If you remain strict about it then it's fine. But personally it seems like one of those things where I might get get more complacent over time and I don't want to give myself that temptation.
My concern at the light is you're now paying attention to the game instead of the intersection. Maybe the phone is being a little funky, maybe a really cool pokemon pops up, maybe the light turns earlier than you expect. Suddenly you're half a second late starting up on the yellow. You're not as aware of the intersection as you should be, you don't see the pedestrian or vehicle that's late going through the light, and you have an accident.
It's a low probability scenario, but if you roll the dice often enough then low probability scenarios start to happen.
or by having the app open while driving anywhere as you can easily trigger a lot of them that are by the road.
This sounds like an extremely dangerous practise to get into. I've avoided ever opening the game while driving because I never want to put myself in the habit of balancing road safety against game play.
So pointless. Censorship so seldom works, all it does is make you lose credibility.
I think it depends a lot on how it's implemented.
If they're censoring calls for a protest or video's of a demolition than obviously that's outrageous.
But if they're censoring calls for people to plant a bomb on a school bus... that I'm a lot more comfortable with.
Obviously the reality will be somewhere in between, with mistakes made on both sides, but I think there's a way to do it right, and a way to do it very wrong.
As opposed to an unauthorized, insecure state department email server?
The private server is a complete red herring, the confidential emails weren't supposed to go over the standard state dept email either. And she was definitely not the only one to have sent or received confidential email on an unauthorized account.
He stuffed the docs into his pants, it's pretty obvious he knew he was violating the law.
Intent does not matter, only the action matters.
Yeah, why let one of the basic factors in criminal law influence your analysis?
Lab Tech Steals Data from Nuclear Facility. Jessica Lynn Quintana, a former worker at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, pleaded guilty in federal court to âoeknowingly removing classified information from the national security research laboratory, after she took home sensitive documents and data from the lab last year.â
Talk about misrepresenting the facts. She was charged because she was running a meth lab!!
Was she or was she not charged with mishandling classified information?
You miss the point. Once they have one legitimate charge then they hit you with every other possible charge they can.
You probably have to start somewhere where the environmentalists can't reach you, and where no cute little deer baby dies because of your gruesome actions to further human civilisation. Also building a road in africa is far less exciting than GOING TO SPACE.
They already have mines up north, if building robot factories in Nunavut or the Sahara was economically viable I'm sure they'd find a way to make it environmentally acceptable.
But they don't even have the factories to build that mining machinery in Nunavut, it's all built down south and shipped up there. And even then the factories are typically close to population centres, rather than being in the middle of nowhere.
The constraint for factory development isn't land and environmental regulations, it's resources. Skilled labour, manufacturing supplies, shipping routes, markets, and supportive governments.
Manufacturing on the moon will not be cheaper than manufacturing in space, at least not till we've had massive technological advancement.
Now the question is whether it's cheaper to manufacture on earth and ship to the moon, or to manufacture on the moon.
The trouble with moon factories is all the inputs they require, even once you've built a computer factory a single computer requires a lot more inputs than the weight of a single computer, and then there's all the specialized components needed to keep your factory going.
It may be that we can use things like 3D printing to make do with a drastically smaller supply chain, but I suspect it's will be lot cheaper to build what we need on earth and ship it up.
The sad part is they don't realize Trump is putting on an act. Trump is a New York "liberal" of the highest level. He isn't even very good at his act, but they are too fucking stupid to realize it.
You're assuming there's a real Trump with an actual political philosophy.
The only thing consistent about Trump's politics over the years is he adopts the opinions of whatever group he's embedded in (with an outsider twist so he can say he knows better than the elites).
It may be sincere or it may be an act, but if you want President Trump to follow your interests you better be damn sure to get your people into his inner circle.
That's the thing about Trump, I'm not so sure he's as much a liar as a fantasist. He's so enveloped in his own idolatry, he really believes in what he says - even if it's completely contradictory to whatever he said 5 minutes previous. He's got his own Ministry of Truth constantly churning away in his head.
After a certain point I don't care to try analysing the reason for Trump's actions because there's no diagnosis that would make those actions appropriate for a potential President.
Whatever the cause, the words coming out of his mount have almost no relationship with reality.
