volume of 8,107,527 today as I write this, meaning 8 million have exchanged hands just today.
That's what makes it public - what an IPO does - is that the shares are all theoretically publicly available. There's no extra secret stock going on here. It's not an extrapolated value because an angel investor dropped $10 million into a startup. It's the public stock price, which people are openly paying millions of times daily, multiplied by the number of public shares which people own and could sell if they wanted to.
If twitter really did dump almost 700M shares on the market it's unlikely they could sell them.
of course, it would likely drop. But they're not all owned by twitter. Twitter could issue more stock, or can pay its employees with stock, or whatever, and those would all negatively impact the share price. People who already owned shares would still own the same dollar value, but they might end up with more stock, like in a stock split.
But that's not the point, because people aren't doing that, and aren't willing to do that. Until people are literally willing to give away shares of twitter, twitter is actually worth a fuckton of money.
True for some startups, but twitter's market cap is $19B. It's a publicly listed company with 676,300,000 shares outstanding which are being bought and sold for $28.17 each.
$28.17 x 676,300,000 = $19,051,371,000
Until people want to start literally giving away twitter shares, it's *actually* worth a fuckton of money.
like apple, they have encryption on the phone that apple cant crack
If Apple can't unencrypt it on the phones, then they can't unencrypt it ever.
but when that message\data is passed\synced through apples servers they can allow other access to it
When the phone owner unencrypts his unencryptable data and sends that in an unencrypted message through Apple's servers, then Apple has the unencrypted data.
Per Clarke - it was already too late to stop it. Nothing that could have been done based upon information available and recommendations/intelligence from the Clinton Administration.
You're completely misreading this testimony. It's not a question about if anything could have been done to prevent 9/11, it's a question of whether killing or capturing bin Laden would have prevented 9/11. Why would a hypothetical drone strike on OBL in July of 2001 have stopped 9/11 if the plan was already in progress and the hijackers were already in the US? What does that have to do with anything?
It was only "too late" to prevent it in January 2001 if you think killing Osama bin Laden is the only possible thing that could have been done to stop the hijackings, unlike, say, arresting or killing the hijackers themselves, which would have assuredly stopped them from hijacking airplanes.
live in Denmark, you know, among one of the first democratic countries in the world (besides the original democracy Greece), and our feet crumble when we see and hear the US talk about human rights, equal rights, and your so called democracy (which is a republic which is not a democracy which many people in and form the US claims).
This is the dumbest thing people talk about. A republic is not democratic? Spoken by a poster who hails to his king (queen), baby?
The US is a liberal democracy. It is THE liberal democracy. Calling it "not a democracy" is fucking retarded. You're a poster living in a kingdom claiming that his democracy is one of the oldest in the world despite it actually being a monarchy and almost a century younger than the USA. Sure thing, guy!
I'm just going to go on with the rest of my day thinking that democracy must have some otherworldly meaning in Danish than it does in English because your post is full of things that have nothing to do with democratic values.
100% agree. I don't give a shit about this kid at all, and it baffles me that so many people are caught up on his ethnicity or them thinking that people out there, somewhere, may believe that he "invented" a clock. Nobody thinks that, and nobody really cares, as far as I can tell -- people care about an establishment punishing good faith effort. Children should not be punished for trying, their behavior should just be shaped and redirected towards more fruitful or socially acceptable behavior if or when they go overboard.
This is an incident that nobody outside of Irving should have ever heard of.
Not saying Qatar is a paradise of democratic virtue or anything.
Should probably just end your post there. This kid didn't deserve to be arrested for what happened, but he probably did deserve to get into trouble with his school for being intransigent and stubborn about setting off an alarm clock in class. If he thinks or was ever taught that his treatment in America is bad, he's probably going to be in for a shock at the way Qataris and Arabs will treat he and his family.
He was absolutely celebrated for being a nerd. People viewed it as authority stifling the creative and innovative spirit.
If a black muslim threatens to kill a bunch of people at his school or join ISIS or whatever, it would get nowhere near the news attention as this did. If you're focusing on his ethnic background or the word "invention" in this story, then you're probably a fucking moron who is out of step with most of America.
