even millennials are finally ditching your delirious neoliberal ideas, you would be surprised to see how public opinion is dramatically changing: https://www.washingtonpost.com...

No disagreement here. None of the studies out there are perfect, and I'm not really arguing that music is critical to CS instruction, but rather taking a contrarian position to point out that we can't assume that those other areas aren't important, particularly when there's evidence that they might actually be important.

One thing I would point out, though, is that people who do music tend to have less time for studying. School band usually soaks up two or three hours almost every afternoon in the fall semester, plus usually football games every Friday night, plus band competitions all day on Saturday. I would be surprised if those folks actually put in more time studying, because I'd be surprised if that were even possible. It is more likely that the opposite is true—that they're forced to use their limited studying time more efficiently, and as a result, don't find it as onerous. It is also quite possible that additional socializing in school actually provides a tangible benefit in terms of outcomes, with band being just one way of doing that.

I guess the bottom line is that any changes to our education system need to be tested first, and if the changes seem to help, we should roll them out more broadly. Right now, it seems like education changes get rolled out haphazardly and broadly first, and ten years later, we panic and ask why our kids are falling behind in science.... :-)

... getting poor people to access the Internet is equally important.

"Getting" or "enabling" ? The former sounds like it's for your benefit, the latter for theirs. Which is Jimmy - and Mark (Zuckerberg).

After reading this, I actually went looking to see what he got arrested for...

Daddy Trump got arrested after a 1927 KKK riot in Queens.

On Memorial Day 1927, brawls erupted in New York led by sympathizers of the Italian fascist movement and the Ku Klux Klan. In the fascist brawl, which took place in the Bronx, two Italian men were killed by anti-fascists. In Queens, 1,000 white-robed Klansmen marched through the Jamaica neighborhood, eventually spurring an all-out brawl in which seven men were arrested.

One of those arrested was Fred Trump of 175-24 Devonshire Rd. in Jamaica.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/28/in-1927-donald-trumps-father-was-arrested-after-a-klan-riot-in-queens/

So, 54% do not trust AI? The same way a couple hundred years ago people did no trust the science and medicine..

What the hell are you talking about? Americans still don't trust science.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Sure the article says the shootings may be gang related but I find it may be hard to believe that the gangs are just going out to the highway and taking random pot shots.

No, they're firing at rival gang members. Chicago has the same problem.

The Chicago Police Department said it will dispatch detectives to every expressway shooting scene to assist state troopers in their investigations — an acknowledgment that gangs are taking their violent clashes from the city streets to the expressways.

“A lot of these expressway shootings go from verbal confrontations that happen inside the city and then the folks involved get on the expressways and go after each other,” said Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson.

Welcome back to the pre-antibiotic era where a cut can be deadly and hospitals can kill you.

Hospitals can already kill you: Medical errors now third leading cause of death in United States

66 whole reports?! Why, we need a law immediately! Someone call Congress!

We don't need a law - the FDA has already unilaterally passed a rule that will essentially get rid of the e-cigarette market. Except, of course, for the crappy disposables that Big Tobacco sells at convenience stores.

People who are trying to make it more complicated than that are just looking for ways to get government more involved in what goes on inside the home.

The problem is that by letting the phones, tv's and all of this data collection is just a step or 2 away from the government more involved in what goes on inside of the home. Do you think for a second that these devices won't be compromised once the government sees the need? And while we are at it, is the government really that much worse than google, microsoft, apple or now amazon? the FBI compiles a dossier on their citizens, and conspiracy theorist (/.ers) go crazy with indignation. The private data collection companies however, can tell you how you drive, what you watch, or just about any other aspect of your life and people seem strangely comfortable with it, almost ok. The misconception is that either the corporation is benign or that the government won't access that data.

God I love left wing projection, it must be nice being able to blame all of your problems on the other side without a moment of self reflection or awareness.

The usual right wing lies

A lie requires me to know that what I am saying is false... care to support that claim?

