That was my first thought too. However, simple text is not enough, because multiple states (or other license-plate issuing authorities) might reuse the same plate ID. So you have to have that information too.
I remember seeing an article several years back about the trouble police (and people reporting crimes to police) were having identifying plates, due to all the vanity plate styles available. People have to resort to describing the design of the plate to the cops. My own state has so many different styles available today that I can't even come up with a good number of them. Multiply that by 50, + various possesions you see around occasionally like Guam and Puerto Rico. On top of that, tribes can issue plates as well, and many of those have specialty plate options, and everyone's options are constantly changing. Trying to reliably OCR that info down to text seems like it would be a nightmare.
If you're horrified about the possible privacy leaks, be glad they're using XP. Imagine if they were using Windows 10!
Actually, the exact opposite is true. Microsoft quit releasing security patches for XP over a year ago. The only thing preventing anyone who wants to pwn that box from doing so right this second is if its too busy doing its botnet work to service any other requests.
If you work at a large enough company, you can't just take the company credit card to shop with whenever the whim strikes you. Otherwise the IT staff would end up with their own company Lamborghini. There has to be a process. That prevents abuse, but of course it bogs things down. The more potential for abuse, the more "process" there has to be, and the more ridiculous the resulting process looks to someone used to doing their own shopping.
Back when I worked for LMC, I had one vendor who could simply not understand why the package he paid extra to "overnight" to us then took a week to get through our receiving department and to my desk. A more recent employer of mine had a process for selecting PC equipment (after we told the purchasers exactly what we wanted) that took so long that quite often the part had been obsoleted by the vendor before the process completed.
Both of those are private employers. Add in the extra regs you have to have to prevent corruption in government procurement, and yes simply buying a bigger hard drive is not so simple.
Plus, the guy actually has a good point here. The fact that they've filled up a 80GiB HD tells you that they really ought to drop back an reanalyze the whole process. Perhaps its as simple as not relying on a four year old desktop PC (can it seriously do anything useful with >80Gig of photographic data?), or perhaps something a bit different should be done with the entire process.
Surprisingly, yes it is possible to stick the pen in backwards. It wouldn't have been difficult at all to make the grabber nub on the top of it too big to fit down the shaft. I'm not sure why they didn't bother to do that. Of course I wasn't stilly enough to try to force it down all the way to duplicate the issue (sorry folks).
That being said, I never use the pretend pen. I'm not even sure what apps it would work with. For taking actual notes, I use an 11 inch pad. So I'm not sure how many actual users this will be a big issue for. However, I believe Samsung S6+ has the same size display, so perhaps people who don't care about the pen will all be buying that instead now, and *all* (both) remaining Note users will be pen users.
I did an OS reinstall about a month ago. I just installed flash 2 days ago. I wasn't trying to avoid Flash, its just Saturday was the first day I discovered I needed it for a website I wanted to visit and didn't already have it installed. This is from someone who visits a lot of streaming and game websites. (NPR.org's streams for Wait Wait Don't Tell Me were the culprit, in case you were curious).
Now the fact that I had to do it tells you flash isn't exactly history. However, in the past I don't believe I've ever made it a day after an OS install without having to install Flash. A whole month is pretty dang impressive. So yeah, for my uses at least it definitely looks like its on its way out.
No, at some level you have to trust a binary no matter what. The only thing changing here is which binary that is. That was the whole point of Ken's address.
Having the compiler for a language written in itself is what pretty much every serious compiler is expected to do. Its called being self-hosted, and a compiler is generally not considered very mature until it does this.
So basically what this is saying is that Go has started to grow up.
People will vote for him because his response to things like China will not be civil, but "fuck you and fuck the horse you rode in on." Trump is a candidate that Putin will respect; most of the candidates from either party, not so much.
Being "someone Putin will respect" is pretty much a deal-breaker with me.
The only gotcha is that the other company must be willing to sponsor taking over the H1B...
...and your soon to be former employer must be really nice about it. Some H1-B companies have been known to fire employees they suspected of looking for another job, and then immediately call INS to get them deported.
This has been repeated a billion times but people still don't get it. H1B can only fill a position that is not filled by a US citizen.
