I was a contractor for a financial firm around 2006, and I had a work-issued laptop. It had full-disk encryption, integrated with the Windows logon. While putting Visual Studio on it, IT managed to hose it somehow so it could not get into Windows.
This gave IT a real problem. The disk was encrypted, and the encryption could not be broken. IT was required to pull all information off disks before destroying or reformatting them, and the information was completely inaccessible. They kept that laptop for months, and finally returned it (I'd been using a less powerful one in the meantime). My guess is that they just pulled the drive and put it on a shelf somewhere to await proton decay.
From a legal point of view, you're pretty much right. Unintentional mishandling is not prosecuted. I suspect it's a policy matter, so that people who have made a mistake won't be afraid of hard time should they report it or fail to cover it up.
Actually, what Comey said is that people who did what she did weren't prosecuted. In my research, that seems to be correct. What Clinton did is normally handled administratively. It may result in temporary or indefinite loss of clearance, or being fired, and is probably a career-limiting move.
The legal treatment is different based on whether you mishandled classified information as a conscious act or not. (The law may not distinguish, but people who don't intentionally mishandle it are not prosecuted.) This guy almost certainly had to go through some procedures to get classified material to his home computer, and that suggests intention.
It's possible that the guy was not cleared to handle classified information, and therefore did not break the law, but in that case he should have had no access, and whoever gave him access almost certainly committed a felony.
I do little to annoy Russia, other than posting opinions on sites they sometimes troll, and having a friend who's blocked from entering Russia. Russians really can't do all that much to me without considerable effort.
However, I normally have opinions that conflict with those of assorted government officials in the US, which gives them more reason to hassle me than any Russian official has. Moreover, it's not that difficult for a police officer or IRS auditor or some other official to give me a hard time. I don't expect to be picked on by government officials (I'm a male of northwestern European descent), but it's more of a concern than Russian intervention.
- Do not browse sites with third-party ads with flash enabled or without an adblocker. My wife once got infected browsing the New York Times site, which fails badly to be either a porn or a humor site.
Incidentally, you are being stupid by believing Kaspersky is any less trustworthy than their competitors.
Do you mean trustworthy as a general attribute (probably more or less true, none of them picked up the Sony rootkit), or trustworthy to anyone in particular? I wouldn't trust Kaspersky for an installation with US government secrets, but I trust it as much as any other AV on my computer. If I'm to have spyware on my computer, I'd prefer Russian to US, since the Russians have a lot less potential interest in what I do, and have far less ability to hassle me than US authorities.
Corporate income taxes are not paid on labor costs. If the company officers think it will be more profitable by abusing workers, it doesn't matter what the corporate tax rate is, they'll abuse workers.
The Constitution does not normally explain itself, and I I have to consider the introductory clause, the reference to a well-regulated militia, as meaning something. The National Guard is a well-regulated militia. The Unorganized Militia of the US contains all able-bodied men from 18 through 45 (IIRC), plus women in the National Guard, but I can't say it's well-regulated. I never got any formal statement that I was a member, I was never told of any rules, and I didn't even own a firearm. (I do own a nice sword now, and that does count as "arms".)
If whoever wrote the Second Amendment had wanted to say that all individuals had a right to keep and bear arms that wasn't supposed to be infringed, the person who wrote it could have left the "militia" part out entirely. There is no explanatory text attached to the right to free speech, or the right to not have soldiers quartered in one's house, or the right to a jury trial, or anything else listed in the Bill of Rights.
Nope. A sales contract is a private agreement between Apple and the store. A treaty is binding law. Your analogy would work better if there was a law that forbade selling below recommended retail price, not a sales agreement.
Unlike other strn- functions, strncpy is not just a bounds-checked strcpy. It write precisely the defined number of characters from the source to the destination, ignoring '\0' terminators. If there is no null terminator in the source within the specified number of characters, none goes into the destination, leading to buffer overflow vunerabilities.
Energy costs money, so the total cost of energy used in manufacture is accounted for in the price. If solar cells took more energy to produce than they made, people couldn't afford them.
