Clinton was negligent in handling classified materials. Saucier deliberately broke the law. That is, from the cases I looked over, almost always the criterion for prosecution.
I can guarantee that if you had similarly handled classified documents, you would be facing prosecution.
If you look at cases of people who were negligent in handling classified material, or otherwise inadvertently leaked it, you don't find criminal prosecution. There was one guy who agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge, and wound up not having to, and I saw no sign of any criminal penalties in the other cases. Prosecuting Clinton would have been unprecedented.
Now, if you similarly mishandled classified documents, you might lose your job or your clearance, and it's likely to be a career-limiting move, but you wouldn't have to worry about prosecution.
In this case, it's because he's almost completely wrong on every substantive point. The observations include what he claimed, but a whole lot more. The hypothesis he claimed is nonsense. The description of mathematical models is arguably libel, in addition to being completely wrong. The conclusion is that AGW is happening and is serious, true, but everything following that is only in some people's deluded imagination.
Assuming Clinton didn't confess to treason, the only way to convict would be witnesses to some overt act that provided aid and comfort to an enemy. That's a very high bar, and deliberately so. I'm about as anti-Trump as you're going to find, and I don't suspect him of treason. Anyone who used the word to describe Clinton's activities in any sort of official capacity was very irresponsible.
If no answer is going to be satisfactory to a certain politically driven group of people, it's not worth trying to convince them.
I have no idea which scientists you claim talk in absolutes. If you read the IPCC summary, it labels every prediction with how confident the IPCC is in it, so it sure isn't climate scientists.
it's not clear to me there is anything needing to be fixed by govt.
Birth rates in developed countries are dangerously low, in that they will produce a large number of old people relative to young people. That really should be somebody's concern, and hoping it will fix itself despite all the financial disincentives is not realistic.
Not offensive, but short-sighted. If I found stupid and short-sighted comments offensive, I couldn't stand Slashdot.
If the main reason is women raising kids, we've got a problem and the discussion is not over. That work is vital for the future of society, and should not come with a big financial penalty.
Yep, and if every woman decides not to have kids we're in really deep trouble. Doing something vital for our continued survival really shouldn't carry massive financial penalties.
Last I looked, most of C++14 is in VS 2015. VC++ does lag annoyingly behind g++ and clang in standards conformance, but it catches up to the standard eventually.
Ask a C++ developer sometime about Intellisense. We're using VS 2013 (I'd love to be on 2015, but not all of our third-party library suppliers are there yet), and Intellisense mostly works, if you don't mind taking a ten-second break now and then.
There is zero evidence WikiLeaks is compromised by Putin.
It doesn't have to be to be very useful to Putin. If he has a third party pass on stuff to Assange, Assange serves as a very useful cutout to avoid tracing the leak back.
There is zero evidence Trump is compromised by Putin.
False. Trump's team is known to have had contacts with Russian officials. Trump is trying to change US foreign policy to be pro-Russia. We know the Trump empire has had a lot of dealings with Russia. There isn't any strong evidence, which is very likely because Trump and associates are doing their best to avoid handing over any evidence that might bear on this, which is consistent with them being compromised. This would normally call for an investigation, but neither Trump nor congressional Republicans want one.
Putin wields a great deal of power in Russia, and I'd expect Russia to have good hackers. While the Soviet Union was economically and technologically backward compared to the West, it had really, really good mathematicians and theoretical scientists. In the meantime, Russia's economic problems have not stopped Russia from military aggression. Russia is more of a threat than its GDP would suggest.
Democrats controlled both houses of Congress both when the original ADA was passed in 1990 and when it was amended in 2008.
And in both those years the President was a Republican named Bush, and I don't remember the Democrats as having enough votes to override a veto. IIRC, these were stand-alone bills, not something the President was obligated to sign as a rider on an important appropriations bill or something like that.
No. I antedate the Internet by a fair number of years, and I read a lot of non-fiction that was misleading to the point of fiction. When I was young, I believed a lot of that crap. If somebody credible wrote a book that was mostly in accordance with the other book I read on the subject, and claimed something that differed from the book, what was I to believe?
Example: in June 1942, there was a carrier battle near Midway Island between the US and Japan that was a decisive US victory. Two of the Japanese officers involved, Fuchida and Genda, wrote a book about the battle, in which they claimed that the Japanese carriers had their strike forces all ready to go against the US carriers when there was a series of attacks that delayed them. That was translated into English in the 60s, and generally believed among English-speaking historians for the rest of the century.
There was evidence against that statement, including the actual times of the strikes from the last Japanese carrier to sink in the battle (Hiryu), and photographic evidence of mostly clear Japanese carrier decks, but that didn't seem to be paid attention to. (I missed it, and I'm not a professional historian.)
His allegations are real. Just turn on the TV and look. Or read the news.