What the hell is this crap and why is it on slashdot? When did slashdot turn into the Rush Limbaugh show?
It's been that way for a while.
Read any article referencing feminism or minorities and the comments are nothing but complaints about SJWs.
There are repeated articles about Clinton's emails, and they're all full of comments about how she should be in jail.
Remember when Guccifer made the trivially debunked claim that he hacked Hillary Clinton's emails? Slashdot had a series of articles treating that extremely dubious claim as an established fact.
I'm not sure if it's a specific group or editor who is trying to push this or if it just happens to be who is logging in, but/. is getting pulled to the fringe, hard.
Being a member of an ethnicity doesn't mean you can't have inaccurate stereotypes about it.
Nonsense. Discrimination is wrong whether the stereotypes are accurate or not. Blacks are far more likely to be criminals than whites. That is a fact. But it is still wrong to presume that an individual black person is a criminal. Everyone should be treated and respected as an individual.
That is true, but the point I was making is that at least in the specific case of policing, the bias actually exceeds any truth to the stereotype.
To put it plainly, if the police increased their scrutiny of whites, and decreased their scrutiny of blacks, they'd find more criminals.
Whatever policies the company staff are subjected to, unless the renters are somehow compelled to rent to people against their will — however misguided, hateful, or bigoted that will might be — the complaints will not go away.
The government may compel a business-owner by threatening fines and withdrawal of license. Fortunately, AirBnB does not have the government's power and monopoly. Whatever they do is doomed to failure.
They know this and are going through the motions only to deflect criticism (and the government's wrath) against themselves.
If companies didn't have the ability to influence the actions of their customers then marketing as a discipline would not exist.
So, how much is Soros paying you to shill for Hillary?
Not a damn dime.
I just get really pissed off when everyone buys into a bullshit narrative and I refuse to let the bullshit artists dominate the conversation.
Seriously, the paranoia over paid shills to comment on message boards is kinda stupid anyway. The last thing Soros or any political actor would want is some idiot they were paying $10/hr to post on a/. message board to say something outrageous and have it traced back to them.
And even if they did pay a few there's already hundreds of thousands of people on both sides willing to engage in the debate. It would be like trying to cause a flood by dumping a pot of water in a the river, flood or no flood you didn't do squat.
Even Russia with it's actual state sponsored legion of internet posters... I'm pretty skeptical I've ever directly engaged with one of them. There are so many much more mundane explanations for the stupid things people write.
Exact same arguments we get for AGW. So much evidence!
It's actually a cool way to look at it because it doesn't apply to AGW.
"Bigfoot proponent: I have a bigfoot footpint here! Scientists: Nope, that's a bear print. Bigfoot proponent: Well then I have a bigfoot hair! Scientist: Nope, still a bear. Bigfoot proponent: I have a video of a bigfoot! Scientist: Nope, we can see it's a guy in a suit. "
But see how it applies to AGW "Skeptic: AGW doesn't exist because study A is wrong. Scientists: Yeah, it does have shortcomings, study B is a much better look at that topic. Skeptic: But study C is wrong! Scientist: That was known for a while, that's why study D was done."
Basically skeptics find individual bad studies, about which they may or may not be correct, but they're always trying to cherry pick the one bad study or line of evidence, instead of attacking the best evidence. The existence of an individual bad study means nothing, it would be like disproving the existence of women by bringing in a bunch of drag queens.
The way to disprove AGW is to take the best studies and theories that everyone relies on an disprove those, and then it would fall apart like the Bigfoot.
It's not out of context at all, because a TON of money is funneled from small projects like this to political donors all the time. A nonsensical project like this that consumes hundreds of thousands of dollars for what will be in the end a very small study is the perfect vehicle for graft.
The $500k is going to two different universities in the form of grants. And if you're looking to cover part of the professor's salaries, grad students salaries, some equipment, it's a reasonable amount to take a serious look at the project.
You actually think those professors will somehow misappropriate those grants to either donate to a Clinton campaign fund or give the money to "shell companies" who will then donate it? That's ridiculous.
Now here's the interesting questions as I see them:
1) Assuming you were sincere in the belief that this project was intended as a graft scheme are you still trolling?