Back in the 60s, Tom Lehrer (math professor at MIT) was a well-known satirical pianist. After Kissinger got the Nobel Peace Prize, he felt completely inadequate as a satirist.
From a scientific perspective, we've been trying to figure out the rules for a long time now, and I don't see how knowing we're in a simulation would help. I'd think it might hinder: "The guy who wrote the simulation did it" is much like "God did it", an answer that is scientifically unacceptable. Hacking the simulation and/or finding some cheat codes would appear as supernatural abilities. We've got a feel for the overall nature of physical laws, and so know something about the style of the guy who wrote the simulation.
I may have been unclear, in that I stated what the US thinks, without noting that it's legally correct. If the US were to not think it had authority over Hawaii, that would be concerning.
Since the legalities are clear, the US having conquered Hawaii fair and square, we might talk about the morality.
Religion goes both ways on empathy. Some people are inspired by their religion to help others and not judge. Others use their religion as an excuse to not care about people. I don't know what the numbers and/or balance are, but the second group is sure noisier in the US.
I wound up deciding that I make my own decisions and live with the consequences. I seem to be happier that way. So, if I do something to help another, and it does help another, I've gotten what I wanted. Thanks is a pleasant social gesture, but not essential. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "gets thrown back in my face".
No kidding. When you're trying to escape the demons*, you don't care about the effect on others.
I wonder if these depressed individuals wouldnt be as depressed if they were more selfish in little things but still helped others towards the greater good.
Depressed people are normally selfish about the little things. Helping others for the common good is difficult but helpful.
*It felt like demons to me. Also, depression is an immaterial harmful thing that is somewhat contagious, and hence can move from one person to another, and that's fairly close to some definitions of "demon".
Slashdot Mirror
I was a contractor for a financial firm around 2006, and I had a work-issued laptop. It had full-disk encryption, integrated with the Windows logon. While putting Visual Studio on it, IT managed to hose it somehow so it could not get into Windows.
This gave IT a real problem. The disk was encrypted, and the encryption could not be broken. IT was required to pull all information off disks before destroying or reformatting them, and the information was completely inaccessible. They kept that laptop for months, and finally returned it (I'd been using a less powerful one in the meantime). My guess is that they just pulled the drive and put it on a shelf somewhere to await proton decay.
From a legal point of view, you're pretty much right. Unintentional mishandling is not prosecuted. I suspect it's a policy matter, so that people who have made a mistake won't be afraid of hard time should they report it or fail to cover it up.
This was almost certainly intentional mishandling of classified materials, and that is normally prosecuted as a felony.
The line between prosecution and no prosecution is normally if the violation was done deliberately or not. This looks awfully deliberate.
Clinton screwed up. She did nothing that warrants prosecution, or would have gotten anyone else prosecuted.
Actually, what Comey said is that people who did what she did weren't prosecuted. In my research, that seems to be correct. What Clinton did is normally handled administratively. It may result in temporary or indefinite loss of clearance, or being fired, and is probably a career-limiting move.
The legal treatment is different based on whether you mishandled classified information as a conscious act or not. (The law may not distinguish, but people who don't intentionally mishandle it are not prosecuted.) This guy almost certainly had to go through some procedures to get classified material to his home computer, and that suggests intention.
It's possible that the guy was not cleared to handle classified information, and therefore did not break the law, but in that case he should have had no access, and whoever gave him access almost certainly committed a felony.
I don't get your reasoning.
I do little to annoy Russia, other than posting opinions on sites they sometimes troll, and having a friend who's blocked from entering Russia. Russians really can't do all that much to me without considerable effort.
However, I normally have opinions that conflict with those of assorted government officials in the US, which gives them more reason to hassle me than any Russian official has. Moreover, it's not that difficult for a police officer or IRS auditor or some other official to give me a hard time. I don't expect to be picked on by government officials (I'm a male of northwestern European descent), but it's more of a concern than Russian intervention.
You left out:
- Do not browse sites with third-party ads with flash enabled or without an adblocker. My wife once got infected browsing the New York Times site, which fails badly to be either a porn or a humor site.
