PowerPC stuff: ppc64 would be the generic 64-bit PowerPC chips, such as PowerPC 750 used in PowerMac G5 ppciseries would be the IBM PowerPC-based iSeries servers, which are AS/400 and replacements. ppcpseries would be the IBM PowerPC-based P-series servers, which are the extension of the old F40 / F60 PowerPC based stuff running AIX. ppc64p7 is likely POWER7-based systems ppc would likely be 32-bit PowerPC, so PowerPC601, 603, 604, 620 (G3), 640(G4) not sure on 8260, 32dy4, and 8560.
Yes, the S390 is for IBM mainframes not running OS/390.
First link disqualified for being a partisan piece of trash, proven by the quote:
For months, conservative media figures have attacked Clinton, baselessly accusing her of wrongdoing for receiving State Department emails on her private email account while secretary of state.
(emphasis theirs) Clearly not "baseless" when the FBI director is in a live press conference saying that TS/SAP markings were in emails on a private server, and even used the phrase "extremely careless".
Second link also disqualified as showing the incidents during the tenure of Sec. Powell and Sec. Rice as being "up-classified", which means it was not classified information at the time of sending. Also, factually incorrect when talking about the current subject, Sec. Clinton, per the god damn Director of the FBI:
In all the cases, however -- as well as Clinton's -- the information was not marked "classified" at the time the emails were sent, according to State Department investigators.
Third link includes the reason for having the RNC-hosted email servers: the Hatch Act of 1939 prohibits using government resources for political reasons. If they were conducting government business via these servers, then there should be a penalty, but it would be a different crime and a completely different statute than improper handling of classified material, which is what we're discussing here. So best case, it's off-topic. Worst case, it's "OMG They did it too so so it's okay amirite!" like I said.
It doesn't matter. If there is classified material, and the Director even said that in some cases the TS/SAP classification marking was even there in the email, anyone with a security clearance should see it and immediately know that it needs to be handled properly, and they should know that it wasn't.
And email is never the way to handle that properly unless you're sitting at a secure terminal in a secure room specifically meant for handling classified material.
If she ever sent material, she's guilty. If she ever replied to anything containing that material leaving the material intact, she's guilty. If she ever told someone to email her classified material, she's guilty on a conspiracy to commit charge.
She, and anyone who ever was dumb enough to think that clintonemail.com was a US Government approved secure system should have their clearance revoked, be immediately terminated, and shown the inside of a Federal holding cell for at least a few months.
The point where gross negligence becomes criminal is exactly in Title 18 USC 793 (f) which specifically handles gross negligence when it comes to handling classified documents and information.
The whole argument about "intent" that the FBI Director offered is ridiculous, because you can't intend to be grossly negligent - if you intend to do something, you aren't negligent any more; it's purposeful violation. If there was intent, it would be handled under sections A through E of the statute.
It's an old defense attorney trick in a jury trial - set up a straw man of some other charge that the defendant is innocent of (and not charged with), and then knock down that straw man and hope the jury lets that bleed into the charges that have actually been filed to create reasonable doubt. Most judges would see that coming a mile away and strike it and instruct the jury to not pay attention to it, but there's no judge to do that here.
Director Comey says there wasn't intent, but also says they were "extremely careless" (his words). So why isn't she being charged under the statute that explicitly deals with extreme carelessness? I think the reason is two words long, starts with the word 'political' and ends with the word 'patronage'.
I don't know about you, but I'm not voting for a Fundraiser-in-Chief.
I'm also not voting for Trump, so keep any wiseacre cracks you might have in reserve to yourself. I just literally could not care less how good of a fundraiser someone is, and it doesn't come within a mile of my criteria for my endorsement for public office.
So apparently you missed the part where he said over 100 email threads had classified info in them, which was classified AT THE TIME OF SENDING / RECEIPT. Direct from the god damn FBI director's mouth.
This isn't up-classification after the fact. This is pure violation of 18 USC 793 (f). Even if it does go against the kool aid you've been drinking.