Depending on which alleged news sources you're paying attention to, you'll see something between a pattern of systematic lies and reasonably truthful clickbait. What you will not get is any sense of how prevalent a problem is, unless there's an article that actually looks at it. You're trying to use the Availability heuristic, and that simply doesn't work on things in the news.
I've seen no evidence that climate scientists don't welcome questions and opposing ideas. I've seen plenty of evidence that they don't like being asked the same stupid questions regardless of how many times they've been answered, and don't like being called morons and frauds.
Actually, it appears that Coventry was not such a case. Read your link.
There was a case in WWI where the British deliberately didn't warn a French cruiser about a U-boat. The French later asked if the decision would have been the same if it had been a British cruiser.
The coverup was not completely successful. Doenitz, the overall U-boat commander and later head of the Navy, thought their Enigma messages were being read somehow, but his technical people said that was impossible (IIRC, that's in Clay Blair's book on the U-boat war).
I've been told that the law doesn't require intent, but when I checked cases it turns out that prosecution does. Unless there is an intent to violate the law, there is no prosecution. Whether or not the defendant intended to do anything bad with deliberately obtained classified material doesn't matter.
And, according to you, McCaul is not part of the FBI. Clinton did nothing resembling treason, and anyone in a governmental role who said so was being irresponsible.
Universities are supposed to teach people and do research. They should do that in a generally efficient way. If they find a way to do things more efficiently while cutting local jobs, then some people lose their jobs and the taxpayers get more bang for their buck. Increased efficiency is to the good of the taxpayers. This doesn't mean the University won't make mistakes, but we need to accept that.
There are government functions that should not be privatized, but that's usually due to the responsibility involved. We need to take responsibility for prisoners, because we control them. Police get special powers, so we need to keep direct control. Offhand, I see no reason why animal control can't be private companies on contract, but since the animals to be controlled are local we can't offshore it.
The primary efficiency goal of government organizations is to carry out their duties without consuming excess tax money. If we want a jobs program, we need to explicitly decide that rather than assume that tax money should be used for it. When there's an external demand for people who do X, then employing extra people to do X is generally a bad idea. Economic progress is the elimination of jobs.
Free trade helps everybody's economy. The US economy benefits from access to inexpensive stuff. This shouldn't be confused with helping everyone in the economy. It makes the US pie bigger, but generally makes the division more lopsided. I'd rather see free trade and government action to shift the distribution of income than hurting our economy and hoping for trickle-down benefits.
Slashdot Mirror
Name one. Just one. I haven't found one yet.
Clinton was negligent in handling classified materials. Saucier deliberately broke the law. That is, from the cases I looked over, almost always the criterion for prosecution.
If you look at cases of people who were negligent in handling classified material, or otherwise inadvertently leaked it, you don't find criminal prosecution. There was one guy who agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge, and wound up not having to, and I saw no sign of any criminal penalties in the other cases. Prosecuting Clinton would have been unprecedented.
Now, if you similarly mishandled classified documents, you might lose your job or your clearance, and it's likely to be a career-limiting move, but you wouldn't have to worry about prosecution.
In this case, it's because he's almost completely wrong on every substantive point. The observations include what he claimed, but a whole lot more. The hypothesis he claimed is nonsense. The description of mathematical models is arguably libel, in addition to being completely wrong. The conclusion is that AGW is happening and is serious, true, but everything following that is only in some people's deluded imagination.
Assuming Clinton didn't confess to treason, the only way to convict would be witnesses to some overt act that provided aid and comfort to an enemy. That's a very high bar, and deliberately so. I'm about as anti-Trump as you're going to find, and I don't suspect him of treason. Anyone who used the word to describe Clinton's activities in any sort of official capacity was very irresponsible.
If no answer is going to be satisfactory to a certain politically driven group of people, it's not worth trying to convince them.
I have no idea which scientists you claim talk in absolutes. If you read the IPCC summary, it labels every prediction with how confident the IPCC is in it, so it sure isn't climate scientists.
"Contacts with" is evidence of wrongdoing when the contacts are kept secret.
"Pro-Russia" in this context means "supports the Russian armed intervention in Ukraine".
Birth rates in developed countries are dangerously low, in that they will produce a large number of old people relative to young people. That really should be somebody's concern, and hoping it will fix itself despite all the financial disincentives is not realistic.
Not offensive, but short-sighted. If I found stupid and short-sighted comments offensive, I couldn't stand Slashdot.
If the main reason is women raising kids, we've got a problem and the discussion is not over. That work is vital for the future of society, and should not come with a big financial penalty.
Yep, and if every woman decides not to have kids we're in really deep trouble. Doing something vital for our continued survival really shouldn't carry massive financial penalties.
Last I looked, most of C++14 is in VS 2015. VC++ does lag annoyingly behind g++ and clang in standards conformance, but it catches up to the standard eventually.
