So yes, she knew exactly what she was doing and why she was doing it.
If she is so smart, then how come she got caught?
She didn't get caught. What "triggered" this story was when she submitted the emails from her personal email account to the government, as required by law. The same as most other federal officials.
Nobody is talking about Republicans, their crimes or what they will do. Let's not project on Republicans what the Democrats do daily with their own special version of vitriol and rancor. Let's face it, besides Fox News and Al Jazera, you can't tune into a news program that isn't controlled by the left wing. So no reason to even try and deflect here. Hillary is a liar and a cheat and a good one at that. I thought she made a good Secretary of State, just for the record.
She didn't lie or cheat, at least not based on the emails. Until the current secretary of state, they all used their personal emails and phones for work. They all, including Hillary, then turned over the non-classified emails as required by law. There is no law that says she or any other government official must use a government supplied phone or email address. There is a law that prohibits them from using a government phone or email for non-government purposes. As such, most use their own phone and turn over the records, as required by law.
... that what Hillary did is against virtually every US government agency policy and directive. You are NEVER to conduct official government business on public systems due to security, archiving and many other reasons. The Clintons are the prototypical scofflaw Democrats.
Actually, if that were true, then the Federal Records Act wouldn't need a section dealing with archiving personal emails and the like. What about using personal stationary and your own stamps, is that forbidden, too?
No, the Federal Records Act simply states that the communications need to be archived and submitted, which she actually did. This is nothing more than trying to make a scandal where none exists. Even Condoleezza Rice used her own cell phone while SOS. SOS Kerry is the first to use a government issued phone and email account.
When the Secretary of State does something this fishy, that's a big deal.
According to the news this morning, Secretary Kerry is the first Secretary of State to use a government issued email account for correspondence. If it is fishy and there is to be an investigation, then is seems like Hillary and all of her predecessors are going to be in trouble.
The fact is that the law does not require her or anybody else to use a government email account. It does require emails that are not sensitive or classified to be turned over, which she did. Of course, that was after the fact, and one could argue that was a problem, but she still complied with the law. Unless you want government officials to carry two cell phones, computers, tablets, etc., this is the compromise. After all, they can't use the government supplied equipment for personal use, particularly political activity.
I wonder if she used her own stamps and stationary instead of government ones if people would be as upset?
Richard Nixon proposed and drove the creation of the EPA. He expanded Medicare coverage to include long-term disabled under 65. He created the Federal disability insurance (SSDI). He proposed a national health care plan, with federal subsidies (something more "socialized" than Obamacare).
Advocating any of these things today would make it impossible for any Republican to get the Presidential nomination.
Hell, even Reagan is a liberal by today's standards!
She used her own private address for government work, so now all of the email that has ever gone to or from that address should be retained by the government for the public.
Why, even if it were a government address, this would not happen. Only those records that are not sensitive or classified get turned over, which is exactly what she did, although after the fact. So, why would you hold her to a higher standard than what the law requires?
"It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario — short of nuclear winter — where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business,
And yet, Kerry is the first Secretary of State to actually use a government email. Clinton was evidently following standard practices at the State Department.
I don't disagree, but human testing usually only follows after successful animal testing. So, even a paralytic, isn't do "no harm" if we don't know whether we can actually do this or not. Once we know it can be done, well then, a paralytic would seem to be the one to benefit most. But, until then, we would just be experimenting on handicapped human beings for the sake of gaining research knowledge. Most medical ethicists would say that is unethical.
I do think they could practice on paralysed people first - after all, if they can't reconnect severed spinal cord nerves in someone whose spinal cord is roughly still in place, what hope do they have for merging 2 different spinal cords?
And that would be because paralyzed people are less human or less valuable? How about practicing and perfecting it on rats first, then higher animals?
Sitting in front of an electrical box that sends out signals to billions of people everyday is also against the "laws of nature."
Please live up to your own lame excuse for why this shouldn't be and stop sitting in front of that box.
Actually, computers and the internet, etc. do follow the laws of nature, quite well. Technically speaking, everything we do follows the law of nature, otherwise it would be miraculous. That said, it still doesn't address the morality of the issue.
Look -- I'm here in Europe, so from a selfish standpoint that's fine and dandy. But why the hell not in the US? Somehow I smell shenanigan.
