If they do, I don't really object. The votes are in. They are subject to being wrong, but if they use the right kind of trained people, the errors will be uncommon.
Google should only show tabulated votes, not anything else. The exit polls are temp college kids who are walking around with clipboards taking instant feedback from people at the polls. There is so much skew in this data - year after year - that it's fundamentally useless except for one thing - watching how many people go in and out of the precinct. Republicans don't like to be polled and i'm sure that's not the only demo that feels that way.
When the polls close, typically, in a US state, precincts start tabulating and releasing the data to a Secretary of State or similar state official. Then, the results are released via a web site. This process is not fast, though it is much faster than it once was. The bottom line is that it takes hours for most states to get all the precincts accounted for to the 99% mark. 100% is not going to happen election night, as absentee ballots are not counted at that point. The early vote mostly will be accounted for, but may not be separately broken out, depending on the state.
Google is going to have to wait the same as everyone else.
That is not actually true. He wins all demos ("some college", for instance) except those with a BA or above. That's 30% of the US population, not all of whom vote, and he still takes about 40% of those.
The woman wasn't a journalist, sometime DoD analyst/biographer would be a better title. The fact that he was fucking her is sort of orthogonal to the issue. She got the information to write a book about him. Military figures have a history of doing things like this, though the smarter ones write the book for themselves and avoid the scandal associated with screwing some hero-worshiping woman. In the end, Petraeus was a political threat and was neutralized to the point where he wasn't anymore. That was why he was prosecuted, and why Clinton is being let off. Politics.
Manning was small fry that broke the law in a big way and got the book thrown at him. His "noble reasons" are irrelevant to this issue, or the workings of Washington.
The issue here is that she placed all this information somewhere where it was insecure and accessible to foreign governments, and almost assuredly was harvested. Let's say this was inadvertent and caused by her poor understanding of the technology involved, though I am not entirely convinced. Does that make it any less egregious a breach of security? Does that somehow minimize the harm to the nation? I do not believe it makes a difference.
First, she could relate aggregate data that would be classified, so your assumption is faulty in regards her authorship of classified information.
Second: she should know what is classified and what is not. That is her job. She was the boss at State.
Third - copying a post I made elsewhere:
If you receive a classified e-mail on an inappropriate system, this is called a spillage. In the event of a spillage, it is your responsibility to report this to your security manager. In this case, it would be someone at Hillary's State Department. That person would have confiscated all the devices the mail was received on, and identified the recipients. At that point, an evaluation would be made as to whether the recipients of the classified e-mail would be within USG control. If so, all of their devices would similarly be confiscated. If not, there might be a consultation with the authority in control of the classification guide(s) that made the e-mail classified. If it could be verified as not being under the guide and therefore arguably unclassified, it might end the tale there. But if the e-mail is in fact classified, all devices that have the e-mail on it will be wiped - either partially or wholly - of all evidence of the classified material. In addition, it might be necessary for the USG to take possession of the mass storage devices in question, as they would be assumed classified at the level of the material that passed over them. The technical guidance is that if, say, a "Secret" mail passed onto an unclassified system, the system's drive is now classified Secret and cannot pass out of the possession of the USG without destruction. At that point you'd get a new mass storage device with a new image on it, and your previous contents would be lost.
The documentation for these procedures is publicly available in Army Regulations AR 25-1 and 25.2, for the Army at least.
If you do not follow this procedure, you are guilty of a crime, which could reach up to espionage if intent can be determined.
Everyone who receives a clearance from the USG signs SF312. Hillary signed this too. She is in violation of its terms by her own admission and by the FBI's statements. She is guilty of more than one crime.
On the other hand, disseminating classified information you should not have access to should be disqualifying, if you are going to be technical about it. It shows the person can't follow straightforward rules and literally can't be trusted.
I could relate a situation where NOFORN (no foreign nationals, US only) data was shared with an ally. The material was adjudicated as REL afterward, but in the meantime a major coalition exercise was terminated due to the "spillage". Probably cost the taxpayers millions because an intel guy couldn't read a classification marking on a graphic, trusting a text search tool to assure it was all releasable. Guess what, graphics don't show up in text search. That guy did pay a penalty for what he did.
That said, what he did was less egregious than what Clinton did. The wikileaks guy I would have suspended the guy's clearance for 6 months or a year as a lesson to him. We were all notified not to look at that crap, and however dumb it might be, I think your word is important.
