I saw an A10 take off near my office the other day. I know a lot of people think it isn't a "pretty" plane but I've always thought it was super cool looking. Honestly I think the Air Force should hand it over to the Army though I know they never will. Close Air Support should be handled by the service that actually needs it. The Marines can do their own so the Army should be able to as well even if it involves a fixed wing aircraft. I don't really get why the air force is so down on the A10. It seems like one of the more cost effective pieces of equipment we've ever developed.
They don't like the A10 because it's not sexy or fast. I used to work with Army Aviation and they are not allowed to have any fixed wing aircraft at all, with one exception. They're allowed to have drones under a certain size that have a maximum ceiling under something like 10,000 feet. I don't remember the exact numbers. The air force used to be part of the army and they're doing everything they can to make sure that they stay as separate and as unique from the army as possible. I believe the only reason the Marine Corps is allowed to have fixed wing aircraft is due to the fact that they are still under the Dept of the Navy. I don't know that for certain, though./P.
I disagree that dogfighting is relevant in modern warfare, at least with USA as one side.
Though F35 is predominantly a pork project, it's not such a blatant failure as described.
The scenarios where USAF doesn't have a massive support network and has to depend on individual planes' capability to dogfight simply don't happen, because the planet is already nuked.
You obviously don't even know your history back to the Vietnam war. USAF planes did not have guns because we assumed that we would do all of our air to air combat from long distance using AA missiles. The US lost many pilots to old Russian Mig-21s and other planes that were excellent dog fighters. They had to start putting cannons back onto USAF planes in order to stand a chance in dog fights. The fact of the matter is that the enemy will try to attack you in whatever terms are best for them. If that means dog fighting, then that is what they will attempt to do. If that means long distance AA, then they will use that. Granted that the E-3 makes it difficult to get in close, but that doesn't mean that you can just drop dog fighting capabilities./P.
Saying the US would be facing 20:1 odds simply isn't supported by the facts. The US has FAR more combat aircraft than any other country and the US has exactly half (11/22) of the world's supply of aircraft carriers.
If I remember the numbers correctly, the USSR had 10:1 in their favor versus the entire NATO alliance when it came to MBTs. That is why the A-10 was built. The US was expecting to encounter an overwhelming ground force and needed the air superiority roles and close air support to slow down Russian armor. I could be mistaken, though.
Let us all set back and appreciate the scariest bit of C code ever written:
main( ) {
printf("hello, world");
}
It's scary because you used the same formatting they use in K&R. The same formatting that people have used for dozens of years as if they need to save white space because they're publishing a book! It drives me nuts when people put the { on the end of the line. They only did that in books to save space!
I suspect that $0.30 cost is just the materials used in making it. Add in design costs, buying the machine, hiring people to watch over the machines, HR, accounting, sales, and support, that stethoscope can easily cost a full $3.00.
Did you RTFS? It says right there that he spent $10,000 in design costs and that he is going to open source the design. This means that you just need someone with a 3D printer and the $0.30 in material to do the printing. What the cost comes out to be will depend on quality and availability of the printer required to make it.
He *is* an IP attorney. He's going to go broke from...paying himself?
A good lawyer would never represent himself, and for good reason. You have to be able to control your passion as a lawyer and that can be difficult when you're representing yourself. Besides, he could go broke from not doing work for paying clients if he did represent himself.
Sorry are you saying they lack social skills completely?
It may seem that way if you're judging them out of context, yes.
I'm not that much older than Zuck and I can tell you right now that I would not consider it acceptable to ask for someone to resign or to fire them by email.
I hate to break it to you, but you're one person - and trying to draw a curve through a point comprised of a single piece of anecdata is abysmally stupid. Millennials and digital natives have (as a group) somewhat different social expectations and mores than the cohorts the preceded them, this is well known and widely established.
Define digital native, if you please. The only difference their 'digital nativity' and mine is that I did not grow up with SMS and cell phones. That was not until my college years and their high school years. Claiming that they grew up nursing on the teat of technology does not change social norms, all of the sudden.
