The Attorney General, being a political appointee, had said she'd defer to FBI recommendations on whether to prosecute. Otherwise, you deplorables would be complaining that she didn't prosecute for political reasons.
As far as I could tell, nobody has faced criminal prosecution for inadvertent mishandling of classified material. The penalties were all administrative in nature. If you can come up with a counterexample, I'd be fascinated.
I couldn't find one. I've been told that intent is not part of the statute, but it's been the criterion for prosecution on felony charges.
If you or I had done what she did, we might be fired, we might lose our clearance temporarily or indefinitely, but we wouldn't be prosecuted.
The ones where the FBI plainly spelled out the illegal things she did and directly told you that anyone else would have faced legal jeopardy for the same acts?
The ones where the FBI said that nobody would prosecute what she did because such things were never prosecuted? Guess what - if you or I did what she did nobody would prosecute us.
I don't want us doing it to other countries. However, they're responsible for defending their countries, and we're responsible for defending our country.
Please name what crimes Clinton is guilty of, and how she operated in a demonstrably, as opposed to seemingly, corrupt manner. There were things she should have done and didn't do to avoid the appearance of corruption, but that isn't itself corrupt action.
Lots of us are happy to pay a reasonable amount to get something legitimately. The iTunes store didn't (AFAIK) sell anything you couldn't get on Pirate Bay, but it was a reasonable legitimate deal, so it got very popular.
The reason I use an ad blocker on a desktop/laptop is fear of malware. The reason I use one on my iPhone is that I couldn't find anyplace to touch to scroll that didn't count as clicking on an ad and bringing it up. I was reluctant in both cases, and tried to live with NoScript instead of AdBlock Plus. If anyone cares to come up with a way I can safely accept ads and actually use pages on Mobile Safari, or a halfway reasonable way to pay people for their work on the web, I'm in.
Jobs had this penchant for making what was possible now sound good. For the original iPhone, web apps were great, you could do anything with web apps, up until the iOS SDK was released. Features were overrated and we could do without them - until the iPhone could do them. It seems quite likely to me that he could get DRM off music but not off movies, and explained why this is the best of all possible worlds.
Sketchy sites includes all of those that use third-party ads, which is probably all commercial sites. My wife got infected from the New York Times site once. "Safe browsing" is a myth.
I don't trust software with foreign or domestic ties, and I feel a lot safer from Putin's snoops than Trump's. Russia has no legal authority over me, and no reason to be particularly concerned about me, unlike the US. I'll grant you that I don't know whether Kaspersky does anything for the Russian government, but I don't know whether the domestic products do anything for the US government. I know that no anti-virus that failed to detect the Sony rootkit is on my side.
We used 64-bit XP, because some of our software would overflow the available 32-bit memory space on particularly large inputs. I understand it had compatibility problems, but not for what we were doing.
Why not? Let's take NSA C++. If it's written in reasonably portable C++, without undefined behavior or significant unspecified or implementation-defined behavior, it will compile to much different binaries on different platforms with different compilers. However, if all of these compilers are standard-conforming and the code is standard-compliant, the different binaries will do the same thing. Given identical input, they will produce output according to the abstract C++ execution model, and the implementation is required to do the same accesses to volatile variables and produce the same output.
It's multiple turtles. Ideally, one for each elephant's foot. The idea is that They aren't going to compromise them all.
Suppose I take source code for the clang compiler, and compile it with clang, g++, Visual C++, and as many other compilers as I can get. Odds are that one of those compilers hasn't been compromised by Them, or at least not every one by the same Them. If everything's on the up and up, all of these compiled versions of clang should produce essentially the same code, so if two of them produce noticeably different code there's something going on.
Also google the oh-my-god particle which was estimated at 3x10e20 eV.
The description I read was the energy of a baseball going forty miles an hour. We haven't found one in Bob Feller or Nolan Ryan territory yet, I guess.
