There was no law against a private server. Powell was an enthusiastic user of private email. The FOIA says that certain information had to be available to the public, but that didn't affect where it was, and it's arguable that Clinton's emails were not subject to it. The private server would be illegal now, due to a law passed the year after Clinton was no longer Secretary of State.
If you or I had unintentionally mishandled classified material, we'd possibly lose our security clearances temporarily or permanently, or be fired. There would be no criminal prosecution. For anybody to consider prosecution, you'd have to find reasonable evidence that Clinton intended to mishandle it.
To the best of my knowledge, neither Clinton nor Trump have grabbed people with their mouth tentacles and then eaten them. You could probably get people not agreeing with me on one candidate or the other.
Who's rioting? I just googled "riot 2017", and found a references to one riot, in Berkeley. The violence was caused by an organized group of people who kept their identity secret (one was possibly identified as a Berkeley graduate, which doesn't mean much), so I don't know about their intentions or politics. I do know that the people who benefit from this are on the right wing.
For 2016, yes, we know who won. The Electoral College had a majority for Trump, and Congress accepted that count. Case closed. When judging how this is going to play out, the popular vote is important.
I see. Your main C++ experience ends around 1999, so you're veryfamiliar with the old C++. Stroustrup calls modern C++ (C++11 on) almost a new language, and it does work much better.
That trick doesn't work even as well as it did 20 years ago.
Get an education in an in-demand field? I've seen people do that and come out of school to a terrible job market, because they had to commit years in advance and lots of other people graduated in that field. Get an education in a field that you're interested in with at least reasonable job prospects. Long-term, it's a better choice, and likely in the short term also.
Without debt? Have you noticed what tuition has been doing? It's harder to get through without debt. We're well off, so my son graduated with no debt, but not all students are that lucky.
Work crap jobs to go through school? The big problem here with crap jobs is that they pay minimum wage, and that isn't what it used to be. Taking in less money and paying out more doesn't necessarily work. Moreover, if you delay graduation a couple of years to be without debt, that's an extra two years you've worked crap jobs for crap pay. Student loans can be economical in comparison.
It's nice to save 20% of your income, and if you're not married you can probably get away with it, but when you have a family the pressure to spend more can get very large. You do NOT want to save on housing to the point your kids go to crap schools. Living by yourself with a low standard of living can be depressing, and that can be dangerous.
Unless you're about my age, your grandfather lived in a period with more accessible jobs, lower tuition, higher minimum wage, and lower housing prices (in constant dollars, of coure). (My grandfathers were raising kids during the Great Depression.)
Your plan is reasonable when it works, but it simply isn't going to work for everyone.
I have a primary email account that I use, reading on Thunderbird and my phone. I can read it using webmail, but that's clumsier. I have to put my private key on everything I want to read mail on.
There are several other addresses that just get forwarded to my main email address. Either I have to attach my public key to each of them, or I have to maintain multiple private keys depending on the email headers. (Besides, while admin@david_thornley.example.com goes to my email right now, I might pass that on to my son in the future. It gets complicated, and I know what I'm doing.
Certificate authorities do about as good a job at protecting people from MitM as we're likely to get. Without a personal web of trust, which is not going to fly for the general public, people are going to have to trust some sort of authority.
Encryption is trivial, and by trivial I mean completely doable automatically. People use https sites all the time without problems, because all the problems are handled by their browsers, so they don't see them. There's no reason email clients can't encipher and decipher emails automatically, if they have the keys. (They may have this capability today, for all I know. It's been a long time since I looked into GPG email for myself.)
Key exchange is the big problem. Ideally, I'd have one key pair that I'd use for everything, both my regular address and my gmail address, on Thunderbird and my phone. I'd have to have some sort of provision for transferring the key, because if I lost the private key I'd be unable to read any of my past email if I hadn't stored it in cleartext. For me, this isn't really a big deal, but it would be for most people.
Except in very limited circumstances, web of trust doesn't work. If I wanted to send an encrypted email to my eldest cousin, she'd have to have told her email program that she trusts me, and she's really not tech savvy. If I wanted to send an encrypted email to someone else, the web of trust would have to extend that far, and it's quite likely to have boundaries.