If such a person expects to be fired by email, this does not speak kindly of the prevailing corporate culture.
Both Mark Zuckerberg and Tim Campos are millenials - their standards for such things are very different from anyone over 40.
Sorry are you saying they lack social skills completely? I'm not that much older than Zuck and I can tell you right now that I would not consider it acceptable to ask for someone to resign or to fire them by email. Have I resigned by email? Yes. Twice. But that is a little bit different. The resignation should be in writing so that all parties should clearly know and have something they can point back to during the termination process. Even the lowliest of employees should be told in person that they are being let go, or told that they need to change or resign their position. Such things do need to be documented, but it is far more compassionate to tell them face to face. It's like breaking up with a significant other over facebook or text message. It's cruel.
reasonable assumption that any official email going to and from the Secretary of State would contain considered information that is restricted
This assumption appears to be contrary to the State Department's _current_ operating procedure of supplying the Secretary with an unclassified email account on the department's unclassified network.
Of course they have an unclassified email account on the unclassified network. Did I say that all of the information sent to a secretary of state was classified? No. I said restricted. If it stays on the unclassified network, but internal to the State Department network / VPN then there is a reasonable assurance of security. It is perfectly acceptable to keep restricted information on an unclassified network. However, restricted information can be used to piece together other bits of information to validate leaked or stolen information. If you had ever sat through the security briefings for someone who has never even held anything above a "CONFIDENTIAL" clearance, you would know how important the FBI and DIA take ALL information security.
covered by ITAR
No claim of materials impacting by ITAR or EAR has been made here. Moreover, transmitting ITAR and EAR materials to a U.S. citizen whose email account resides within the United States is not a violation of either one.
I never claimed any of the material in the email was covered by ITAR or EAR. I was merely stating the fact that there are laws on the books that DO NOT require mens rea in order for you to be CRIMINALLY charged and convicted. In fact, I can think of many laws that do not require mens rea for criminal charges.
Let's be honest, you're obviously a Clinton supporter. And if you are, that is fine with me. But you seem to be trying very hard to justify her doing something that is 100% completely against all security best practices and rules even for non classified material. In no world should she have been allowed to do this. There is no logical justification for her to run official business out of her home mail server. And what did you think of Sarah Palin running official business for the State of Alaska out of a yahoo email account? Was that acceptable? Why would anyone try and justify the action of either party? You're just enabling their dishonesty and corruption.
does not prevent you from any potential civil or criminal penalties for divulging or improperly handling the material
Incorrect. If you have no reason to believe the material is classified, you are protected from all criminal penalties: you don't have the necessary mens rea.
You -can- have reason to believe that unmarked material is classified, but there's a long road between can and do. There's no way you or I could know whether Clinton did. Moreover, no one who is in a position to know has made any such claim.
You're looking at it from a court of law standpoint, and only a criminal one at that. There is no requirement for mens rea in a civil case. You don't have to go to court to face civil penalties, either. I can tell you right now that if I were working for a company and I did this at least one thing would happen: I would lose my job. Even if I lost my job, my company can potentially lose not only the contract that involved that particular piece of classified material, but all contracts requiring the proper security of classified material. That's not to say that the government is likely to do that, but it could happen and there would be no requirement for mens rea or even a civil lawsuit.
Furthermore, you can disseminate information that is not classified AT ALL and still violate Federal law. I have personally worked on projects without any classified materials that were covered by ITAR. The material in question had to do with the functionality of aircraft systems - not even ones used directly for offensive or defensive use.
I think it's a reasonable assumption that any official email going to and from the Secretary of State would contain considered information that is restricted, even if it is not classified. That sort of material has no business being sent to a non-department mailserver unless it is meant to leave the care of the State Department. Is there any reason that this should not be considered usual, customary, or just plain old common sense?
Well even still, as someone who had to sit through regular DIA and FBI security lectures, the lack of the mark does not make the material unclassified. It does not prevent you from any potential civil or criminal penalties for divulging or improperly handling the material. And anyone working as the Secretary of State level should probably assume that any material they are presented with needs to be secured.
