I understand cheering for your team. However, when it becomes clear that your quarterback sucks, there comes a time to recognize that and replace them. Quoting director Comey's prepared statement 48 hours ago: --
110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. --
And yes she DID forget to remove the classification markings from some documents. Quoting Comey again:
-- Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked âoeclassifiedâ in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it. --
Comey was appointed Director of the FBI by Barak Obama in 2013.
She instructed her staff to "remove markings and send non-secure." Her defense was "they weren't -marked- classified when I sent them."
I would say that her instruction "send non-secure" makes it pretty clear she knew it isn't secure, and was actively thinking of that fact when she told them to do it. At the same time, she was also setting her up defense, having them (illegally?) remove the classification markings so that she could later testify "they weren't marked classified when I forwarded them." Sounds like she knew it was illegal.
First, this isn't about emergencies, it's about solicitations. Specifically, asking donors and other likely supporters to participate in "town halls" hosted by the politician.
More importantly, Congress is supposed to make the law, notbthe Obama administration. Congress duly passed the law saying government contractors may use robocalls "solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States." It further instructed the FCC publish detauled rules about that one exception that Congress allowed. Congress could have allowed other exceptions; they chose not to. The FCC has decided to pretend the actual law passed by Congress doesn't exist and the FCC gets to make the law.
> but we haven't been told if it's just classified, secret, top secret, or higher...
The FBI director announced that several emails contained documents which were already marked "top secret". Other emails included information classified "special access", which is higher than top secret.
The director stated in his news conference that Clinton was "extremely careless" with classified information on at least 110 occasions. It's federal crime to be "grossly negligent" in handling classified information. Essentially, he announced "she's guilty on 110 counts, but we won't prosecute".
There are many, many apps for sharing pictures. Plain mms even for sharing with one or a few people. The whole point of Snapchat, the reason people choose Snapchat rather than any of 10,000 other apps, is that the pics go away. If Snapchat forgets what makes them special, they'll probably lose their market dominance in that niche.
For long-term archiving and sharing of old pics, Facebook has huge advantages. If Snapchat decides to go head-to-head with Facebook, I think they'll lose quickly and dramatically.
To to your point, look up "SystemC". It's the C programming language, used to write programs which are often compiled as pure hardware. Often, but not always - the same code can be rendered as either pure hardware or pure software. See also Verilog and PLAs. PLAs start and end their life as pure hardware devices. In between, connections in the hardware are destroyed to create a new hardware array as specified by programming language code.
What you're missing is that any algorithm, most any code, can be compiled either as an object file (what you'd call "software", as pure hardware (see PLAs and ASICs), or anything in between. I can write C code and I don't know which users will render it as hardware and which will render it as software. The distinction you're trying to make between hardware and software simply doesn't exist in practice.
Fortunately it doesn't NEED to exist, because your need to distinguish the two is based on a misleading description of patent law. What I'm about to explain isn't what I WISH the law said, and it's probably not what you WISH it said, I'm going to explain what the law ACTUALLY says. Please don't bitch at me if you don't like it. I didn't write the law, I just read it.
The law says "the laws of nature, including the LAWS of science and the LAWS OF MATHEMATICS, may not be patented." So you can't patent the laws of science, such as Newton's laws. You can't patent gravity. You CAN patent a new type of elevator, which USES gravity in a useful new way. You can't patent heat. You CAN patent a new type of oven, which uses thermodynamics in a useful new way. You can't patent the commutative law, a+b=b+a. You CAN patent a new way of predicting traffic flow which uses addition, multiplication, etc. That is not my preference, that is the law.
Sure it -could- be done in software. Essentially any design can be implemented as hardware, software, or a hybrid of the two. (A major problem for those complaining about "software patents".) I wouldn't be surpised if someone does take some of their ideas and implement them in software.
In general, hardware will be faster and in some ways more reliable than a software implementation of the same algorithm. It also means software doesn't have to be recompiled for lots of different types of hardware, if the hardware hides the differences.
The proposition out forward is that "like Bitcoin, any fiat currency has value -only- because people choose to use it".
You mentioned one of many reasons that people do choose to use USD. What you mentioned is an important reason. That's already covered under "people choose to use it".
There is ALSO another category that applies to fiat currency, but not Bitcoin. People are forced to use USD. Fifty million people get their monthly checks from the government denominated in US dollars; they can't choose to get paid in Bitcoin instead. Most people HAVE to pay taxes in USD; they can't pay in Bitcoin. They are forced to use US dollars.