To follow the money (which astrophysicists typically don't make), a scientist will try to establish a reputation as a top researcher, because they get the smallish bucks, much better than other astrophysicists. Reputations are not made by confirming what other people are saying, but rather by contradicting them and getting away with it. If someone cares deeply about money, that person isn't going to become a scientist.
The initial energy has decayed to something like 3 kelvins nowadays, except in very small spots. However, some energetic events (quasars, at least) did happen when the Universe was younger.
But "the right womb" isn't the womb of a millionaire or billionaire woman, it's the womb of a woman in a stable marriage with a good husband, the womb of a woman who values education, and instills the right values in her kids.
You described Mom. Both of her kids have done well in life. Neither is rich (a million or two in savings isn't rich nowadays).
Being in the right place at the right time isn't luck, it's planning, education, and hard work.
If that were the case, people with planning, education, and hard work would find the right place at the right time and get rich. It doesn't happen often.
Gates would have done well for himself in any case, once he founded Microsoft. We'd remember him as a computer pioneer. He was very smart, worked hard, had no problem capitalizing a business, and got into the right school to drop out of. We'd remember his name like we remember other pioneers of personal computing, but he would never have had a billion dollars without having lucky breaks and being ruthless enough to exploit them.
Vision is 20/20 in hindsight. In practice, some of them work and some of them don't. You can waste your life chasing a vision that doesn't work, and some people do.
Define success. I've worked reasonably hard all my life, and had some good breaks. I'm living a very comfortable life doing something I generally like at a company I like. I'm going to have a very comfortable retirement. I've got a wonderful wife and wonderful son. Overall, it's been a good and successful life.
However, nobody's going to be interested in publishing my autobiography. I'm not going to be a desired guest on national talk shows. When I die, there are dozens of people who will mourn me. I'm not rich. This is not a complaint, since I've got things better than being rich and famous, but when people talk about how to be successful they usually mean more money and renown than I can muster.
The thing about risk is that it's, um, risky. There are winners and losers, and we rarely read about the losers.
Taking risks is fine, especially if you're young with time to pick up the pieces and start again. However, it isn't anything like a sure way to success.
Slashdot Mirror
The Attorney General, being a political appointee, had said she'd defer to FBI recommendations on whether to prosecute. Otherwise, you deplorables would be complaining that she didn't prosecute for political reasons.
Ah, someone who hasn't looked into the facts.
As far as I could tell, nobody has faced criminal prosecution for inadvertent mishandling of classified material. The penalties were all administrative in nature. If you can come up with a counterexample, I'd be fascinated. I couldn't find one. I've been told that intent is not part of the statute, but it's been the criterion for prosecution on felony charges.
If you or I had done what she did, we might be fired, we might lose our clearance temporarily or indefinitely, but we wouldn't be prosecuted.
The ones where the FBI said that nobody would prosecute what she did because such things were never prosecuted? Guess what - if you or I did what she did nobody would prosecute us.
I don't want us doing it to other countries. However, they're responsible for defending their countries, and we're responsible for defending our country.
In other words, you have no evidence that anyone was spying on Trump.
Yeah, you deplorables are like that. Covering up your support for a traitor with lame accusations against liberals.
Please name what crimes Clinton is guilty of, and how she operated in a demonstrably, as opposed to seemingly, corrupt manner. There were things she should have done and didn't do to avoid the appearance of corruption, but that isn't itself corrupt action.
Lots of us are happy to pay a reasonable amount to get something legitimately. The iTunes store didn't (AFAIK) sell anything you couldn't get on Pirate Bay, but it was a reasonable legitimate deal, so it got very popular.
The reason I use an ad blocker on a desktop/laptop is fear of malware. The reason I use one on my iPhone is that I couldn't find anyplace to touch to scroll that didn't count as clicking on an ad and bringing it up. I was reluctant in both cases, and tried to live with NoScript instead of AdBlock Plus. If anyone cares to come up with a way I can safely accept ads and actually use pages on Mobile Safari, or a halfway reasonable way to pay people for their work on the web, I'm in.