But I LIKE walking. I get in 5-10 miles a day routinely. It's the one thing I do that gets me away from this silly keyboard so I have time to really think....
That makes two of us. My dog and I walk at least 5 miles a day together. I could crush the walking goal that Washington State apparently set for state employees in 2016 (another poster indicated that the state is offering a wellness program that allows you to submit results by fitbit). However, I have no interest in disclosing my exercise habits to my employer!
... are extinct. People I know that still have watches, most of them have watches as a fashion statement. It's a jewelry.
Other groups I'm aware of are old people who need glasses to see their phone screen, and "some" rich people to show off. Who the f needs a $1000+ USD watch ? Never mind $5k+.
Eventually they gonna disappear all together same as pocket watches did.
It's called evolution. Either you keep with the times or eventually you loose your business and get forgotten.
I have a $1000 watch that I enjoy wearing. It has a legitimately sealed case (up to 300m of water resistance), and looks very stylish. Sometimes I go through phases where I wear it every day to work. Most of the time, however, I just wear it to special events, on dates, or at important business meetings. It's made of titanium, so it's not very "blingy" but it looks very nice. Women usually comment on it, but no one else ever does. Certainly not any of my coworkers. But it does help you look like you belong when you're the only middle class person in a meeting full of people that flew in the night before on their private jets.
I carry one on my belt. It agrees pretty closely with expected results for known-distance walks (distance measured with a GPS tracker).
Though it is possible to game the device - just tap it repeatedly, and it'll count the jolts as steps. Hardly worth the bother though, since it's easier to do the walking than to tap it 10000 times....
ahh until you get a machine that will tap the device for you! Then you can sit there and read a book or play Duke Nukem Forever while the thing racks up the miles walked!
Correction: none of the emails were "marked classified", and it was sent to a known non-government email server, so the recipient can presume that it's not classified, and treat it as such. The FBI reviewed and determined that information in some of the emails was classified. That's bad, of course, but I'd say that the sender is who screwed up - if they took classified information, and sent it as unclassified to an "insecure" email server, they are the ones that crossed the line.
So now let's dig into all of the email from the previous SoS's, who also used private email servers, and see if we can find any information that turns out to be classified.:-)
The updated Wall Street Journal article I read yesterday indicated that the emails were clearly marked as classified when Clinton received them. Could have been a mistake on the WSJ's part, or a reading comprehension failure on my part, but that is what my understanding of the news was yesterday.
Over 300 other civilian planes flew over the area the same week. There was no "no fly" zone.
Yes and no. The FAA specifically forbade any US based carrier from flying over that part of Ukraine. I think the similar organization(s) (I think there is just one that covers all of the EU but I could be wrong) in the EU did the same thing. It was only carriers from other regions of the world that allowed flights to transit Eastern Ukraine at that time.
Idiot. The emails were "unmarked." That means not stamped with a classification. More, they reached her on an unclassified network. Clinton had every reason to believe they contained no classified information. Indeed, the claim that they do contain classified information remains unsubstantiated.
Uh no. Keep up with the news. The reason this is going down is because 10% of the email the FBI reviewed was marked classified. Of the email marked as classified, 50% were marked as TOP SECRET. Now, I am using statistics in my favor here, as the FBI only reviewed 40 emails total and found that 4 were marked as classified. Obviously that is not necessarily statistically significant when there were purportedly over 40,000 emails sent and received from that server. But we already know from that small sampling that she clearly knew there was classified material going through her server.
This is silly. The brake pedal on every car that currently leaves a production line is still physically connected to the master cylinder and wheel callipers.
This is actually no longer true and I was surprised when I learned this a few weeks ago. Apparently Porsche no longer physically connects the brake pedal to the master cylinder in certain model cars. In fact, if you search for parts for Porsche's you'll see that, as of 2012, the only car that still has a brake pedal physically connected to the master cylinder is the GT3. I was pretty shocked and appalled to hear this since the e-brake on the car is a switch. That means that a total failure of the computer system on the car could also result in you being completely unable to apply any braking whatsoever.
