ie the DNC generating good speeches and endorsements
They are? Everything I've heard about the DNC is that it's been an absolute disaster, with Bernie supporters constantly interrupting speakers who are spending most of their time castigating Bernie supporters for not falling into line after the DNC rigged the nomination for Hillary Clinton, to the point where something like half the delegates walked out after her coronation. Er, nomination. Sure, we'll pretend it was a fair nomination.
All the while Clinton is swinging rapidly back to her pre-Bernie positions, proving that she'll say anything for votes but her real priorities are supporting her Wall Street backers.
I'm not sure why Trump bothered to comment since the DNC convention so far is proving to be a complete disaster compared to the RNC convention.
Wrong. They recovered some of her emails, but not all of them. Some of the emails they were able to recover from the official state.gov servers, but an unknown quantity of emails were never recovered. To quote from Comey himself:
It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.
The bottom line is that we'll never know just how bad Clinton's handling of email was, unless someone (like Russia) comes forward with the emails they copied off her insecure server during the time it was running.
Almost certainly, but it has to piss Bernie Sanders supporters off. This is a guy who supports deregulating banks, who's anti-abortion, who didn't support LGBT rights until 2011.
The choice makes it clear that any Sanders supporter hoping that at the very least he'd help pull Clinton further left: he failed to do so.
It's unlikely it'll make any difference in the election, but it'll be interesting to see if this helps Hillary's recent collapse in the polls. (My guess is no - 538 says they expect it to make an 0.7% difference in her chances overall. Sanders supporters were never in swing states so for the most part they simply don't matter.)
They haven't nominated Hillary yet. Her coronation is next week at the Democratic National Convention. Which means it's still conceptually possible that they could nominate someone else.
They won't, of course. But it's still theoretically possible. In some other universe where criminals get charged for their crimes.
I don't buy that explanation because they already stopped updating the game last year. If they're keeping the servers running (they are) and they're no longer doing any development (they aren't) there's no reason to arbitrarily kill cross platform support. Unless they're being forced to by some outside party.
It's not like they updated the PC client in such a way that the PS2 client stopped working. They actively removed support for a previously functional PS2 client, for no explained reason.
Also the game they mention (Final Fantasy XI) was forced to drop console support earlier this year for some reason. As of April this year, it's now PC-only. Maybe Sony isn't quite as open to cross-platform play any more as they once were.
Some of the Pokestops are apparently paid ads from businesses. (I know that Ingress portals could be paid ads for businesses as well, so this isn't surprising.)
Why? Destroying Gawker is probably the single most noble thing he's ever done. It almost makes up for founding PayPal.
Gawker is a shitty, entirely morally bankrupt "news" website and needed to be destroyed. If every one of Gawker's website vanished tomorrow, the world would be a better place. No one will miss Gawker.
Yep. Every year I'm forced to go through a "refresher course" that includes reminders not to send classified material through email, you morons. Complete with the world's simplest multiple choice quiz to prove that I did, in fact, understand that "don't send classified material through email" means "don't send classified material through email." (Along with a whole bunch of other silly things, like "do you give that hot lady at the bar classified information so she'll sleep with you? A) Yes, I'm David Petraeus, B) No, I understand that classified material can only be given to others in a very specific set of circumstances.")
I thought everyone with a clearance was supposed to take some form of training class but I'm betting Hillary Clinton somehow, for some reason, managed to skip it and that's why they can't show "intent."
I'm also betting that the real reason that "no reasonable prosecutor" would indict is because they don't want to risk the chance of losing the case or it going all the way to the Supreme Court. Because you know that, Hillary Clinton being a lawyer, such a case would drag out for years. Would you want to the prosecutor that derailed the campaign of the who might have been the first woman president, only to end up with an acquittal? Or, worse, with the case going to the Supreme Court and a precedent being set that, yes, you in fact do need clear criminal intent to prosecute? Your career would be over.