Being in the information security field myself, I've hung out with some federal government infosec people once or twice. My read is that the feds have a lot of money and other resources. They don't have superheroes on staff. "Garcia" from the TV show CSI doesn't work there. So they're good, but cerrainly not orders of magnitude better than those of of us in the private sector. We can't get billion dollar datacenters, though, to record information about every phone call in the country.
HOWEVER, most of the time it doesn't matter. Spear phishing isn't that difficult, and most people can be spear phished. (Note the qualifier SPEAR, not bulk phishing).
What about hacking high-value targets like major governments? Is it easy to hack the US state department? Well the head of the department, the secretary of state, DOES communicate in CLEAR TEXT via an unpatched server in her basement. It doesn't take genius hackers to read top secret informatiom that isn't encrypted and is sent in the clear over the public internet. The NSA doesn't NEED geniuses. They just need to be patient and persistent to exploit a particular target.
Of course they don't have to attack the primary target directly. Once they have access to the email account of Clinton's good friend Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, they can set a filter that intercepts emails she sends to HRC and add a trojan to an attached file. Then they have a foothold on HRC's computer and phone. None of this is that difficult, they just have to be patient if they want to get a value target.
I wonder if you have an idea why approximately nobody (well under 1% of listeners) prefer that great music recorded with nothing but a tape recorder, with no post-production work? Virtually everyone inside buys or unlawfully aquires the heavily produced studio work.
Anyway, your comment reminded me of "Million Dollar Quartet". Itcs a raw recording from the famous Sun studios with no production work. The artists are Elvis Presley, Jerry Lee Lewis, Carl Perkins, and Johnny Cash . If you like raw recordings, that's definitely one to check out.
You aren't much into reading, I take it, if you aren't familiar wirh any of my companies or my software. This doesn't suprise me. You already know everything, so why would you read about anything?
A hint if you're curious - you're using some of my software right now.
There are more unsigned artists than there are artists signed to record labels. A great many, probably most, artists stream their stuff for free. MySpace is no longer a general social networking site, it's a million bands giving away their"music free or almost free.
Since most music is not made by record labels, why do people seek out the music produced by labels? Apparently there is something of value there, Maroon 5, Justin Bieber etc have many more fans than Leannasaurus Rex. Why do people want the music produced by labels? What's the extra value vs independent artists and small labels?
Labels do three things that I can think of:
1) They filter, they "discover" good artists. On Myspace you can find plenty of bad indepedents before you find a good one.
2) They hire the top engineers and producers and build multi-million dollar studios to produce the sound that people like to listen to. Independent artists may not even know what a compander IS.
3) They promote the professionally produced recordings featuring the selected artists. In other words, they let you know "hey here's another good country/hip hop/pop singer you might like".
Most people don't choose any of the hundreds of thousands of independent artists. Instead they prefer to choose among the dozen or so that the labels are offering that week.
Personally I don't choose either for my own listening. I listen to informative recordings. Sometimes I DJ weddingsband other parties. When I do, I choose music from record labels because of #3 - people at partiew want to hear the same music they've heard before, the music promoted by labels.
> Any value attributed to bitcoin is essentially in the eyes of the people who choose to use it. I know this could be said of any fiat currency
It's been said, by people who forgot about one essential element of fiat currency. Almost everyone in the US is required to pay taxes in US dollars. (Many of them get "back" more than they pay, but even they have to pay it first.) Because people have to pay taxes in US$, they need US$. That creates guaranteed demand for dollars. The US dollar is valuable, if for no other reason, because you need dollars to pay taxes with.
On top of that you have the fed managing inflation, a long history of being relatively stable, etc.
I bitch about work in the company's chat rooms. I know my boss, and his boss, can see my messages. That doesn't stop me from not-so-subtly complaining about corporate bureacracy.
Currently, humans read my communications and make subjective judgement calls based on which snippets of my conversation they might have noticed. Hopefully they think "Ray is highly motivated to improve our most problemtic processes".:)
The the only difference a system like this would make for me would be that the interpretation would be more objective and based on a larger sample of my communications.
> NLs leveraging their social status to sway opinions in matters in which they are no better qualified than Bono or Mike Tyson.
I bet you can't name a single nobel laurete who isn't OBVIOUSLY smarter than Mike Tyson in general. Any NL is highly literate, which makes them more qualified than Tyson on any subject other than perhaps boxing, and ear bitingb
Maybe you're right, you didn't change the criteria, just made it SOUND better. So tell me which of these criteria does not apply to Fortune magazine's annual list of 100 richest people?:
a) privately owned closed sourced database b) whose methods are unknown c) whose administrators are not accountable d) whose content cannot be questioned by those affected.
Should it be illegal for a govt employee to read a magazine? Should it be illegal for an IRS auditor to see that while Bill Gates reported $0 income on his tax return, Forbes says he made $400 million dollars, and decide to look into that?