Jobs had this penchant for making what was possible now sound good. For the original iPhone, web apps were great, you could do anything with web apps, up until the iOS SDK was released. Features were overrated and we could do without them - until the iPhone could do them. It seems quite likely to me that he could get DRM off music but not off movies, and explained why this is the best of all possible worlds.
Sketchy sites includes all of those that use third-party ads, which is probably all commercial sites. My wife got infected from the New York Times site once. "Safe browsing" is a myth.
I don't trust software with foreign or domestic ties, and I feel a lot safer from Putin's snoops than Trump's. Russia has no legal authority over me, and no reason to be particularly concerned about me, unlike the US. I'll grant you that I don't know whether Kaspersky does anything for the Russian government, but I don't know whether the domestic products do anything for the US government. I know that no anti-virus that failed to detect the Sony rootkit is on my side.
We used 64-bit XP, because some of our software would overflow the available 32-bit memory space on particularly large inputs. I understand it had compatibility problems, but not for what we were doing.
Why not? Let's take NSA C++. If it's written in reasonably portable C++, without undefined behavior or significant unspecified or implementation-defined behavior, it will compile to much different binaries on different platforms with different compilers. However, if all of these compilers are standard-conforming and the code is standard-compliant, the different binaries will do the same thing. Given identical input, they will produce output according to the abstract C++ execution model, and the implementation is required to do the same accesses to volatile variables and produce the same output.
Where is the flaw in my reasoning?
It's multiple turtles. Ideally, one for each elephant's foot. The idea is that They aren't going to compromise them all.
Suppose I take source code for the clang compiler, and compile it with clang, g++, Visual C++, and as many other compilers as I can get. Odds are that one of those compilers hasn't been compromised by Them, or at least not every one by the same Them. If everything's on the up and up, all of these compiled versions of clang should produce essentially the same code, so if two of them produce noticeably different code there's something going on.
And, obviously, they use vim.
The description I read was the energy of a baseball going forty miles an hour. We haven't found one in Bob Feller or Nolan Ryan territory yet, I guess.
To follow the money (which astrophysicists typically don't make), a scientist will try to establish a reputation as a top researcher, because they get the smallish bucks, much better than other astrophysicists. Reputations are not made by confirming what other people are saying, but rather by contradicting them and getting away with it. If someone cares deeply about money, that person isn't going to become a scientist.
The initial energy has decayed to something like 3 kelvins nowadays, except in very small spots. However, some energetic events (quasars, at least) did happen when the Universe was younger.
Did IBM offer the same deal to Digital Research, or did Gates get a better deal than they would have?
You described Mom. Both of her kids have done well in life. Neither is rich (a million or two in savings isn't rich nowadays).
If that were the case, people with planning, education, and hard work would find the right place at the right time and get rich. It doesn't happen often.
Gates would have done well for himself in any case, once he founded Microsoft. We'd remember him as a computer pioneer. He was very smart, worked hard, had no problem capitalizing a business, and got into the right school to drop out of. We'd remember his name like we remember other pioneers of personal computing, but he would never have had a billion dollars without having lucky breaks and being ruthless enough to exploit them.
Vision is 20/20 in hindsight. In practice, some of them work and some of them don't. You can waste your life chasing a vision that doesn't work, and some people do.
Last I checked, more progressive and socialist countries had more social mobility than we have.
Define success. I've worked reasonably hard all my life, and had some good breaks. I'm living a very comfortable life doing something I generally like at a company I like. I'm going to have a very comfortable retirement. I've got a wonderful wife and wonderful son. Overall, it's been a good and successful life.
However, nobody's going to be interested in publishing my autobiography. I'm not going to be a desired guest on national talk shows. When I die, there are dozens of people who will mourn me. I'm not rich. This is not a complaint, since I've got things better than being rich and famous, but when people talk about how to be successful they usually mean more money and renown than I can muster.
The thing about risk is that it's, um, risky. There are winners and losers, and we rarely read about the losers.
Taking risks is fine, especially if you're young with time to pick up the pieces and start again. However, it isn't anything like a sure way to success.