2) You got modded to +5 since/. has become overrun by the anti-Hillary crowd. So if the community has come to accept your outrageous premise is it still a troll?
3) I'm clearly not buying the "Hillary is evil and people should take every opportunity to mention that" narrative. I think my post and the analysis are pretty accurate, though I'm also a bit aggressive and admittedly condescending. But does the fact I'm out of step with this consensus make me a troll?
It's a tricky issue, I can see why they need $500k just to start poking at it.
A sailor going and photographing classified sections of a submarine over a period of months. Basically looking like he was engaged in active espionage.
Oooh, "10 people were actually punished for similar or lesser offenses than what Mrs. Clinton got away with yesterday".
This should be good for a laugh.
1. "pleaded guilty in 2005 to illegally sneaking classified documents from the National Archives by stuffing papers in his suit. He later destroyed some of them in his office and lied about it.”
Nope, he was deliberately removed classified documents and they proved he lied about it.
2. "Peter Van Buren, a foreign service officer for Hillary’s State Department, was fired and his security clearance revoked for quoting a Wikileaks document AFTER publishing a book critical of Clinton. In fact, the Washington Post reported that one of his firing infractions was “showing ‘bad judgement’ by criticizing Clinton and then-Rep. Michele Bachmann on his blog.”
Sounds more like someone being punished for writing a book critical of their employer.
3. Was a CIA director storing classified info at home. This is the most comparable though the CIA director was dealing with more sensitive information, should have been more aware than Hillary, and it sounds like he knew he had mishandled classified intel.
So a little worse than Hillary though roughly comparable. He also got pardoned by Bill Clinton before he even finished the plea deal. So that actually kinda sets a no jail-time incident.
4. “A Navy intelligence specialist admitted Thursday that he smuggled classified documents out of Fort Bragg in folders and his pants pockets, then sold them for $11,500 to a man he believed was a Chinese agent.”
Wow, #4 and they're already claiming a guy trying to sell classified intelligence to the Chinese was a lesser offence than Hillary?
I seriously checked all of the examples and even read the links on a few that looked promising.
This one was actually hilarious:
Lab Tech Steals Data from Nuclear Facility. Jessica Lynn Quintana, a former worker at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, pleaded guilty in federal court to “knowingly removing classified information from the national security research laboratory, after she took home sensitive documents and data from the lab last year.”
Talk about misrepresenting the facts. She was charged because she was running a meth lab!!
Still I learned something, don't believe a damn thing you read on "The Political Insider".
500k is an absurd amount of money to do what basically amounts to "reversing fundamental human nature".
I could spend $50 and spend the day examining how various popular online forums worked, and probably gain a lot more insight than they ever will...
They're probably just throwing a small team of researchers onto examining the issue, to see if there is a project worth spending real money on. I'm sure the NSF does small projects like this all the time, this one just happened to get a story about it.
Probably most of the $500k is going to Hillary election funds through various shell companies.
A completely out of context shot at a politician?
The thought is appreciated but I don't think they're looking for sample data yet.
The difference is that at a high level the state department is dealing with a crapload of data and it's not obvious whether it's classified or not.
Did that information come from source X? Well then it's classified. But from Y, well then it's not classified. Only parts A-C are classified, but D is fair game. Someone is calling Z classified but it's in a newspaper article, etc, etc.
Uh huh. Why don't you try getting a classified job (at a far lower level than HRC), send work information over Facebook, and then try the "aww, shucks, who could have known" line at the DOJ when they're threatening you with twenty years in prison for mishandling classified data. Bonus points if you do it in your best Goofy impression.
Again, lots of hypothetical examples without any actual incidents.
Almost anyone else in government who mishandled classified data similarly would be a guest of a federal correctional facility for many years.
That would be a more convincing argument if someone ever had been in jail for something similar.
The government isn't likely to let the public know of incidents of classified data mishandling or their resolutution.
Why not? They're not going to tell the public the classified data, and they may even be vague about the specific exposure, but they're sure as hell going to say
"John Doe left a classified briefing on his dashboard and now he's doing 20 years of hard time!!"
While in the military and while working as a contractor, I was informed that mishandling of classified information can lead to long terms of incarceration.