That's the major issue - apparently the statutes are vague enough that it's possible Clinton could successfully argue that as there was no clear criminal intent, she can't be charged. And nobody really wants to test it - so she skates instead.
And we're already moving on to the inevitable Phase Two of this whole thing, where her aides that set up the server and were forced to use it as the only way to reach her get their careers ended as the State Department punishes them for Hillary Clinton's misdeeds.
Even in 2007 you can see plenty of people with the opinion that the game journalism industry is simply corrupt to the core and aren't surprised at all to see a journalist fired for giving an advertiser a bad review.
This is exactly the same as those old Windows apps that would only run as admin, even if they didn't really need admin privileges. Sure, they might not do anything particular evil with admin privileges that they don't really need.
But only half the issue with Windows programs requiring admin access was the potential for the program itself doing something evil. Half the problem was security flaws in said programs being used by malicious third parties.
It gets worse with games like Pokemon Go where half the game is on the server. Sure, Niantic may not be doing anything with their complete access to your Google account today. But if they get hacked in the future or if they later decide they do want to make access of that full access... what then?
The entire reason behind granular permissions is to reduce the damage that can happen when something goes wrong.
And there's also the point where apparently Google never asks you if you want to hand over full control of your Google account to what's now a third party.
Niantic is no longer part of Google and hasn't been since August of last year. They split from Google and then had a fairly large investment from Nintendo specifically for the creation of this new Pokemon Go game.
The comments are suggesting that this issue exists for some Android users as well, but not all.
But, yeah, apparently it skips the part where it asks for permissions (sometimes, always for iOS?) and just gives Niantic full control of your Google account.
No, they aren't, they're entirely independent of Google and have been for the past year. They aren't part of Alphabet. They have no reason to have "complete access" to your Google account, and clearly don't need it because they don't get it if you log in via Android.
Also worth mentioning that if you log in to the game via your Google Account under iOS, Niantic gets "full access" to your Google account.
Meaning that they can do things like:
1. Read your email. 2. Send email as you. 3. View photos you've uploaded. 4. View your Google+ Profile (OK, no one cares about this). 5. Delete documents from your Google Drive.
In fact, Google lists only three things it can't do: Change your password, delete your account, or authorize payments via Google Wallet. And that's it.
This doesn't apply under Android for some reason, it's limited solely to iOS.
We of course knew this was coming when the FBI didn't recommend indictment, given that Lynch said she'd go along with whatever the FBI decided.
But I expect the real reason is simple: they don't feel they're guaranteed a conviction. If you listen to Comey's reasoning, he was quite clear that there was no precedent for such a case - meaning that they don't want to set a precedent until they have iron tight evidence where they can be sure they know how the case will go.
Likewise, "no reasonable prosecutor" would want to be the prosecutor who indicted potentially the first woman president and then lost the case. If the case wasn't a 100%, sure-fire victory, no one would be willing to prosecute it. Which is kind of reasonable: who wants to torpedo their career by killing Hillary's presidential chances only to lose at trial?
But it does lay clear that there are two classes in the US: the ruling class, who won't be charged for clear violations because they might be able to get off, and the rest of us. Who will be charged for anything and everything they can think of.
What does that have to do with iPhones? A photographer will use the right tool for the job, which presumably would be a camera with different lenses, battery packs and memory cards.
Agreed. But if you ever watch any of Apple's keynotes about their phones, they always inevitably contain a section where they gush about the camera and show pictures shot "by a professional photographer" with the phone.
Apple loves to pretend that their phones are totally amazing cameras that can completely replace that DSLR the pros use.
A removable memory card slot. Wait, it's Apple, so if I say that we'd end up with iMemoryStick. I mean a microSD card slot.
If Apple is going to pretend that their phones double as cameras and throw in things like 4K video support, they should have removable media support. No photographer is going to use a camera without removable media. (Or field-replaceable batteries, but that's a different issue.)
Yeah, and Massachusetts has a history of electing Republicans in midterm years. Scott Brown and Charlie Baker immediately come to mind.