The numbers are actually kinda shockingly mediocre across the board (as compared to previous Presidents' polling trends). The most notable things I see are the race demos (34% approval by white people, 84% approval by black Americans, 63% approval by hispanics) and age range, which goes 59 -> 45 -> 43 -> 38% approval rating based on age bracket. 60% of people who were maybe barely old enough to vote for him twice approve of his job.
And, of course, the 82/43/10% split between Democrat/Independent/Republican party id, but that's not surprising at all.
I always love these kinds of stories and the childhood terror they emanate about having been caught doing something perceived as wrong because of the adult reactions to it. How dare you take apart that clock! Are you crazy? A hostile reaction to something I found to be so interesting and fun always kind of shocked me and sticks with me to this day.
Of course, it turns out that all along your mom just didn't want to be late for work or whatever the next day because the alarm clock was in one hundred pieces sitting on the counter. Sorry, mom!
An independent security service can be as important in keeping democracy safe, as an independent judiciary, and extra-territorial courts that can rule objectively such as the ECHR or ICC are also an added benefit. Don't dismiss the security services as always being some great evil. Yes, sometimes they go off track and engage in too broad surveillance, and they should be rightly reprimanded for that, but that doesn't mean what they do is always bad, or that they're inherently evil.
Can't believe what kind of fucking retard it takes to believe this shit enough to post it. An "independent" intelligence service as the shadowy 4th branch of government?
Sometimes they do too much, and they should be rightly reprimanded? Reprimanded by whom? They'd be independent! What is their "track" and how can anyone judge whether they've gone off of it given the case?
Parliament, the judiciary, and the security services should all be constantly keeping each other in check - you need not worry when they're going at each other because it's healthy, worry only when they're all constantly singing the same tune because then there are no longer any checks and balances.
Anonymous Coward lists the three independent branches of government: parliament, the judiciary, and the security services. Explains quite a bit! Instead of going with the working assumption, which is that the intelligence agencies are an arm of the government under the umbrella of, run by, and beholden to the executive branch -- which, of course, is indirectly kept in check by parliament seeing as the executive functions of government must also follow the law -- Brit-fascist AC here not-so-secretly believes that the executive branch should be under the umbrella of and beholden to the intelligence services. Along with parliament. Thanks, but no thanks, retard.
Had we not 'leading from the back' in overthrowing the Qaddafi regime of Libya the number of foot soldiers for islamic terrorist network wouldn't be so numerous
Really, you think that US planes refueling French and British planes on their way to Libya is the cause of Muslims loving Islam and thinking Islam is the solution to their problems?
The rising tide Islamism has been occurring for 70 years at least, if not dating back to the Sauds and wahabbi ties gaining influnce. And you blame it on the US not bombing Libya? You don't think the Russians slaughtering Muslims in the Caucasus in the 90s and 2000s had anything to do with that? Or the Russians slaughtering Muslims in Afghanistan in the 1980s? You don't think Iran overthrowing their king and instituting the Islamic Republic in 1979 had anything to do with the number of Islamic footsoldiers? You don't think Israel has anything to do with it? Or places like Syria and Iraq being propped up with crony dictators?
The Arab and Muslim world have been ruled over and colonized for centuries and it's been awful for them. When they've gotten a chance to try to rule themselves it's been marred by corruption and infighting if not outright humiliation such as the remnants of the United Arab Republic being crushed by Israel. They've been spurned by nationalism, democracy, communism, fascism and colonialism. They've watched modern capitalism and freedom make a mockery of their traditions. Where else can they turn, other than the thing they claim to love more than anything and which they dedicate their lives to?
It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that there are millions of potential and actual footsoldiers out there for Islamic and Islamist causes, terrorist or otherwise. The only real surprise here would be if the meticulous calligraphy of a book turned out to be a a good governor, and everyone is paying the price for it.
Is it really about Obama or is it about the accuracy of the drones / intelligence on which they operate
It's even that, though you are generally correct. The intelligence which determines targets, tactics, and strategy is important regardless of the type of war or how it is fought. This was vital information during WW2 just as much as it is today.
