Now how is not hiring local talent that you're training to do these same jobs, and instead outsourcing said work to overseas workers that you're paying less promoting any improvement of the people of the state. Morally, they're bound to work for improvement, ethically they are required to do so by law and expectations.
it is directly against the H1-B hiring clauses, i.e., illegal.
I don't see how. These are temporary workers and presumably paid more than their US equivalents while in the US.
First, all workers are temporary. H1-Bs with potential 7 year ability to work are more permanent than many IT workers. Federal Law, as stated elsewhere, only requires a minimum salary of 60K.
The state of CA has to cut its public sector workforce b... It can't cut teachers or police. It can cut jobs that it can outsource.
I see no reason why the bulk of police or teachers cannot be outsourced the same way IT jobs can. In fact isn't one of the major complaints against universities the large number of TAs that cannot speak English? Sounds like teachers are already outsourced. For police, just add "must be able to enter tickets into computerized system" as a requirement - voila - H1-B parking ticket writer. Shortly after that, you can outsource all those other expensive police jobs too.
Forget outsourcing to foreign countries, In the very near future, automation has the potential to remove all unskilled and many skilled jobs. What are the people that don't have higher level skills going to do? Not everyone can be an R&D scientist or creative artist.
Now, would you like a more chaotic transition period
Chaotic, broken, non-functioning please.
What UCSF is doing is not only morally and ethically wrong, it is directly against the H1-B hiring clauses, i.e., illegal. Not sure how the state of CA feels about its tax money leaving the country this way either.
And if have you ever seen them live, be it in person or on through a TV show where they actually singing and playing, you wouldn't even thought of writing that comment. I have actually seen them live and it's worse than shitty, especially Tom. One of the worst live bands ever, Sex Pistols-level. Mark's instrument being the bass and his low tone might be more forgiving, but Tom is buttfck bad bad live.
Man, that's the funniest fan written description ever!
I am a decidedly anti-Agile, anti-Scrum, anti-Kanban etc individual. If I managed to disparage both Agile and Scrum for you, which I apparently have, I doubly succeeded. When even "manifesto" authors abandon something as a failed waste of time, perhaps you should be asking yourself why you cling to something that appears to only passably work in an ivory tower environment with a trained set of unambitious identical clones.
Apparently, losing good people doesn't bother anyone, because they keep doing it and I have yet to see anyone ever admit that they're doing something wrong and need to change.
Because Agile methodologies tell them as long as they stand around 30 min every morning, they're making the best progress they can and their projects will finish on time. Oh, and every task can be done by anyone on the team. Replaceable cogs.
Hey, I'm not the one accusing someone of felonies without proof.
I'm not accusing anyone of anything.
How about the fact that she specifically ordered someone to send classified material "nonsecure" and remove the classified headings?
She may have said it, but was it sent? It appears not.
We don't know that at all. We know that the State Department and the campaign were claiming that to the New York Times a year ago, (your article is from January), but "the truth" about Clinton's emails has changed several times since then.
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent...
Cool, so 30K+ emails - check
104 classified information vs 110 - close enough - check
22 secret+ vs 8/36 - given the numbers, close enough in my book.
What you haven't stated is the source of the classified information and whether it was marked classified. Receiving classified email is not the fault of the receiver but sender.
we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).
Now this would be damning, but if it was being sent around on an unclassified system, the originator is the person that's at fault.
If it came from an unclassified source, it's not classified, even if the gov wants it to be classified.
So everyone reading this blather knows, this is false. It doesn't even support the point you're trying to make. Think about it logically. If someone found out the nuclear launch codes and emailed them to someone, do the nuclear launch codes automatically become declassified? Or take these emails. The State Department is publishing them with redactions for classification. Why would they still be classified if they came from Hillary's unclassified system?
If Joe Blow publishes the "Nuklear Kodes are 000000" and that happens to be true, it doesn't make it classified, at least not for Joe Blow, even if Joe Blow is the Janitor in the IRS building. IOW, if someone speaks about something, even if they're a gov employee, and they weren't given classified information but they speak of something that some other section classified elsewhere, it's not classified. Saying you should know that some random location is classified is incorrect, especially if said random location is splattered all over the news at the time, as one example. I'm pretty sure Congress would have impeached Clinton at the least if there was smoking gun evidence. There isn't. Get over it.
“It is no secret that I used a [sic] unclassified personal email account in addition to my classified State computer,’” Powell wrote to the New York Times’s Amy Chozick.
Clinton kept Top Secret material on her hidden server. Powell did nothing of the sort. If you're accusing Powell of breaking classification laws, the burden of proof is on you to provide proof.
