Actual contacts are rare in the US, but when a full-time employee shows up for their first day of work, that's the start of their employment. A company might have grounds for saying otherwise if they discover fraud by the worker that could not have been reasonably discovered earlier, but it sounds to me like this man was dismissed after he started the job.
We talk a lot about patterns of employment, but when will we face up to the fact that Canadian millennials are paid in dollars that are only worth 74% of the dollars that US millennials are paid in?
We have a one-word name for off-topic "snark" that is based on alternative facts: trolling. If you don't want to be called out for it, don't be so bad at it.
911 calls were what failed, so it's dishonest to bring other emergency services into the discussion. And 911 is provided by local dispatching anyway -- it has essentially nothing to do with the federal government, contrary to your original troll.
No. Checksums are short, easy to generate, and good at detecting accidental errors. They are also typically linear functions, so it is extremely easy to generate two (potentially very) different files with the same checksum.
Wikipedia agrees with me that a WoT is one form of PKI, and the published verification and trust statements that make up the WoT work as certificates of the associated public keys.
You have an unreasonably constrained view of what qualifies as a PKI. A PKI is merely something that helps users reliably identify the public keys that are used by particular other users. Google's system here does not solve the PKI problem because it really only associates the public keys with an account, not with the end user, but people usually want to know who the person on the other end is.
Adam wants to send a message to Betty without anyone being able to snoop on it. Eve wants to snoop, for example by tricking Adam into thinking Eve's key belongs to Betty, or keeping Betty from reporting that get key changed due to a compromise. PKI is how you keep Eve from being able to fool with keys.
Sure, if you ignore X.509 and all the other PKI standards, no one has been trying to replace PGP's key distribution and verification schemes.
But when you look at what has actually been going on, is pretty clear that -- whether their reasons are good or bad -- lots of groups have rejected the PGP approach to public key crypto.
Having a plugin is nice, but it doesn't solve the PKI (key distribution and reputation) problem, and I am not very inclined to trust a plugin made by a company whose primary line of business is advertising by building user profiles.
I'm quite familiar with cores, thank you. That CPU still cannot retire 10 IPC per core.
Of course, you used DMIPS without saying so, which is only the most common synthetic measure of CPU integer performance, so Intel has had 3 decades of experience gaming its results.
Linux Bogomips are just a measure of how fast a single core runs a delay loop. The kernel uses it to busy wait for short intervals. It doesn't scale with number of cores, and is usually close to the nominal clock rate.
Comey and Cartwright were conspiring to mislead the public. The important part is not what the presence or absence of a classification header tells a recipient -- it is whether a recipient is supposed to ignore mis-marked material, or fail to report a spill of classified information to a system that isn't authorized for storage or transfer of that kind of information. Clinton had good reason to know that her email had lots of information that was classified at the time, and that she did not have authority to declassify. She and her subordinates handled that information with reckless disregard for the impact to national security. They stored it on privately owned servers because Clinton couldn't be bothered to use authorized systems for that kind of information.
They're not covered by the same records keeping act, so your first sentence is wrong. Clinton's lawyers were incompetent at finding her work-related emails, leading them to not turn all of them over. It remains to be seen whether Pence's lawyers will do better.
Other people have debunked your other fake claims, so I won't repeat that. Clinton's use of a private server was a violation of policy that her staff strictly enforced for other people at State. Keeping Federal government records after she left government service, without depositing copies with the National Archives, was illegal. Sending emails with classified information, whether marked as such or just things she should have known were classified, was also a crime. Not reporting the mishandled classified information is a security violation, which would get normal people fired. Deleting emails after the fact was spoilation of evidence.
Fun fact: The FBI said that because the Clinton camp was incompetent at running their email server, and didn't let anyone else see the server, the FBI couldn't tell whether it had been hacked, but the FBI was pretty sure it had been targeted. Which means it was probably hacked, but nobody found out.
A large part of Clinton's problems were because her use of private email servers looked like an effort to avoid legally required oversight: avoiding use of any government email account, not depositing government records when she left government service, and only disclosing things when caught. None of those factors look likely in Pence's case, but maybe something will turn up yet.
This may shock you, but the laws usually work the way you suggest. At least the federal records laws do. They define what makes something a government record, how such records must be retained and deposited for oversight, and the penalties for failing to do so. Notably absent is any reference to email, much less a distinction between government and private email servers.
There is the separate question of what administrative policies say, and what formalisms an official must follow to change or deviate from those policies. That's part of what tripped up Hillary Clinton: she wanted to change the rules but did not actually change them. I don't know how that applies here -- maybe Pence did violate some administrative rule.
Slashdot Mirror
Actual contacts are rare in the US, but when a full-time employee shows up for their first day of work, that's the start of their employment. A company might have grounds for saying otherwise if they discover fraud by the worker that could not have been reasonably discovered earlier, but it sounds to me like this man was dismissed after he started the job.
Call it Kitchen Sink Syndrome, or the Second-System Effect. You are right that XMPP suffers badly from it.
We talk a lot about patterns of employment, but when will we face up to the fact that Canadian millennials are paid in dollars that are only worth 74% of the dollars that US millennials are paid in?