What is really important is the threshold of having good enough intel, strategic goals, and enough moral standing to actually act on any of it. Having perfect intelligence, i.e. knowing Osama bin Laden's exact location, is useless unless there is a justification to act on that. In 1990, this probably wasn't the case, but in 2002, it would have been. Using drones to surveil and strike targets which would normally be inaccessible to you is enough parts clever and practical that you would be dumb not to do it. The only real consideration here is should we be doing it at all, with any means?
For me the view of Obama as some Peace-Prize savior who would end the wars and we'd all live peacefully ever after was always a joke. Obama did not create these wars and he does not control them. There is a reason why drone strikes almost entirely happen in places like Yemen and the tribal areas of Pakistan -- because those places are basically inaccessible and governed by groups who are explicitly hostile to US interests if not conducting open warfare against the United States. It's not like they're using drones to kill people at a cafe in Paris here. These are weapons of war which are being used to conduct warfare in war zones. I'm not sure how it could be classified as war crimes at all unless you are willing to consider all acts in all wars to be criminal. Not really helpful!
Better intelligence would be nice, and drones are already about as accurate as you could hope for, but it's all a fool's errand when people are willing to fight wars which should not be fought. Seeing as it takes two to tango, if anyone really wants to solve something here, we should probably figure out who keeps putting the music on.
No, I am not. You're trying to make an argument that an owned server is nothing to worry about, certainly not more to worry about than a government-run server which is only potentially owned. This should be patently false to you. The worst case for a government-run server is similar to what she had.
For example, with something like pgp: if someone owned the server and intercepted the message, sent or received, they wouldn't have the private key to decrypt the message and so all of the intercepted messages would be useless.
So someone who exhibits perfect behavior is theoretically safe using a server which is so awfully administered that it should basically just be assumed to have been owned by foreign adversaries. Hillary Clinton can so perfectly execute modern cryptographic technology that she ordered someone to set up something so poor that anyone who looked at it would make first assumptions about it being a honeypot. Right.
This is no excuse for anything. If it is both possible and within the realm of normal behavior for someone in Hillary's position, as Secretary of State, to execute modern cryptographic technology like this, then the State Department should be mandating that to occur for all of its employees on servers which they can control and monitor! Trying to excuse this by claiming it is acceptable, or not worthy of caring about, when all she has done with this episode is to take steps AWAY from security doesn't pass the sniff test.
It's not even what you would want in the ideal. People in high government positions like that who access emails through a handheld device should absolutely not rely on something like PGP encrypted communications relying on keys stored on that handheld device. Putting a single point of failure as a small, physical item which can be compromised during travel and provide access to months (or years) worth of communications for all of eternity is joke security. If she were to lose the device, or it was compromised by a foreign intelligence agency, there would be nothing you could do to prevent them from reading her most recent communications. If the point of failure is on the server, which could be guarded in a remote location on home territory, access could be revoked, that handheld could be blacklisted, and you might make it out of the situation with none or few communications being leaked.
What she did is the worst of both worlds. Why would you want to justify this in any way?
At worst they could block messages by not passing them along to her client/the next server but that's not really a sensitive information risk.
They could forge emails. To the Secretary of State. They could pose as a foreign dignitary and send what looks like official correspondence. If someone wanted to, say, assassinate her, they now have a means of potentially tricking her into being in a certain location at a certain time. Or, in a more likely scenario, if they wanted to try to compromise her phone so that they could retrieve her private keys and then have total access to everything she does, this would open up a likely avenue of attack.
There's also other issues, like (a) relying on the people she is contacting to also know and use security best practices and (b) metadata available from even perfect-encryption emails. Trusting every joe schmoe in the government or all of the people someone like Hillary would have communicated with to be able to operate modern cryptographic platforms is not feasible and only adds to the mountain of reasoning saying that the security should be automatic as much as possible and supervised and administered by those with legitimate technical skills and backgrounds. The Secretary of State should be doing Secretary of State things, like being the voice of 350 million Americans to the governments of foreign countries, not managing their gpg keyring. As for (b), it might not matter from where or when you are reading your communications, or who you are talking to, but it certai
SO, what you're actually saying is, these security guards should have used a time machine to go back seconds before the vehicle impact, and warned themselves to get out of the way?