Because it's not really about building sustainable plants, but avoiding US taxes. If you're going to build a new plant, it's not significantly more expensive than a regular one. It's not about saving the planet, it's about seeking tax shelters.
So I guess, if this works out, we can just throw away the laws of thermodynamics? Obviously if entropy is always increasing, and the universe is of infinite age, then certainly there would be no organization today, right?
If the universe always existed, then we don't know that entropy is always increasing. Maybe the universe always existed, but there is some mechanism that causes entropy to cycle between increasing and decreasing? Who knows? OTOH, this is just a hypothesis and has yet to be accepted.
But wait, girls excel at math and science according to test scores in elementary schools, so it must be the teacher's fault that by high school and college they drop from it. Of course it couldn't have anything to do with a culture that hypersexualizes young women. Look at the upcoming 50 Shades movie. Obviously, a young woman can't be complete and productive unless she is first an object of desire.
If you want more women in science and math, you need to change the culture that tells them that their primary role is of being an object. That's not the school system, but the media. As long as the media emphasizes cleavage over brains, the problem will continue to exist. But go ahead and blame the schools, we'll pour lots of money into fixing the problem, but since it is the wrong problem, nothing will change.
Technically, it is, because it is a resource. But usually when speaking of economic cost, the focus is on lowering the cost of production. In this case, water is a resource for production, but the focus is usually on the price of the water, not on the impact to the surrounding communities that might be impacted by using it for fuel production.
This is not restricted to bio-fuels. We see it all the time, usually, though it is more likely to be an issue of damming some river for tourism purposes at the expense of downstream agriculture needs.
There are more costs than economic ones to consider. Making ethanol uses vast amounts of water -- water that is then not available for other uses. If they could find a way to do it with, say, sea water, that would be one thing, but in the Midwest, where much of the production is, water is becoming a scarce resource.
*cough* bullshit *cough* 3d printed *cough* magic *cough cough*
Actually, it is a 3d printed evaporation cooler (swamp cooler). The "technology" has been around since ancient times. In hot, dry climates, soaking a porous object in water and letting it evaporate cools the air around it. The larger the object, the greater the effect. What's new here is using a 3d printer to create the substrate. Whether that substrate is more efficient than clay or cloth (the two most common substrates), is yet to be seen. In the US, there is limited locales that this could be used, such as the southwest. However, in many parts of the world, this could work wonders. Would it cool as much as modern air conditioner? No, but it would still cool.
Why should I hold your opinion on something outside your field of expertise in higher esteem just because you are an engineer? My neighbor down the street may be just as well read on the subject, but may be a mechanic, but you posit that your opinion is more valuable to society because you are a scientist/engineer? I would assume, you have empirical data to support that premise.
I go to my doctor when I am sick. If I needed advice about nuclear engineering, I'd go to a nuclear engineer. Likewise, for other fields. But no matter how well read a nuclear engineer may be on various medical texts, I'm not going to rely on his unprofessional opinion, when I am sick. Likewise, outside one's field of expertise, our opinions are just as unprofessional as neighbor down the street and should carry as much weight.
This is nothing new. 100 years ago, in small communities, the doctor or the preacher was the most learned person so the community deferred to them for all sorts of decisions. Often, their advice was wrong and led to all sorts of negative outcomes. Why? Because those doctors and preachers were learned, but they weren't often qualified in the areas they were being asked to advise on. Likewise today's scientists and engineers may be more learned than the population as a whole, but that doesn't make us any more qualified outside our fields than anybody else. To think otherwise is just arrogance.
They add that continuing to pursue this strategy is likely to use up vast tracts of fertile land that could be devoted to helping feed the world's growing population
Of course that is assuming that those vast tracts of fertile land would be used to help feed the worlds growing population. Prior to be used to produce biofuel, much of that fertile land was not used for this purpose, so the question for the think-tank would be "Why do they suppose it would be now?"
Coding as the new literacy is putting the cart before the horse. To be able to code, one needs critical thinking skills. They need to understand logic (and not just AND OR NOT, but real logic). Those are the skills required for the new literacy. Coding is just one way those skills can be applied, but it does not make one literate, any more than strumming a few chords on a guitar makes one a musician. It is the underlying skills and understanding that makes one a musician and likewise, makes one literate.
If you put enough chimpanzees in front of enough computers, eventually they will bang out all of the code for any piece of software. That doesn't make them literate. If you want people to be literate, they need to be productive and able to contribute to society. In the 21st century, this means teaching them critical thinking skills and logic, then they will be literate in whatever field they chose.
