"Because of the cheaper hardware much of the extra processing needs have moved to "the cloud"."
That's just wrong. No matter how cheap the H/W is, it's still faster than the bandwidth to the cloud.
The reason to put things in the "cloud", which here is in your microsoft cloud account, is simply to give MS more access and ownership of your files so that they can be mined for advertising purposes. That's why Cortana cannot be disabled, so that all your searches go to MS for mining purposes. That's why there's 100+ telemetry operations going on all the time, to feed MS mining engines--not for product improvement purposes.
Was thinking along the lines of getting the free upgrade.
I am in the process of reverting the two machines I had already upgraded back to Windows 7. Regrets, and hope Windows 10 spys are eliminated. In not, I can always install from media again, as both were clean licenses (not OEM crapware) I bought myself. Not much lost even if I have to format and reinstall, as the primary apps used are Word, Powerpoint, Chrome, and VMWare and I have good backups of all data as standard practice. Will actually probably move the older desktop to Linux, for that matter.
Indeed on the new machine I will probably isolate the Win7 that came with it in a VM.
PARIS, TX - Paris Police have made two more arrests in the case of a man shot and killed just yards from his home last week.
Authorities say 17-year old Treveonta Clark and a 16-year old boy were arrested Tuesday afternoon and charged with capital murder, in the death of 28-year old Roland Williams.
21-year old Adrianandious Blackeyes and 18-year old Tyriekus Edwards were arrested Saturday and have also been charged with capital murder.
What? So stupid that they were overwhelmed by the intelligence people from the administration led by an idiot? That Clinton's (both B & H) statements from way before the war about Saddam where baseless?
And even after? "I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote. I have had many disputes and disagreements with the administration over how that authority has been used, but I stand by the vote to provide the authority because I think it was a necessary step in order to maximize the outcome that did occur in the Security Council with the unanimous vote to send in inspectors." [H Clinton].
P.S. did not vote for Bush, did not support the war. The blame for it all fall squarely on those who did support it.
So, in other words, she did it, we all know she did it--SHE knows she did it--but we're going to turn a blind eye to it. But don't get any ideas anyone, this is a special deal for Hillary!
From the Director's statements:
"Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent."
"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
"For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.
"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
When Snowden and Private Manning were the hot topisc, all the cleared people I work with (myself included) were warned to *not* try to red the leaked documents, even at home or we could face termination from our jobs and loss of clearances.
She shared classified info with people who did not have clearances for the data. People like her lawyers, her email IT guy, and her buddy Sidney Blumenthal.
And further, no intent to distribute is needed. Only gross negligence in the care of classified data.
“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” Mr. Comey said.
Extremely careless == gross negligence.
This is just a case of the elites protecting one of their own. Some animals are more equal than others.
58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. Those voting for the resolution were: Bayh, Evan (D-IN) Baucus, Max (D-MT) Biden, Joseph (D-DE) Breaux, John (D-LA) Cantwell, Maria (D-WA) Carnahan, Jean (D-MO) Carper, Thomas (D-DE) Cleland, Max (D-GA) Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) Daschle, Tom (D-SD) Dodd, Chris (D-CT) Dorgan, Byron (D-ND) Edwards, John (D-NC) Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA) Harkin, Tom (D-IA) Hollings, Ernest (D-SC) Johnson, Tim (D-SD) Kerry, John (D-MA) Kohl, Herb (D-WI) Landrieu, Mary (D-LA) Lieberman, Joseph (D-CT) Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR) Miller, Zell (D-GA) Nelson, Ben (D-NE) Nelson, Bill (D-FL) Reid, Harry (D-NV) Rockefeller, Jay (D-WV) Schumer, Chuck (D-NY) Torricelli, Robert (D-NJ)
"it indicates how easy peasy it would be to amble up to the terminal entrance. The weakness primarily lies in the absence of X-Rays and deterrent technology on approach. You practically can check in and get to immigration before being cleared for hazardous material. "These gunmen just strolled up to an entry point and began firing randomly into the crowd.
No matter where the security scanning checkpoints are, there will always be queues of people waiting to go through them. This will always present a soft target.
