Would you care to prove that HRC tried to avoid using her private email server for classified communications? Evidence suggests she didn't. Powell had and used an email account on the classified State Department network ("high side"); Clinton did not. The NYTimes reports that a search of Powell's emails was done, and only uncovered two emails, sent to Powell but someone else, that were upgraded to confidential or secret after the fact -- unlike emails that Clinton sent containing information that was classified (and even marked as such) at the time, and emails on her server that included top secret information.
That article doesn't suggest that either "forwarding information marked classified" or "direct[ing] underlings to remove classification" blocks/markings is at all common. Why is your reading comprehension so awful? Did you get dropped on your head as a baby?
Meanwhile, your overactive imagination is making you hear voices about what was on an email server that was required by federal law to exist and be used for specific purposes, and you're ignoring that Hillary Clinton got caught lying about what was in the emails she deleted.
You do highlight more relevant distinctions between Colin Powell and Hillary Clinton, though:
Colin Powell did not forward information marked classified. Hillary Clinton did.
Colin Powell did not direct underlings to remove classification information from hard copies before sending it over non-secure networks. Hillary Clinton did.
In fact, Hillary Clinton forwarded the "marked classified but not in the header" email a year after she told her subordinate to handle information in just that manner. Of course, she still had an obligation to protect and preserve the classified information -- but you apparently bought her excuses to the contrary. In fact, she had a further obligation to report the spill and work with appropriate security officers to remedy it, and she failed in that duty as well.
Aw, the ignorant little spouter of off-topic and factually wrong talking points doesn't like being identified as such. Guess what: Slashdot isn't a safe space, and you're going to get called on false equivalencies and falsehoods. Go away and come back when you know how any of the relevant laws work.
Colin Powell used a private email account (not server) only for things that the State Department didn't have a functional email server for. Hillary Clinton avoided using the State Department's perfectly functional system.
Colin Powell only used it for unclassified communications. Hillary Clinton used her email server to receive and send up to TOP SECRET communications.
Colin Powell did not hire personal staff to the State Department basically for the purposes of supporting his private email account. Hillary Clinton brought one of her techs to State so he could more easily support her email server.
Colin Powell did not affirmatively choose to delete emails were under both subpoena in private lawsuits and Congressional investigation. Hillary Clinton did.
Colin Powell did not put his name on a memo that reminded State Department staff of the department policy to avoid using personal email if at all possible, because no such policy existed at the time. Hillary Clinton did put her name to such a memo, because the policy existed before she took office there.
Colin Powell did not have staff who needed immunity agreements from the Department of Justice. Hillary Clinton did, even for things that should not need such agreements, like producing a laptop.
Colin Powell was not represented by lawyers who had conflicts of interest by being potential subjects of investigation over email misuse. Hillary Clinton was -- in fact, one of her lawyers got an immunity deal while representing Clinton.
You have been led around by the nose. Stop being such a tool.
Unsurprisingly, the Republican National Committee operated an email server for White House staff to use for partisan communications and purposes. Unsurprisingly, it's illegal to use federal property for purposes like that. Unsurprisingly, there's no federal law that requires the RNC to retain its internal communications indefinitely, like there is for federal records.
Martha Stewart went to federal prison for much less than Hillary Clinton and her cronies did, and with much less firm evidence against Stewart. Clinton benefited from a grotesque double standard that you have to be mindless not to see.
My justification for the FBI not investigating these attacks is only that the there's no obvious US jurisdiction, and none of the victims seem likely to ask the FBI to investigate while providing information that could establish US jurisdiction. Why do you disagree strongly with that?
The rest of your beef seems to be that I have different standards for thinking the FBI should formally investigate a computer crime from other people have for attributing nationalities to the perpetrators of computer crimes. Do you think there should be just one standard for those two different things? If so, why?
The FBI will probably investigate these hacks as soon as the victims come forward and cooperate with the investigations.
Which, considering that they are violating various US laws themselves, doesn't seem very likely.
It's lousy pro-jihadist/pro-Russian propaganda to suggest that the FBI should investigate various random crimes, by someone of only self-described nationality, targeting non-US people using servers in unknown jurisdictions, when there's no clear nexus to US jurisdiction.