Seriously, where does this happen so frequently that an invention had to be made because of it?
Sure, there's bike-share in big cities these days, but is drunken cycling a really big problem in these places?
The beach community I live in has a bit of a problem with this. The issue isn't drunken bikers, per se, but the route they choose to take when they bike home. The police started issuing DUIs to bicyclists after several incidents with drunken bicyclists swerving out into traffic on one of the only busy roads in the community. In my particular community, one could easily bike anywhere they need to go strictly on almost completely deserted residential roads at the cost of maybe an extra 5 minutes. So the police turn a blind eye to people who bike through neighborhoods and stop pretty much everyone who looks remotely drunk on the major roads after midnight.
"Hydro tend to provide reliable power but do not provide enough supply."
Hi. I live in Quebec. Not only does hydro provide reliable power, it powers most of the province and there's a huge energy surplus.
And the people in Iceland can rely almost entirely on geothermally generated electricity. What's your point? Not every location has an abundant supply of water or geothermal activity.
This reminds me of ancient maritime law and how they defined 'territorial waters'. Today it's 12 nautical miles. Back in the 18th Century it was 3 miles. For several centuries it amounted to being the range of common ground-based cannon-shot. Basically, if they could shoot at you from shore, you were within their territorial waters.
It seems as good of a standard as any - if you can hit the drone with a standard 12 gauge using normal shot that's small enough to fall 'harmlessly' back to earth, then the drone is too low.
Depending on whether people pull the goose guns out, this seems
At 425 m/s, if it wasn't for atmosphere it'd make it out 9k feet. As is, air resistance is critical, and while I can get plenty of 'how far', 'how high' is tougher, but I'm getting a practical range of about 80-120 feet.
Reasonable enough.
I believe the drone in question was at ~200 feet when it was shot down. I personally don't want anyone shooting in the air in my neighborhood, though bird shot would be relatively safe at longer distances in rural areas. But anyway, you don't want to start an arms race on what is considered to be private airspace based on weapons. I could easily shoot down a drone at 200 yards if it were hovering in one spot and not being buffeted by the wind. Maybe not with bird shot, but I can guarantee you that some redneck would take it too far if you gave people a free pass to shoot things out of the sky above their property.
It's popular to explain why they created an umbrella company and offer your theories. But I am convinced of this: the general public is not aware of the reason at this time.
I'll offer a very general reason they would do this, I don't have the details: doing this creates a financial/legal advantages for Larry Page and Sergey Brin. What kind of advantage? Why does it create the advantage? I don't know. But why do business people do anything?
I could be wrong, but I don't think it is for the "soft" reasons that people are positing now, i.e. it explains the structure better, it highlights that Google is not a "conventional company". This is a big change, and probably an expensive and time-consuming one. And making everyone aware of this "Alphabet" brand is a big pain in the ass.
I think the reasons they did this are very specific and concrete, but we just don't know what those reasons are at this point.
There are a lot of reasons as to why this may be happening. It's very possible that it has to do with the fact that Google has had antitrust allegations levied against it in the EU (they were formally filed in April of this year). With separate subsidiaries it may make it easier to shield themselves from certain allegations in that anti-trust case, for instance. I suspect that we'll know within 12-18 months whether it was done for this reason. In any event, I think you are right that it was done for monetary reasons.
No, they're Taiwanese. Only three things could make it Chinese.
1. Foxconn moves to, or is sold off to China.
2. Taiwan re-unifies with China under its own volition via diplomatic agreement.
3. WAR! China takes Taiwan.
Except that their name is the Republic of China. We just happen to call the country Taiwan. I'm not at all certain about this, but I believe we call it Taiwan to avoid confusion and because the Peoples Republic of China does not really want anyone calling the RoC anything that has to do with China.