The only way it's going to become usable is having certificate authorities who will sign people's keys. That has vulnerabilities, of course, but it generally works well enough for web sites.
I've decided that I don't care about the NSA as a security threat. If they specifically want me, they're going to get me, one way or another, no matter what precautions I take. If they don't want me, they're not a threat. I'm interested in security measures that protect against lesser threats. There's more of them, some of them will mess with me just because they're assholes, and I can at least try to protect against them.
In fact, neither he nor his daughter bought the car. Her boss did. It's possible that he wanted to set her up with lots to drink and a fast car for nefarious purposes, and engineered the situation. I don't know. (I do know it isn't Tesla's fault.)
Do you know how she got that drunk? If not, you're speculating. Her drinks might have been spiked. Heck, there's nothing actually wrong with drinking that much, aside from the health risks, and she may have been promised a ride home.
It was, in fact, her boss's car, and he was in the passenger seat. There may be a story behind that that would tell us more.
One thing I'm completely confident of: it wasn't Tesla's fault.
I still want to know how she got that drunk at a company function, and why her boss gave her the keys, before I finish assigning blame. Obviously, she's at fault for driving drunk, but that doesn't mean other people weren't at fault. It's possible that whoever was serving drinks at the function, if there was such a person, is legally liable also.
I don't know if they still exist, but there have been "dram shop" laws that hold bartenders liable for giving drinks to people who are already drunk. If there was a bartender at the company function, said bartender may be in legal trouble.
Actually, depending on the circumstances, it might be worthwhile to find out why she was that drunk. It won't do his daughter any good, but it might prevent later deaths. Getting blood alcohol to.21% at a company function is not something that should happen, and her boss was also far more drunk than he should have gotten.
We hold people responsible for what they do when drunk. She ran the car into a tree and killed two people. He gave his keys to a thoroughly intoxicated driver. Both are bad, and neither are excusable because of alcohol.
There is no absolute definition of "force" that can be used. If someone puts a gun to my head and makes a demand, I can always refuse and accept the alternative of having my brains splattered everywhere. If an authority figure gives an order, and someone complies, the authority figure is partly responsible.
We also don't know why she was that drunk. It might be a case of her pouring herself drinks until she couldn't hold the bottle any more. It might be that someone spiked whatever she was drinking (someone once did that to a friend who was counting his drinks and being responsible - fortunately, no permanent damage). She may have been pushed into drinking too much. She might have figured that she'd sober up before she had to drive anywhere, believing she had a ride home.
Once she was that drunk,expecting responsibility is foolish. You mentioned rape: with this much alcohol in her blood she was probably not able to legally consent to sex. Had the boss proposed sex, and gone ahead when she agreed, he could have been committing a felony (rape or criminal sexual conduct or whatever it's called in that jurisdiction).
Also, consider the situation: she lost control while trying to avoid a car going the wrong way.
I'm not saying that it isn't her fault. I'm saying that the accident was probably not entirely her fault..
Most branches of science conform to the scientific method (duh). If other branches of science had problems with the methodology of climate science, they'd have said something. That is a scientific way to quickly gauge how scientific climate science is.
Falsifiability: if global temperatures were demonstrably falling, we wouldn't have global warming. Predictions: yes, and they're compared to actual results. Independent verification: scientists not cooperating with each other get similar results.
Experimental testing and reproducibility are not necessary for science. Astronomy is normally considered a science, but it's hard to do experiments on galaxies. Astronomers have to do observations on rare phenomena when they happen. We can't trigger off a supernova whenever we want to observe one, and lots of astronomers will be going through the information gathered on one when it happens.
Precisely, but the EO only applies to illegal aliens within the US,
That's not what you said in GGP: "that excludes from privacy protections people who aren’t U.S. citizens or permanent residents". There are people legally in the US who are not citizens or permanent residents, so any actual visa holders would appear to be excluded.
Slashdot Mirror
No on both counts.
There was no law against a private server. Powell was an enthusiastic user of private email. The FOIA says that certain information had to be available to the public, but that didn't affect where it was, and it's arguable that Clinton's emails were not subject to it. The private server would be illegal now, due to a law passed the year after Clinton was no longer Secretary of State.