Preparation doesn't require a time machine. Knowing that vehicles can back over you and kill you is not magic, nor difficult, nor even time consuming. If you know this going into the situation, then your decision-making regarding standing behind vehicles controlled by crazed, antagonistic morons is much more likely to end up with you recording the license plate information without standing in its path.
You sound like a victim blamer,
You sound like a fucking moron. You're going to die someday. If you aren't aware that vehicles may cause this, or other significant injury, then it's much more likely to happen. Blame has nothing to do with it. If your legs are removed from your torso by a large truck, are you going to sit there thinking happily to yourself "I'm glad this isn't my fault"?
On the other hand, Bernie would get exactly nothing done unless they seriously changed the make-up of Congress.
I think this is actually a strength of Bernie's. Despite the dog-and-pony show that people like to take part in with regards to criticizing and blaming (or crediting) the President, most people are aware deep down of the limits on presidential power. Bernie's populism and long anti-establishment track record has a small chance of crossing the aisle to be heard by people who will completely disregard some of his stances because of how little likelihood there is of some of them ever occurring.
One of the reasons Hillary has been so vehemently opposed over the years is not so much because of her beliefs and policies, which are often vague or shift in the political winds, but because her beliefs and policies have a certain inside-baseball credibility to them. She can play the Washington, DC game as well as anybody, and it's terrifying to the right-wing.
The same thing goes for Trump. Trump is popular not because people agree with his opinions but because people strongly agree with some of his opinions while being able to completely disregard the crazy ones.
Slashdot Mirror
http://quotes.wsj.com/TWTR
volume of 8,107,527 today as I write this, meaning 8 million have exchanged hands just today.
That's what makes it public - what an IPO does - is that the shares are all theoretically publicly available. There's no extra secret stock going on here. It's not an extrapolated value because an angel investor dropped $10 million into a startup. It's the public stock price, which people are openly paying millions of times daily, multiplied by the number of public shares which people own and could sell if they wanted to.
If twitter really did dump almost 700M shares on the market it's unlikely they could sell them.
of course, it would likely drop. But they're not all owned by twitter. Twitter could issue more stock, or can pay its employees with stock, or whatever, and those would all negatively impact the share price. People who already owned shares would still own the same dollar value, but they might end up with more stock, like in a stock split.
But that's not the point, because people aren't doing that, and aren't willing to do that. Until people are literally willing to give away shares of twitter, twitter is actually worth a fuckton of money.
True for some startups, but twitter's market cap is $19B. It's a publicly listed company with 676,300,000 shares outstanding which are being bought and sold for $28.17 each.
$28.17 x 676,300,000 = $19,051,371,000
Until people want to start literally giving away twitter shares, it's *actually* worth a fuckton of money.
like apple, they have encryption on the phone that apple cant crack
If Apple can't unencrypt it on the phones, then they can't unencrypt it ever.
but when that message\data is passed\synced through apples servers they can allow other access to it
When the phone owner unencrypts his unencryptable data and sends that in an unencrypted message through Apple's servers, then Apple has the unencrypted data.
Per Clarke - it was already too late to stop it. Nothing that could have been done based upon information available and recommendations/intelligence from the Clinton Administration.
You're completely misreading this testimony. It's not a question about if anything could have been done to prevent 9/11, it's a question of whether killing or capturing bin Laden would have prevented 9/11. Why would a hypothetical drone strike on OBL in July of 2001 have stopped 9/11 if the plan was already in progress and the hijackers were already in the US? What does that have to do with anything?
It was only "too late" to prevent it in January 2001 if you think killing Osama bin Laden is the only possible thing that could have been done to stop the hijackings, unlike, say, arresting or killing the hijackers themselves, which would have assuredly stopped them from hijacking airplanes.
live in Denmark, you know, among one of the first democratic countries in the world (besides the original democracy Greece), and our feet crumble when we see and hear the US talk about human rights, equal rights, and your so called democracy (which is a republic which is not a democracy which many people in and form the US claims).
This is the dumbest thing people talk about. A republic is not democratic? Spoken by a poster who hails to his king (queen), baby?
The US is a liberal democracy. It is THE liberal democracy. Calling it "not a democracy" is fucking retarded. You're a poster living in a kingdom claiming that his democracy is one of the oldest in the world despite it actually being a monarchy and almost a century younger than the USA. Sure thing, guy!
