Third world countries don't ask for a photo id. They make you dip a finger in ink that won't wear off until after the election in order to signal that you voted.
The photo ID requirement is racist because (A) virtually no voter fraud occurs as a result of claiming false identity at the polls and (B) a disproportionate number of minorities either don't vote or are turned away when photo ids are required.
In other words: the sole meaningful result of a photo id requirement is that minorities are denied a vote.
Part (A) is not hard to understand: changing the vote outcome by having people lie at the polls would require a conspiracy too vast to keep secret. It's not a useful way to cheat at voting, so little protection is needed. Unless, of course, protection is the excuse rather than the goal.
I have encountered the brick window exploit as well, but that doesn't terrify me. The 70 mph wireless remote engine kill, brake lock and drive by wire steering override, on the other hand...
No. Added a scene, restored the artwork, colored it, those things create a derivative work copyright. Cutting and rearranging does not -- every single element of the work is still in the public domain. You have to add something to the work which in and of itself is copyrightable or it's just a transformation.
You have to tweak it more than a little bit. Also, the public domain material embedded in your work is still public domain, so if someone can extract it, the result is public domain.
If it stays on the unclassified network, but internal to the State Department network / VPN then there is a reasonable assurance of security.
Surely you jest. State has one of the worst Cyber Security grades in the Federal government. Full on F last time I checked.
there are laws on the books that DO NOT require mens rea
Yes, there are "strict liability" laws where mens rea is irrelevant. Statutory Rape, for example. These are rare and ITAR is not one of them. A prosecutor must at a minimum show that you should have known the article was ITAR controlled and recklessly failed to take reasonable precautions against sending it to a foreign party.
what did you think of Sarah Palin running official business for the State of Alaska out of a yahoo email account
I think it was stupid to rely on a free public email service to handle information you don't want out in the world. What part of "free" did she misunderstand?
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.
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.
You don't have to go to court to face civil penalties, either
Again, incorrect. You may face administrative penalties without being taken to court, but _civil_ penalties require a court to find guilt.
There being basically no chance that the government will reveal classified material in court for the sake of a civil suit, someone who denies knowledge that material in their possession was classified won't be facing any civil penalties either.
As for administrative penalties, it depends how badly someone in the security apparatus wants to get you. Generally speaking, you won't face any administrative penalties so long as your belief the material was unclassified was a reasonable one and you're prompt and cooperative once the spill is uncovered.
I note that the "prompt and cooperative" part seems to be in place for Clinton. Shortly after the claim that the emails contained classified material, the server and its copies are voluntarily in government hands.
the lack of the mark does not make the material unclassified
Correct.
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.
Okay, technically there are airlines consisting of two and four seaters that deliver one to three passengers to some remote location. And my weigh-in for the several trips I've taken by helicopter was not objectionable.
But the article was not talking about teensy aircraft. They were talking about routine commercial service for 10 to 300 passengers. For folks who board standing up via a jetway. For those relevant situations, I stand behind my statement.
Except that it's an identical data spill if the information circulates the same way on the state department's unclassified network. Not "less bad." Identical.
Original classification authority is not at issue here. The claim was that she had emails -derived from- classified sources. From what I've heard, no one has even accused her of being the point where the information leaked... only that she had, in her possession, mismarked documents.
Whoa! No, no, no, you never never guess what the classification should be and mark a document. Only a small handful of people have original classifying authority. Everyone else works with derivative classifications: you got the information from this document with this classification, so the same portion of your document retains that classification.
If you so much as suspect information in a document you receive is mismarked, you don't attempt to mark it. You take it to your friendly local security officer and let him track down where the information came from so that he can record the correct source for the derivative classification.
the drafter of the document is responsible for taking appropriate steps to properly classify said document
Last I heard, Clinton is not accused of drafting and sending classified emails via her personal server. The claim was that unmarked emails containing classified information were on her computer. Have you heard differently?
I have worked for the Federal government and its contractors in the past, held a top secret clearance (with SCI and various compartments) and have been certified as a data transfer officer.