... and yet the employment rate among tech workers is not 0% (currently about 4.1%). How do these two things jibe? Because they specifiy the position at a certain rate. So all you have to do is successfully argue that nobody wants to take the job at the salary you are offering it, and then you can try to get an H1B person. Without that alternative, they'd be forced to raise the salary until they started getting takers.
A US citizen can anytime come in and show they meet the minimum qualifications and take the H1B's job away.
Not true. At all. There is no mechanism for this. In fact, the company doesn't even have to advertise an opening before applying. They do have to submit a form to the government, but nobody will know they did this unless the specifically go looking for it. And if you do find it and want that job there, there's nothing you can do but whine about it. For instance, just a few months ago Southern California Edison used H1-B's to replace their existing workers, and required those workers as their last duty to train their replacements.
The H-1B program "was supposed to be for projects and jobs that American workers could not fill," this worker said. "But we're doing our job. It's not like they are bringing in these guys for new positions that nobody can fill.
"Not one of these jobs being filled by India was a job that an Edison employee wasn't already performing," he said.
It was there to fill a claimed temporary shortage, but it had the inevitable result of driving down wages
An economist will tell you those are the same thing. Labor has a supply/demand curve, just like any other commodity. If you make more of anything available, you drive down the price. If less is available, the price goes up.
...and thus reducing people training to enter the field.
Also something an economist could tell you, but still an important point.
Still, even though its my ox gored here, I don't have a huge problem with bringing in more tech workers. Indians have families to feed too. The issue I have is that H1-B's are designed so that the employer has a ridiculous amount of leverage over the H1-B holder. So an H1-B worker is simply not equivalent to me. They are somewhere between the status of an intern and an indentured servant. Not only is that flat out evil, its not a fair economic playing field for the rest of us. Suppose we gave out unlimited H1-B's, why would an employer ever hire anyone else?
If they made H1-B's just like any other visa, but just gave extra consideration to tech workers for immigration, I don't think I'd have a huge problem with it. Yeah, it would still depress tech wages a bit, but I'm a person who thinks the more educated workers the USA has, the better it is for everyone.
That only applies to copyrighted work. For non-copyrighted work, it just has to be a bit different. For instance, I am free to take a PD version of Hamlet, "just copy and paste" the entire thing, add a few liner notes I wrote myself, or perhaps a picture or two, and copyright the result.
Public domain just means anyone can use it for free. If you can get some sap to pay money for something that's free, good on you.
Its a bit more than that. You can actually tweak a Public Doman source an eensy bit, and copyright the result. This is what is behind the new classic literature mashup genre (eg: Pride and Prejudice and Zombies).
I haven't seen anything that explicitly says it was ONLY sent to her by other people
Probably because you are only reading sources that have a vested interest in this being a scandal. Or that buried that information inside dripping copy, like NBC here did:
Tuesday night that Charles McCullough, the inspector general for U.S. intelligence agencies, had reported that two of the emails not only were classified but were in fact categorized as "Top Secret, Sensitive Compartmented Information"
...
John Kirby, a spokesman for the State Department, said that was the case with two emails, adding that it remained unclear "whether, in fact, this material is actually classified."
"Department employees circulated these emails on unclassified systems in 2009 and 2011, and ultimately some were forwarded to Secretary Clinton," Kirby said Tuesday. "They were not marked as classified."
So its possible someone in State should be in deep doo-doo over this, but that person(s) would not be Clinton. This has nothing whatsoever to do with her having a private server either. If that info was classified, it should never have touched a network connected to the internet. What kind of email server it eventually was forwarded to is utterly beside the point.
Information itself is classified, but a consequence of that is that copies of the information are supposed to be labeled as such, so that people who aren't experts in why particular things are classified (almost everyone), can know how to properly handle it. It is not claimed that she generated or sent copies of marked classified information. She received copies of information that was NOT marked as classified, and in the opinion of later investigators should have been. This has nothing whatsoever to do with a private server btw. If it was a government server it would be just as wrong, because it was clearly on a public network (or the email to her private server would not have been deliverable).