I've seen suspensions done a few times for things as minor as a guy's wife running up big debts.
If you receive a classified e-mail on an inappropriate system, this is called a spillage. In the event of a spillage, it is your responsibility to report this to your security manager. In this case, it would be someone at Hillary's State Department. That person would have confiscated all the devices the mail was received on, and identified the recipients. At that point, an evaluation would be made as to whether the recipients of the classified e-mail would be within USG control. If so, all of their devices would similarly be confiscated. If not, there might be a consultation with the authority in control of the classification guide(s) that made the e-mail classified. If it could be verified as not being under the guide and therefore arguably unclassified, it might end the tale there. But if the e-mail is in fact classified, all devices that have the e-mail on it will be wiped - either partially or wholly - of all evidence of the classified material. In addition, it might be necessary for the USG to take possession of the mass storage devices in question, as they would be assumed classified at the level of the material that passed over them. The technical guidance is that if, say, a "Secret" mail passed onto an unclassified system, the system's drive is now classified Secret and cannot pass out of the possession of the USG without destruction. At that point you'd get a new mass storage device with a new image on it, and your previous contents would be lost.
The documentation for these procedures is publicly available in Army Regulations AR 25-1 and 25.2, for the Army at least.
If you do not follow this procedure, you are guilty of a crime, which could reach up to espionage if intent can be determined.
Everyone who receives a clearance from the USG signs SF312. Hillary signed this too. She is in violation of its terms by her own admission and by the FBI's statements. She is guilty of more than one crime.
The situation did not change with the inquiries into the Clinton Foundation and the various other disgusting things going on - pay for play, human trafficking, pedophilia. This was just about classified e-mail.
Emails are classified based on the information in them. The fact she didn't mark them appropriately is of tertiary importance - the presence of the information is the crime. The classification guides didn't change. They weren't marked, sometimes, until later, but sometimes they were marked. She didn't care.
She's getting off on this one in a place where many others were convicted. For instance, Petraeus didn't have classification marks in his personal journal, yet the contents were classified as all hell. The person he shared them with had a TS clearance, but had no need-to-know for the information. In this case, Clinton shared the information with someone with neither clearance nor need to know.
Understand what you are talking about before commenting.
No, you aren't. I refuse to use Chrome or install it - even on other people's machines. It's creepy from the get-go. Firefox or Pale Moon with NoScript and other add-ons, only. If I am compelled to use IE for something, I use it and then close it.
I don't really care enough to dig up documentary evidence. It's happening - there were ample records of this back in the 90s in New York City - in particular, the 1989 mayoral election. My father was involved in Jersey politics...no one there would argue the position you are arguing, since we all knew it to be true.
But, i'll leave this here for you, since you doubt such things.
There is intensive voter fraud going on in all the East Coast cities (my experience being exclusively with those), though I am told the Midwest has the same issue going on in the urban areas. The dead vote regularly. It's all there if you want to look for it. The reason why no one really cares is that most of these places haven't had a competitive election in 50+ years. It tends to drive popular vote counts up in Senate races and presidential election years. As you would expect, it favors Democrats exclusively since you'd be hard pressed to find an urban area fully controlled by Republicans in the entire country. Does it turn elections? Not usually. It is a safety net if the GOTV efforts fail to get enough old people and minorities to the polls. 1960 was believed to turn on this factor, based on late returns from Chicago. It may well be that 2000 was only close because of this - though the situation was so muddy we'll never know.
Suburban/rural voter fraud exists, but is less systematic and much less frequent. Too many eyes, and people care, and most importantly the repository of potential voters is smaller than in the cities.
Pretending it doesn't exist means you aren't being honest or serious.
I was at the Friday night Trump rally at Hershey PA - one of the 11,000 inside. The Secret Service ran the metal detectors in conjunction with the TSA. No guns were obvious except on the Secret Service themselves and local cops - everyone knows that you can't bring them into stadiums and arenas, so it doesn't happen.
I'm sure almost all of the attendees had (more than) one at home, though. Law abiding gun owners are only a problem for leftist pricks who want a totalitarian state.
No, but i'm making clear the fact that for 95% of the federal government, this IS the law. Regardless of what we might think about Senate ratification. I personally think the whole idea is wrong, that all foreign agreements should have to get past the Senate, but there you are.