Again, do any of these allegations have any merit whatsoever, or is this just more "well the other guys did it, so if my guy does it it's okay amirite" horseshit?
Vague bullshit from anonymous cowards are exactly that, and will be treated as such. If you know of classified information that has been improperly handled by members of Congress, speak up with specifics or shut it.
Please cite evidence of either Ms. Rice or Gen. Powell having classified documents on their private email accounts.
Having a private email server is one thing, using it to send and receive classified US Government secrets is very much a different thing. If you can't see the difference, please just stop.
Ahh, the old 'but the other guys did it too' trope. Because that somehow excuses this current wrongdoing.
Besides, you'll recall that Libby still has a felony conviction, the $250k fine over that mess, even with the commutation of jail time, which is nothing but political patronage. What punishment is Clinton going to get for knowingly and deliberately circumventing security on TOP SECRET information, with multiple counts. And no, there's an actual declassification process for information that doesn't start and stop with the decree of one Government official that something is declassified because she wants to use her fucking blackberry.
Nice try, sycophant. Go drink some more kool aid. Laws were broken. Specifically 18 USC 793 (f). And apparently your favorite horse in this race has now been declared above the law by no less than the Director of the FBI.
Cornell University must have left off the crucial clause of that particular section. Due to today's events, it clearly reads:
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. Unless they are named Hillary Clinton, in which case there will be no fine, imprisonment, or charges whatsoever.
You're acting like the Director's Office isn't already above his means. He just went in front of millions of people and screamed "I'm incompetent!" into the microphone.
Unless the Senate changes hands, there's no fucking way they confirm this guy for anything he's not already serving as.
I can't fathom why you're so overjoyed that the choice for our next President is still between a narcissistic race-baiting Dorito-tinted proto-facist and a vote-for-me-because-vagina self-enriching-at-the-publics-expense focus-polling-before-standing-for-anything unindicted felon.
Myself, I was hoping for a Democratic disqualification due to pending indictment, so we could get a reasonable third option.
Except that it wasn't "sufficiently unclassified enough" as there were things found that were Top Secret / SAP classified at the time of sending / receipt.
Yeah, or in the real world, CEOs do have to follow rules about these kinds of things due to accidental insider information disclosure.
I remember when the iPhone came out, the CEO of the Fortune-50 company I was working for wanted one. The VP of Corporate Information Security told him "that's nice - you can have your iPhone for your personal email and making phone calls and such, but corporate email is still going to be on this BlackBerry that you are still going to carry, because I don't like explaining things in SEC depositions."
Now that the security and encryption is far better on the iPhone, that's changed.
Anonymous "they did it too!" excuse making on the Internet.
If they did, where's the FBI investigation? Where's the proof?
"They did it too" is not sufficient reason to exonerate anyone, but given evidence, enough reason to expand the scope of the probe. If you have any proof that "literally dozens of Republican senators and congressmen" have been playing fast and loose with classified secrets, name them and show that proof.
Otherwise, you're just a standard full-of-shit AC.
I like my leaders to lead, not follow, when it comes to rights issues.
This is the difference between these shills we have today, and the leaders of time past - they were willing to take a stand on important issues and let the country come around to them, rather than commission polls and focus groups to figure out what applause line and talking point is the most effective at pulling in donations.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, because we all know that your Slashdot ID is just as traceable as your actual name, social security number, etc.
Get over yourself.
Whinging about a 2006 Core Duo based notebook that was famous for having the fans fail and fry the GPU probably isn't the best case.
Whinging about hundreds of 2014 thin client using a 32-bit Intel Atom is a bit more of a concern.
PowerPC stuff:
ppc64 would be the generic 64-bit PowerPC chips, such as PowerPC 750 used in PowerMac G5
ppciseries would be the IBM PowerPC-based iSeries servers, which are AS/400 and replacements.
ppcpseries would be the IBM PowerPC-based P-series servers, which are the extension of the old F40 / F60 PowerPC based stuff running AIX.
ppc64p7 is likely POWER7-based systems
ppc would likely be 32-bit PowerPC, so PowerPC601, 603, 604, 620 (G3), 640(G4)
not sure on 8260, 32dy4, and 8560.