I've already stated that there is no way to prove Powell's use, as he stated he has none of those emails, as referenced in the link above. From your link, Powell did state: "I am not sure HRC even knew or understood what was going on in the basement" which I can only believe means that she herself wasn't 100% aware of the technical aspects of her email support, so you'll need to provide proof that she intentionally kept anything hidden on her private email server. Also, we do know that of the 30+K emails Clinton sent, only 22 were later classified as secret after the fact. 104 were considered classified, yet all of those came from an unclassified state dept system. Guess what's not allowed on unclassified systems?
The State Department said it had “upgraded” the classification of the emails at the request of the nation’s intelligence agencies.
Mrs. Clinton’s campaign responded forcefully, saying that the process of reviewing the emails “appears to be over-classification run amok.” A spokesman, Brian Fallon, said all of the emails should be released.
“We understand that these emails were likely originated on the State Department’s unclassified system before they were ever shared with Secretary Clinton, and they have remained on the department’s unclassified system for years,” Mr. Fallon said.
At this point, I'd state that you'd need to prove that a single classified email with known classified information with the proper relationships in the document to actually make them classified was sent knowingly by Clinton from her private email server. Retro-active classification does not qualify. If it came from an unclassified source, it's not classified, even if the gov wants it to be classified (although the rules about public or publicly available knowledge being classified certainly have become somewhat more ephemeral since the last time I dealt with it) When the press first published this "newsworthy" story, I forgot my first rule of "news" stories - be skeptical. The more details have come out the less "newsworthy" this story becomes. At this point, much as I don't like her, I have to give her a pass unless someone can prove something truly illegal occurred.
That describes an awful lot of the existing economy, from education, to HR to mass media. Sure, the output of those people is zero, but they spend money on things.
Siri can take a note no matter what I'm doing. The note is available on my phone, tablet, laptop, and two desktops near enough to instantly.
...The security of the data on it is very important to me.
You use Siri and iCloud. I'd say security is secondary to you at most, and that's being very loose with the term 'security'. You were correct to drop "privacy" from your statement entirely, because you've given that up entirely.
Truth be told - a paper list is faster and generally more convenient than a phone list, unless you can type it in on a computer and send it to you phone (in which case it's a simple consuming device) I still hold that "the most private things about your life" being on your phone is truly an odd thing to say, believe, or do.
So if the phone part is so not vital, why not just remove the cellular portion of the phone (ie, yank the sim)? Wait, it IS important that you can effectively call/message and access the web.
And the list goes on. So if you have outrage for one, then you must have outrage for all, unless you can prove that there was something different about the one, except link 3 negates any possibility of proof.
You're not just buying a dumb telephone. You're buying an always-on, always-connected computer that you're going to store some of the most private things about your life on.
This part I disagree with with - I am just buying a dumb phone, SMS messenger and web browser. Really. That's all anyone really needs, despite the plethora of apps all about, claiming to make life easier. Now the mail app makes things easier with local storage, as does the chat app of choice. As for storing the most private things about your life, why? Why would you essentially leave the keys to your life on a very portable and easily lost or stolen device?
When a citizen (in the least polite terms) of a two bit third world country where corruption is open and rampant thinks he has a better chance of a fair trial in his native land than the United States, we really need to start asking some hard questions about our government.
What makes you think he's going to be prosecuted in his native land? I'll pretty much guarantee you that the only reason he's under arrest is because the US pressured the Ukraine to arrest him.
I think the fact that you have to run "special" commands that likely change with every install will lead people to other distros sooner than later. That, and the fact that systemd is infecting more and more packages, almost like a virus.
so, you're going to give a pass to the rest of the monstrosity just because you need a logging service? Didn't we have one of those previously? Syslog ring a bell? Lack of use is no different than lack of using systemd's logging facility. I still have log files in locations I wish them to be, on purpose, because I don't need my logs managed by another obtrusive system(d), especially when my code runs on more than just systemd systems.
Slashdot Mirror
It's actually possible now Feel free to start actually worrying about no work at all at any time.
In what way?
So you may unchallenge yourself, UCSF is supposed to be a state/people sponsored school for :
Now how is not hiring local talent that you're training to do these same jobs, and instead outsourcing said work to overseas workers that you're paying less promoting any improvement of the people of the state. Morally, they're bound to work for improvement, ethically they are required to do so by law and expectations.
I don't see how. These are temporary workers and presumably paid more than their US equivalents while in the US.
First, all workers are temporary. H1-Bs with potential 7 year ability to work are more permanent than many IT workers. Federal Law, as stated elsewhere, only requires a minimum salary of 60K.