I'm just going to go on with the rest of my day thinking that democracy must have some otherworldly meaning in Danish than it does in English because your post is full of things that have nothing to do with democratic values.
I mean, say what you will about the tenants of National Socialism, at least they pay their rent on time.
At this rate North America is going to be hit by 2 Cat5 hurricanes next week alone.
It's a common word in common usage. Look no further than your nearest dollar bill to see it used this way!
100% agree. I don't give a shit about this kid at all, and it baffles me that so many people are caught up on his ethnicity or them thinking that people out there, somewhere, may believe that he "invented" a clock. Nobody thinks that, and nobody really cares, as far as I can tell -- people care about an establishment punishing good faith effort. Children should not be punished for trying, their behavior should just be shaped and redirected towards more fruitful or socially acceptable behavior if or when they go overboard.
This is an incident that nobody outside of Irving should have ever heard of.
Not saying Qatar is a paradise of democratic virtue or anything.
Should probably just end your post there. This kid didn't deserve to be arrested for what happened, but he probably did deserve to get into trouble with his school for being intransigent and stubborn about setting off an alarm clock in class. If he thinks or was ever taught that his treatment in America is bad, he's probably going to be in for a shock at the way Qataris and Arabs will treat he and his family.
Boy Sets Alarm Clock To Go Off During Boring Class
He was absolutely celebrated for being a nerd. People viewed it as authority stifling the creative and innovative spirit.
If a black muslim threatens to kill a bunch of people at his school or join ISIS or whatever, it would get nowhere near the news attention as this did. If you're focusing on his ethnic background or the word "invention" in this story, then you're probably a fucking moron who is out of step with most of America.
Obama job approval by:
REGION
[East, Midwest, South, West] => [51, 44, 41, 51]
EDUCATION
[High School or less, Some College, College graduate only, Postgrad, All college grads, All college nongrads] => [45, 42, 46, 59, 51, 44]
Don't you get it? 51% of people overwhelmingly agree!
http://www.gallup.com/file/pol...
The numbers are actually kinda shockingly mediocre across the board (as compared to previous Presidents' polling trends). The most notable things I see are the race demos (34% approval by white people, 84% approval by black Americans, 63% approval by hispanics) and age range, which goes 59 -> 45 -> 43 -> 38% approval rating based on age bracket. 60% of people who were maybe barely old enough to vote for him twice approve of his job.
And, of course, the 82/43/10% split between Democrat/Independent/Republican party id, but that's not surprising at all.
I always love these kinds of stories and the childhood terror they emanate about having been caught doing something perceived as wrong because of the adult reactions to it. How dare you take apart that clock! Are you crazy? A hostile reaction to something I found to be so interesting and fun always kind of shocked me and sticks with me to this day.
Of course, it turns out that all along your mom just didn't want to be late for work or whatever the next day because the alarm clock was in one hundred pieces sitting on the counter. Sorry, mom!
never forget that time jdavidb got sshd running in cygwin and an AC called him an idiot
No, surveillance is someone else checking what you said last week, and then storing the information indefinitely.
...which leads to people censoring themselves
No, censorship is someone else checking what you said last week, and then punishing you for it.
That's what I said.
An independent security service can be as important in keeping democracy safe, as an independent judiciary, and extra-territorial courts that can rule objectively such as the ECHR or ICC are also an added benefit. Don't dismiss the security services as always being some great evil. Yes, sometimes they go off track and engage in too broad surveillance, and they should be rightly reprimanded for that, but that doesn't mean what they do is always bad, or that they're inherently evil.
Can't believe what kind of fucking retard it takes to believe this shit enough to post it. An "independent" intelligence service as the shadowy 4th branch of government?
Sometimes they do too much, and they should be rightly reprimanded? Reprimanded by whom? They'd be independent! What is their "track" and how can anyone judge whether they've gone off of it given the case?
Parliament, the judiciary, and the security services should all be constantly keeping each other in check - you need not worry when they're going at each other because it's healthy, worry only when they're all constantly singing the same tune because then there are no longer any checks and balances.