Lots of things can happen, the question is whether they do happen.
The military has every reason to make you think the slightest screw up will land you in jail, that's the way to make you a lot more careful and avoid screw ups.
But it's a scare speech, no one is going to throw you in jail because you unintentionally mishandled a few classified docs.
As she was being confirmed as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton contacted Colin Powell to ask him about his use of a Blackberry while in the same role.
So, it is all a Black man's fault?.. Right...
Just looking at your comment I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic...
-- Somewhere in Chicago a community is missing its organizer.
But your sig makes me think it's unintentionally ironic.
In short, she had no real first-hand knowledge of the server setup other than it was in her basement and handled her e-mail. The rest is typical VIP know nothing blather.
The scary part is that she didn't seem to understand the differences between handling classified data and unclassified data.
The difference is that at a high level the state department is dealing with a crapload of data and it's not obvious whether it's classified or not.
Did that information come from source X? Well then it's classified. But from Y, well then it's not classified. Only parts A-C are classified, but D is fair game. Someone is calling Z classified but it's in a newspaper article, etc, etc.
Maybe you could make a system that makes it easy but that system apparently doesn't exist. And you could treat everything as classified but then nothing would ever get done.
Almost anyone else in government who mishandled classified data similarly would be a guest of a federal correctional facility for many years.
That would be a more convincing argument if someone ever had been in jail for something similar.
Because at the time she did this is was against State Department internal regulations, but not a criminal offense.
You only put people in jail for criminal offenses that have jail as punishment codified in the law, and even then jail is usually only one of many options available as punishment.
Unless you really don't like somebody.
Then even the smallest transgression is apparently worthy of jail time.
Slashdot Mirror
If you remain strict about it then it's fine. But personally it seems like one of those things where I might get get more complacent over time and I don't want to give myself that temptation.
My concern at the light is you're now paying attention to the game instead of the intersection. Maybe the phone is being a little funky, maybe a really cool pokemon pops up, maybe the light turns earlier than you expect. Suddenly you're half a second late starting up on the yellow. You're not as aware of the intersection as you should be, you don't see the pedestrian or vehicle that's late going through the light, and you have an accident.
It's a low probability scenario, but if you roll the dice often enough then low probability scenarios start to happen.
or by having the app open while driving anywhere as you can easily trigger a lot of them that are by the road.
This sounds like an extremely dangerous practise to get into. I've avoided ever opening the game while driving because I never want to put myself in the habit of balancing road safety against game play.
So pointless. Censorship so seldom works, all it does is make you lose credibility.
I think it depends a lot on how it's implemented.
If they're censoring calls for a protest or video's of a demolition than obviously that's outrageous.
But if they're censoring calls for people to plant a bomb on a school bus... that I'm a lot more comfortable with.
Obviously the reality will be somewhere in between, with mistakes made on both sides, but I think there's a way to do it right, and a way to do it very wrong.
Hillary had thousands and thousands of emails with classified information on them
You mean 113? Out of tens of thousands?
an unauthorized, insecure private email server.
As opposed to an unauthorized, insecure state department email server?
The private server is a complete red herring, the confidential emails weren't supposed to go over the standard state dept email either. And she was definitely not the only one to have sent or received confidential email on an unauthorized account.
And also destroyed evidence without authorization, something that Sandy Berger went to prison for.
He stuffed the docs into his pants, it's pretty obvious he knew he was violating the law.
Intent does not matter, only the action matters.
Yeah, why let one of the basic factors in criminal law influence your analysis?
You miss the point. Once they have one legitimate charge then they hit you with every other possible charge they can.
You probably have to start somewhere where the environmentalists can't reach you, and where no cute little deer baby dies because of your gruesome actions to further human civilisation. Also building a road in africa is far less exciting than GOING TO SPACE.
They already have mines up north, if building robot factories in Nunavut or the Sahara was economically viable I'm sure they'd find a way to make it environmentally acceptable.
But they don't even have the factories to build that mining machinery in Nunavut, it's all built down south and shipped up there. And even then the factories are typically close to population centres, rather than being in the middle of nowhere.