If you or I had unintentionally mishandled classified material, we'd possibly lose our security clearances temporarily or permanently, or be fired. There would be no criminal prosecution. For anybody to consider prosecution, you'd have to find reasonable evidence that Clinton intended to mishandle it.
To the best of my knowledge, neither Clinton nor Trump have grabbed people with their mouth tentacles and then eaten them. You could probably get people not agreeing with me on one candidate or the other.
Actually, there were other choices. If I had been unable to vote for Clinton for whatever reasons, I'd have voted for Stein.
It was about December 2008 that the Republican idiots around here stopped blaming things on Clinton and started blaming Obama.
Yep. A RINO is a Republican you disagree with.
Who's rioting? I just googled "riot 2017", and found a references to one riot, in Berkeley. The violence was caused by an organized group of people who kept their identity secret (one was possibly identified as a Berkeley graduate, which doesn't mean much), so I don't know about their intentions or politics. I do know that the people who benefit from this are on the right wing.
For 2016, yes, we know who won. The Electoral College had a majority for Trump, and Congress accepted that count. Case closed. When judging how this is going to play out, the popular vote is important.
I see. Your main C++ experience ends around 1999, so you're veryfamiliar with the old C++. Stroustrup calls modern C++ (C++11 on) almost a new language, and it does work much better.
So you don't think astronomy is a science?
That trick doesn't work even as well as it did 20 years ago.
Get an education in an in-demand field? I've seen people do that and come out of school to a terrible job market, because they had to commit years in advance and lots of other people graduated in that field. Get an education in a field that you're interested in with at least reasonable job prospects. Long-term, it's a better choice, and likely in the short term also.
Without debt? Have you noticed what tuition has been doing? It's harder to get through without debt. We're well off, so my son graduated with no debt, but not all students are that lucky.
Work crap jobs to go through school? The big problem here with crap jobs is that they pay minimum wage, and that isn't what it used to be. Taking in less money and paying out more doesn't necessarily work. Moreover, if you delay graduation a couple of years to be without debt, that's an extra two years you've worked crap jobs for crap pay. Student loans can be economical in comparison.
It's nice to save 20% of your income, and if you're not married you can probably get away with it, but when you have a family the pressure to spend more can get very large. You do NOT want to save on housing to the point your kids go to crap schools. Living by yourself with a low standard of living can be depressing, and that can be dangerous.
Unless you're about my age, your grandfather lived in a period with more accessible jobs, lower tuition, higher minimum wage, and lower housing prices (in constant dollars, of coure). (My grandfathers were raising kids during the Great Depression.)
Your plan is reasonable when it works, but it simply isn't going to work for everyone.
I have a primary email account that I use, reading on Thunderbird and my phone. I can read it using webmail, but that's clumsier. I have to put my private key on everything I want to read mail on.
There are several other addresses that just get forwarded to my main email address. Either I have to attach my public key to each of them, or I have to maintain multiple private keys depending on the email headers. (Besides, while admin@david_thornley.example.com goes to my email right now, I might pass that on to my son in the future. It gets complicated, and I know what I'm doing.
Certificate authorities do about as good a job at protecting people from MitM as we're likely to get. Without a personal web of trust, which is not going to fly for the general public, people are going to have to trust some sort of authority.
Encryption is trivial, and by trivial I mean completely doable automatically. People use https sites all the time without problems, because all the problems are handled by their browsers, so they don't see them. There's no reason email clients can't encipher and decipher emails automatically, if they have the keys. (They may have this capability today, for all I know. It's been a long time since I looked into GPG email for myself.)
Key exchange is the big problem. Ideally, I'd have one key pair that I'd use for everything, both my regular address and my gmail address, on Thunderbird and my phone. I'd have to have some sort of provision for transferring the key, because if I lost the private key I'd be unable to read any of my past email if I hadn't stored it in cleartext. For me, this isn't really a big deal, but it would be for most people.