Training on how to identify mismarked documents, including documents which bear no markings? No such thing. The closest any training gets is telling you how to handle the situation if you -suspect- that you've encountered mismarked documents.
Think about it for a moment. How would you even know whether an unmarked document is classified? That's a circular reasoning fallacy: the markings are what tells your whether and at what level the material is classified.
It isn't the secretary of state's job to decide whether something should become classified. Nor is the secretary of state a data transfer officer, with the access to move electronic data from a classified network to an unclassified network. She received unmarked information on an unclassified network that she had every reason to believe was unclassified. It happens. It's not a crime.
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.
Basically rehashes the Washington Post article from last week. Consensus: always possible to add clothes. Only so many clothes can be taken off, and it's not just men in 3-piece suits who sweat. Can buy personal heaters. Can't buy personal air conditioners. Deal with it.
It's called an "inverter" air conditioner. It produces a variable-frequency AC sine wave from the DC voltage. The variable-frequency to the compressor changes the cooling output, so instead of turning the air conditioner on and off as the temperature wanders back and forth across the set point, it varies the frequency to keep the temperature steady.
Sharp already sells these air conditioners. They're just removing the DC rectifier circuit and running directly on DC instead of starting with 50hz or 60hz AC.
High AC voltages have induction losses. They don't travel as well as low voltages.
BUT
The goal is to send lots of watts, not lots of amps or volts. Low amperages travel well. High amperages don't travel at all -- they lose most of their energy to heat. Simple transformers (which are basically just coils of wire) can swap amps for volts so that lots of watts can travel a long distance at low amperages.
Slashdot Mirror
Third world countries don't ask for a photo id. They make you dip a finger in ink that won't wear off until after the election in order to signal that you voted.
The photo ID requirement is racist because (A) virtually no voter fraud occurs as a result of claiming false identity at the polls and (B) a disproportionate number of minorities either don't vote or are turned away when photo ids are required.
In other words: the sole meaningful result of a photo id requirement is that minorities are denied a vote.
Part (A) is not hard to understand: changing the vote outcome by having people lie at the polls would require a conspiracy too vast to keep secret. It's not a useful way to cheat at voting, so little protection is needed. Unless, of course, protection is the excuse rather than the goal.
I have encountered the brick window exploit as well, but that doesn't terrify me. The 70 mph wireless remote engine kill, brake lock and drive by wire steering override, on the other hand...
No. Added a scene, restored the artwork, colored it, those things create a derivative work copyright. Cutting and rearranging does not -- every single element of the work is still in the public domain. You have to add something to the work which in and of itself is copyrightable or it's just a transformation.
You have to tweak it more than a little bit. Also, the public domain material embedded in your work is still public domain, so if someone can extract it, the result is public domain.
You offer a poignant rebuttal which shall surely change the minds of all who read it.
If it stays on the unclassified network, but internal to the State Department network / VPN then there is a reasonable assurance of security.
Surely you jest. State has one of the worst Cyber Security grades in the Federal government. Full on F last time I checked.
there are laws on the books that DO NOT require mens rea
Yes, there are "strict liability" laws where mens rea is irrelevant. Statutory Rape, for example. These are rare and ITAR is not one of them. A prosecutor must at a minimum show that you should have known the article was ITAR controlled and recklessly failed to take reasonable precautions against sending it to a foreign party.
what did you think of Sarah Palin running official business for the State of Alaska out of a yahoo email account
I think it was stupid to rely on a free public email service to handle information you don't want out in the world. What part of "free" did she misunderstand?
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.
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.
You don't have to go to court to face civil penalties, either
Again, incorrect. You may face administrative penalties without being taken to court, but _civil_ penalties require a court to find guilt.
There being basically no chance that the government will reveal classified material in court for the sake of a civil suit, someone who denies knowledge that material in their possession was classified won't be facing any civil penalties either.