Anonymous Coward lists the three independent branches of government: parliament, the judiciary, and the security services. Explains quite a bit! Instead of going with the working assumption, which is that the intelligence agencies are an arm of the government under the umbrella of, run by, and beholden to the executive branch -- which, of course, is indirectly kept in check by parliament seeing as the executive functions of government must also follow the law -- Brit-fascist AC here not-so-secretly believes that the executive branch should be under the umbrella of and beholden to the intelligence services. Along with parliament. Thanks, but no thanks, retard.
posted from my MI-5 phone
oh, I see.
When Gore was in office, NATO (I mean the CIA) blew up the Chinese embassy in Belgrade with guided munitions.
What are you using for the basis for this "Algore" anti-history fanfiction?
Had we not 'leading from the back' in overthrowing the Qaddafi regime of Libya the number of foot soldiers for islamic terrorist network wouldn't be so numerous
Really, you think that US planes refueling French and British planes on their way to Libya is the cause of Muslims loving Islam and thinking Islam is the solution to their problems?
The rising tide Islamism has been occurring for 70 years at least, if not dating back to the Sauds and wahabbi ties gaining influnce. And you blame it on the US not bombing Libya? You don't think the Russians slaughtering Muslims in the Caucasus in the 90s and 2000s had anything to do with that? Or the Russians slaughtering Muslims in Afghanistan in the 1980s? You don't think Iran overthrowing their king and instituting the Islamic Republic in 1979 had anything to do with the number of Islamic footsoldiers? You don't think Israel has anything to do with it? Or places like Syria and Iraq being propped up with crony dictators?
The Arab and Muslim world have been ruled over and colonized for centuries and it's been awful for them. When they've gotten a chance to try to rule themselves it's been marred by corruption and infighting if not outright humiliation such as the remnants of the United Arab Republic being crushed by Israel. They've been spurned by nationalism, democracy, communism, fascism and colonialism. They've watched modern capitalism and freedom make a mockery of their traditions. Where else can they turn, other than the thing they claim to love more than anything and which they dedicate their lives to?
It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that there are millions of potential and actual footsoldiers out there for Islamic and Islamist causes, terrorist or otherwise. The only real surprise here would be if the meticulous calligraphy of a book turned out to be a a good governor, and everyone is paying the price for it.
Is it really about Obama or is it about the accuracy of the drones / intelligence on which they operate
It's even that, though you are generally correct. The intelligence which determines targets, tactics, and strategy is important regardless of the type of war or how it is fought. This was vital information during WW2 just as much as it is today.
What is really important is the threshold of having good enough intel, strategic goals, and enough moral standing to actually act on any of it. Having perfect intelligence, i.e. knowing Osama bin Laden's exact location, is useless unless there is a justification to act on that. In 1990, this probably wasn't the case, but in 2002, it would have been. Using drones to surveil and strike targets which would normally be inaccessible to you is enough parts clever and practical that you would be dumb not to do it. The only real consideration here is should we be doing it at all, with any means?
For me the view of Obama as some Peace-Prize savior who would end the wars and we'd all live peacefully ever after was always a joke. Obama did not create these wars and he does not control them. There is a reason why drone strikes almost entirely happen in places like Yemen and the tribal areas of Pakistan -- because those places are basically inaccessible and governed by groups who are explicitly hostile to US interests if not conducting open warfare against the United States. It's not like they're using drones to kill people at a cafe in Paris here. These are weapons of war which are being used to conduct warfare in war zones. I'm not sure how it could be classified as war crimes at all unless you are willing to consider all acts in all wars to be criminal. Not really helpful!
Better intelligence would be nice, and drones are already about as accurate as you could hope for, but it's all a fool's errand when people are willing to fight wars which should not be fought. Seeing as it takes two to tango, if anyone really wants to solve something here, we should probably figure out who keeps putting the music on.
Governments getting access to a corporation's source code doesn't make it open source. It means the government has access to it.
Surveillance is you censoring yourself
Censorship is the state asking you nicely to censor yourself
No, I am not. You're trying to make an argument that an owned server is nothing to worry about, certainly not more to worry about than a government-run server which is only potentially owned. This should be patently false to you. The worst case for a government-run server is similar to what she had.