The constraint for factory development isn't land and environmental regulations, it's resources. Skilled labour, manufacturing supplies, shipping routes, markets, and supportive governments.
Manufacturing on the moon will not be cheaper than manufacturing in space, at least not till we've had massive technological advancement.
Now the question is whether it's cheaper to manufacture on earth and ship to the moon, or to manufacture on the moon.
The trouble with moon factories is all the inputs they require, even once you've built a computer factory a single computer requires a lot more inputs than the weight of a single computer, and then there's all the specialized components needed to keep your factory going.
It may be that we can use things like 3D printing to make do with a drastically smaller supply chain, but I suspect it's will be lot cheaper to build what we need on earth and ship it up.
Did they have the autopilot turned on?
The sad part is they don't realize Trump is putting on an act. Trump is a New York "liberal" of the highest level. He isn't even very good at his act, but they are too fucking stupid to realize it.
You're assuming there's a real Trump with an actual political philosophy.
The only thing consistent about Trump's politics over the years is he adopts the opinions of whatever group he's embedded in (with an outsider twist so he can say he knows better than the elites).
It may be sincere or it may be an act, but if you want President Trump to follow your interests you better be damn sure to get your people into his inner circle.
I don't think there was much concern about Reagan having Alzheimers while he was president, and making decisions as president.
Also, can anybody look at Hillary Clinton's behavior in the past year and honestly say she doesn't appear unhealthy?
Yup! Me! I don't see any reason to think she's unhealthy.
I just don't know of any other people in the media spotlight or candidates for office I've seen who go on 2 minute coughing fits multiple times
Maybe she had a dry throat from talking all day, maybe she had a cold.
or who need a stool while they're on stage.
She's 69 years old.
I don't care if she needs a stool, I'm pretty sure the oval office has a nice chair. Heck, FDR needed a wheelchair and he was up to the job.
But I'll be sure to scratch her name from the 2020 Olympic team.
That's the thing about Trump, I'm not so sure he's as much a liar as a fantasist. He's so enveloped in his own idolatry, he really believes in what he says - even if it's completely contradictory to whatever he said 5 minutes previous. He's got his own Ministry of Truth constantly churning away in his head.
After a certain point I don't care to try analysing the reason for Trump's actions because there's no diagnosis that would make those actions appropriate for a potential President.
Whatever the cause, the words coming out of his mount have almost no relationship with reality.
What the hell is this crap and why is it on slashdot? When did slashdot turn into the Rush Limbaugh show?
It's been that way for a while.
Read any article referencing feminism or minorities and the comments are nothing but complaints about SJWs.
There are repeated articles about Clinton's emails, and they're all full of comments about how she should be in jail.
Remember when Guccifer made the trivially debunked claim that he hacked Hillary Clinton's emails? Slashdot had a series of articles treating that extremely dubious claim as an established fact.
I'm not sure if it's a specific group or editor who is trying to push this or if it just happens to be who is logging in, but /. is getting pulled to the fringe, hard.
Being a member of an ethnicity doesn't mean you can't have inaccurate stereotypes about it.
Nonsense. Discrimination is wrong whether the stereotypes are accurate or not. Blacks are far more likely to be criminals than whites. That is a fact. But it is still wrong to presume that an individual black person is a criminal. Everyone should be treated and respected as an individual.
That is true, but the point I was making is that at least in the specific case of policing, the bias actually exceeds any truth to the stereotype.
To put it plainly, if the police increased their scrutiny of whites, and decreased their scrutiny of blacks, they'd find more criminals.
Whatever policies the company staff are subjected to, unless the renters are somehow compelled to rent to people against their will — however misguided, hateful, or bigoted that will might be — the complaints will not go away.
The government may compel a business-owner by threatening fines and withdrawal of license. Fortunately, AirBnB does not have the government's power and monopoly. Whatever they do is doomed to failure.
They know this and are going through the motions only to deflect criticism (and the government's wrath) against themselves.
If companies didn't have the ability to influence the actions of their customers then marketing as a discipline would not exist.
And black police officers also show bias against black people while policing.
Being a member of an ethnicity doesn't mean you can't have inaccurate stereotypes about it.
So, how much is Soros paying you to shill for Hillary?
Not a damn dime.