This kind of thing happens fairly often. What is supposed to happen next is that the potential breach gets reported to the site security officer so that damage control can ensue. In extreme cases, a nasty note gets put in the personnel file of the person who initiated the breach (again, in this case, there's no indication that this was Hillary. Quite likely the classified info was emailed to her by others. Emailing classified info to anyone over the internet is a huge no-no, no matter where their server is.) In exceptional egregious cases the person is deemed not trustable with a clearance anymore. In really extreme cases, usually suspicion of actual spying, criminal charges are available.
Oh. I have Windows patches set to download and install automatically. So if there was one, I should have it. Again, I don't have time to play sysadmin and pick and chose when to install patches (and certainly not to recover from a breach on an unpatched machine). I'll go check just to be sure when I get home, but I damn well hope the auto-patcher is working.
...which means the people who did that and then sent it to Clinton ought to be in trouble. They aren't running for POTUS though, so nobody cares about them.
Which leads to the criminal conspiracy of having someone remove the security markings -- on documents that include signals intelligence and spy satellite photos -- before forwarding it to her unsecured email server.
I don't think there was any claim in there of someone doing that (and you seem to imply that she purposely asked someone to do that. Probably while cackling and stroking a white cat.) For no personal benefit to herself, other than that she enjoys being evil.
What tends to happen in mislabeling breaches is that someone does a cut-and-paste from a classified document, without classifying the new document with the highest classification from all its source material. The other common occurrence (which I believe was the postulated situation here) is that someone transcribed some information from their own head which is classified. Its tough to protect from this, as you can't just classify a person and keep them 100% away from non-classified people. They have to use their own judgment (which can be different from an IG's judgment), and often they get sloppy.
Breaches are actually fairly common (which is why every hosting site has a compliance officer trained to deal with them), and in my experience they are almost always due to someone getting sloppy.
So the current review saying that there was Top Secret (not just Classified) information being sent through emails is what, a lie?
The review found that some material in there (which was emailed TO her by other people) should have been marked as classified. That's a breach right there, regardless of where her email is hosted, but its not her breach. Top Secret material should *never* be sitting on a machine attached to the internet. If it is physically possible to email it from your machine to a private email, then you have already committed a breach.
Now if you read something that gives you the impression Clinton committed the initial breach here, and/or that it was caused by her having a private email server, then that is a misleading statement. If it was intentionally misleading in that way, that is indeed what we call a lie.
Unless they've changed things since I had a clearance (which is possible) they don't revoke a clearance because your need-to-know ends, she simply doesn't get information that she doesn't need to know.
That's somewhat correct. It used to be that the organization sponsoring your clearance could just re-up it by doing some paperwork. I think they used to do this because the process of getting a new one was so much more work and time and expense for everyone.
However, it appears they have been cracking down on that. Either that, or my current employer doesn't work that way, because they allowed mine to lapse about 6 months after my project I needed it for ended about a year ago.
Either way, if you aren't employed by anyone at all who might sponsor the clearance, it would get revoked the next time it comes up for review. That's certainly more often than 5 years.
There were in fact no emails in there with material marked as classified. After the huge stink when she voluntarily turned over the emails and they were analyzed, there was found some material had been sent to her that probably should have been marked classified, in the judgment of some government officials. However, as far as she knew there was no classified material sent to that email, and if there was the people who should be in trouble over that are the people who emailed it to her.
That does not make her a liar, any more than lowering the speed limit weeks after I drive down a road makes me a speeder.
WHY THE FUCK WAS SHE CONDUCTING OFFICIAL STATE DEPARTMENT BUSINESS ON A PRIVATE EMAIL SERVER IN THE FIRST PLACE?!?
At the time she took office, admin officials using personal email for government business was not against any policy or law, and was in fact something all her predecessors had done. If anyone cared to do it, they could drum up this exact same "scandal" against Condoleezza Rice or Colin Powell.
Realizing there was some kind of issue here with retention, she had a mail server set up. Yes that's more than those previous two office holders did, but on the balance was a good thing. At least the emails are now available to be retrieved and analyzed. Sec. Rice's old personal emails are likely all lost in a hard-drive crash by now.
The main issue here is that people WANT there to be a "scandal" with what looks like the Democratic front runner, so they made one.