You're getting all upset for some reason; I'm trying to clarify what your position is, exactly. Laws are difficult that way. A law means what it says, reading your mind to "oh, he didn't mean THAT" doesn't work. If you say "we have freedom of speech, anyone can say or print anything they want", then of course people will ask "what about Nazi propaganda?". When you say "well not propaganda", of course someone will ask "how do you define propaganda, and who decides if a particular writing is propaganda?".
Particularly "content cannot be questioned by those affected". That's important. That means that before hiring a new employee to work for them, an agency CAN verify employment history / experience (which is based on the former employer's private database, maintained by methods unknown), because the prospective employee can challenge any inaccuracy. It allows government programs which make loans to check the recipient's credit score, which is again a private database with scores calculated by a secret algorithm, but you can dispute any inaccuracies.
Sure, don't post pictures of text* and videos of pictures. On the other hand, just as a picture can be worth a thousand words, a 3D model can be worth a thousand pictures - in some circumstances.
* Come to think of it, "pictures of text" also have their uses, such as database diagrams, flowcharts, etc.
> hundreds of millions... with one click... default to auto-renew?
> Ask me how I know you don't understand business or money at all.
LOL, absolutely. Apple brings a LOT of value, for app developers. I wrote some software that was way better than anything else in its $100+ million industry. And made almost nothing from it because I didn't get it in front of customers who were ready to pay. What Apple provides, an app store full of people who readily pay for apps, is hugely valuable.
For CONSUMERS, Apple provides payment convenience, which is worth a buck or two, and provides a good app store where they can easily find things like Spotify.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand cheering for your team. However, when it becomes clear that your quarterback sucks, there comes a time to recognize that and replace them. Quoting director Comey's prepared statement 48 hours ago:
--
110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.
--
And yes she DID forget to remove the classification markings from some documents. Quoting Comey again:
--
Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked âoeclassifiedâ in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.
--
Comey was appointed Director of the FBI by Barak Obama in 2013.
She instructed her staff to "remove markings and send non-secure." Her defense was "they weren't -marked- classified when I sent them."
I would say that her instruction "send non-secure" makes it pretty clear she knew it isn't secure, and was actively thinking of that fact when she told them to do it. At the same time, she was also setting her up defense, having them (illegally?) remove the classification markings so that she could later testify "they weren't marked classified when I forwarded them." Sounds like she knew it was illegal.
First, this isn't about emergencies, it's about solicitations. Specifically, asking donors and other likely supporters to participate in "town halls" hosted by the politician.
More importantly, Congress is supposed to make the law, notbthe Obama administration. Congress duly passed the law saying government contractors may use robocalls "solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States." It further instructed the FCC publish detauled rules about that one exception that Congress allowed. Congress could have allowed other exceptions; they chose not to. The FCC has decided to pretend the actual law passed by Congress doesn't exist and the FCC gets to make the law.
> but we haven't been told if it's just classified, secret, top secret, or higher...
The FBI director announced that several emails contained documents which were already marked "top secret". Other emails included information classified "special access", which is higher than top secret.
The director stated in his news conference that Clinton was "extremely careless" with classified information on at least 110 occasions. It's federal crime to be "grossly negligent" in handling classified information. Essentially, he announced "she's guilty on 110 counts, but we won't prosecute".
There are many, many apps for sharing pictures. Plain mms even for sharing with one or a few people. The whole point of Snapchat, the reason people choose Snapchat rather than any of 10,000 other apps, is that the pics go away. If Snapchat forgets what makes them special, they'll probably lose their market dominance in that niche.
For long-term archiving and sharing of old pics, Facebook has huge advantages. If Snapchat decides to go head-to-head with Facebook, I think they'll lose quickly and dramatically.
To to your point, look up "SystemC". It's the C programming language, used to write programs which are often compiled as pure hardware. Often, but not always - the same code can be rendered as either pure hardware or pure software. See also Verilog and PLAs. PLAs start and end their life as pure hardware devices. In between, connections in the hardware are destroyed to create a new hardware array as specified by programming language code.
What you're missing is that any algorithm, most any code, can be compiled either as an object file (what you'd call "software", as pure hardware (see PLAs and ASICs), or anything in between. I can write C code and I don't know which users will render it as hardware and which will render it as software. The distinction you're trying to make between hardware and software simply doesn't exist in practice.
Fortunately it doesn't NEED to exist, because your need to distinguish the two is based on a misleading description of patent law. What I'm about to explain isn't what I WISH the law said, and it's probably not what you WISH it said, I'm going to explain what the law ACTUALLY says. Please don't bitch at me if you don't like it. I didn't write the law, I just read it.
