The usual motivations are accessibility and some idea of cost savings. Accessibility because blind people need Braille or spoken ballots, and people are worried about improper influence if a living person helps. Cost savings because they know how much printed ballots cost, and can be buffaloed about how much computerized systems will cost (and about the security concerns).
The FBI didn't say she did nothing criminal. In fact, they said she (and others) were "extremely careless" in their handling of classified material, where the legal standard for guilt is "gross negligence". Comey also said that "any reasonable person" in that position should have known that an unclassified system was inappropriate for storing or transferring the material, in part because it was properly classified at the time. The FBI also found institutional disregard within the State Department for protecting classified information.
But all that most people remember is the unelaborated assertion that "no reasonable prosecutor" would prosecute over the mishandling of classified material.
There was always the chance that they'd find a smoking gun, or that the DOJ wouldn't have required them to hand out immunity agreements like candy.
Heck, even having the facts with no prosecution is better than ignoring the whole sordid affair. Congress would never have been able to get as much cooperation as the FBI did.
It would be a horrible idea to try to statistically "correct" for illegally cast votes after they go into the pool of accepted ballots. There are too many ways to abuse that kind of process on a partisan basis, and it will almost always be seen as biased even if the people doing the correction are trying their hardest to only discount illegally cast votes.
On the other hand, it would be a very good idea to use a history of illegal votes (or illegal suppression of votes) to help decide where and how to focus resources on preventing illegal votes or suppression in future elections.
Hillary Clinton never moved her emails to a correct server. Also, we know that her lawyers deleted emails from her server that should have been retained as official government records: the FBI recovered copies from third parties.
Is Clinton dumb enough to fall for the CEO scam? The only way to strongly deter email impersonation attacks is to use a server inside the organization where you work -- i.e. a State Dept server -- that clearly tags emails from untrusted sources.
Clearly, it's an incredibly dangerous drug because it can make even people who never took it (like CNN writers) delusional, paranoid and of disordered thought.
When it comes down to that, the story is awfully vague on what those 38 licenses were for: Named users? Node locked? Floating? Site? Enterprise? Creation? Playback?
No, they are saying that you can't run ads through Google's ad network on a website that purports to be ABC News if it isn't actually run by ABC News.
It might have an effect if all the other ad networks out there adopt similar policies, in which case there's probably an antitrust argument to be made against the ad networks.
As HuffPo said, Nate Silver was obviously putting his thumb on the scales when he forecast a 35% chance of a Trump win. "It’s not easy to sit here and tell you that Clinton has a 98 percent chance of winning", Ryan Grim wrote. (He still hasn't owned up to how badly he bungled the statistics.)
Yes. While SHA-1 has seen successful collision attacks (attackers can find two messages that generate the same hash), practical preimage attacks (attacker finds a message that generates either a specified hash value or the same hash value as a specified message) are not currently known. I would guess that these passwords effectively did not use salts.
I app if there's a Wolfram app because I don't think I can fully app the Wolfram without an appy Wolfram to app.
More seriously: Does Stephen Wolfram or ESR sound more pretentious and full of themselves when they switch into self-promotional blather mode (which, for either of them, seems to be at least a weekly event)? It's a tough call. "I wrote a book! I wrote this awesome code that everybody should use! Only I had the insights to address the problems of tomorrow, yesterday!"
I'll make you a deal: You can be pissy about misleading news coverage on Facebook after you call out the rest of the media for not pointing out that "if you like your insurance/doctor, you can keep your insurance/doctor" were obvious lies.
There's no inherent connection, except whatever software support the hardware might need. The guidelines/requirements here are for Google to allow hardware vendors to use the Android trademarks, qualify for Google Play apps, and so forth. Google is using that as an incentive for the third party vendors to use standard power mechanisms rather than proprietary ones.
There is a standard for faster charging. It's called USB-C, or if that isn't fast enough, USB Power Delivery. There are legitimate compatibility concerns over the various proprietary extensions that do the same things but differently.
Religious beliefs are very strongly protected in America mostly for two related reasons. Many of the early American colonists were religious minorities who were persecuted in Europe. This led to various constitutional protections of religion, most prominently in the First Amendment. Courts have usually held that government must satisfy "strict scrutiny" to infringe on religious beliefs and practices -- for example, courts have protected both smoking hallucinogenic mushrooms and animal sacrifice as part of religious rituals in spite of laws that prohibit those actions in almost every other context.
You should probably see a psychiatrist about that. You're clearly suffering from President Trump Stress Disorder (PTSD) and/or Trump Derangement Syndrome.
I certainly do have something to support my claims: As deplorable as the candidates are, neither one is clinically insane, so neither one would be likely to pass insane laws.
The personal failings of a official do not necessarily translate into policy. That's why one can support one of the major-party candidates without supporting giving two-faced speeches to Wall Street firms in exchange for baksheesh, groping women out of the blue, thinking African-Americans are "super-predators", thinking Mexicans are super-job-killers, and so forth.
Finally, for the record, saying other things are currently bigger problems for America than bigotry does not make you a bigot. Claiming that bigotry must always be problem #1 makes you sound unhinged, and supports the argument that leftists rely on playing the identity-victimhood card.
Slashdot Mirror
The usual motivations are accessibility and some idea of cost savings. Accessibility because blind people need Braille or spoken ballots, and people are worried about improper influence if a living person helps. Cost savings because they know how much printed ballots cost, and can be buffaloed about how much computerized systems will cost (and about the security concerns).