I wish I could say that was true. But, I want to make clear to you the training that federal employees receive in terms of law: They are told there are four types of law: statute law, case law, treaties, and executive agreements.
There is no distinction made at all, except for the primacy of treaties and executive agreements. So, whatever the actual status (and the Supreme Court made some decision back in the 70s validating Executive Agreements), the people working for the government think they are law.
The term "Executive Agreement" covers the Paris agreement. The Executive Agreement is an end-run around the Constitutional requirement for Senate approval for treaties. It's a violation of the Constitution that a compliant Supreme Court agreed to. A perfect example of the erosion of the Constitution over time.
The bad news is that it's the law of the land now because the Court said that it was and the Congress rolled over.
Find a port on that machine that was shared by any other vendor...the only ways to transmit data were via
- Ethernet (assuming you bought an AAUI dongle or a special NIC using custom buses and third party software either on the Mac or the external network operating system to handle mounting external vendor systems, like say the market dominant players like Novell and Microsoft) - Floppy disk (CD burners were still in the future, mostly, and it used a custom floppy format, 3p software required to get something in a format other systems could read) - Serial Port (RS-422 8 pin serial port, incompatible with RS-232 modems for hardware handshake), once again, 3p software required to transmit to another system - AppleTalk (proprietary protocol requiring 3p software and hardware on another platform to interface.
It was literally incompatible with any other system. The keyboard and mouse connectors were different. The serial ports were different. It used SCSI rather than MFM/RLL/IDE/ESDI for hard drives. The only port on a Mac that even looked like a port on another computer was the ethernet port, assuming you had one of the proprietary NICs.
So yeah. They weren't aiming to create a wall around their platform or anything.
In the 90s they 'change agented' their way right into bankruptcy with being completely different than everyone else in every particular. No Jobs to save them now.
Slashdot Mirror
If they do, I don't really object. The votes are in. They are subject to being wrong, but if they use the right kind of trained people, the errors will be uncommon.
Google should only show tabulated votes, not anything else. The exit polls are temp college kids who are walking around with clipboards taking instant feedback from people at the polls. There is so much skew in this data - year after year - that it's fundamentally useless except for one thing - watching how many people go in and out of the precinct. Republicans don't like to be polled and i'm sure that's not the only demo that feels that way.
When the polls close, typically, in a US state, precincts start tabulating and releasing the data to a Secretary of State or similar state official. Then, the results are released via a web site. This process is not fast, though it is much faster than it once was. The bottom line is that it takes hours for most states to get all the precincts accounted for to the 99% mark. 100% is not going to happen election night, as absentee ballots are not counted at that point. The early vote mostly will be accounted for, but may not be separately broken out, depending on the state.
Google is going to have to wait the same as everyone else.
Bad engineering could never actually happen.
Better head back to your safe space now.
That is not actually true. He wins all demos ("some college", for instance) except those with a BA or above. That's 30% of the US population, not all of whom vote, and he still takes about 40% of those.
Latest polls have generic ballot Republicans up by 1 to 3 across the board.
What was that about damaging downticket races? Let's see where tomorrow goes. There will be much crow to be eaten.
The woman wasn't a journalist, sometime DoD analyst/biographer would be a better title. The fact that he was fucking her is sort of orthogonal to the issue. She got the information to write a book about him. Military figures have a history of doing things like this, though the smarter ones write the book for themselves and avoid the scandal associated with screwing some hero-worshiping woman. In the end, Petraeus was a political threat and was neutralized to the point where he wasn't anymore. That was why he was prosecuted, and why Clinton is being let off. Politics.
Manning was small fry that broke the law in a big way and got the book thrown at him. His "noble reasons" are irrelevant to this issue, or the workings of Washington.
The issue here is that she placed all this information somewhere where it was insecure and accessible to foreign governments, and almost assuredly was harvested. Let's say this was inadvertent and caused by her poor understanding of the technology involved, though I am not entirely convinced. Does that make it any less egregious a breach of security? Does that somehow minimize the harm to the nation? I do not believe it makes a difference.
I know, which is why I said it was "dumb" a couple posts back. It feels dumb that Joe Blow can read the mail/cables/whatever but I can't.