Slashdot Mirror
I saw an A10 take off near my office the other day. I know a lot of people think it isn't a "pretty" plane but I've always thought it was super cool looking. Honestly I think the Air Force should hand it over to the Army though I know they never will. Close Air Support should be handled by the service that actually needs it. The Marines can do their own so the Army should be able to as well even if it involves a fixed wing aircraft. I don't really get why the air force is so down on the A10. It seems like one of the more cost effective pieces of equipment we've ever developed.
They don't like the A10 because it's not sexy or fast. I used to work with Army Aviation and they are not allowed to have any fixed wing aircraft at all, with one exception. They're allowed to have drones under a certain size that have a maximum ceiling under something like 10,000 feet. I don't remember the exact numbers. The air force used to be part of the army and they're doing everything they can to make sure that they stay as separate and as unique from the army as possible. I believe the only reason the Marine Corps is allowed to have fixed wing aircraft is due to the fact that they are still under the Dept of the Navy. I don't know that for certain, though./P.
Thanks.
I disagree that dogfighting is relevant in modern warfare, at least with USA as one side. Though F35 is predominantly a pork project, it's not such a blatant failure as described. The scenarios where USAF doesn't have a massive support network and has to depend on individual planes' capability to dogfight simply don't happen, because the planet is already nuked.
You obviously don't even know your history back to the Vietnam war. USAF planes did not have guns because we assumed that we would do all of our air to air combat from long distance using AA missiles. The US lost many pilots to old Russian Mig-21s and other planes that were excellent dog fighters. They had to start putting cannons back onto USAF planes in order to stand a chance in dog fights. The fact of the matter is that the enemy will try to attack you in whatever terms are best for them. If that means dog fighting, then that is what they will attempt to do. If that means long distance AA, then they will use that. Granted that the E-3 makes it difficult to get in close, but that doesn't mean that you can just drop dog fighting capabilities./P.
Saying the US would be facing 20:1 odds simply isn't supported by the facts. The US has FAR more combat aircraft than any other country and the US has exactly half (11/22) of the world's supply of aircraft carriers.
If I remember the numbers correctly, the USSR had 10:1 in their favor versus the entire NATO alliance when it came to MBTs. That is why the A-10 was built. The US was expecting to encounter an overwhelming ground force and needed the air superiority roles and close air support to slow down Russian armor. I could be mistaken, though.
Let us all set back and appreciate the scariest bit of C code ever written: main( ) { printf("hello, world"); }
It's scary because you used the same formatting they use in K&R. The same formatting that people have used for dozens of years as if they need to save white space because they're publishing a book! It drives me nuts when people put the { on the end of the line. They only did that in books to save space!
No wonder everyone outside of large businesses wants nothing to do with big monolithic packages!!
That's not what she said!
I suspect that $0.30 cost is just the materials used in making it. Add in design costs, buying the machine, hiring people to watch over the machines, HR, accounting, sales, and support, that stethoscope can easily cost a full $3.00.
Did you RTFS? It says right there that he spent $10,000 in design costs and that he is going to open source the design. This means that you just need someone with a 3D printer and the $0.30 in material to do the printing. What the cost comes out to be will depend on quality and availability of the printer required to make it.
He *is* an IP attorney. He's going to go broke from...paying himself?
A good lawyer would never represent himself, and for good reason. You have to be able to control your passion as a lawyer and that can be difficult when you're representing yourself. Besides, he could go broke from not doing work for paying clients if he did represent himself.
It may seem that way if you're judging them out of context, yes.
I hate to break it to you, but you're one person - and trying to draw a curve through a point comprised of a single piece of anecdata is abysmally stupid. Millennials and digital natives have (as a group) somewhat different social expectations and mores than the cohorts the preceded them, this is well known and widely established.
Define digital native, if you please. The only difference their 'digital nativity' and mine is that I did not grow up with SMS and cell phones. That was not until my college years and their high school years. Claiming that they grew up nursing on the teat of technology does not change social norms, all of the sudden.