He learned his lesson!
The lesson is, make sure you stay just on the "right" side of legal precedent.
We have a one-word name for off-topic "snark" that is based on alternative facts: trolling. If you don't want to be called out for it, don't be so bad at it.
I understood perfectly. You look even more like a troll with your lame theater-of-outrage schtick.
911 calls were what failed, so it's dishonest to bring other emergency services into the discussion. And 911 is provided by local dispatching anyway -- it has essentially nothing to do with the federal government, contrary to your original troll.
AT&T is already a private company operating the part of 911 services that failed.
If you're going to threadshit with a political troll, at least put in the effort of not sounding totally ignorant.
Don't feel bad, 15/16ths of statistics are made up on the spot.
But does it come with de-oxygenated copper conductors and special gold-plated connectors to reduce analog noise on the control signals?
No. Checksums are short, easy to generate, and good at detecting accidental errors. They are also typically linear functions, so it is extremely easy to generate two (potentially very) different files with the same checksum.
The next time I go to one of these food establishments, I'm going to do my bit: I'll use the kiosk to order some Soylent Green.
"Once you go Japanese, you can't go back" said no one, ever.
Wikipedia agrees with me that a WoT is one form of PKI, and the published verification and trust statements that make up the WoT work as certificates of the associated public keys.
You have an unreasonably constrained view of what qualifies as a PKI. A PKI is merely something that helps users reliably identify the public keys that are used by particular other users. Google's system here does not solve the PKI problem because it really only associates the public keys with an account, not with the end user, but people usually want to know who the person on the other end is.
Adam wants to send a message to Betty without anyone being able to snoop on it. Eve wants to snoop, for example by tricking Adam into thinking Eve's key belongs to Betty, or keeping Betty from reporting that get key changed due to a compromise. PKI is how you keep Eve from being able to fool with keys.
Sure, if you ignore X.509 and all the other PKI standards, no one has been trying to replace PGP's key distribution and verification schemes.
But when you look at what has actually been going on, is pretty clear that -- whether their reasons are good or bad -- lots of groups have rejected the PGP approach to public key crypto.
It's not hard to do PGP. It's only hard to do it properly, so that the Web of Trust works like it is supposed to.
Having a plugin is nice, but it doesn't solve the PKI (key distribution and reputation) problem, and I am not very inclined to trust a plugin made by a company whose primary line of business is advertising by building user profiles.
I'm quite familiar with cores, thank you. That CPU still cannot retire 10 IPC per core.
Of course, you used DMIPS without saying so, which is only the most common synthetic measure of CPU integer performance, so Intel has had 3 decades of experience gaming its results.
Linux Bogomips are just a measure of how fast a single core runs a delay loop. The kernel uses it to busy wait for short intervals. It doesn't scale with number of cores, and is usually close to the nominal clock rate.
How do you get 240k MIPS for a modern CPU? That's 60 to 80 instructions per cycle.
Comey and Cartwright were conspiring to mislead the public. The important part is not what the presence or absence of a classification header tells a recipient -- it is whether a recipient is supposed to ignore mis-marked material, or fail to report a spill of classified information to a system that isn't authorized for storage or transfer of that kind of information. Clinton had good reason to know that her email had lots of information that was classified at the time, and that she did not have authority to declassify. She and her subordinates handled that information with reckless disregard for the impact to national security. They stored it on privately owned servers because Clinton couldn't be bothered to use authorized systems for that kind of information.
They're not covered by the same records keeping act, so your first sentence is wrong. Clinton's lawyers were incompetent at finding her work-related emails, leading them to not turn all of them over. It remains to be seen whether Pence's lawyers will do better.
Other people have debunked your other fake claims, so I won't repeat that. Clinton's use of a private server was a violation of policy that her staff strictly enforced for other people at State. Keeping Federal government records after she left government service, without depositing copies with the National Archives, was illegal. Sending emails with classified information, whether marked as such or just things she should have known were classified, was also a crime. Not reporting the mishandled classified information is a security violation, which would get normal people fired. Deleting emails after the fact was spoilation of evidence.
Fun fact: The FBI said that because the Clinton camp was incompetent at running their email server, and didn't let anyone else see the server, the FBI couldn't tell whether it had been hacked, but the FBI was pretty sure it had been targeted. Which means it was probably hacked, but nobody found out.
A large part of Clinton's problems were because her use of private email servers looked like an effort to avoid legally required oversight: avoiding use of any government email account, not depositing government records when she left government service, and only disclosing things when caught. None of those factors look likely in Pence's case, but maybe something will turn up yet.
This may shock you, but the laws usually work the way you suggest. At least the federal records laws do. They define what makes something a government record, how such records must be retained and deposited for oversight, and the penalties for failing to do so. Notably absent is any reference to email, much less a distinction between government and private email servers.
There is the separate question of what administrative policies say, and what formalisms an official must follow to change or deviate from those policies. That's part of what tripped up Hillary Clinton: she wanted to change the rules but did not actually change them. I don't know how that applies here -- maybe Pence did violate some administrative rule.