First, she could relate aggregate data that would be classified, so your assumption is faulty in regards her authorship of classified information.
Second: she should know what is classified and what is not. That is her job. She was the boss at State.
Third - copying a post I made elsewhere:
If you receive a classified e-mail on an inappropriate system, this is called a spillage. In the event of a spillage, it is your responsibility to report this to your security manager. In this case, it would be someone at Hillary's State Department. That person would have confiscated all the devices the mail was received on, and identified the recipients. At that point, an evaluation would be made as to whether the recipients of the classified e-mail would be within USG control. If so, all of their devices would similarly be confiscated. If not, there might be a consultation with the authority in control of the classification guide(s) that made the e-mail classified. If it could be verified as not being under the guide and therefore arguably unclassified, it might end the tale there. But if the e-mail is in fact classified, all devices that have the e-mail on it will be wiped - either partially or wholly - of all evidence of the classified material. In addition, it might be necessary for the USG to take possession of the mass storage devices in question, as they would be assumed classified at the level of the material that passed over them. The technical guidance is that if, say, a "Secret" mail passed onto an unclassified system, the system's drive is now classified Secret and cannot pass out of the possession of the USG without destruction. At that point you'd get a new mass storage device with a new image on it, and your previous contents would be lost.
The documentation for these procedures is publicly available in Army Regulations AR 25-1 and 25.2, for the Army at least.
If you do not follow this procedure, you are guilty of a crime, which could reach up to espionage if intent can be determined.
Everyone who receives a clearance from the USG signs SF312. Hillary signed this too. She is in violation of its terms by her own admission and by the FBI's statements. She is guilty of more than one crime.
Agreed.
On the other hand, disseminating classified information you should not have access to should be disqualifying, if you are going to be technical about it. It shows the person can't follow straightforward rules and literally can't be trusted.
I could relate a situation where NOFORN (no foreign nationals, US only) data was shared with an ally. The material was adjudicated as REL afterward, but in the meantime a major coalition exercise was terminated due to the "spillage". Probably cost the taxpayers millions because an intel guy couldn't read a classification marking on a graphic, trusting a text search tool to assure it was all releasable. Guess what, graphics don't show up in text search. That guy did pay a penalty for what he did.
That said, what he did was less egregious than what Clinton did. The wikileaks guy I would have suspended the guy's clearance for 6 months or a year as a lesson to him. We were all notified not to look at that crap, and however dumb it might be, I think your word is important.
I've seen suspensions done a few times for things as minor as a guy's wife running up big debts.
If you receive a classified e-mail on an inappropriate system, this is called a spillage. In the event of a spillage, it is your responsibility to report this to your security manager. In this case, it would be someone at Hillary's State Department. That person would have confiscated all the devices the mail was received on, and identified the recipients. At that point, an evaluation would be made as to whether the recipients of the classified e-mail would be within USG control. If so, all of their devices would similarly be confiscated. If not, there might be a consultation with the authority in control of the classification guide(s) that made the e-mail classified. If it could be verified as not being under the guide and therefore arguably unclassified, it might end the tale there. But if the e-mail is in fact classified, all devices that have the e-mail on it will be wiped - either partially or wholly - of all evidence of the classified material. In addition, it might be necessary for the USG to take possession of the mass storage devices in question, as they would be assumed classified at the level of the material that passed over them. The technical guidance is that if, say, a "Secret" mail passed onto an unclassified system, the system's drive is now classified Secret and cannot pass out of the possession of the USG without destruction. At that point you'd get a new mass storage device with a new image on it, and your previous contents would be lost.
The documentation for these procedures is publicly available in Army Regulations AR 25-1 and 25.2, for the Army at least.
If you do not follow this procedure, you are guilty of a crime, which could reach up to espionage if intent can be determined.
Everyone who receives a clearance from the USG signs SF312. Hillary signed this too. She is in violation of its terms by her own admission and by the FBI's statements. She is guilty of more than one crime.
The situation did not change with the inquiries into the Clinton Foundation and the various other disgusting things going on - pay for play, human trafficking, pedophilia. This was just about classified e-mail.
Emails are classified based on the information in them. The fact she didn't mark them appropriately is of tertiary importance - the presence of the information is the crime. The classification guides didn't change. They weren't marked, sometimes, until later, but sometimes they were marked. She didn't care.
