I have T-Mobile right now, and it seems to work pretty well when I go on road trips. There's some spottiness in the mountains, but I guess I kind of expect that.
Spending 8% of their endowment each year seems excessive, since market gains are almost always less than that. True, you still have people (usually alumni) contributing to it, but universities shouldn't be required to spend enough that their endowments eventually go away.
It is illegal to keep classified information in an unapproved location, including (but not limited to) a private server. Obviously, the Bush administration shouldn't have been doing that either. She may have violated retention laws by deleting emails (interestingly, those laws did not really include emails during the Bush administration) but it's hard to know for sure, given that any evidence is, you know, gone. I agree there's no reason to jail her yet, but from what I can see, criminal charges should be brought, given what we currently know, especially since if one of her underlings kept classified or Top Secret documents at home, they'd be locked up right quick.
I think it would likely still be a crime, although anyone not cleared for Classified material shouldn't be expected to know what to do with it, so I'm not sure what the actual penalty would be. Clinton definitely should have known, so in principle she should be punished more harshly. In practice, I doubt it'll happen.
Oh, I agree, enforcement shouldn't be selective. On the other hand, only one of those people is running for President, so it makes sense to focus more effort (not all, but more) on that one, since it's potentially quite important and time-sensitive.
Even if the document is "born classified", it only matters if she created it -- receiving an email isn't an action.
You're right, receiving an email isn't an action. Storing classified information in an unapproved location (like, say, a personal server) is, however, a crime, especially if she knew it was classified (and she really should have - if she didn't, that means she's pretty incompetent). In addition, the fact that she deleted a whole bunch of emails before turning them over is sketchy, and she may have violated federal retention laws (yes, I know they were amended after she left office, but the requirement to turn everything over was still there - the amendment just added a timeframe).
True, they did have pretty different design goals. I think the supersonic airliner projects in general were neat, but maybe ahead of their time, especially for the demand; once the Concorde was out, I think it pretty much met the demand for that kind of service. It's certainly possible it would do better now though.
I'm sorry, but the SR-71 was a fantastic plane. The Concorde doesn't even really compare, seeing as how the SR-71 could go more than 60% faster and more than 30,000 feet higher. Yes, it leaked fuel, but primarily just on takeoff.
I guess I wasn't really clear. Chemical signals are local, and in a normal neuron those are converted to electrical signals, which are integrated across the neuron from different sources. That then causes other chemical signals to be sent. However, if this artificial brain isn't doing electrical signaling, then it can't integrate or process information. SSRIs work because they help change the chemical signaling in a (mostly) beneficial way. You need both chemical and electrical signals to properly function - one isn't enough by itself.
True, but without electrical activity, there's no real propagation of signal. There's local signaling, but no integration of inputs across multiple axons.
Likewise - the people I know who voted for Ron Paul did so because he fit their ideology as a whole better than the other two candidates, not because of any one issue. I'd be surprised if people who were single-issue voters chose Ron Paul.
I think most agree that externalities exist, but it seems like everyone has their own proposed solution. Personally, I think a progressive tax per pollutant (where you pay more the more you put out, as well as when levels are already high) is a pretty good solution, but I'm not tied to the idea. Realistically, the problem with most solutions - no matter who offers them - is figuring out the cost of externalities.
If you've never seen externalities addressed by libertarians, you haven't paid attention to any libertarian economist, or hell, even some right-wing economists.
Most truckers, pilots, engineers, etc. still have a small apartment/house somewhere that is their legal residence, or they put down a relative's address.
The fact of the matter is that even if she didn't send those emails, she should still be in trouble for improperly storing classified information, some of which was actually classified at the time.
Someone(s) else at State should also be in deep trouble for this, but Clinton isn't innocent either. She stored classified information on an unauthorized server at an unsecured (from the point of classified information) location.
Slashdot Mirror
I have T-Mobile right now, and it seems to work pretty well when I go on road trips. There's some spottiness in the mountains, but I guess I kind of expect that.
Spending 8% of their endowment each year seems excessive, since market gains are almost always less than that. True, you still have people (usually alumni) contributing to it, but universities shouldn't be required to spend enough that their endowments eventually go away.