When various features were introduced, and how well they work, depends on whether you're using C++ or C#.
Ask a C++ developer sometime about Intellisense. We're using VS 2013 (I'd love to be on 2015, but not all of our third-party library suppliers are there yet), and Intellisense mostly works, if you don't mind taking a ten-second break now and then.
That's more like the NSA than the CIA. Not that they can't cooperate.
That sounds more like the CIA.
It doesn't have to be to be very useful to Putin. If he has a third party pass on stuff to Assange, Assange serves as a very useful cutout to avoid tracing the leak back.
False. Trump's team is known to have had contacts with Russian officials. Trump is trying to change US foreign policy to be pro-Russia. We know the Trump empire has had a lot of dealings with Russia. There isn't any strong evidence, which is very likely because Trump and associates are doing their best to avoid handing over any evidence that might bear on this, which is consistent with them being compromised. This would normally call for an investigation, but neither Trump nor congressional Republicans want one.
Putin wields a great deal of power in Russia, and I'd expect Russia to have good hackers. While the Soviet Union was economically and technologically backward compared to the West, it had really, really good mathematicians and theoretical scientists. In the meantime, Russia's economic problems have not stopped Russia from military aggression. Russia is more of a threat than its GDP would suggest.
And in both those years the President was a Republican named Bush, and I don't remember the Democrats as having enough votes to override a veto. IIRC, these were stand-alone bills, not something the President was obligated to sign as a rider on an important appropriations bill or something like that.
No. I antedate the Internet by a fair number of years, and I read a lot of non-fiction that was misleading to the point of fiction. When I was young, I believed a lot of that crap. If somebody credible wrote a book that was mostly in accordance with the other book I read on the subject, and claimed something that differed from the book, what was I to believe?
Example: in June 1942, there was a carrier battle near Midway Island between the US and Japan that was a decisive US victory. Two of the Japanese officers involved, Fuchida and Genda, wrote a book about the battle, in which they claimed that the Japanese carriers had their strike forces all ready to go against the US carriers when there was a series of attacks that delayed them. That was translated into English in the 60s, and generally believed among English-speaking historians for the rest of the century.
There was evidence against that statement, including the actual times of the strikes from the last Japanese carrier to sink in the battle (Hiryu), and photographic evidence of mostly clear Japanese carrier decks, but that didn't seem to be paid attention to. (I missed it, and I'm not a professional historian.)
Depending on which alleged news sources you're paying attention to, you'll see something between a pattern of systematic lies and reasonably truthful clickbait. What you will not get is any sense of how prevalent a problem is, unless there's an article that actually looks at it. You're trying to use the Availability heuristic, and that simply doesn't work on things in the news.
I've seen no evidence that climate scientists don't welcome questions and opposing ideas. I've seen plenty of evidence that they don't like being asked the same stupid questions regardless of how many times they've been answered, and don't like being called morons and frauds.
Fixed that for you.
Actually, it appears that Coventry was not such a case. Read your link.
There was a case in WWI where the British deliberately didn't warn a French cruiser about a U-boat. The French later asked if the decision would have been the same if it had been a British cruiser.
The coverup was not completely successful. Doenitz, the overall U-boat commander and later head of the Navy, thought their Enigma messages were being read somehow, but his technical people said that was impossible (IIRC, that's in Clay Blair's book on the U-boat war).
I've been told that the law doesn't require intent, but when I checked cases it turns out that prosecution does. Unless there is an intent to violate the law, there is no prosecution. Whether or not the defendant intended to do anything bad with deliberately obtained classified material doesn't matter.
And, according to you, McCaul is not part of the FBI. Clinton did nothing resembling treason, and anyone in a governmental role who said so was being irresponsible.
Universities are supposed to teach people and do research. They should do that in a generally efficient way. If they find a way to do things more efficiently while cutting local jobs, then some people lose their jobs and the taxpayers get more bang for their buck. Increased efficiency is to the good of the taxpayers. This doesn't mean the University won't make mistakes, but we need to accept that.
There are government functions that should not be privatized, but that's usually due to the responsibility involved. We need to take responsibility for prisoners, because we control them. Police get special powers, so we need to keep direct control. Offhand, I see no reason why animal control can't be private companies on contract, but since the animals to be controlled are local we can't offshore it.
The primary efficiency goal of government organizations is to carry out their duties without consuming excess tax money. If we want a jobs program, we need to explicitly decide that rather than assume that tax money should be used for it. When there's an external demand for people who do X, then employing extra people to do X is generally a bad idea. Economic progress is the elimination of jobs.
Free trade helps everybody's economy. The US economy benefits from access to inexpensive stuff. This shouldn't be confused with helping everyone in the economy. It makes the US pie bigger, but generally makes the division more lopsided. I'd rather see free trade and government action to shift the distribution of income than hurting our economy and hoping for trickle-down benefits.