The paperwork, etc. required is very onerous and invasive, requiring disclosure of otherwise HIPPA protected medial information.
While I'm complaining, I'd like to say we should drop the invasive notion of drug tests for welfare recipients. Instead, just normalize the requirements with those for concealed carry: show up in person, with multiple forms of approved ID (citizenship and residency), get fingerprinted, fill out forms disclosing previous felonies and mental disorders, affirm that the benefits are for yourself or dependent children, (remember: lying about any answers is a felony!), have a wants&warrants background check run, sit for another ID photo; repeat the process every few years as required. As it's for welfare, we'll waive the non-inconsequential fee normally associated with firearms licenses.
As a benefit(!) each recipient would have an additional ID to use for voting ID requirements.
If the hacker were an Earth Firster defacing the web sites of Exxon and Halliburton, I have to believe the response would not be quite the same, and that many progressives would instead be cheering him on.
Zorg: Look at all these little things! So busy now! Notice how each one is useful. A lovely ballet ensues, so full of form and color. Now, think about all those people that created them. Technicians, engineers, hundreds of people, who will be able to feed their children tonight, so those children can grow up big and strong and have little teeny children of their own, and so on and so forth. Thus, adding to the great chain of life. You see, father, by causing a little destruction, I am in fact encouraging life. In reality, you and I are in the same business.
Economists are virtually unanimous in concluding that rent controls are destructive. In a 1990 poll of 464 economists published in the May 1992 issue of the American Economic Review, 93 percent of U.S. respondents agreed, either completely or with provisos, that “a ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available.”1
Similarly, another study reported that more than 95 percent of the Canadian economists polled agreed with the statement.2 The agreement cuts across the usual political spectrum, ranging all the way from Nobel Prize winners milton friedman and friedrich hayek on the “right” to their fellow Nobel laureate gunnar myrdal, an important architect of the Swedish Labor Party’s welfare state, on the “left.” Myrdal stated, “Rent control has in certain Western countries constituted, maybe, the worst example of poor planning by governments lacking courage and vision.”3 His fellow Swedish economist (and socialist) Assar Lindbeck asserted, “In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing.”4
That cities like New York have clearly not been destroyed by rent control is due to the fact that rent control has been relaxed over the years.5 Rent stabilization, for example, which took the place of rent control for newer buildings, is less restrictive than the old rent control. Also, the decades-long boom in the New York City housing market is not in rent-controlled or rent-stabilized units, but in condominiums and cooperative housing. But these two forms of housing ownership grew important as a way of getting around rent control.
True, the power to negotiate treaties belongs to the Executive and the power to ratify a treaty belongs to the Senate.
Of course, the Senate is free to proclaim its intention to not ratify a treaty based on the information at hand. Plus, there's the whole notion that Obama knew damn well that the Senate would not ratify any such "treaty". So he just proclaimed that he was not negotiating a treaty, but instead working on a "non-binding agreement with some plans for enforcement" in a shallow attempt to bypass the ratification power of the Senate. It would seem to me that if he says he was not negotiating a treaty, then claiming the power to negotiate a treaty is moot.
If it looks like a treaty, walks like a treaty and talks like a treaty, is it a treaty?
According to the White House, only if the President of the United States says it is. That's infuriating Republicans and even some Democrats, who are demanding that the Obama administration submit any final nuclear deal with Iran to Congress for approval.
"This is clearly a treaty," Arizona Sen. John McCain told reporters Tuesday. "They can call it a banana, but it's a treaty."
The GOP position could jeopardize the long-term survival of any Iran deal, and it represents the party's newest clash with President Barack Obama over the limits of executive authority, as Republicans object to a pact they warn could eventually give Tehran a nuclear bomb. It's that skepticism that has largely led the White House to define the deal as a "nonbinding agreement" rather than a "treaty," which the Constitution requires Senate "advice and consent" on.
The distinction -- and whether it can legitimately be used to shut out Congress -- turns on complicated and unresolved questions of constitutional law. While Republicans call foul, the administration defends the differentiation as perfectly sound, and no surprise. Secretary of State John Kerry stressed Wednesday that the administration never intended to negotiate a treaty.