The FBI didn't say she did nothing criminal. In fact, they said she (and others) were "extremely careless" in their handling of classified material, where the legal standard for guilt is "gross negligence". Comey also said that "any reasonable person" in that position should have known that an unclassified system was inappropriate for storing or transferring the material, in part because it was properly classified at the time. The FBI also found institutional disregard within the State Department for protecting classified information.
But all that most people remember is the unelaborated assertion that "no reasonable prosecutor" would prosecute over the mishandling of classified material.
There was always the chance that they'd find a smoking gun, or that the DOJ wouldn't have required them to hand out immunity agreements like candy.
Heck, even having the facts with no prosecution is better than ignoring the whole sordid affair. Congress would never have been able to get as much cooperation as the FBI did.
It would be a horrible idea to try to statistically "correct" for illegally cast votes after they go into the pool of accepted ballots. There are too many ways to abuse that kind of process on a partisan basis, and it will almost always be seen as biased even if the people doing the correction are trying their hardest to only discount illegally cast votes.
On the other hand, it would be a very good idea to use a history of illegal votes (or illegal suppression of votes) to help decide where and how to focus resources on preventing illegal votes or suppression in future elections.
Hillary Clinton never moved her emails to a correct server. Also, we know that her lawyers deleted emails from her server that should have been retained as official government records: the FBI recovered copies from third parties.
Is Clinton dumb enough to fall for the CEO scam? The only way to strongly deter email impersonation attacks is to use a server inside the organization where you work -- i.e. a State Dept server -- that clearly tags emails from untrusted sources.
Politifact has a well-known liberal bias. Stephen Colbert told me they help spread the truthiness.
Clearly, it's an incredibly dangerous drug because it can make even people who never took it (like CNN writers) delusional, paranoid and of disordered thought.
That says nothing about the nature of the licenses in question.
When it comes down to that, the story is awfully vague on what those 38 licenses were for: Named users? Node locked? Floating? Site? Enterprise? Creation? Playback?
No, they are saying that you can't run ads through Google's ad network on a website that purports to be ABC News if it isn't actually run by ABC News.
It might have an effect if all the other ad networks out there adopt similar policies, in which case there's probably an antitrust argument to be made against the ad networks.
As HuffPo said, Nate Silver was obviously putting his thumb on the scales when he forecast a 35% chance of a Trump win. "It’s not easy to sit here and tell you that Clinton has a 98 percent chance of winning", Ryan Grim wrote. (He still hasn't owned up to how badly he bungled the statistics.)
What's wrong with being deportable? To coin a phrase, half of Hillary Clinton's supporters are what I would call a basket of deportables.
Yes. While SHA-1 has seen successful collision attacks (attackers can find two messages that generate the same hash), practical preimage attacks (attacker finds a message that generates either a specified hash value or the same hash value as a specified message) are not currently known. I would guess that these passwords effectively did not use salts.
I app if there's a Wolfram app because I don't think I can fully app the Wolfram without an appy Wolfram to app.
More seriously: Does Stephen Wolfram or ESR sound more pretentious and full of themselves when they switch into self-promotional blather mode (which, for either of them, seems to be at least a weekly event)? It's a tough call. "I wrote a book! I wrote this awesome code that everybody should use! Only I had the insights to address the problems of tomorrow, yesterday!"
I'll make you a deal: You can be pissy about misleading news coverage on Facebook after you call out the rest of the media for not pointing out that "if you like your insurance/doctor, you can keep your insurance/doctor" were obvious lies.
You seemed upset in the first place, apparently in response to an obvious attempt at trolling by the Russian government.
Who was it saying a few weeks ago that the Russians were obviously trying to destabilize our political system?
Some phone designers have the courage to not waste space on such things when they could instead make an already too-thin phone even thinner.
Well, at least one phone designer has that much courage...
There's no inherent connection, except whatever software support the hardware might need. The guidelines/requirements here are for Google to allow hardware vendors to use the Android trademarks, qualify for Google Play apps, and so forth. Google is using that as an incentive for the third party vendors to use standard power mechanisms rather than proprietary ones.
It provides more (4) power conductors, so each one only has to carry 1.25A.
I'm not sure what the article means by "its own version", but the official Pixel charger uses USB Power Delivery for 18W charging.
There is a standard for faster charging. It's called USB-C, or if that isn't fast enough, USB Power Delivery. There are legitimate compatibility concerns over the various proprietary extensions that do the same things but differently.
Religious beliefs are very strongly protected in America mostly for two related reasons. Many of the early American colonists were religious minorities who were persecuted in Europe. This led to various constitutional protections of religion, most prominently in the First Amendment. Courts have usually held that government must satisfy "strict scrutiny" to infringe on religious beliefs and practices -- for example, courts have protected both smoking hallucinogenic mushrooms and animal sacrifice as part of religious rituals in spite of laws that prohibit those actions in almost every other context.
You should probably see a psychiatrist about that. You're clearly suffering from President Trump Stress Disorder (PTSD) and/or Trump Derangement Syndrome.
I certainly do have something to support my claims: As deplorable as the candidates are, neither one is clinically insane, so neither one would be likely to pass insane laws.
The personal failings of a official do not necessarily translate into policy. That's why one can support one of the major-party candidates without supporting giving two-faced speeches to Wall Street firms in exchange for baksheesh, groping women out of the blue, thinking African-Americans are "super-predators", thinking Mexicans are super-job-killers, and so forth.
Finally, for the record, saying other things are currently bigger problems for America than bigotry does not make you a bigot. Claiming that bigotry must always be problem #1 makes you sound unhinged, and supports the argument that leftists rely on playing the identity-victimhood card.
Why do places always go for IRV? It's one of the most fragile, paradox-prone alternative voting schemes.