But go ahead, go on assuming that just because Massachusetts is always blue in the Presidential election that holds true for midterm elections. That worked so well for Martha Coakley. Twice.
Senator Warren has positioned herself in the national scene, but she really hasn't done anything for Massachusetts. Given that the strong blue tint in Massachusetts is almost exclusively due to college-aged kids and they don't vote in midterm elections - her future chances aren't quite as good as you think.
Are those numbers from before or after she backed Hillary? Because based on my Facebook feed, she's pissed off a ton her supporters by pulling that non-sequitur.
By tying herself to the Clinton ticket, she's effectively tied her political career to Clinton. If Clinton fails to win the election, Warren's political career is over. Keep in mind her next election is a mid-term election - which means that a good chunk of her supporters simply won't show up to vote.
Not to mention that if there's one thing the Massachusetts electorate has shown, it's that they hate being taken for granted and will happily elect a moderate Republican if they think that the Democratic candidate is ignoring them.
Of course, if she ends up the VP candidate for Clinton, all of this is moot and her future Senate career would be over regardless.
They do have an IR filter on them. It's an easy test because while the rear-facing camera (the "good" one that faces away from the display) has the IR filter, the front facing one doesn't, so you can compare IR brightness captured with the front-facing and rear-facing camera.
For whatever reason, Apple put an IR filter onto the rear-facing camera. I agree, it's pretty dumb and a UV filter would make more sense. Maybe it's also a UV filter, I don't know how you'd test that.
Slashdot Mirror
ie the DNC generating good speeches and endorsements
They are? Everything I've heard about the DNC is that it's been an absolute disaster, with Bernie supporters constantly interrupting speakers who are spending most of their time castigating Bernie supporters for not falling into line after the DNC rigged the nomination for Hillary Clinton, to the point where something like half the delegates walked out after her coronation. Er, nomination. Sure, we'll pretend it was a fair nomination.
All the while Clinton is swinging rapidly back to her pre-Bernie positions, proving that she'll say anything for votes but her real priorities are supporting her Wall Street backers.
I'm not sure why Trump bothered to comment since the DNC convention so far is proving to be a complete disaster compared to the RNC convention.
Wrong. They recovered some of her emails, but not all of them. Some of the emails they were able to recover from the official state.gov servers, but an unknown quantity of emails were never recovered. To quote from Comey himself:
It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.
The bottom line is that we'll never know just how bad Clinton's handling of email was, unless someone (like Russia) comes forward with the emails they copied off her insecure server during the time it was running.
Almost certainly, but it has to piss Bernie Sanders supporters off. This is a guy who supports deregulating banks, who's anti-abortion, who didn't support LGBT rights until 2011.
The choice makes it clear that any Sanders supporter hoping that at the very least he'd help pull Clinton further left: he failed to do so.
It's unlikely it'll make any difference in the election, but it'll be interesting to see if this helps Hillary's recent collapse in the polls. (My guess is no - 538 says they expect it to make an 0.7% difference in her chances overall. Sanders supporters were never in swing states so for the most part they simply don't matter.)
They haven't nominated Hillary yet. Her coronation is next week at the Democratic National Convention. Which means it's still conceptually possible that they could nominate someone else.
They won't, of course. But it's still theoretically possible. In some other universe where criminals get charged for their crimes.
I don't buy that explanation because they already stopped updating the game last year. If they're keeping the servers running (they are) and they're no longer doing any development (they aren't) there's no reason to arbitrarily kill cross platform support. Unless they're being forced to by some outside party.
It's not like they updated the PC client in such a way that the PS2 client stopped working. They actively removed support for a previously functional PS2 client, for no explained reason.
Also the game they mention (Final Fantasy XI) was forced to drop console support earlier this year for some reason. As of April this year, it's now PC-only. Maybe Sony isn't quite as open to cross-platform play any more as they once were.
Some of the Pokestops are apparently paid ads from businesses. (I know that Ingress portals could be paid ads for businesses as well, so this isn't surprising.)