The state of CA has to cut its public sector workforce b... It can't cut teachers or police. It can cut jobs that it can outsource.
I see no reason why the bulk of police or teachers cannot be outsourced the same way IT jobs can. In fact isn't one of the major complaints against universities the large number of TAs that cannot speak English? Sounds like teachers are already outsourced. For police, just add "must be able to enter tickets into computerized system" as a requirement - voila - H1-B parking ticket writer. Shortly after that, you can outsource all those other expensive police jobs too.
Forget outsourcing to foreign countries, In the very near future, automation has the potential to remove all unskilled and many skilled jobs. What are the people that don't have higher level skills going to do? Not everyone can be an R&D scientist or creative artist.
Oh get off it. Trump is completely against H1-Bs. They cost too much. He'd rather just hire undocumented immigrants.
Now, would you like a more chaotic transition period
Chaotic, broken, non-functioning please.
What UCSF is doing is not only morally and ethically wrong, it is directly against the H1-B hiring clauses, i.e., illegal. Not sure how the state of CA feels about its tax money leaving the country this way either.
And if have you ever seen them live, be it in person or on through a TV show where they actually singing and playing, you wouldn't even thought of writing that comment. I have actually seen them live and it's worse than shitty, especially Tom. One of the worst live bands ever, Sex Pistols-level. Mark's instrument being the bass and his low tone might be more forgiving, but Tom is buttfck bad bad live.
Man, that's the funniest fan written description ever!
I am a decidedly anti-Agile, anti-Scrum, anti-Kanban etc individual. If I managed to disparage both Agile and Scrum for you, which I apparently have, I doubly succeeded. When even "manifesto" authors abandon something as a failed waste of time, perhaps you should be asking yourself why you cling to something that appears to only passably work in an ivory tower environment with a trained set of unambitious identical clones.
Learning to detect bullshit 'Agile' is a skill.
Developing a sense of humor - priceless.
Apparently, losing good people doesn't bother anyone, because they keep doing it and I have yet to see anyone ever admit that they're doing something wrong and need to change.
Because Agile methodologies tell them as long as they stand around 30 min every morning, they're making the best progress they can and their projects will finish on time. Oh, and every task can be done by anyone on the team. Replaceable cogs.
I've been mentoring junior developers for years, ...Though I've never met any of them face-to-face. Or even voice-to-voice.
If you've never talked to them, how are you mentoring them?
Hey, I'm not the one accusing someone of felonies without proof.
I'm not accusing anyone of anything.
How about the fact that she specifically ordered someone to send classified material "nonsecure" and remove the classified headings?
She may have said it, but was it sent? It appears not.
We don't know that at all. We know that the State Department and the campaign were claiming that to the New York Times a year ago, (your article is from January), but "the truth" about Clinton's emails has changed several times since then.
Do I have to prove it? Can the FBI prove it instead? Let's ask FBI Director James Comey what he found on the server.
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent...
Cool, so 30K+ emails - check
104 classified information vs 110 - close enough - check
22 secret+ vs 8/36 - given the numbers, close enough in my book.
What you haven't stated is the source of the classified information and whether it was marked classified. Receiving classified email is not the fault of the receiver but sender.
we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).
Now this would be damning, but if it was being sent around on an unclassified system, the originator is the person that's at fault.
If it came from an unclassified source, it's not classified, even if the gov wants it to be classified.
So everyone reading this blather knows, this is false. It doesn't even support the point you're trying to make. Think about it logically. If someone found out the nuclear launch codes and emailed them to someone, do the nuclear launch codes automatically become declassified? Or take these emails. The State Department is publishing them with redactions for classification. Why would they still be classified if they came from Hillary's unclassified system?
If Joe Blow publishes the "Nuklear Kodes are 000000" and that happens to be true, it doesn't make it classified, at least not for Joe Blow, even if Joe Blow is the Janitor in the IRS building. IOW, if someone speaks about something, even if they're a gov employee, and they weren't given classified information but they speak of something that some other section classified elsewhere, it's not classified. Saying you should know that some random location is classified is incorrect, especially if said random location is splattered all over the news at the time, as one example. I'm pretty sure Congress would have impeached Clinton at the least if there was smoking gun evidence. There isn't. Get over it.
This is the difference.
“It is no secret that I used a [sic] unclassified personal email account in addition to my classified State computer,’” Powell wrote to the New York Times’s Amy Chozick.