The law says "the laws of nature, including the LAWS of science and the LAWS OF MATHEMATICS, may not be patented." So you can't patent the laws of science, such as Newton's laws. You can't patent gravity. You CAN patent a new type of elevator, which USES gravity in a useful new way. You can't patent heat. You CAN patent a new type of oven, which uses thermodynamics in a useful new way. You can't patent the commutative law, a+b=b+a. You CAN patent a new way of predicting traffic flow which uses addition, multiplication, etc. That is not my preference, that is the law.
Sure it -could- be done in software. Essentially any design can be implemented as hardware, software, or a hybrid of the two. (A major problem for those complaining about "software patents".) I wouldn't be surpised if someone does take some of their ideas and implement them in software.
In general, hardware will be faster and in some ways more reliable than a software implementation of the same algorithm. It also means software doesn't have to be recompiled for lots of different types of hardware, if the hardware hides the differences.
I have to concede, you're right.
Now to move the goal posts: Anyone who won a Nobel prize for something they did.
The proposition out forward is that "like Bitcoin, any fiat currency has value -only- because people choose to use it".
You mentioned one of many reasons that people do choose to use USD. What you mentioned is an important reason. That's already covered under "people choose to use it".
There is ALSO another category that applies to fiat currency, but not Bitcoin. People are forced to use USD. Fifty million people get their monthly checks from the government denominated in US dollars; they can't choose to get paid in Bitcoin instead. Most people HAVE to pay taxes in USD; they can't pay in Bitcoin. They are forced to use US dollars.
Being in the information security field myself, I've hung out with some federal government infosec people once or twice. My read is that the feds have a lot of money and other resources. They don't have superheroes on staff. "Garcia" from the TV show CSI doesn't work there. So they're good, but cerrainly not orders of magnitude better than those of of us in the private sector. We can't get billion dollar datacenters, though, to record information about every phone call in the country.
HOWEVER, most of the time it doesn't matter. Spear phishing isn't that difficult, and most people can be spear phished. (Note the qualifier SPEAR, not bulk phishing).
What about hacking high-value targets like major governments? Is it easy to hack the US state department? Well the head of the department, the secretary of state, DOES communicate in CLEAR TEXT via an unpatched server in her basement. It doesn't take genius hackers to read top secret informatiom that isn't encrypted and is sent in the clear over the public internet. The NSA doesn't NEED geniuses. They just need to be patient and persistent to exploit a particular target.
Of course they don't have to attack the primary target directly. Once they have access to the email account of Clinton's good friend Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, they can set a filter that intercepts emails she sends to HRC and add a trojan to an attached file. Then they have a foothold on HRC's computer and phone. None of this is that difficult, they just have to be patient if they want to get a value target.
I wonder if you have an idea why approximately nobody (well under 1% of listeners) prefer that great music recorded with nothing but a tape recorder, with no post-production work? Virtually everyone inside buys or unlawfully aquires the heavily produced studio work.
Anyway, your comment reminded me of "Million Dollar Quartet". Itcs a raw recording from the famous Sun studios with no production work. The artists are Elvis Presley, Jerry Lee Lewis, Carl Perkins, and Johnny Cash . If you like raw recordings, that's definitely one to check out.
You aren't much into reading, I take it, if you aren't familiar wirh any of my companies or my software. This doesn't suprise me. You already know everything, so why would you read about anything?
A hint if you're curious - you're using some of my software right now.
There are more unsigned artists than there are artists signed to record labels. A great many, probably most, artists stream their stuff for free. MySpace is no longer a general social networking site, it's a million bands giving away their"music free or almost free.
Since most music is not made by record labels, why do people seek out the music produced by labels? Apparently there is something of value there, Maroon 5, Justin Bieber etc have many more fans than Leannasaurus Rex. Why do people want the music produced by labels? What's the extra value vs independent artists and small labels?
Labels do three things that I can think of:
1) They filter, they "discover" good artists. On Myspace you can find plenty of bad indepedents before you find a good one.
2) They hire the top engineers and producers and build multi-million dollar studios to produce the sound that people like to listen to. Independent artists may not even know what a compander IS.
3) They promote the professionally produced recordings featuring the selected artists. In other words, they let you know "hey here's another good country/hip hop/pop singer you might like".
Most people don't choose any of the hundreds of thousands of independent artists. Instead they prefer to choose among the dozen or so that the labels are offering that week.
Personally I don't choose either for my own listening. I listen to informative recordings. Sometimes I DJ weddingsband other parties. When I do, I choose music from record labels because of #3 - people at partiew want to hear the same music they've heard before, the music promoted by labels.