For example, with something like pgp: if someone owned the server and intercepted the message, sent or received, they wouldn't have the private key to decrypt the message and so all of the intercepted messages would be useless.
So someone who exhibits perfect behavior is theoretically safe using a server which is so awfully administered that it should basically just be assumed to have been owned by foreign adversaries. Hillary Clinton can so perfectly execute modern cryptographic technology that she ordered someone to set up something so poor that anyone who looked at it would make first assumptions about it being a honeypot. Right.
This is no excuse for anything. If it is both possible and within the realm of normal behavior for someone in Hillary's position, as Secretary of State, to execute modern cryptographic technology like this, then the State Department should be mandating that to occur for all of its employees on servers which they can control and monitor! Trying to excuse this by claiming it is acceptable, or not worthy of caring about, when all she has done with this episode is to take steps AWAY from security doesn't pass the sniff test.
It's not even what you would want in the ideal. People in high government positions like that who access emails through a handheld device should absolutely not rely on something like PGP encrypted communications relying on keys stored on that handheld device. Putting a single point of failure as a small, physical item which can be compromised during travel and provide access to months (or years) worth of communications for all of eternity is joke security. If she were to lose the device, or it was compromised by a foreign intelligence agency, there would be nothing you could do to prevent them from reading her most recent communications. If the point of failure is on the server, which could be guarded in a remote location on home territory, access could be revoked, that handheld could be blacklisted, and you might make it out of the situation with none or few communications being leaked.
What she did is the worst of both worlds. Why would you want to justify this in any way?
At worst they could block messages by not passing them along to her client/the next server but that's not really a sensitive information risk.
They could forge emails. To the Secretary of State. They could pose as a foreign dignitary and send what looks like official correspondence. If someone wanted to, say, assassinate her, they now have a means of potentially tricking her into being in a certain location at a certain time. Or, in a more likely scenario, if they wanted to try to compromise her phone so that they could retrieve her private keys and then have total access to everything she does, this would open up a likely avenue of attack.
There's also other issues, like (a) relying on the people she is contacting to also know and use security best practices and (b) metadata available from even perfect-encryption emails. Trusting every joe schmoe in the government or all of the people someone like Hillary would have communicated with to be able to operate modern cryptographic platforms is not feasible and only adds to the mountain of reasoning saying that the security should be automatic as much as possible and supervised and administered by those with legitimate technical skills and backgrounds. The Secretary of State should be doing Secretary of State things, like being the voice of 350 million Americans to the governments of foreign countries, not managing their gpg keyring. As for (b), it might not matter from where or when you are reading your communications, or who you are talking to, but it certai
SO, what you're actually saying is, these security guards should have used a time machine to go back seconds before the vehicle impact, and warned themselves to get out of the way?
Preparation doesn't require a time machine. Knowing that vehicles can back over you and kill you is not magic, nor difficult, nor even time consuming. If you know this going into the situation, then your decision-making regarding standing behind vehicles controlled by crazed, antagonistic morons is much more likely to end up with you recording the license plate information without standing in its path.
You sound like a victim blamer,
You sound like a fucking moron. You're going to die someday. If you aren't aware that vehicles may cause this, or other significant injury, then it's much more likely to happen. Blame has nothing to do with it. If your legs are removed from your torso by a large truck, are you going to sit there thinking happily to yourself "I'm glad this isn't my fault"?
On the other hand, Bernie would get exactly nothing done unless they seriously changed the make-up of Congress.
I think this is actually a strength of Bernie's. Despite the dog-and-pony show that people like to take part in with regards to criticizing and blaming (or crediting) the President, most people are aware deep down of the limits on presidential power. Bernie's populism and long anti-establishment track record has a small chance of crossing the aisle to be heard by people who will completely disregard some of his stances because of how little likelihood there is of some of them ever occurring.
One of the reasons Hillary has been so vehemently opposed over the years is not so much because of her beliefs and policies, which are often vague or shift in the political winds, but because her beliefs and policies have a certain inside-baseball credibility to them. She can play the Washington, DC game as well as anybody, and it's terrifying to the right-wing.
The same thing goes for Trump. Trump is popular not because people agree with his opinions but because people strongly agree with some of his opinions while being able to completely disregard the crazy ones.