Slashdot Mirror
That was my first thought too. However, simple text is not enough, because multiple states (or other license-plate issuing authorities) might reuse the same plate ID. So you have to have that information too.
I remember seeing an article several years back about the trouble police (and people reporting crimes to police) were having identifying plates, due to all the vanity plate styles available. People have to resort to describing the design of the plate to the cops. My own state has so many different styles available today that I can't even come up with a good number of them. Multiply that by 50, + various possesions you see around occasionally like Guam and Puerto Rico. On top of that, tribes can issue plates as well, and many of those have specialty plate options, and everyone's options are constantly changing. Trying to reliably OCR that info down to text seems like it would be a nightmare.
If you're horrified about the possible privacy leaks, be glad they're using XP. Imagine if they were using Windows 10!
Actually, the exact opposite is true. Microsoft quit releasing security patches for XP over a year ago. The only thing preventing anyone who wants to pwn that box from doing so right this second is if its too busy doing its botnet work to service any other requests.
If you work at a large enough company, you can't just take the company credit card to shop with whenever the whim strikes you. Otherwise the IT staff would end up with their own company Lamborghini. There has to be a process. That prevents abuse, but of course it bogs things down. The more potential for abuse, the more "process" there has to be, and the more ridiculous the resulting process looks to someone used to doing their own shopping.
Back when I worked for LMC, I had one vendor who could simply not understand why the package he paid extra to "overnight" to us then took a week to get through our receiving department and to my desk. A more recent employer of mine had a process for selecting PC equipment (after we told the purchasers exactly what we wanted) that took so long that quite often the part had been obsoleted by the vendor before the process completed.
Both of those are private employers. Add in the extra regs you have to have to prevent corruption in government procurement, and yes simply buying a bigger hard drive is not so simple.
Plus, the guy actually has a good point here. The fact that they've filled up a 80GiB HD tells you that they really ought to drop back an reanalyze the whole process. Perhaps its as simple as not relying on a four year old desktop PC (can it seriously do anything useful with >80Gig of photographic data?), or perhaps something a bit different should be done with the entire process.
I'm using a Note 4, so I just tried it.
Surprisingly, yes it is possible to stick the pen in backwards. It wouldn't have been difficult at all to make the grabber nub on the top of it too big to fit down the shaft. I'm not sure why they didn't bother to do that. Of course I wasn't stilly enough to try to force it down all the way to duplicate the issue (sorry folks).
That being said, I never use the pretend pen. I'm not even sure what apps it would work with. For taking actual notes, I use an 11 inch pad. So I'm not sure how many actual users this will be a big issue for. However, I believe Samsung S6+ has the same size display, so perhaps people who don't care about the pen will all be buying that instead now, and *all* (both) remaining Note users will be pen users.
I did an OS reinstall about a month ago. I just installed flash 2 days ago. I wasn't trying to avoid Flash, its just Saturday was the first day I discovered I needed it for a website I wanted to visit and didn't already have it installed. This is from someone who visits a lot of streaming and game websites. (NPR.org's streams for Wait Wait Don't Tell Me were the culprit, in case you were curious).
Now the fact that I had to do it tells you flash isn't exactly history. However, in the past I don't believe I've ever made it a day after an OS install without having to install Flash. A whole month is pretty dang impressive. So yeah, for my uses at least it definitely looks like its on its way out.
No, at some level you have to trust a binary no matter what. The only thing changing here is which binary that is. That was the whole point of Ken's address.
Having the compiler for a language written in itself is what pretty much every serious compiler is expected to do. Its called being self-hosted, and a compiler is generally not considered very mature until it does this.
So basically what this is saying is that Go has started to grow up.
People will vote for him because his response to things like China will not be civil, but "fuck you and fuck the horse you rode in on." Trump is a candidate that Putin will respect; most of the candidates from either party, not so much.
Being "someone Putin will respect" is pretty much a deal-breaker with me.
The only gotcha is that the other company must be willing to sponsor taking over the H1B...
...and your soon to be former employer must be really nice about it. Some H1-B companies have been known to fire employees they suspected of looking for another job, and then immediately call INS to get them deported.