If we're going to talk about this stupid game, might as well mention that apparently their method of monetizing is making it impossible to catch Pokemon after you break a certain level, requiring you to buy "better" Pokeballs for real money or something along those lines.
Why? Destroying Gawker is probably the single most noble thing he's ever done. It almost makes up for founding PayPal.
Gawker is a shitty, entirely morally bankrupt "news" website and needed to be destroyed. If every one of Gawker's website vanished tomorrow, the world would be a better place. No one will miss Gawker.
I don't think you can "come under sniper fire" in Pokemon, even if it is imaginary, so it must have been some other game she was playing.
Yep. Every year I'm forced to go through a "refresher course" that includes reminders not to send classified material through email, you morons. Complete with the world's simplest multiple choice quiz to prove that I did, in fact, understand that "don't send classified material through email" means "don't send classified material through email." (Along with a whole bunch of other silly things, like "do you give that hot lady at the bar classified information so she'll sleep with you? A) Yes, I'm David Petraeus, B) No, I understand that classified material can only be given to others in a very specific set of circumstances.")
I thought everyone with a clearance was supposed to take some form of training class but I'm betting Hillary Clinton somehow, for some reason, managed to skip it and that's why they can't show "intent."
I'm also betting that the real reason that "no reasonable prosecutor" would indict is because they don't want to risk the chance of losing the case or it going all the way to the Supreme Court. Because you know that, Hillary Clinton being a lawyer, such a case would drag out for years. Would you want to the prosecutor that derailed the campaign of the who might have been the first woman president, only to end up with an acquittal? Or, worse, with the case going to the Supreme Court and a precedent being set that, yes, you in fact do need clear criminal intent to prosecute? Your career would be over.
That's the major issue - apparently the statutes are vague enough that it's possible Clinton could successfully argue that as there was no clear criminal intent, she can't be charged. And nobody really wants to test it - so she skates instead.
And we're already moving on to the inevitable Phase Two of this whole thing, where her aides that set up the server and were forced to use it as the only way to reach her get their careers ended as the State Department punishes them for Hillary Clinton's misdeeds.
Really? Were you just ignoring it then?
It was even covered on Slashdot at the time.
There was plenty of outrage at the time.
Even in 2007 you can see plenty of people with the opinion that the game journalism industry is simply corrupt to the core and aren't surprised at all to see a journalist fired for giving an advertiser a bad review.
Pretty much.
This is exactly the same as those old Windows apps that would only run as admin, even if they didn't really need admin privileges. Sure, they might not do anything particular evil with admin privileges that they don't really need.
But only half the issue with Windows programs requiring admin access was the potential for the program itself doing something evil. Half the problem was security flaws in said programs being used by malicious third parties.
It gets worse with games like Pokemon Go where half the game is on the server. Sure, Niantic may not be doing anything with their complete access to your Google account today. But if they get hacked in the future or if they later decide they do want to make access of that full access... what then?
The entire reason behind granular permissions is to reduce the damage that can happen when something goes wrong.
And there's also the point where apparently Google never asks you if you want to hand over full control of your Google account to what's now a third party.
Niantic is no longer part of Google and hasn't been since August of last year. They split from Google and then had a fairly large investment from Nintendo specifically for the creation of this new Pokemon Go game.
Beats me, I haven't tried the app yet, I was basing my post on this Ars Technica article.
The comments are suggesting that this issue exists for some Android users as well, but not all.
But, yeah, apparently it skips the part where it asks for permissions (sometimes, always for iOS?) and just gives Niantic full control of your Google account.
No, they aren't, they're entirely independent of Google and have been for the past year. They aren't part of Alphabet. They have no reason to have "complete access" to your Google account, and clearly don't need it because they don't get it if you log in via Android.
Also worth mentioning that if you log in to the game via your Google Account under iOS, Niantic gets "full access" to your Google account.