I just get really pissed off when everyone buys into a bullshit narrative and I refuse to let the bullshit artists dominate the conversation.
Seriously, the paranoia over paid shills to comment on message boards is kinda stupid anyway. The last thing Soros or any political actor would want is some idiot they were paying $10/hr to post on a /. message board to say something outrageous and have it traced back to them.
And even if they did pay a few there's already hundreds of thousands of people on both sides willing to engage in the debate. It would be like trying to cause a flood by dumping a pot of water in a the river, flood or no flood you didn't do squat.
Even Russia with it's actual state sponsored legion of internet posters... I'm pretty skeptical I've ever directly engaged with one of them. There are so many much more mundane explanations for the stupid things people write.
Exact same arguments we get for AGW. So much evidence!
It's actually a cool way to look at it because it doesn't apply to AGW.
"Bigfoot proponent: I have a bigfoot footpint here!
Scientists: Nope, that's a bear print.
Bigfoot proponent: Well then I have a bigfoot hair!
Scientist: Nope, still a bear.
Bigfoot proponent: I have a video of a bigfoot!
Scientist: Nope, we can see it's a guy in a suit.
"
But see how it applies to AGW
"Skeptic: AGW doesn't exist because study A is wrong.
Scientists: Yeah, it does have shortcomings, study B is a much better look at that topic.
Skeptic: But study C is wrong!
Scientist: That was known for a while, that's why study D was done."
Basically skeptics find individual bad studies, about which they may or may not be correct, but they're always trying to cherry pick the one bad study or line of evidence, instead of attacking the best evidence. The existence of an individual bad study means nothing, it would be like disproving the existence of women by bringing in a bunch of drag queens.
The way to disprove AGW is to take the best studies and theories that everyone relies on an disprove those, and then it would fall apart like the Bigfoot.
It's not out of context at all, because a TON of money is funneled from small projects like this to political donors all the time. A nonsensical project like this that consumes hundreds of thousands of dollars for what will be in the end a very small study is the perfect vehicle for graft.
The $500k is going to two different universities in the form of grants. And if you're looking to cover part of the professor's salaries, grad students salaries, some equipment, it's a reasonable amount to take a serious look at the project.
You actually think those professors will somehow misappropriate those grants to either donate to a Clinton campaign fund or give the money to "shell companies" who will then donate it? That's ridiculous.
Now here's the interesting questions as I see them:
1) Assuming you were sincere in the belief that this project was intended as a graft scheme are you still trolling?
2) You got modded to +5 since /. has become overrun by the anti-Hillary crowd. So if the community has come to accept your outrageous premise is it still a troll?
3) I'm clearly not buying the "Hillary is evil and people should take every opportunity to mention that" narrative. I think my post and the analysis are pretty accurate, though I'm also a bit aggressive and admittedly condescending. But does the fact I'm out of step with this consensus make me a troll?
It's a tricky issue, I can see why they need $500k just to start poking at it.
For fuck's sake, how obtuse do you have to be to deny all of the examples that have popped up over the years? Google it, you lazy prick.
I've heard the same argument for the Bigfoot.
There's so many stories! So much evidence!
Yet weirdly enough no one can ever find a single example that holds up to scrutiny.
Your ignorance
A sailor going and photographing classified sections of a submarine over a period of months. Basically looking like he was engaged in active espionage.
So no, not a comparable incident.
subject
Petraeus deliberately shared highly classified materials with his mistress and biographer.
Not a remotely comparable incident.
not our problem.
Oooh, "10 people were actually punished for similar or lesser offenses than what Mrs. Clinton got away with yesterday".
This should be good for a laugh.
1. "pleaded guilty in 2005 to illegally sneaking classified documents from the National Archives by stuffing papers in his suit. He later destroyed some of them in his office and lied about it.”
Nope, he was deliberately removed classified documents and they proved he lied about it.
2. "Peter Van Buren, a foreign service officer for Hillary’s State Department, was fired and his security clearance revoked for quoting a Wikileaks document AFTER publishing a book critical of Clinton. In fact, the Washington Post reported that one of his firing infractions was “showing ‘bad judgement’ by criticizing Clinton and then-Rep. Michele Bachmann on his blog.”