The problem with Pascal is not that it is bad, but that it provides nothing of value to offset the cost of maintaining a separate toolchain, training programmers, building libraries, etc. What can you do in Pascal that you can't do in C++, or Python, or Java? Why do we need yet another language, that has no particularly useful features?
This could be said about any programming language. Back in my university days (we still had keypunch machines, then), I had a professor state that you could write just about anything in any language. For instance, you could write a banking app in FORTRAN or a program to calculate the trajectory to the moon in COBOL, but in the end, you should use the best tool suited for the job.
So, yes, Pascal can't do anything that C++, Python or Java can't do; that's not the point. Is Pascal better suited to some tasks than those languages? That is what the OP is really asking.
An modern auto plant turns out a vehicle approximately once every minute. These vehicles tax 44 hours per unit. The US alone purchases 16M vehicles/year. How will this ever be competitive?
Of course if one reads the article, they are mainly looking at this for prototyping vehicles, particularly military ones, but not the actual production of vehicles. So in short, this is about using 3D printing to prototype something before going to full production. Haven't we been doing that since the 1970s?
Photons travel the speed of light unless slowed by a medium. Since there was no medium involved, is what being observed still a photon or instead a photon like particle? Second, it would seem that conservation of mass/energy would indicate if this is a photon then something else must have changed. If there has been some other change, whether we detected it or not, would that not negate the experiment because of a state change (yes, the photon is going slower, but the system is not in the same state it was before)?
Wrong. That base still wouldn't boot my server for me and the systemd people would still be spinning in circles unable to even conceive of a way to fix it. You see, I want the server to boot w/ btrfs in degraded mode should it suffer a drive failure. But systemd won't do it.
I don't know about Suse, byt Red Hat does not. Otherwise they'd have noticed that sysadmins are sticking with RHEL6 to avoid systemd trouble.
Since systemd can be configured to simply call the upstart or sysvinit scripts, why would it not work?
Slashdot Mirror
So yes, she knew exactly what she was doing and why she was doing it.
If she is so smart, then how come she got caught?
She didn't get caught. What "triggered" this story was when she submitted the emails from her personal email account to the government, as required by law. The same as most other federal officials.
Nobody is talking about Republicans, their crimes or what they will do. Let's not project on Republicans what the Democrats do daily with their own special version of vitriol and rancor. Let's face it, besides Fox News and Al Jazera, you can't tune into a news program that isn't controlled by the left wing. So no reason to even try and deflect here. Hillary is a liar and a cheat and a good one at that. I thought she made a good Secretary of State, just for the record.
She didn't lie or cheat, at least not based on the emails. Until the current secretary of state, they all used their personal emails and phones for work. They all, including Hillary, then turned over the non-classified emails as required by law. There is no law that says she or any other government official must use a government supplied phone or email address. There is a law that prohibits them from using a government phone or email for non-government purposes. As such, most use their own phone and turn over the records, as required by law.
... that what Hillary did is against virtually every US government agency policy and directive. You are NEVER to conduct official government business on public systems due to security, archiving and many other reasons. The Clintons are the prototypical scofflaw Democrats.
Actually, if that were true, then the Federal Records Act wouldn't need a section dealing with archiving personal emails and the like. What about using personal stationary and your own stamps, is that forbidden, too?
No, the Federal Records Act simply states that the communications need to be archived and submitted, which she actually did. This is nothing more than trying to make a scandal where none exists. Even Condoleezza Rice used her own cell phone while SOS. SOS Kerry is the first to use a government issued phone and email account.
When the Secretary of State does something this fishy, that's a big deal.
According to the news this morning, Secretary Kerry is the first Secretary of State to use a government issued email account for correspondence. If it is fishy and there is to be an investigation, then is seems like Hillary and all of her predecessors are going to be in trouble.
The fact is that the law does not require her or anybody else to use a government email account. It does require emails that are not sensitive or classified to be turned over, which she did. Of course, that was after the fact, and one could argue that was a problem, but she still complied with the law. Unless you want government officials to carry two cell phones, computers, tablets, etc., this is the compromise. After all, they can't use the government supplied equipment for personal use, particularly political activity.
I wonder if she used her own stamps and stationary instead of government ones if people would be as upset?