Do you mean trustworthy as a general attribute (probably more or less true, none of them picked up the Sony rootkit), or trustworthy to anyone in particular? I wouldn't trust Kaspersky for an installation with US government secrets, but I trust it as much as any other AV on my computer. If I'm to have spyware on my computer, I'd prefer Russian to US, since the Russians have a lot less potential interest in what I do, and have far less ability to hassle me than US authorities.
Have you ever had a sleep study done? You could have apnea, and you'd feel a lot better if you fixed that.
Corporate income taxes are not paid on labor costs. If the company officers think it will be more profitable by abusing workers, it doesn't matter what the corporate tax rate is, they'll abuse workers.
The Constitution does not normally explain itself, and I I have to consider the introductory clause, the reference to a well-regulated militia, as meaning something. The National Guard is a well-regulated militia. The Unorganized Militia of the US contains all able-bodied men from 18 through 45 (IIRC), plus women in the National Guard, but I can't say it's well-regulated. I never got any formal statement that I was a member, I was never told of any rules, and I didn't even own a firearm. (I do own a nice sword now, and that does count as "arms".)
If whoever wrote the Second Amendment had wanted to say that all individuals had a right to keep and bear arms that wasn't supposed to be infringed, the person who wrote it could have left the "militia" part out entirely. There is no explanatory text attached to the right to free speech, or the right to not have soldiers quartered in one's house, or the right to a jury trial, or anything else listed in the Bill of Rights.
Nope. A sales contract is a private agreement between Apple and the store. A treaty is binding law. Your analogy would work better if there was a law that forbade selling below recommended retail price, not a sales agreement.
Unlike other strn- functions, strncpy is not just a bounds-checked strcpy. It write precisely the defined number of characters from the source to the destination, ignoring '\0' terminators. If there is no null terminator in the source within the specified number of characters, none goes into the destination, leading to buffer overflow vunerabilities.
Energy costs money, so the total cost of energy used in manufacture is accounted for in the price. If solar cells took more energy to produce than they made, people couldn't afford them.
Giving the Peace Prize to unworthy recipients didn't start in 2007, youngster.
Back in the 60s, Tom Lehrer (math professor at MIT) was a well-known satirical pianist. After Kissinger got the Nobel Peace Prize, he felt completely inadequate as a satirist.
That's one theory, sure.
From a scientific perspective, we've been trying to figure out the rules for a long time now, and I don't see how knowing we're in a simulation would help. I'd think it might hinder: "The guy who wrote the simulation did it" is much like "God did it", an answer that is scientifically unacceptable. Hacking the simulation and/or finding some cheat codes would appear as supernatural abilities. We've got a feel for the overall nature of physical laws, and so know something about the style of the guy who wrote the simulation.
I may have been unclear, in that I stated what the US thinks, without noting that it's legally correct. If the US were to not think it had authority over Hawaii, that would be concerning.
Since the legalities are clear, the US having conquered Hawaii fair and square, we might talk about the morality.
Yeah, but we can sure appear as selfish.
Religion goes both ways on empathy. Some people are inspired by their religion to help others and not judge. Others use their religion as an excuse to not care about people. I don't know what the numbers and/or balance are, but the second group is sure noisier in the US.
I wound up deciding that I make my own decisions and live with the consequences. I seem to be happier that way. So, if I do something to help another, and it does help another, I've gotten what I wanted. Thanks is a pleasant social gesture, but not essential. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "gets thrown back in my face".
No kidding. When you're trying to escape the demons*, you don't care about the effect on others.
I wonder if these depressed individuals wouldnt be as depressed if they were more selfish in little things but still helped others towards the greater good.
Depressed people are normally selfish about the little things. Helping others for the common good is difficult but helpful.
*It felt like demons to me. Also, depression is an immaterial harmful thing that is somewhat contagious, and hence can move from one person to another, and that's fairly close to some definitions of "demon".
I'm happy that neither you nor anyone close to you has suffered clinical depression, since otherwise you wouldn't say that.