As for administrative penalties, it depends how badly someone in the security apparatus wants to get you. Generally speaking, you won't face any administrative penalties so long as your belief the material was unclassified was a reasonable one and you're prompt and cooperative once the spill is uncovered.
I note that the "prompt and cooperative" part seems to be in place for Clinton. Shortly after the claim that the emails contained classified material, the server and its copies are voluntarily in government hands.
the lack of the mark does not make the material unclassified
Correct.
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.
Okay, technically there are airlines consisting of two and four seaters that deliver one to three passengers to some remote location. And my weigh-in for the several trips I've taken by helicopter was not objectionable.
But the article was not talking about teensy aircraft. They were talking about routine commercial service for 10 to 300 passengers. For folks who board standing up via a jetway. For those relevant situations, I stand behind my statement.
Except that it's an identical data spill if the information circulates the same way on the state department's unclassified network. Not "less bad." Identical.
http://mediamatters.org/resear...
Not marked.
Original classification authority is not at issue here. The claim was that she had emails -derived from- classified sources. From what I've heard, no one has even accused her of being the point where the information leaked... only that she had, in her possession, mismarked documents.
The State Department got an F on it's "cybersecurity report card." Her email server was probably more secure than theirs are.
mark it yourself
Whoa! No, no, no, you never never guess what the classification should be and mark a document. Only a small handful of people have original classifying authority. Everyone else works with derivative classifications: you got the information from this document with this classification, so the same portion of your document retains that classification.
If you so much as suspect information in a document you receive is mismarked, you don't attempt to mark it. You take it to your friendly local security officer and let him track down where the information came from so that he can record the correct source for the derivative classification.
the drafter of the document is responsible for taking appropriate steps to properly classify said document
Last I heard, Clinton is not accused of drafting and sending classified emails via her personal server. The claim was that unmarked emails containing classified information were on her computer. Have you heard differently?
I have worked for the Federal government and its contractors in the past, held a top secret clearance (with SCI and various compartments) and have been certified as a data transfer officer.
Training on how to identify mismarked documents, including documents which bear no markings? No such thing. The closest any training gets is telling you how to handle the situation if you -suspect- that you've encountered mismarked documents.
Think about it for a moment. How would you even know whether an unmarked document is classified? That's a circular reasoning fallacy: the markings are what tells your whether and at what level the material is classified.
technically, weight and balance calculations are required before each flight.
Correct, however any airline operating so far in to the safety margin that they need to weigh passengers is, well, really unsafe.
It isn't the secretary of state's job to decide whether something should become classified. Nor is the secretary of state a data transfer officer, with the access to move electronic data from a classified network to an unclassified network. She received unmarked information on an unclassified network that she had every reason to believe was unclassified. It happens. It's not a crime.
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.
I ditched inkjet printers because the ink dries out before the next time I want to print something. Toner cartridges don't seem to have that problem.
Can Epson overcome that problem?
Tried that. Works for 1 to 2 degrees. Not really in the same ballpark.
Basically rehashes the Washington Post article from last week. Consensus: always possible to add clothes. Only so many clothes can be taken off, and it's not just men in 3-piece suits who sweat. Can buy personal heaters. Can't buy personal air conditioners. Deal with it.
It's called an "inverter" air conditioner. It produces a variable-frequency AC sine wave from the DC voltage. The variable-frequency to the compressor changes the cooling output, so instead of turning the air conditioner on and off as the temperature wanders back and forth across the set point, it varies the frequency to keep the temperature steady.
http://www.acson-international...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It is brilliant.
Sharp already sells these air conditioners. They're just removing the DC rectifier circuit and running directly on DC instead of starting with 50hz or 60hz AC.
High AC voltages have induction losses. They don't travel as well as low voltages.
BUT
The goal is to send lots of watts, not lots of amps or volts. Low amperages travel well. High amperages don't travel at all -- they lose most of their energy to heat. Simple transformers (which are basically just coils of wire) can swap amps for volts so that lots of watts can travel a long distance at low amperages.