"We've been clear from the beginning. We're not negotiating a 'legally binding plan.' We're negotiating a plan that will have in it a capacity for enforcement," he said at a Senate hearing.
That doesn't sit well with Republicans, many of whom believe the Senate's constitutional role is being bypassed.
Idaho Sen. James Risch dismissed the administration's argument: "Let there be no mistake, this is a treaty that is being negotiated. It's a treaty and should be treated as such."
According to http://data.worldbank.org/indi..., the UK, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Netherlands, Italy, Ireland, France, Genrmany, Denmark, Austria all have about 1 murder per 100,000 people. Australia also has about 1 murder per 100,000 people. The US has about 5, including those gang-related killings. My point was that a small fraction (gangs) of the population here accounts for a huge percentage of the murders, and excluding those murder committed by that small fraction the murder rate in the US is about the same as all the oh-so-enlightened countries in Europe.
According to that same table, the Isle of Man doesn't rate any murders. Must be nice. Maybe we can send you some of our gangs, you know, as refugees?
Pretty much exactly that. "Ban guns." is a common expression in this thread. Am I not to infer that those authors are saying "No one can be trusted with guns, so banning them is the best course of action."
They are not saying "Ban guns except for people who pass background checks." or any other sort of qualifiers. Simply "Ban guns."
Slashdot Mirror
Why would this be a national security issue or even a campaign issue, if the emails in question were just about yoga and Chelsea's wedding?
I mean, Hillary promised us all that there was nothing important in those emails. Right?
So going back in time to hack a server to get emails that are only about yoga classes seems improbable...
"Because of the cheaper hardware much of the extra processing needs have moved to "the cloud"."
That's just wrong. No matter how cheap the H/W is, it's still faster than the bandwidth to the cloud.
The reason to put things in the "cloud", which here is in your microsoft cloud account, is simply to give MS more access and ownership of your files so that they can be mined for advertising purposes. That's why Cortana cannot be disabled, so that all your searches go to MS for mining purposes. That's why there's 100+ telemetry operations going on all the time, to feed MS mining engines--not for product improvement purposes.
Kept windows 10 for more than 30 days so now will have to format and reinstall. Probably better that way anyway.
Was thinking along the lines of getting the free upgrade.
I am in the process of reverting the two machines I had already upgraded back to Windows 7. Regrets, and hope Windows 10 spys are eliminated. In not, I can always install from media again, as both were clean licenses (not OEM crapware) I bought myself. Not much lost even if I have to format and reinstall, as the primary apps used are Word, Powerpoint, Chrome, and VMWare and I have good backups of all data as standard practice. Will actually probably move the older desktop to Linux, for that matter.
Indeed on the new machine I will probably isolate the Win7 that came with it in a VM.
It's so hard to tell sometimes.
E.g. Treveonta, Adrianandious, Tyriekus ...
PARIS, TX - Paris Police have made two more arrests in the case of a man shot and killed just yards from his home last week.
Authorities say 17-year old Treveonta Clark and a 16-year old boy were arrested Tuesday afternoon and charged with capital murder, in the death of 28-year old Roland Williams.
21-year old Adrianandious Blackeyes and 18-year old Tyriekus Edwards were arrested Saturday and have also been charged with capital murder.
http://www.kxii.com/home/headl...
At this point, what difference does it make?
What? So stupid that they were overwhelmed by the intelligence people from the administration led by an idiot? That Clinton's (both B & H) statements from way before the war about Saddam where baseless?
And even after? "I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote. I have had many disputes and disagreements with the administration over how that authority has been used, but I stand by the vote to provide the authority because I think it was a necessary step in order to maximize the outcome that did occur in the Security Council with the unanimous vote to send in inspectors." [H Clinton].
P.S. did not vote for Bush, did not support the war. The blame for it all fall squarely on those who did support it.
And also does not apply. The standard here is gross negligence. Intent is not required.
So, in other words, she did it, we all know she did it--SHE knows she did it--but we're going to turn a blind eye to it. But don't get any ideas anyone, this is a special deal for Hillary!