Meaning that they can do things like:
1. Read your email.
2. Send email as you.
3. View photos you've uploaded.
4. View your Google+ Profile (OK, no one cares about this).
5. Delete documents from your Google Drive.
In fact, Google lists only three things it can't do: Change your password, delete your account, or authorize payments via Google Wallet. And that's it.
This doesn't apply under Android for some reason, it's limited solely to iOS.
Apparently they gave him immunity.
Although then he went and constantly plead the Fifth when asked about it, so, maybe not.
But I wouldn't be at all surprised if they went after some random underling. At this point, I also wouldn't be surprised if they didn't.
Although if you want a rumor that may or may not be true and also may or may not be related, Chelsea Manning has apparently attempted suicide.
Or not, the Army won't say either way.
We of course knew this was coming when the FBI didn't recommend indictment, given that Lynch said she'd go along with whatever the FBI decided.
But I expect the real reason is simple: they don't feel they're guaranteed a conviction. If you listen to Comey's reasoning, he was quite clear that there was no precedent for such a case - meaning that they don't want to set a precedent until they have iron tight evidence where they can be sure they know how the case will go.
Likewise, "no reasonable prosecutor" would want to be the prosecutor who indicted potentially the first woman president and then lost the case. If the case wasn't a 100%, sure-fire victory, no one would be willing to prosecute it. Which is kind of reasonable: who wants to torpedo their career by killing Hillary's presidential chances only to lose at trial?
But it does lay clear that there are two classes in the US: the ruling class, who won't be charged for clear violations because they might be able to get off, and the rest of us. Who will be charged for anything and everything they can think of.
What does that have to do with iPhones? A photographer will use the right tool for the job, which presumably would be a camera with different lenses, battery packs and memory cards.
Agreed. But if you ever watch any of Apple's keynotes about their phones, they always inevitably contain a section where they gush about the camera and show pictures shot "by a professional photographer" with the phone.
Apple loves to pretend that their phones are totally amazing cameras that can completely replace that DSLR the pros use.
You know what I'd like even more?
A removable memory card slot. Wait, it's Apple, so if I say that we'd end up with iMemoryStick. I mean a microSD card slot.
If Apple is going to pretend that their phones double as cameras and throw in things like 4K video support, they should have removable media support. No photographer is going to use a camera without removable media. (Or field-replaceable batteries, but that's a different issue.)
I'm not questioning that. I'm sure that factoid remains true.
But that doesn't mean she's the most popular politician among people in Massachusetts who will bother voting in 2018.
Yeah, and Massachusetts has a history of electing Republicans in midterm years. Scott Brown and Charlie Baker immediately come to mind.
But go ahead, go on assuming that just because Massachusetts is always blue in the Presidential election that holds true for midterm elections. That worked so well for Martha Coakley. Twice.
Senator Warren has positioned herself in the national scene, but she really hasn't done anything for Massachusetts. Given that the strong blue tint in Massachusetts is almost exclusively due to college-aged kids and they don't vote in midterm elections - her future chances aren't quite as good as you think.
Are those numbers from before or after she backed Hillary? Because based on my Facebook feed, she's pissed off a ton her supporters by pulling that non-sequitur.
By tying herself to the Clinton ticket, she's effectively tied her political career to Clinton. If Clinton fails to win the election, Warren's political career is over. Keep in mind her next election is a mid-term election - which means that a good chunk of her supporters simply won't show up to vote.
Not to mention that if there's one thing the Massachusetts electorate has shown, it's that they hate being taken for granted and will happily elect a moderate Republican if they think that the Democratic candidate is ignoring them.
Of course, if she ends up the VP candidate for Clinton, all of this is moot and her future Senate career would be over regardless.
They do have an IR filter on them. It's an easy test because while the rear-facing camera (the "good" one that faces away from the display) has the IR filter, the front facing one doesn't, so you can compare IR brightness captured with the front-facing and rear-facing camera.
For whatever reason, Apple put an IR filter onto the rear-facing camera. I agree, it's pretty dumb and a UV filter would make more sense. Maybe it's also a UV filter, I don't know how you'd test that.