Yes, the S390 is for IBM mainframes not running OS/390.
You really think that the GOP is going to lose 70+ seats in the House?
Even the most blind sycophantic Democratic operators aren't predicting that one.
The Senate is up for grabs, and the White House likely stays with the Democrats, but the House will still firmly be in Republican hands.
and they are specifically talking about dumping the i386 distributions, which none of those ARM CPUs run.
That hardware is a decade old, and the LTS distributions will still give another 5 years of maintenance before pulling the plug.
Do you really expect to be using a 15 year old notebook and get current software? Really?
First link disqualified for being a partisan piece of trash, proven by the quote:
For months, conservative media figures have attacked Clinton, baselessly accusing her of wrongdoing for receiving State Department emails on her private email account while secretary of state.
(emphasis theirs)
Clearly not "baseless" when the FBI director is in a live press conference saying that TS/SAP markings were in emails on a private server, and even used the phrase "extremely careless".
Second link also disqualified as showing the incidents during the tenure of Sec. Powell and Sec. Rice as being "up-classified", which means it was not classified information at the time of sending. Also, factually incorrect when talking about the current subject, Sec. Clinton, per the god damn Director of the FBI:
In all the cases, however -- as well as Clinton's -- the information was not marked "classified" at the time the emails were sent, according to State Department investigators.
Third link includes the reason for having the RNC-hosted email servers: the Hatch Act of 1939 prohibits using government resources for political reasons. If they were conducting government business via these servers, then there should be a penalty, but it would be a different crime and a completely different statute than improper handling of classified material, which is what we're discussing here. So best case, it's off-topic. Worst case, it's "OMG They did it too so so it's okay amirite!" like I said.
Go away, blind partisan hack.
It doesn't matter. If there is classified material, and the Director even said that in some cases the TS/SAP classification marking was even there in the email, anyone with a security clearance should see it and immediately know that it needs to be handled properly, and they should know that it wasn't.
And email is never the way to handle that properly unless you're sitting at a secure terminal in a secure room specifically meant for handling classified material.
If she ever sent material, she's guilty.
If she ever replied to anything containing that material leaving the material intact, she's guilty.
If she ever told someone to email her classified material, she's guilty on a conspiracy to commit charge.
She, and anyone who ever was dumb enough to think that clintonemail.com was a US Government approved secure system should have their clearance revoked, be immediately terminated, and shown the inside of a Federal holding cell for at least a few months.
The point where gross negligence becomes criminal is exactly in Title 18 USC 793 (f) which specifically handles gross negligence when it comes to handling classified documents and information.
The whole argument about "intent" that the FBI Director offered is ridiculous, because you can't intend to be grossly negligent - if you intend to do something, you aren't negligent any more; it's purposeful violation. If there was intent, it would be handled under sections A through E of the statute.
It's an old defense attorney trick in a jury trial - set up a straw man of some other charge that the defendant is innocent of (and not charged with), and then knock down that straw man and hope the jury lets that bleed into the charges that have actually been filed to create reasonable doubt. Most judges would see that coming a mile away and strike it and instruct the jury to not pay attention to it, but there's no judge to do that here.
Director Comey says there wasn't intent, but also says they were "extremely careless" (his words). So why isn't she being charged under the statute that explicitly deals with extreme carelessness? I think the reason is two words long, starts with the word 'political' and ends with the word 'patronage'.
I'm trying to think of when the last time we *didn't* have a corrupt jackass in the White House was.
Ford? Kennedy?
Eisenhower probably fits the bill.
I don't know about you, but I'm not voting for a Fundraiser-in-Chief.
I'm also not voting for Trump, so keep any wiseacre cracks you might have in reserve to yourself. I just literally could not care less how good of a fundraiser someone is, and it doesn't come within a mile of my criteria for my endorsement for public office.