Colin Powell Urged Hillary Clinton’s Team Not to Scapegoat Him for Her Private Server, Leaked Emails Reveal
Clinton kept Top Secret material on her hidden server. Powell did nothing of the sort. If you're accusing Powell of breaking classification laws, the burden of proof is on you to provide proof.
I've already stated that there is no way to prove Powell's use, as he stated he has none of those emails, as referenced in the link above. From your link, Powell did state: "I am not sure HRC even knew or understood what was going on in the basement" which I can only believe means that she herself wasn't 100% aware of the technical aspects of her email support, so you'll need to provide proof that she intentionally kept anything hidden on her private email server. Also, we do know that of the 30+K emails Clinton sent, only 22 were later classified as secret after the fact. 104 were considered classified, yet all of those came from an unclassified state dept system. Guess what's not allowed on unclassified systems?
The State Department said it had “upgraded” the classification of the emails at the request of the nation’s intelligence agencies.
Mrs. Clinton’s campaign responded forcefully, saying that the process of reviewing the emails “appears to be over-classification run amok.” A spokesman, Brian Fallon, said all of the emails should be released.
“We understand that these emails were likely originated on the State Department’s unclassified system before they were ever shared with Secretary Clinton, and they have remained on the department’s unclassified system for years,” Mr. Fallon said.
At this point, I'd state that you'd need to prove that a single classified email with known classified information with the proper relationships in the document to actually make them classified was sent knowingly by Clinton from her private email server. Retro-active classification does not qualify. If it came from an unclassified source, it's not classified, even if the gov wants it to be classified (although the rules about public or publicly available knowledge being classified certainly have become somewhat more ephemeral since the last time I dealt with it) When the press first published this "newsworthy" story, I forgot my first rule of "news" stories - be skeptical. The more details have come out the less "newsworthy" this story becomes. At this point, much as I don't like her, I have to give her a pass unless someone can prove something truly illegal occurred.
That describes an awful lot of the existing economy, from education, to HR to mass media. Sure, the output of those people is zero, but they spend money on things.
B Ark is ready for launch.
Siri can take a note no matter what I'm doing. The note is available on my phone, tablet, laptop, and two desktops near enough to instantly.
...The security of the data on it is very important to me.
You use Siri and iCloud. I'd say security is secondary to you at most, and that's being very loose with the term 'security'. You were correct to drop "privacy" from your statement entirely, because you've given that up entirely.
Truth be told - a paper list is faster and generally more convenient than a phone list, unless you can type it in on a computer and send it to you phone (in which case it's a simple consuming device) I still hold that "the most private things about your life" being on your phone is truly an odd thing to say, believe, or do.
So if the phone part is so not vital, why not just remove the cellular portion of the phone (ie, yank the sim)? Wait, it IS important that you can effectively call/message and access the web.
Powell admits he advised Clinton on email
Clinton on email
Powell admitting he has none of the state dept emails
Powell and Rice both used personal emails for state business
And the list goes on. So if you have outrage for one, then you must have outrage for all, unless you can prove that there was something different about the one, except link 3 negates any possibility of proof.
You're not just buying a dumb telephone. You're buying an always-on, always-connected computer that you're going to store some of the most private things about your life on.
This part I disagree with with - I am just buying a dumb phone, SMS messenger and web browser. Really. That's all anyone really needs, despite the plethora of apps all about, claiming to make life easier. Now the mail app makes things easier with local storage, as does the chat app of choice. As for storing the most private things about your life, why? Why would you essentially leave the keys to your life on a very portable and easily lost or stolen device?
I agree with much of what you say otherwise.
When a citizen (in the least polite terms) of a two bit third world country where corruption is open and rampant thinks he has a better chance of a fair trial in his native land than the United States, we really need to start asking some hard questions about our government.
What makes you think he's going to be prosecuted in his native land? I'll pretty much guarantee you that the only reason he's under arrest is because the US pressured the Ukraine to arrest him.
And apparently was merely following the precedent set by her Republican predecessors. Where is your outrage for their actions?
Clinton is unlikable, Trump is mentally incompetent and outright dangerous.
I think the fact that you have to run "special" commands that likely change with every install will lead people to other distros sooner than later. That, and the fact that systemd is infecting more and more packages, almost like a virus.
so, you're going to give a pass to the rest of the monstrosity just because you need a logging service? Didn't we have one of those previously? Syslog ring a bell? Lack of use is no different than lack of using systemd's logging facility. I still have log files in locations I wish them to be, on purpose, because I don't need my logs managed by another obtrusive system(d), especially when my code runs on more than just systemd systems.
Which is why it is poor for storing binaries, especially binaries that change often. You get a whole binary for a 1-bit change.