Richard Nixon proposed and drove the creation of the EPA.
He expanded Medicare coverage to include long-term disabled under 65.
He created the Federal disability insurance (SSDI).
He proposed a national health care plan, with federal subsidies (something more "socialized" than Obamacare).
Advocating any of these things today would make it impossible for any Republican to get the Presidential nomination.
Hell, even Reagan is a liberal by today's standards!
She used her own private address for government work, so now all of the email that has ever gone to or from that address should be retained by the government for the public.
Why, even if it were a government address, this would not happen. Only those records that are not sensitive or classified get turned over, which is exactly what she did, although after the fact. So, why would you hold her to a higher standard than what the law requires?
"It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario — short of nuclear winter — where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business,
And yet, Kerry is the first Secretary of State to actually use a government email. Clinton was evidently following standard practices at the State Department.
I don't disagree, but human testing usually only follows after successful animal testing. So, even a paralytic, isn't do "no harm" if we don't know whether we can actually do this or not. Once we know it can be done, well then, a paralytic would seem to be the one to benefit most. But, until then, we would just be experimenting on handicapped human beings for the sake of gaining research knowledge. Most medical ethicists would say that is unethical.
I do think they could practice on paralysed people first - after all, if they can't reconnect severed spinal cord nerves in someone whose spinal cord is roughly still in place, what hope do they have for merging 2 different spinal cords?
And that would be because paralyzed people are less human or less valuable? How about practicing and perfecting it on rats first, then higher animals?
Sitting in front of an electrical box that sends out signals to billions of people everyday is also against the "laws of nature."
Please live up to your own lame excuse for why this shouldn't be and stop sitting in front of that box.
Actually, computers and the internet, etc. do follow the laws of nature, quite well. Technically speaking, everything we do follows the law of nature, otherwise it would be miraculous. That said, it still doesn't address the morality of the issue.
Look -- I'm here in Europe, so from a selfish standpoint that's fine and dandy. But why the hell not in the US? Somehow I smell shenanigan.
Because it's not really about building sustainable plants, but avoiding US taxes. If you're going to build a new plant, it's not significantly more expensive than a regular one. It's not about saving the planet, it's about seeking tax shelters.
So I guess, if this works out, we can just throw away the laws of thermodynamics? Obviously if entropy is always increasing, and the universe is of infinite age, then certainly there would be no organization today, right?
If the universe always existed, then we don't know that entropy is always increasing. Maybe the universe always existed, but there is some mechanism that causes entropy to cycle between increasing and decreasing? Who knows? OTOH, this is just a hypothesis and has yet to be accepted.
Isn't this just a rehashing of the steady state theory of the universe?
You know, what I've often asked myself is, "What was there before the Big Bang?"
Nothing. As accepted, currently, time began with the Big Bang, so there was no before the Big Bang.
But wait, girls excel at math and science according to test scores in elementary schools, so it must be the teacher's fault that by high school and college they drop from it. Of course it couldn't have anything to do with a culture that hypersexualizes young women. Look at the upcoming 50 Shades movie. Obviously, a young woman can't be complete and productive unless she is first an object of desire.
If you want more women in science and math, you need to change the culture that tells them that their primary role is of being an object. That's not the school system, but the media. As long as the media emphasizes cleavage over brains, the problem will continue to exist. But go ahead and blame the schools, we'll pour lots of money into fixing the problem, but since it is the wrong problem, nothing will change.
Why is water not an economic cost?
Technically, it is, because it is a resource. But usually when speaking of economic cost, the focus is on lowering the cost of production. In this case, water is a resource for production, but the focus is usually on the price of the water, not on the impact to the surrounding communities that might be impacted by using it for fuel production.
This is not restricted to bio-fuels. We see it all the time, usually, though it is more likely to be an issue of damming some river for tourism purposes at the expense of downstream agriculture needs.
There are more costs than economic ones to consider. Making ethanol uses vast amounts of water -- water that is then not available for other uses. If they could find a way to do it with, say, sea water, that would be one thing, but in the Midwest, where much of the production is, water is becoming a scarce resource.