Sounds more like someone being punished for writing a book critical of their employer.
3. Was a CIA director storing classified info at home. This is the most comparable though the CIA director was dealing with more sensitive information, should have been more aware than Hillary, and it sounds like he knew he had mishandled classified intel.
So a little worse than Hillary though roughly comparable. He also got pardoned by Bill Clinton before he even finished the plea deal. So that actually kinda sets a no jail-time incident.
4. “A Navy intelligence specialist admitted Thursday that he smuggled classified documents out of Fort Bragg in folders and his pants pockets, then sold them for $11,500 to a man he believed was a Chinese agent.”
Wow, #4 and they're already claiming a guy trying to sell classified intelligence to the Chinese was a lesser offence than Hillary?
I seriously checked all of the examples and even read the links on a few that looked promising.
This one was actually hilarious:
Lab Tech Steals Data from Nuclear Facility. Jessica Lynn Quintana, a former worker at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, pleaded guilty in federal court to “knowingly removing classified information from the national security research laboratory, after she took home sensitive documents and data from the lab last year.”
Talk about misrepresenting the facts. She was charged because she was running a meth lab!!
Still I learned something, don't believe a damn thing you read on "The Political Insider".
500k is an absurd amount of money to do what basically amounts to "reversing fundamental human nature".
I could spend $50 and spend the day examining how various popular online forums worked, and probably gain a lot more insight than they ever will...
They're probably just throwing a small team of researchers onto examining the issue, to see if there is a project worth spending real money on. I'm sure the NSF does small projects like this all the time, this one just happened to get a story about it.
Probably most of the $500k is going to Hillary election funds through various shell companies.
A completely out of context shot at a politician?
The thought is appreciated but I don't think they're looking for sample data yet.
Uh huh. Why don't you try getting a classified job (at a far lower level than HRC), send work information over Facebook, and then try the "aww, shucks, who could have known" line at the DOJ when they're threatening you with twenty years in prison for mishandling classified data. Bonus points if you do it in your best Goofy impression.
Again, lots of hypothetical examples without any actual incidents.
Almost anyone else in government who mishandled classified data similarly would be a guest of a federal correctional facility for many years.
That would be a more convincing argument if someone ever had been in jail for something similar.
The government isn't likely to let the public know of incidents of classified data mishandling or their resolutution.
Why not? They're not going to tell the public the classified data, and they may even be vague about the specific exposure, but they're sure as hell going to say
"John Doe left a classified briefing on his dashboard and now he's doing 20 years of hard time!!"
While in the military and while working as a contractor, I was informed that mishandling of classified information can lead to long terms of incarceration.
Lots of things can happen, the question is whether they do happen.
The military has every reason to make you think the slightest screw up will land you in jail, that's the way to make you a lot more careful and avoid screw ups.
But it's a scare speech, no one is going to throw you in jail because you unintentionally mishandled a few classified docs.
So, it is all a Black man's fault?.. Right...
Just looking at your comment I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic...
--
Somewhere in Chicago a community is missing its organizer.
But your sig makes me think it's unintentionally ironic.
In short, she had no real first-hand knowledge of the server setup other than it was in her basement and handled her e-mail. The rest is typical VIP know nothing blather.
The scary part is that she didn't seem to understand the differences between handling classified data and unclassified data.
The difference is that at a high level the state department is dealing with a crapload of data and it's not obvious whether it's classified or not.
Did that information come from source X? Well then it's classified. But from Y, well then it's not classified. Only parts A-C are classified, but D is fair game. Someone is calling Z classified but it's in a newspaper article, etc, etc.
Maybe you could make a system that makes it easy but that system apparently doesn't exist. And you could treat everything as classified but then nothing would ever get done.
Almost anyone else in government who mishandled classified data similarly would be a guest of a federal correctional facility for many years.
That would be a more convincing argument if someone ever had been in jail for something similar.
Because at the time she did this is was against State Department internal regulations, but not a criminal offense.
You only put people in jail for criminal offenses that have jail as punishment codified in the law, and even then jail is usually only one of many options available as punishment.
Unless you really don't like somebody.
Then even the smallest transgression is apparently worthy of jail time.