From the Director's statements:
"Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent."
"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
"For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.
"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
When Snowden and Private Manning were the hot topisc, all the cleared people I work with (myself included) were warned to *not* try to red the leaked documents, even at home or we could face termination from our jobs and loss of clearances.
FBI director said so today.
She shared classified info with people who did not have clearances for the data. People like her lawyers, her email IT guy, and her buddy Sidney Blumenthal.
And further, no intent to distribute is needed. Only gross negligence in the care of classified data.
“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” Mr. Comey said.
Extremely careless == gross negligence.
This is just a case of the elites protecting one of their own. Some animals are more equal than others.
Information coming out of the Secretary's interaction with foreign leaders and staff.
For any of the hundred thousand or so peons with security clearances for their minor unintentional transgressions.
Probably not, as even minor security violations tend to get people fired and prevent them from ever getting another clearance in the future.
58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. Those voting for the resolution were:
Bayh, Evan (D-IN)
Baucus, Max (D-MT)
Biden, Joseph (D-DE)
Breaux, John (D-LA)
Cantwell, Maria (D-WA)
Carnahan, Jean (D-MO)
Carper, Thomas (D-DE)
Cleland, Max (D-GA)
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY)
Daschle, Tom (D-SD)
Dodd, Chris (D-CT)
Dorgan, Byron (D-ND)
Edwards, John (D-NC)
Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA)
Harkin, Tom (D-IA)
Hollings, Ernest (D-SC)
Johnson, Tim (D-SD)
Kerry, John (D-MA)
Kohl, Herb (D-WI)
Landrieu, Mary (D-LA)
Lieberman, Joseph (D-CT)
Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR)
Miller, Zell (D-GA)
Nelson, Ben (D-NE)
Nelson, Bill (D-FL)
Reid, Harry (D-NV)
Rockefeller, Jay (D-WV)
Schumer, Chuck (D-NY)
Torricelli, Robert (D-NJ)
"it indicates how easy peasy it would be to amble up to the terminal entrance. The weakness primarily lies in the absence of X-Rays and deterrent technology on approach. You practically can check in and get to immigration before being cleared for hazardous material.
"These gunmen just strolled up to an entry point and began firing randomly into the crowd.
No matter where the security scanning checkpoints are, there will always be queues of people waiting to go through them. This will always present a soft target.
Try exercising 2nd Amendment rights...
The paperwork, etc. required is very onerous and invasive, requiring disclosure of otherwise HIPPA protected medial information.
While I'm complaining, I'd like to say we should drop the invasive notion of drug tests for welfare recipients. Instead, just normalize the requirements with those for concealed carry: show up in person, with multiple forms of approved ID (citizenship and residency), get fingerprinted, fill out forms disclosing previous felonies and mental disorders, affirm that the benefits are for yourself or dependent children, (remember: lying about any answers is a felony!), have a wants&warrants background check run, sit for another ID photo; repeat the process every few years as required. As it's for welfare, we'll waive the non-inconsequential fee normally associated with firearms licenses.
As a benefit(!) each recipient would have an additional ID to use for voting ID requirements.
About the only redeeming value was looking at Jessica Biel.
If the hacker were an Earth Firster defacing the web sites of Exxon and Halliburton, I have to believe the response would not be quite the same, and that many progressives would instead be cheering him on.
Zorg: Look at all these little things! So busy now! Notice how each one is useful. A lovely ballet ensues, so full of form and color. Now, think about all those people that created them. Technicians, engineers, hundreds of people, who will be able to feed their children tonight, so those children can grow up big and strong and have little teeny children of their own, and so on and so forth. Thus, adding to the great chain of life. You see, father, by causing a little destruction, I am in fact encouraging life. In reality, you and I are in the same business.
http://www.econlib.org/library...