This has been repeated a billion times but people still don't get it. H1B can only fill a position that is not filled by a US citizen.
... and yet the employment rate among tech workers is not 0% (currently about 4.1%). How do these two things jibe? Because they specifiy the position at a certain rate. So all you have to do is successfully argue that nobody wants to take the job at the salary you are offering it, and then you can try to get an H1B person. Without that alternative, they'd be forced to raise the salary until they started getting takers.
A US citizen can anytime come in and show they meet the minimum qualifications and take the H1B's job away.
Not true. At all. There is no mechanism for this. In fact, the company doesn't even have to advertise an opening before applying. They do have to submit a form to the government, but nobody will know they did this unless the specifically go looking for it. And if you do find it and want that job there, there's nothing you can do but whine about it. For instance, just a few months ago Southern California Edison used H1-B's to replace their existing workers, and required those workers as their last duty to train their replacements.
The H-1B program "was supposed to be for projects and jobs that American workers could not fill," this worker said. "But we're doing our job. It's not like they are bringing in these guys for new positions that nobody can fill.
"Not one of these jobs being filled by India was a job that an Edison employee wasn't already performing," he said.
It was there to fill a claimed temporary shortage, but it had the inevitable result of driving down wages
An economist will tell you those are the same thing. Labor has a supply/demand curve, just like any other commodity. If you make more of anything available, you drive down the price. If less is available, the price goes up.
...and thus reducing people training to enter the field.
Also something an economist could tell you, but still an important point.
Still, even though its my ox gored here, I don't have a huge problem with bringing in more tech workers. Indians have families to feed too. The issue I have is that H1-B's are designed so that the employer has a ridiculous amount of leverage over the H1-B holder. So an H1-B worker is simply not equivalent to me. They are somewhere between the status of an intern and an indentured servant. Not only is that flat out evil, its not a fair economic playing field for the rest of us. Suppose we gave out unlimited H1-B's, why would an employer ever hire anyone else?
If they made H1-B's just like any other visa, but just gave extra consideration to tech workers for immigration, I don't think I'd have a huge problem with it. Yeah, it would still depress tech wages a bit, but I'm a person who thinks the more educated workers the USA has, the better it is for everyone.
That only applies to copyrighted work. For non-copyrighted work, it just has to be a bit different. For instance, I am free to take a PD version of Hamlet, "just copy and paste" the entire thing, add a few liner notes I wrote myself, or perhaps a picture or two, and copyright the result.
Public domain just means anyone can use it for free. If you can get some sap to pay money for something that's free, good on you.
Its a bit more than that. You can actually tweak a Public Doman source an eensy bit, and copyright the result. This is what is behind the new classic literature mashup genre (eg: Pride and Prejudice and Zombies).
I haven't seen anything that explicitly says it was ONLY sent to her by other people
Probably because you are only reading sources that have a vested interest in this being a scandal. Or that buried that information inside dripping copy, like NBC here did:
Tuesday night that Charles McCullough, the inspector general for U.S. intelligence agencies, had reported that two of the emails not only were classified but were in fact categorized as "Top Secret, Sensitive Compartmented Information"
...
John Kirby, a spokesman for the State Department, said that was the case with two emails, adding that it remained unclear "whether, in fact, this material is actually classified."
"Department employees circulated these emails on unclassified systems in 2009 and 2011, and ultimately some were forwarded to Secretary Clinton," Kirby said Tuesday. "They were not marked as classified."
So its possible someone in State should be in deep doo-doo over this, but that person(s) would not be Clinton. This has nothing whatsoever to do with her having a private server either. If that info was classified, it should never have touched a network connected to the internet. What kind of email server it eventually was forwarded to is utterly beside the point.
Information itself is classified, but a consequence of that is that copies of the information are supposed to be labeled as such, so that people who aren't experts in why particular things are classified (almost everyone), can know how to properly handle it. It is not claimed that she generated or sent copies of marked classified information. She received copies of information that was NOT marked as classified, and in the opinion of later investigators should have been. This has nothing whatsoever to do with a private server btw. If it was a government server it would be just as wrong, because it was clearly on a public network (or the email to her private server would not have been deliverable).