So apparently you missed the part where he said over 100 email threads had classified info in them, which was classified AT THE TIME OF SENDING / RECEIPT. Direct from the god damn FBI director's mouth.
This isn't up-classification after the fact. This is pure violation of 18 USC 793 (f). Even if it does go against the kool aid you've been drinking.
Again, do any of these allegations have any merit whatsoever, or is this just more "well the other guys did it, so if my guy does it it's okay amirite" horseshit?
Vague bullshit from anonymous cowards are exactly that, and will be treated as such. If you know of classified information that has been improperly handled by members of Congress, speak up with specifics or shut it.
That's not for the FBI to decide. The FBI is an investigatory organization. They exist to find the facts, and present them to a Federal prosecutor.
That prosecutor can certainly weigh all kinds of factors for if they choose to indict or not. The FBI should only deal with facts.
Did they in this case? Who the hell knows.
Please cite evidence of either Ms. Rice or Gen. Powell having classified documents on their private email accounts.
Having a private email server is one thing, using it to send and receive classified US Government secrets is very much a different thing. If you can't see the difference, please just stop.
I'd be hard pressed to find another Secretary of State that had this kind of body of evidence to show such misconduct. Feel free to cite examples.
Ahh, the old 'but the other guys did it too' trope. Because that somehow excuses this current wrongdoing.
Besides, you'll recall that Libby still has a felony conviction, the $250k fine over that mess, even with the commutation of jail time, which is nothing but political patronage. What punishment is Clinton going to get for knowingly and deliberately circumventing security on TOP SECRET information, with multiple counts. And no, there's an actual declassification process for information that doesn't start and stop with the decree of one Government official that something is declassified because she wants to use her fucking blackberry.
Nice try, sycophant. Go drink some more kool aid. Laws were broken. Specifically 18 USC 793 (f). And apparently your favorite horse in this race has now been declared above the law by no less than the Director of the FBI.
Cornell University must have left off the crucial clause of that particular section. Due to today's events, it clearly reads:
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. Unless they are named Hillary Clinton, in which case there will be no fine, imprisonment, or charges whatsoever.
See! It's right there in the statute!
You're acting like the Director's Office isn't already above his means. He just went in front of millions of people and screamed "I'm incompetent!" into the microphone.
Unless the Senate changes hands, there's no fucking way they confirm this guy for anything he's not already serving as.
I can't fathom why you're so overjoyed that the choice for our next President is still between a narcissistic race-baiting Dorito-tinted proto-facist and a vote-for-me-because-vagina self-enriching-at-the-publics-expense focus-polling-before-standing-for-anything unindicted felon.
Myself, I was hoping for a Democratic disqualification due to pending indictment, so we could get a reasonable third option.
Except that it wasn't "sufficiently unclassified enough" as there were things found that were Top Secret / SAP classified at the time of sending / receipt.
That lands you or me in jail. Not her.
Yeah, or in the real world, CEOs do have to follow rules about these kinds of things due to accidental insider information disclosure.
I remember when the iPhone came out, the CEO of the Fortune-50 company I was working for wanted one. The VP of Corporate Information Security told him "that's nice - you can have your iPhone for your personal email and making phone calls and such, but corporate email is still going to be on this BlackBerry that you are still going to carry, because I don't like explaining things in SEC depositions."
Now that the security and encryption is far better on the iPhone, that's changed.
Anonymous "they did it too!" excuse making on the Internet.
If they did, where's the FBI investigation? Where's the proof?
"They did it too" is not sufficient reason to exonerate anyone, but given evidence, enough reason to expand the scope of the probe. If you have any proof that "literally dozens of Republican senators and congressmen" have been playing fast and loose with classified secrets, name them and show that proof.
Otherwise, you're just a standard full-of-shit AC.
I like my leaders to lead, not follow, when it comes to rights issues.
This is the difference between these shills we have today, and the leaders of time past - they were willing to take a stand on important issues and let the country come around to them, rather than commission polls and focus groups to figure out what applause line and talking point is the most effective at pulling in donations.
Or this is her way of locking that lead up.