Economists are virtually unanimous in concluding that rent controls are destructive. In a 1990 poll of 464 economists published in the May 1992 issue of the American Economic Review, 93 percent of U.S. respondents agreed, either completely or with provisos, that “a ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available.”1
Similarly, another study reported that more than 95 percent of the Canadian economists polled agreed with the statement.2 The agreement cuts across the usual political spectrum, ranging all the way from Nobel Prize winners milton friedman and friedrich hayek on the “right” to their fellow Nobel laureate gunnar myrdal, an important architect of the Swedish Labor Party’s welfare state, on the “left.” Myrdal stated, “Rent control has in certain Western countries constituted, maybe, the worst example of poor planning by governments lacking courage and vision.”3 His fellow Swedish economist (and socialist) Assar Lindbeck asserted, “In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing.”4
That cities like New York have clearly not been destroyed by rent control is due to the fact that rent control has been relaxed over the years.5 Rent stabilization, for example, which took the place of rent control for newer buildings, is less restrictive than the old rent control. Also, the decades-long boom in the New York City housing market is not in rent-controlled or rent-stabilized units, but in condominiums and cooperative housing. But these two forms of housing ownership grew important as a way of getting around rent control.
Having it wrapped around a pencil certainly seems like a poor way to use a solar cell.
I can bitch about R (and I bitched about W plenty) and D (so much to bitch about with Obama) all I want.
True, the power to negotiate treaties belongs to the Executive and the power to ratify a treaty belongs to the Senate.
Of course, the Senate is free to proclaim its intention to not ratify a treaty based on the information at hand. Plus, there's the whole notion that Obama knew damn well that the Senate would not ratify any such "treaty". So he just proclaimed that he was not negotiating a treaty, but instead working on a "non-binding agreement with some plans for enforcement" in a shallow attempt to bypass the ratification power of the Senate. It would seem to me that if he says he was not negotiating a treaty, then claiming the power to negotiate a treaty is moot.
As CNN put it at the time:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/12/...
If it looks like a treaty, walks like a treaty and talks like a treaty, is it a treaty?
According to the White House, only if the President of the United States says it is.
That's infuriating Republicans and even some Democrats, who are demanding that the Obama administration submit any final nuclear deal with Iran to Congress for approval.
"This is clearly a treaty," Arizona Sen. John McCain told reporters Tuesday. "They can call it a banana, but it's a treaty."
The GOP position could jeopardize the long-term survival of any Iran deal, and it represents the party's newest clash with President Barack Obama over the limits of executive authority, as Republicans object to a pact they warn could eventually give Tehran a nuclear bomb.
It's that skepticism that has largely led the White House to define the deal as a "nonbinding agreement" rather than a "treaty," which the Constitution requires Senate "advice and consent" on.
The distinction -- and whether it can legitimately be used to shut out Congress -- turns on complicated and unresolved questions of constitutional law. While Republicans call foul, the administration defends the differentiation as perfectly sound, and no surprise.
Secretary of State John Kerry stressed Wednesday that the administration never intended to negotiate a treaty.
"We've been clear from the beginning. We're not negotiating a 'legally binding plan.' We're negotiating a plan that will have in it a capacity for enforcement," he said at a Senate hearing.
That doesn't sit well with Republicans, many of whom believe the Senate's constitutional role is being bypassed.
Idaho Sen. James Risch dismissed the administration's argument: "Let there be no mistake, this is a treaty that is being negotiated. It's a treaty and should be treated as such."
According to http://data.worldbank.org/indi..., the UK, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Netherlands, Italy, Ireland, France, Genrmany, Denmark, Austria all have about 1 murder per 100,000 people. Australia also has about 1 murder per 100,000 people. The US has about 5, including those gang-related killings. My point was that a small fraction (gangs) of the population here accounts for a huge percentage of the murders, and excluding those murder committed by that small fraction the murder rate in the US is about the same as all the oh-so-enlightened countries in Europe.
According to that same table, the Isle of Man doesn't rate any murders. Must be nice. Maybe we can send you some of our gangs, you know, as refugees?
Pretty much exactly that. "Ban guns." is a common expression in this thread. Am I not to infer that those authors are saying "No one can be trusted with guns, so banning them is the best course of action."
They are not saying "Ban guns except for people who pass background checks." or any other sort of qualifiers. Simply "Ban guns."