This kind of thing happens fairly often. What is supposed to happen next is that the potential breach gets reported to the site security officer so that damage control can ensue. In extreme cases, a nasty note gets put in the personnel file of the person who initiated the breach (again, in this case, there's no indication that this was Hillary. Quite likely the classified info was emailed to her by others. Emailing classified info to anyone over the internet is a huge no-no, no matter where their server is.) In exceptional egregious cases the person is deemed not trustable with a clearance anymore. In really extreme cases, usually suspicion of actual spying, criminal charges are available.
I meant Windows patches. ...
Oh. I have Windows patches set to download and install automatically. So if there was one, I should have it. Again, I don't have time to play sysadmin and pick and chose when to install patches (and certainly not to recover from a breach on an unpatched machine). I'll go check just to be sure when I get home, but I damn well hope the auto-patcher is working.
...which means the people who did that and then sent it to Clinton ought to be in trouble. They aren't running for POTUS though, so nobody cares about them.
Which leads to the criminal conspiracy of having someone remove the security markings -- on documents that include signals intelligence and spy satellite photos -- before forwarding it to her unsecured email server.
I don't think there was any claim in there of someone doing that (and you seem to imply that she purposely asked someone to do that. Probably while cackling and stroking a white cat.) For no personal benefit to herself, other than that she enjoys being evil.
What tends to happen in mislabeling breaches is that someone does a cut-and-paste from a classified document, without classifying the new document with the highest classification from all its source material. The other common occurrence (which I believe was the postulated situation here) is that someone transcribed some information from their own head which is classified. Its tough to protect from this, as you can't just classify a person and keep them 100% away from non-classified people. They have to use their own judgment (which can be different from an IG's judgment), and often they get sloppy.
Breaches are actually fairly common (which is why every hosting site has a compliance officer trained to deal with them), and in my experience they are almost always due to someone getting sloppy.
So the current review saying that there was Top Secret (not just Classified) information being sent through emails is what, a lie?
The review found that some material in there (which was emailed TO her by other people) should have been marked as classified. That's a breach right there, regardless of where her email is hosted, but its not her breach. Top Secret material should *never* be sitting on a machine attached to the internet. If it is physically possible to email it from your machine to a private email, then you have already committed a breach.
Now if you read something that gives you the impression Clinton committed the initial breach here, and/or that it was caused by her having a private email server, then that is a misleading statement. If it was intentionally misleading in that way, that is indeed what we call a lie.
Is he running for President?
Exactly.
Unless they've changed things since I had a clearance (which is possible) they don't revoke a clearance because your need-to-know ends, she simply doesn't get information that she doesn't need to know.
That's somewhat correct. It used to be that the organization sponsoring your clearance could just re-up it by doing some paperwork. I think they used to do this because the process of getting a new one was so much more work and time and expense for everyone.
However, it appears they have been cracking down on that. Either that, or my current employer doesn't work that way, because they allowed mine to lapse about 6 months after my project I needed it for ended about a year ago.
Either way, if you aren't employed by anyone at all who might sponsor the clearance, it would get revoked the next time it comes up for review. That's certainly more often than 5 years.
Presumably she's already had her security clearance revoked, as her "need to know" ended two and a half year ago.
...but when have we let little things like facts get in the way of a good anti-Clinton diatribe? By all means, rant on McDuff.
Well, I don't see these same folks asking about Colin Powel's emails. He did the same thing (minus the helpful data retention server).
There were in fact no emails in there with material marked as classified. After the huge stink when she voluntarily turned over the emails and they were analyzed, there was found some material had been sent to her that probably should have been marked classified, in the judgment of some government officials. However, as far as she knew there was no classified material sent to that email, and if there was the people who should be in trouble over that are the people who emailed it to her.
That does not make her a liar, any more than lowering the speed limit weeks after I drive down a road makes me a speeder.
WHY THE FUCK WAS SHE CONDUCTING OFFICIAL STATE DEPARTMENT BUSINESS ON A PRIVATE EMAIL SERVER IN THE FIRST PLACE?!?
The main issue here is that people WANT there to be a "scandal" with what looks like the Democratic front runner, so they made one.