*cough* bullshit *cough* 3d printed *cough* magic *cough cough*
Actually, it is a 3d printed evaporation cooler (swamp cooler). The "technology" has been around since ancient times. In hot, dry climates, soaking a porous object in water and letting it evaporate cools the air around it. The larger the object, the greater the effect. What's new here is using a 3d printer to create the substrate. Whether that substrate is more efficient than clay or cloth (the two most common substrates), is yet to be seen. In the US, there is limited locales that this could be used, such as the southwest. However, in many parts of the world, this could work wonders. Would it cool as much as modern air conditioner? No, but it would still cool.
Why should I hold your opinion on something outside your field of expertise in higher esteem just because you are an engineer? My neighbor down the street may be just as well read on the subject, but may be a mechanic, but you posit that your opinion is more valuable to society because you are a scientist/engineer? I would assume, you have empirical data to support that premise.
I go to my doctor when I am sick. If I needed advice about nuclear engineering, I'd go to a nuclear engineer. Likewise, for other fields. But no matter how well read a nuclear engineer may be on various medical texts, I'm not going to rely on his unprofessional opinion, when I am sick. Likewise, outside one's field of expertise, our opinions are just as unprofessional as neighbor down the street and should carry as much weight.
This is nothing new. 100 years ago, in small communities, the doctor or the preacher was the most learned person so the community deferred to them for all sorts of decisions. Often, their advice was wrong and led to all sorts of negative outcomes. Why? Because those doctors and preachers were learned, but they weren't often qualified in the areas they were being asked to advise on. Likewise today's scientists and engineers may be more learned than the population as a whole, but that doesn't make us any more qualified outside our fields than anybody else. To think otherwise is just arrogance.
They add that continuing to pursue this strategy is likely to use up vast tracts of fertile land that could be devoted to helping feed the world's growing population
Of course that is assuming that those vast tracts of fertile land would be used to help feed the worlds growing population. Prior to be used to produce biofuel, much of that fertile land was not used for this purpose, so the question for the think-tank would be "Why do they suppose it would be now?"
Coding as the new literacy is putting the cart before the horse. To be able to code, one needs critical thinking skills. They need to understand logic (and not just AND OR NOT, but real logic). Those are the skills required for the new literacy. Coding is just one way those skills can be applied, but it does not make one literate, any more than strumming a few chords on a guitar makes one a musician. It is the underlying skills and understanding that makes one a musician and likewise, makes one literate.
If you put enough chimpanzees in front of enough computers, eventually they will bang out all of the code for any piece of software. That doesn't make them literate. If you want people to be literate, they need to be productive and able to contribute to society. In the 21st century, this means teaching them critical thinking skills and logic, then they will be literate in whatever field they chose.
The problem with Pascal is not that it is bad, but that it provides nothing of value to offset the cost of maintaining a separate toolchain, training programmers, building libraries, etc. What can you do in Pascal that you can't do in C++, or Python, or Java? Why do we need yet another language, that has no particularly useful features?
This could be said about any programming language. Back in my university days (we still had keypunch machines, then), I had a professor state that you could write just about anything in any language. For instance, you could write a banking app in FORTRAN or a program to calculate the trajectory to the moon in COBOL, but in the end, you should use the best tool suited for the job.
So, yes, Pascal can't do anything that C++, Python or Java can't do; that's not the point. Is Pascal better suited to some tasks than those languages? That is what the OP is really asking.
An modern auto plant turns out a vehicle approximately once every minute. These vehicles tax 44 hours per unit. The US alone purchases 16M vehicles/year. How will this ever be competitive?
Of course if one reads the article, they are mainly looking at this for prototyping vehicles, particularly military ones, but not the actual production of vehicles. So in short, this is about using 3D printing to prototype something before going to full production. Haven't we been doing that since the 1970s?
Photons travel the speed of light unless slowed by a medium. Since there was no medium involved, is what being observed still a photon or instead a photon like particle? Second, it would seem that conservation of mass/energy would indicate if this is a photon then something else must have changed. If there has been some other change, whether we detected it or not, would that not negate the experiment because of a state change (yes, the photon is going slower, but the system is not in the same state it was before)?
Wrong. That base still wouldn't boot my server for me and the systemd people would still be spinning in circles unable to even conceive of a way to fix it. You see, I want the server to boot w/ btrfs in degraded mode should it suffer a drive failure. But systemd won't do it.
I don't know about Suse, byt Red Hat does not. Otherwise they'd have noticed that sysadmins are sticking with RHEL6 to avoid systemd trouble.
Since systemd can be configured to simply call the upstart or sysvinit scripts, why would it not work?