No? You lament a lack of facts from me (despite me highlighting just one law she can be convicted under)... but offer nothing yourself... this is my shocked face: :|

no proof of course

If you bothered to pay attention to the available facts and use your brain (I'm sure you have one, it's just atrophied a bit from lack of use), allow me to educate you:

1) True or false: Hillary is known to have had at least one spy satellite photo on her server which should have been labeled "TOP SECRET//SI//TK//NOFORN", a image which did not originate with the State Department so the original classification would apply.

2) True or false: Hillary's private email server was authorized by the State Department or another federal agency to store classified information.

3) True or false: Hillary is known to have been briefed on her requirements to properly handle classified information and signed a document confirming her acceptance of policies, including criminal penalties for violations.

Answer Key:
1) True: http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...
2) False: https://www.washingtonpost.com...
3) True: http://freebeacon.com/politics...

Given the law I cited above doesn't require 'malice' or 'intent', but simply 'gross negligence', it's not at all a stretch to suggest that Hillary was negligent with the setting up of her server that any reasonable person would expect would see classified information traverse it... and given the fact the server was not a 'proper place of custody'... per instance of classified information on her server, she could be looking at a penalty of "Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

How much does being a Hillary shill pay? I'm looking for a side job, and unlike you morons, I actually have a grasp of facts.

Except of course, there is no history of raising minimum wage resulting in lower employment LONG TERM

Actually, there is.

Modest increases in the minimum wage tend to modestly increase wages (while doing little to reduce poverty). But big jumps tend to price a lot of unskilled and entry level workers out of the labor market.

Most people claiming that minimum wage hikes don't cause job losses point to the Card-Krueger study of fast food workers in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. But there were a lot of issues with that study. The raise was minor, and they only looked at same-site employment. They didn't look at the long term effect of whether higher wages reduced the number of new establishments.

It might not be such a bad thing if Gawker were put out of business. I had never heard of Gawker until I read How Gawker Ripped Off My Newspaper Story seven years ago. Who needs to read the story from its original source when Gawker has published a digest? And this has helped put local newspapers on their back.

Of course, this isn't a lot different from a SLAPP, so it is troubling. The funny thing is that most litigation is supposedly about "being made whole", and our court system evaluates wholeness in dollars and cents, but Thiel seems to want wholeness in destroying the organization that outed him.

It reminds of the time Tom Cruise told Matt Lauer that "There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance in the body.", and "You don't know the history of psychiatry, I do.".

The overpaid and entitled, with a pulpit to stand on and a microphone in front of them, will always feel the need to speak from a position of equal parts confidence and ignorance.

Or maybe "fat acceptance" leads to inaction because, what the heck, it's okay to step on a scale and for it to say "One at a time, please."

That sounds like a testable hypothesis...and science shows the opposite is true.

In the 1970's, the flower child generation spawned flower child researchers who used social "science" to arrive at flower child conclusions that they wanted. We are still feeling the effects of this bad research in many areas. This era was the plague that will not go away. Many of these are often discussed on these forums, I am looking at your gender wage discrepancy. There are many others. If you stop and use the smell test a bit, tie to you own life. Threat of punishment is always in the calculus of a crime. If you steal that post it note, and the worst you get is a cold hard stare from an HR lady, you may do it. If it leads to your immediate termination, you leave that note the hell alone. The death penalty will not deter a crime of passion. That is absolutely true. However, if you are thinking about murder, and you start imagining the needle is waiting for you.... Its a little different. Anyways, people resist these old studies, and they often find different conclusions. Here is one on this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Yeah, I remember when Connecticut did away with the death penalty a few years back. Like everyone, I had been planning to kill a bunch of people but it was such a pain to get them on a bus and take them to Massachusetts or Rhode Island or someplace else without the death penalty; but now I can kill them right here at home, so much more tempting.

As requested: This is the order
And this is an editorial by the Washington Post

>> I do not think it is a good idea to destroy the two stocks since they are contained and should not pose a risk to the general public.