Except in very limited circumstances, web of trust doesn't work. If I wanted to send an encrypted email to my eldest cousin, she'd have to have told her email program that she trusts me, and she's really not tech savvy. If I wanted to send an encrypted email to someone else, the web of trust would have to extend that far, and it's quite likely to have boundaries.
The only way it's going to become usable is having certificate authorities who will sign people's keys. That has vulnerabilities, of course, but it generally works well enough for web sites.
I've decided that I don't care about the NSA as a security threat. If they specifically want me, they're going to get me, one way or another, no matter what precautions I take. If they don't want me, they're not a threat. I'm interested in security measures that protect against lesser threats. There's more of them, some of them will mess with me just because they're assholes, and I can at least try to protect against them.
In fact, neither he nor his daughter bought the car. Her boss did. It's possible that he wanted to set her up with lots to drink and a fast car for nefarious purposes, and engineered the situation. I don't know. (I do know it isn't Tesla's fault.)
Do you know how she got that drunk? If not, you're speculating. Her drinks might have been spiked. Heck, there's nothing actually wrong with drinking that much, aside from the health risks, and she may have been promised a ride home.
It was, in fact, her boss's car, and he was in the passenger seat. There may be a story behind that that would tell us more.
One thing I'm completely confident of: it wasn't Tesla's fault.
Probably. Without knowing what happened, that's speculation.
I still want to know how she got that drunk at a company function, and why her boss gave her the keys, before I finish assigning blame. Obviously, she's at fault for driving drunk, but that doesn't mean other people weren't at fault. It's possible that whoever was serving drinks at the function, if there was such a person, is legally liable also.
Getting into her pants when she's that drunk is likely to be considered rape, but he may not have been worried about that.
I don't know if they still exist, but there have been "dram shop" laws that hold bartenders liable for giving drinks to people who are already drunk. If there was a bartender at the company function, said bartender may be in legal trouble.
Actually, depending on the circumstances, it might be worthwhile to find out why she was that drunk. It won't do his daughter any good, but it might prevent later deaths. Getting blood alcohol to .21% at a company function is not something that should happen, and her boss was also far more drunk than he should have gotten.
We hold people responsible for what they do when drunk. She ran the car into a tree and killed two people. He gave his keys to a thoroughly intoxicated driver. Both are bad, and neither are excusable because of alcohol.
There is no absolute definition of "force" that can be used. If someone puts a gun to my head and makes a demand, I can always refuse and accept the alternative of having my brains splattered everywhere. If an authority figure gives an order, and someone complies, the authority figure is partly responsible.
We also don't know why she was that drunk. It might be a case of her pouring herself drinks until she couldn't hold the bottle any more. It might be that someone spiked whatever she was drinking (someone once did that to a friend who was counting his drinks and being responsible - fortunately, no permanent damage). She may have been pushed into drinking too much. She might have figured that she'd sober up before she had to drive anywhere, believing she had a ride home.
Once she was that drunk,expecting responsibility is foolish. You mentioned rape: with this much alcohol in her blood she was probably not able to legally consent to sex. Had the boss proposed sex, and gone ahead when she agreed, he could have been committing a felony (rape or criminal sexual conduct or whatever it's called in that jurisdiction).
Also, consider the situation: she lost control while trying to avoid a car going the wrong way.
I'm not saying that it isn't her fault. I'm saying that the accident was probably not entirely her fault..
Most branches of science conform to the scientific method (duh). If other branches of science had problems with the methodology of climate science, they'd have said something. That is a scientific way to quickly gauge how scientific climate science is.
Falsifiability: if global temperatures were demonstrably falling, we wouldn't have global warming. Predictions: yes, and they're compared to actual results. Independent verification: scientists not cooperating with each other get similar results.
Experimental testing and reproducibility are not necessary for science. Astronomy is normally considered a science, but it's hard to do experiments on galaxies. Astronomers have to do observations on rare phenomena when they happen. We can't trigger off a supernova whenever we want to observe one, and lots of astronomers will be going through the information gathered on one when it happens.
That's not what you said in GGP: "that excludes from privacy protections people who aren’t U.S. citizens or permanent residents". There are people legally in the US who are not citizens or permanent residents, so any actual visa holders would appear to be excluded.