Both Mark Zuckerberg and Tim Campos are millenials - their standards for such things are very different from anyone over 40.
Sorry are you saying they lack social skills completely? I'm not that much older than Zuck and I can tell you right now that I would not consider it acceptable to ask for someone to resign or to fire them by email. Have I resigned by email? Yes. Twice. But that is a little bit different. The resignation should be in writing so that all parties should clearly know and have something they can point back to during the termination process. Even the lowliest of employees should be told in person that they are being let go, or told that they need to change or resign their position. Such things do need to be documented, but it is far more compassionate to tell them face to face. It's like breaking up with a significant other over facebook or text message. It's cruel.
reasonable assumption that any official email going to and from the Secretary of State would contain considered information that is restricted
This assumption appears to be contrary to the State Department's _current_ operating procedure of supplying the Secretary with an unclassified email account on the department's unclassified network.
Of course they have an unclassified email account on the unclassified network. Did I say that all of the information sent to a secretary of state was classified? No. I said restricted. If it stays on the unclassified network, but internal to the State Department network / VPN then there is a reasonable assurance of security. It is perfectly acceptable to keep restricted information on an unclassified network. However, restricted information can be used to piece together other bits of information to validate leaked or stolen information. If you had ever sat through the security briefings for someone who has never even held anything above a "CONFIDENTIAL" clearance, you would know how important the FBI and DIA take ALL information security.
covered by ITAR
No claim of materials impacting by ITAR or EAR has been made here. Moreover, transmitting ITAR and EAR materials to a U.S. citizen whose email account resides within the United States is not a violation of either one.
I never claimed any of the material in the email was covered by ITAR or EAR. I was merely stating the fact that there are laws on the books that DO NOT require mens rea in order for you to be CRIMINALLY charged and convicted. In fact, I can think of many laws that do not require mens rea for criminal charges.
Let's be honest, you're obviously a Clinton supporter. And if you are, that is fine with me. But you seem to be trying very hard to justify her doing something that is 100% completely against all security best practices and rules even for non classified material. In no world should she have been allowed to do this. There is no logical justification for her to run official business out of her home mail server. And what did you think of Sarah Palin running official business for the State of Alaska out of a yahoo email account? Was that acceptable? Why would anyone try and justify the action of either party? You're just enabling their dishonesty and corruption.
does not prevent you from any potential civil or criminal penalties for divulging or improperly handling the material
Incorrect. If you have no reason to believe the material is classified, you are protected from all criminal penalties: you don't have the necessary mens rea.
You -can- have reason to believe that unmarked material is classified, but there's a long road between can and do. There's no way you or I could know whether Clinton did. Moreover, no one who is in a position to know has made any such claim.
You're looking at it from a court of law standpoint, and only a criminal one at that. There is no requirement for mens rea in a civil case. You don't have to go to court to face civil penalties, either. I can tell you right now that if I were working for a company and I did this at least one thing would happen: I would lose my job. Even if I lost my job, my company can potentially lose not only the contract that involved that particular piece of classified material, but all contracts requiring the proper security of classified material. That's not to say that the government is likely to do that, but it could happen and there would be no requirement for mens rea or even a civil lawsuit.
Furthermore, you can disseminate information that is not classified AT ALL and still violate Federal law. I have personally worked on projects without any classified materials that were covered by ITAR. The material in question had to do with the functionality of aircraft systems - not even ones used directly for offensive or defensive use.
I think it's a reasonable assumption that any official email going to and from the Secretary of State would contain considered information that is restricted, even if it is not classified. That sort of material has no business being sent to a non-department mailserver unless it is meant to leave the care of the State Department. Is there any reason that this should not be considered usual, customary, or just plain old common sense?
http://mediamatters.org/resear...
Not marked.
Well even still, as someone who had to sit through regular DIA and FBI security lectures, the lack of the mark does not make the material unclassified. It does not prevent you from any potential civil or criminal penalties for divulging or improperly handling the material. And anyone working as the Secretary of State level should probably assume that any material they are presented with needs to be secured.