It is illegal to keep classified information in an unapproved location, including (but not limited to) a private server. Obviously, the Bush administration shouldn't have been doing that either. She may have violated retention laws by deleting emails (interestingly, those laws did not really include emails during the Bush administration) but it's hard to know for sure, given that any evidence is, you know, gone. I agree there's no reason to jail her yet, but from what I can see, criminal charges should be brought, given what we currently know, especially since if one of her underlings kept classified or Top Secret documents at home, they'd be locked up right quick.
I think it would likely still be a crime, although anyone not cleared for Classified material shouldn't be expected to know what to do with it, so I'm not sure what the actual penalty would be. Clinton definitely should have known, so in principle she should be punished more harshly. In practice, I doubt it'll happen.
Oh, I agree, enforcement shouldn't be selective. On the other hand, only one of those people is running for President, so it makes sense to focus more effort (not all, but more) on that one, since it's potentially quite important and time-sensitive.
There is plenty of evidence. While information from a foreign government may not be "born classified", other information on her server was.
It was still illegal to destroy federal records, and it was still illegal to store classified information improperly. They all screwed up.
What you said is utter nonsense.
Even if the document is "born classified", it only matters if she created it -- receiving an email isn't an action.
You're right, receiving an email isn't an action. Storing classified information in an unapproved location (like, say, a personal server) is, however, a crime, especially if she knew it was classified (and she really should have - if she didn't, that means she's pretty incompetent). In addition, the fact that she deleted a whole bunch of emails before turning them over is sketchy, and she may have violated federal retention laws (yes, I know they were amended after she left office, but the requirement to turn everything over was still there - the amendment just added a timeframe).
True, they did have pretty different design goals. I think the supersonic airliner projects in general were neat, but maybe ahead of their time, especially for the demand; once the Concorde was out, I think it pretty much met the demand for that kind of service. It's certainly possible it would do better now though.
True, but I still think it sounds pretty implausible.
You can't really believe that story; the SR-71 would have been flying higher and faster, and - as a military plane - would have had right-of-way.
I'm sorry, but the SR-71 was a fantastic plane. The Concorde doesn't even really compare, seeing as how the SR-71 could go more than 60% faster and more than 30,000 feet higher. Yes, it leaked fuel, but primarily just on takeoff.
I guess I wasn't really clear. Chemical signals are local, and in a normal neuron those are converted to electrical signals, which are integrated across the neuron from different sources. That then causes other chemical signals to be sent. However, if this artificial brain isn't doing electrical signaling, then it can't integrate or process information. SSRIs work because they help change the chemical signaling in a (mostly) beneficial way. You need both chemical and electrical signals to properly function - one isn't enough by itself.
True, but without electrical activity, there's no real propagation of signal. There's local signaling, but no integration of inputs across multiple axons.
To be fair, screwing up a car is far more likely to put someone's life at risk, so recalls are more important there.
Likewise - the people I know who voted for Ron Paul did so because he fit their ideology as a whole better than the other two candidates, not because of any one issue. I'd be surprised if people who were single-issue voters chose Ron Paul.
Spoken like someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.
I'm pretty sure Ron Paul isn't running this election. His son, Rand Paul, is.
I think most agree that externalities exist, but it seems like everyone has their own proposed solution. Personally, I think a progressive tax per pollutant (where you pay more the more you put out, as well as when levels are already high) is a pretty good solution, but I'm not tied to the idea. Realistically, the problem with most solutions - no matter who offers them - is figuring out the cost of externalities.
I agree with the rest of your comment, but China isn't larger by size.
How about we just be honest and say that libertarianism means whatever a libertarian says it means at any time in any situation?
How about we don't do that, because libertarianism isn't nearly that loosely defined?
If you've never seen externalities addressed by libertarians, you haven't paid attention to any libertarian economist, or hell, even some right-wing economists.
What "libertarians" say there are no such thing as externalities? You seem pretty badly misinformed.
Most truckers, pilots, engineers, etc. still have a small apartment/house somewhere that is their legal residence, or they put down a relative's address.
The fact of the matter is that even if she didn't send those emails, she should still be in trouble for improperly storing classified information, some of which was actually classified at the time.
Someone(s) else at State should also be in deep trouble for this, but Clinton isn't innocent either. She stored classified information on an unauthorized server at an unsecured (from the point of classified information) location.