> Any value attributed to bitcoin is essentially in the eyes of the people who choose to use it. I know this could be said of any fiat currency
It's been said, by people who forgot about one essential element of fiat currency. Almost everyone in the US is required to pay taxes in US dollars. (Many of them get "back" more than they pay, but even they have to pay it first.) Because people have to pay taxes in US$, they need US$. That creates guaranteed demand for dollars. The US dollar is valuable, if for no other reason, because you need dollars to pay taxes with.
On top of that you have the fed managing inflation, a long history of being relatively stable, etc.
As you may know, Merriam-Webster is the direct heir to Noah Webster's dictionary. MW says:
----
Although use with or is neither archaic nor wrong, the conjunction neither is usually followed by nor.
-----
I bitch about work in the company's chat rooms. I know my boss, and his boss, can see my messages. That doesn't stop me from not-so-subtly complaining about corporate bureacracy.
Currently, humans read my communications and make subjective judgement calls based on which snippets of my conversation they might have noticed. Hopefully they think "Ray is highly motivated to improve our most problemtic processes". :)
The the only difference a system like this would make for me would be that the interpretation would be more objective and based on a larger sample of my communications.
> NLs leveraging their social status to sway opinions in matters in which they are no better qualified than Bono or Mike Tyson.
I bet you can't name a single nobel laurete who isn't OBVIOUSLY smarter than Mike Tyson in general. Any NL is highly literate, which makes them more qualified than Tyson on any subject other than perhaps boxing, and ear bitingb
Maybe you're right, you didn't change the criteria, just made it SOUND better. So tell me which of these criteria does not apply to Fortune magazine's annual list of 100 richest people?:
a) privately owned closed sourced database
b) whose methods are unknown
c) whose administrators are not accountable
d) whose content cannot be questioned by those affected.
Should it be illegal for a govt employee to read a magazine? Should it be illegal for an IRS auditor to see that while Bill Gates reported $0 income on his tax return, Forbes says he made $400 million dollars, and decide to look into that?
You're getting all upset for some reason; I'm trying to clarify what your position is, exactly. Laws are difficult that way. A law means what it says, reading your mind to "oh, he didn't mean THAT" doesn't work. If you say "we have freedom of speech, anyone can say or print anything they want", then of course people will ask "what about Nazi propaganda?". When you say "well not propaganda", of course someone will ask "how do you define propaganda, and who decides if a particular writing is propaganda?".
> Spotify got your ass with marketing. You swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.
What does Spotify have to do with my companies?
> not tried advertising on slashdot, reddit, digg, ycombinator, and various other tech sites.
False.
> You relied upon ONE SINGLE LOCATION.
False.
> YOU PUT ALL YOUR EGGS IN ONE BASKET.
False.
You're a terrible psychic - you're 0% on predicting the PAST
> Your app being in App Store or available directly from the Internet is the same.
Spotify says that being in the App Store is very important.
Spotify brought two billion dollars last year, so apparently they have a clue.
You made how much last year? Yeah, thanks for your opinion, but I think I'll listen to Spotify and the other people who have made billions of dollars.
Your new criteria sound much more reasonable.
Particularly "content cannot be questioned by those affected". That's important. That means that before hiring a new employee to work for them, an agency CAN verify employment history / experience (which is based on the former employer's private database, maintained by methods unknown), because the prospective employee can challenge any inaccuracy. It allows government programs which make loans to check the recipient's credit score, which is again a private database with scores calculated by a secret algorithm, but you can dispute any inaccuracies.
> > because I didn't get it in front of customers who were ready to pay."
> I bet it's a piece of software I've never heard of because YOU FUCKING FAILED AT PROPER MARKETING.
Ya think? That's pretty much what "didn't get it in front of customers who were ready to pay" means, asshole.
That last paragraph is key.
Sure, don't post pictures of text* and videos of pictures. On the other hand, just as a picture can be worth a thousand words, a 3D model can be worth a thousand pictures - in some circumstances.
* Come to think of it, "pictures of text" also have their uses, such as database diagrams, flowcharts, etc.
> hundreds of millions ... with one click ... default to auto-renew?
> Ask me how I know you don't understand business or money at all.
LOL, absolutely. Apple brings a LOT of value, for app developers. I wrote some software that was way better than anything else in its $100+ million industry. And made almost nothing from it because I didn't get it in front of customers who were ready to pay. What Apple provides, an app store full of people who readily pay for apps, is hugely valuable.
For CONSUMERS, Apple provides payment convenience, which is worth a buck or two, and provides a good app store where they can easily find things like Spotify.