But I LIKE walking. I get in 5-10 miles a day routinely. It's the one thing I do that gets me away from this silly keyboard so I have time to really think....
That makes two of us. My dog and I walk at least 5 miles a day together. I could crush the walking goal that Washington State apparently set for state employees in 2016 (another poster indicated that the state is offering a wellness program that allows you to submit results by fitbit). However, I have no interest in disclosing my exercise habits to my employer!
... are extinct. People I know that still have watches, most of them have watches as a fashion statement. It's a jewelry.
Other groups I'm aware of are old people who need glasses to see their phone screen, and "some" rich people to show off. Who the f needs a $1000+ USD watch ? Never mind $5k+.
Eventually they gonna disappear all together same as pocket watches did.
It's called evolution. Either you keep with the times or eventually you loose your business and get forgotten.
I have a $1000 watch that I enjoy wearing. It has a legitimately sealed case (up to 300m of water resistance), and looks very stylish. Sometimes I go through phases where I wear it every day to work. Most of the time, however, I just wear it to special events, on dates, or at important business meetings. It's made of titanium, so it's not very "blingy" but it looks very nice. Women usually comment on it, but no one else ever does. Certainly not any of my coworkers. But it does help you look like you belong when you're the only middle class person in a meeting full of people that flew in the night before on their private jets.
I carry one on my belt. It agrees pretty closely with expected results for known-distance walks (distance measured with a GPS tracker).
Though it is possible to game the device - just tap it repeatedly, and it'll count the jolts as steps. Hardly worth the bother though, since it's easier to do the walking than to tap it 10000 times....
ahh until you get a machine that will tap the device for you! Then you can sit there and read a book or play Duke Nukem Forever while the thing racks up the miles walked!
Correction: none of the emails were "marked classified", and it was sent to a known non-government email server, so the recipient can presume that it's not classified, and treat it as such. The FBI reviewed and determined that information in some of the emails was classified. That's bad, of course, but I'd say that the sender is who screwed up - if they took classified information, and sent it as unclassified to an "insecure" email server, they are the ones that crossed the line.
So now let's dig into all of the email from the previous SoS's, who also used private email servers, and see if we can find any information that turns out to be classified. :-)
The updated Wall Street Journal article I read yesterday indicated that the emails were clearly marked as classified when Clinton received them. Could have been a mistake on the WSJ's part, or a reading comprehension failure on my part, but that is what my understanding of the news was yesterday.
Over 300 other civilian planes flew over the area the same week. There was no "no fly" zone.
Yes and no. The FAA specifically forbade any US based carrier from flying over that part of Ukraine. I think the similar organization(s) (I think there is just one that covers all of the EU but I could be wrong) in the EU did the same thing. It was only carriers from other regions of the world that allowed flights to transit Eastern Ukraine at that time.
Those two emails were classified retroactively. This isn't a new story.
The FBI is claiming that there were two emails marked as TOP SECRET in the email itself. So, either the FBI is lying or Clinton is.
Idiot. The emails were "unmarked." That means not stamped with a classification. More, they reached her on an unclassified network. Clinton had every reason to believe they contained no classified information. Indeed, the claim that they do contain classified information remains unsubstantiated.
Uh no. Keep up with the news. The reason this is going down is because 10% of the email the FBI reviewed was marked classified. Of the email marked as classified, 50% were marked as TOP SECRET. Now, I am using statistics in my favor here, as the FBI only reviewed 40 emails total and found that 4 were marked as classified. Obviously that is not necessarily statistically significant when there were purportedly over 40,000 emails sent and received from that server. But we already know from that small sampling that she clearly knew there was classified material going through her server.
This is silly. The brake pedal on every car that currently leaves a production line is still physically connected to the master cylinder and wheel callipers.