Kinda like the same way nuclear stuff is "secure"?
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

In the 1970's, the flower child generation spawned flower child researchers who used social "science" to arrive at flower child conclusions that they wanted. We are still feeling the effects of this bad research in many areas. This era was the plague that will not go away. Many of these are often discussed on these forums, I am looking at your gender wage discrepancy. There are many others.

If you stop and use the smell test a bit, tie to you own life. Threat of punishment is always in the calculus of a crime. If you steal that post it note, and the worst you get is a cold hard stare from an HR lady, you may do it. If it leads to your immediate termination, you leave that note the hell alone.

The death penalty will not deter a crime of passion. That is absolutely true. However, if you are thinking about murder, and you start imagining the needle is waiting for you.... Its a little different.

Anyways, people resist these old studies, and they often find different conclusions. Here is one on this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

'The FBI and Homeland Security are working with the campaigns to tighten security and prevent cyber intruders from penetrating their defenses'

"The Department of Homeland Security today appointed a senior Microsoft Corp. executive to head a section charged with protecting the federal government's computer networks from cyber attacks." ref

"Overall, we identified 1,085 instances of high-risk vulnerabilities on the MOE [Mission Operating Environment]" ref

Wikipedia is a treasure of useful information, a starting point for unknown topics.

Most of the time, sure. Unfortunately, it's really difficult to tell the difference between a well-researched article that agrees with the scholarly consensus vs. an article based on weird sources (but usually popular, not necessarily scholarly) that are 50 years out of date. Now, it's true that paper encyclopedias could suffer from that problem too. On the other hand, good paper encyclopedias often had information on authors of articles or at least the major subject editors, so you could take a guess about whether it was reliable. You don't have that on Wikipedia, where "anyone can edit."

But there are much worse things -- like how you don't know whether an article has been randomly vandalized, or edited recently by some idiot who just inserted false information. Back when I was actually active editing Wikipedia for a while (before I became aware of how insanely screwed up it was), I remember a number of cases of very subtle vandalism that went unnoticed for weeks.

My favorite was some person -- who was a registered user, rather than just an "anonymous IP address," so it didn't send up as many immediate red flags -- who went through and just changed DIGITS in historical dates. So some random historical person suddenly did X in 1742 instead of 1752 or whatever. They did this on perhaps a dozen articles, and the edits stood for at least a week. The main reason I think he was caught is because -- like most vandals -- eventually he couldn't contain himself and altered some historical article on a woman to say she was "a dirty whore" or something. If he hadn't done that, it might have been months or years before anyone noticed that this one guy had been randomly switching digits across a bunch of Wikipedia articles.

The "vandalism" problem is definitely something that is much WORSE than traditional paper encyclopedias... and if you don't think you've viewed articles that contain various subtle forms of it, you have no idea of how much vandalism is attempted on Wikipedia all the time. (And that doesn't even get into deliberate hoaxes or persistent misinformation that doesn't look like obvious vandalism.)

In such an endeavor striving too much for perfection is the enemy of the good. People always have to understand the perspectives and biases of their sources. That isn't a flaw, that is just reality.

"Perspectives and biases of their sources" is important. But the problem with Wikipedia is that we don't know the perspectives and biases, because it's written mostly by anonymous people and pseudonyms (who have sometimes been known to lie about their identities, even when they claim to provide real-world info about themselves).

And leaving almost all articles open to random editing ensures a continuous war against the kind of vandalism I've already mentioned. That's not a "perspective or bias" -- that IS a serious FLAW. Say what you will about Encyclopedia Britannica, but when I open the paper copy two days later, there won't be random NEW misprints appearing or the word "PENUS!!" suddenly appearing in the middle of an article.

Sure it still sucks, but show me something better and that will suck too.

I have a real problem with this attitude -- "Oh, well it's still better than other stuff!" That's a lame excuse, frankly. We could still improve the concept significantly.

I've been saying this for years, but if Wikipedia really wants to be successful in the long term, it needs major changes. The idea that "anyone can edit!" any article was great in the early days to build a foundation of information -- and it's still good for new articles