She's getting off on this one in a place where many others were convicted. For instance, Petraeus didn't have classification marks in his personal journal, yet the contents were classified as all hell. The person he shared them with had a TS clearance, but had no need-to-know for the information. In this case, Clinton shared the information with someone with neither clearance nor need to know.
Understand what you are talking about before commenting.
No, you aren't. I refuse to use Chrome or install it - even on other people's machines. It's creepy from the get-go. Firefox or Pale Moon with NoScript and other add-ons, only. If I am compelled to use IE for something, I use it and then close it.
I'm hardly a typical user, though.
I don't really care enough to dig up documentary evidence. It's happening - there were ample records of this back in the 90s in New York City - in particular, the 1989 mayoral election. My father was involved in Jersey politics...no one there would argue the position you are arguing, since we all knew it to be true.
But, i'll leave this here for you, since you doubt such things.
There is intensive voter fraud going on in all the East Coast cities (my experience being exclusively with those), though I am told the Midwest has the same issue going on in the urban areas. The dead vote regularly. It's all there if you want to look for it. The reason why no one really cares is that most of these places haven't had a competitive election in 50+ years. It tends to drive popular vote counts up in Senate races and presidential election years. As you would expect, it favors Democrats exclusively since you'd be hard pressed to find an urban area fully controlled by Republicans in the entire country. Does it turn elections? Not usually. It is a safety net if the GOTV efforts fail to get enough old people and minorities to the polls. 1960 was believed to turn on this factor, based on late returns from Chicago. It may well be that 2000 was only close because of this - though the situation was so muddy we'll never know.
Suburban/rural voter fraud exists, but is less systematic and much less frequent. Too many eyes, and people care, and most importantly the repository of potential voters is smaller than in the cities.
Pretending it doesn't exist means you aren't being honest or serious.
I was at the Friday night Trump rally at Hershey PA - one of the 11,000 inside. The Secret Service ran the metal detectors in conjunction with the TSA. No guns were obvious except on the Secret Service themselves and local cops - everyone knows that you can't bring them into stadiums and arenas, so it doesn't happen.
I'm sure almost all of the attendees had (more than) one at home, though. Law abiding gun owners are only a problem for leftist pricks who want a totalitarian state.
No, but i'm making clear the fact that for 95% of the federal government, this IS the law. Regardless of what we might think about Senate ratification. I personally think the whole idea is wrong, that all foreign agreements should have to get past the Senate, but there you are.
I wish I could say that was true. But, I want to make clear to you the training that federal employees receive in terms of law: They are told there are four types of law: statute law, case law, treaties, and executive agreements.
There is no distinction made at all, except for the primacy of treaties and executive agreements. So, whatever the actual status (and the Supreme Court made some decision back in the 70s validating Executive Agreements), the people working for the government think they are law.
The term "Executive Agreement" covers the Paris agreement. The Executive Agreement is an end-run around the Constitutional requirement for Senate approval for treaties. It's a violation of the Constitution that a compliant Supreme Court agreed to. A perfect example of the erosion of the Constitution over time.
The bad news is that it's the law of the land now because the Court said that it was and the Congress rolled over.
Find a port on that machine that was shared by any other vendor...the only ways to transmit data were via
- Ethernet (assuming you bought an AAUI dongle or a special NIC using custom buses and third party software either on the Mac or the external network operating system to handle mounting external vendor systems, like say the market dominant players like Novell and Microsoft)
- Floppy disk (CD burners were still in the future, mostly, and it used a custom floppy format, 3p software required to get something in a format other systems could read)
- Serial Port (RS-422 8 pin serial port, incompatible with RS-232 modems for hardware handshake), once again, 3p software required to transmit to another system
- AppleTalk (proprietary protocol requiring 3p software and hardware on another platform to interface.
It was literally incompatible with any other system. The keyboard and mouse connectors were different. The serial ports were different. It used SCSI rather than MFM/RLL/IDE/ESDI for hard drives. The only port on a Mac that even looked like a port on another computer was the ethernet port, assuming you had one of the proprietary NICs.
So yeah. They weren't aiming to create a wall around their platform or anything.
In the 90s they 'change agented' their way right into bankruptcy with being completely different than everyone else in every particular. No Jobs to save them now.
Has been for 5 years now, no? The legacy is not being carried on well.