This is actually no longer true and I was surprised when I learned this a few weeks ago. Apparently Porsche no longer physically connects the brake pedal to the master cylinder in certain model cars. In fact, if you search for parts for Porsche's you'll see that, as of 2012, the only car that still has a brake pedal physically connected to the master cylinder is the GT3. I was pretty shocked and appalled to hear this since the e-brake on the car is a switch. That means that a total failure of the computer system on the car could also result in you being completely unable to apply any braking whatsoever.
Seriously, where does this happen so frequently that an invention had to be made because of it?
Sure, there's bike-share in big cities these days, but is drunken cycling a really big problem in these places?
The beach community I live in has a bit of a problem with this. The issue isn't drunken bikers, per se, but the route they choose to take when they bike home. The police started issuing DUIs to bicyclists after several incidents with drunken bicyclists swerving out into traffic on one of the only busy roads in the community. In my particular community, one could easily bike anywhere they need to go strictly on almost completely deserted residential roads at the cost of maybe an extra 5 minutes. So the police turn a blind eye to people who bike through neighborhoods and stop pretty much everyone who looks remotely drunk on the major roads after midnight.
"Hydro tend to provide reliable power but do not provide enough supply."
Hi. I live in Quebec. Not only does hydro provide reliable power, it powers most of the province and there's a huge energy surplus.
And the people in Iceland can rely almost entirely on geothermally generated electricity. What's your point? Not every location has an abundant supply of water or geothermal activity.
This reminds me of ancient maritime law and how they defined 'territorial waters'. Today it's 12 nautical miles. Back in the 18th Century it was 3 miles. For several centuries it amounted to being the range of common ground-based cannon-shot. Basically, if they could shoot at you from shore, you were within their territorial waters.
It seems as good of a standard as any - if you can hit the drone with a standard 12 gauge using normal shot that's small enough to fall 'harmlessly' back to earth, then the drone is too low.
Depending on whether people pull the goose guns out, this seems
At 425 m/s, if it wasn't for atmosphere it'd make it out 9k feet. As is, air resistance is critical, and while I can get plenty of 'how far', 'how high' is tougher, but I'm getting a practical range of about 80-120 feet.
Reasonable enough.
I believe the drone in question was at ~200 feet when it was shot down. I personally don't want anyone shooting in the air in my neighborhood, though bird shot would be relatively safe at longer distances in rural areas. But anyway, you don't want to start an arms race on what is considered to be private airspace based on weapons. I could easily shoot down a drone at 200 yards if it were hovering in one spot and not being buffeted by the wind. Maybe not with bird shot, but I can guarantee you that some redneck would take it too far if you gave people a free pass to shoot things out of the sky above their property.
It's popular to explain why they created an umbrella company and offer your theories. But I am convinced of this: the general public is not aware of the reason at this time.
I'll offer a very general reason they would do this, I don't have the details: doing this creates a financial/legal advantages for Larry Page and Sergey Brin. What kind of advantage? Why does it create the advantage? I don't know. But why do business people do anything?
I could be wrong, but I don't think it is for the "soft" reasons that people are positing now, i.e. it explains the structure better, it highlights that Google is not a "conventional company". This is a big change, and probably an expensive and time-consuming one. And making everyone aware of this "Alphabet" brand is a big pain in the ass.
I think the reasons they did this are very specific and concrete, but we just don't know what those reasons are at this point.
There are a lot of reasons as to why this may be happening. It's very possible that it has to do with the fact that Google has had antitrust allegations levied against it in the EU (they were formally filed in April of this year). With separate subsidiaries it may make it easier to shield themselves from certain allegations in that anti-trust case, for instance. I suspect that we'll know within 12-18 months whether it was done for this reason. In any event, I think you are right that it was done for monetary reasons.
No, they're Taiwanese. Only three things could make it Chinese.
1. Foxconn moves to, or is sold off to China. 2. Taiwan re-unifies with China under its own volition via diplomatic agreement. 3. WAR! China takes Taiwan.
Except that their name is the Republic of China. We just happen to call the country Taiwan. I'm not at all certain about this, but I believe we call it Taiwan to avoid confusion and because the Peoples Republic of China does not really want anyone calling the RoC anything that has to do with China.