Even journalists complain about his smugness, which qualifies him to censor reporting on the complaints, I guess. It's just how his freedom of speech rolls.
For OSes with frequent releases, calendar-based numbering makes more sense than major numbers. What qualifies as a major change in an OS is very subjective, and it means nobody needs to remember how old FooBSD 7.5 or 8.3 or whatever is.
I won't argue that the silly names are a good idea, though.
Try reading, you tool. Hitler explicitly wrote that gassing tens of thousands of Jews was worth losing WW1 and having millions of "good" Germans killed and wounded. Why are you so quick to defend Hitler when somebody gives you specific and direct evidence of his monstrosity?
By the same argument, should laws against polygamy/polyandry or incestuous marriages be repealed? What if one prospective spouse is unable to legally consent?
If you think that maybe the government does have some business deciding which marriages to recognize and which should not be recognized, maybe you should have a bit more respect for people who draw the line somewhere else. You don't have to recognize their position as right or even very reasonable, but you really should recognize them as people who can be respected.
They probably have multiple chips in the flash storage module/package. One 32 GB, eight 16 GB, or eight 32 GB, depending on the model of phone. Having a four-by-32 GB version would probably mean another variation of controller hardware, lower write speeds, and possibly higher cost.
Slashdot Mirror
The 15" XPS models have a 32 GB option.
ED is the STANDARD text EDitor!
Would you care to prove that HRC tried to avoid using her private email server for classified communications? Evidence suggests she didn't. Powell had and used an email account on the classified State Department network ("high side"); Clinton did not. The NYTimes reports that a search of Powell's emails was done, and only uncovered two emails, sent to Powell but someone else, that were upgraded to confidential or secret after the fact -- unlike emails that Clinton sent containing information that was classified (and even marked as such) at the time, and emails on her server that included top secret information.
That article doesn't suggest that either "forwarding information marked classified" or "direct[ing] underlings to remove classification" blocks/markings is at all common. Why is your reading comprehension so awful? Did you get dropped on your head as a baby?
Meanwhile, your overactive imagination is making you hear voices about what was on an email server that was required by federal law to exist and be used for specific purposes, and you're ignoring that Hillary Clinton got caught lying about what was in the emails she deleted.
You do highlight more relevant distinctions between Colin Powell and Hillary Clinton, though:
Colin Powell did not forward information marked classified. Hillary Clinton did.
Colin Powell did not direct underlings to remove classification information from hard copies before sending it over non-secure networks. Hillary Clinton did.
In fact, Hillary Clinton forwarded the "marked classified but not in the header" email a year after she told her subordinate to handle information in just that manner. Of course, she still had an obligation to protect and preserve the classified information -- but you apparently bought her excuses to the contrary. In fact, she had a further obligation to report the spill and work with appropriate security officers to remedy it, and she failed in that duty as well.
Aw, the ignorant little spouter of off-topic and factually wrong talking points doesn't like being identified as such. Guess what: Slashdot isn't a safe space, and you're going to get called on false equivalencies and falsehoods. Go away and come back when you know how any of the relevant laws work.
Stop trying to hijack the thread, you hack.
Colin Powell used a private email account (not server) only for things that the State Department didn't have a functional email server for. Hillary Clinton avoided using the State Department's perfectly functional system.
Colin Powell only used it for unclassified communications. Hillary Clinton used her email server to receive and send up to TOP SECRET communications.
Colin Powell did not hire personal staff to the State Department basically for the purposes of supporting his private email account. Hillary Clinton brought one of her techs to State so he could more easily support her email server.
Colin Powell did not affirmatively choose to delete emails were under both subpoena in private lawsuits and Congressional investigation. Hillary Clinton did.
Colin Powell did not put his name on a memo that reminded State Department staff of the department policy to avoid using personal email if at all possible, because no such policy existed at the time. Hillary Clinton did put her name to such a memo, because the policy existed before she took office there.
Colin Powell did not have staff who needed immunity agreements from the Department of Justice. Hillary Clinton did, even for things that should not need such agreements, like producing a laptop.
Colin Powell was not represented by lawyers who had conflicts of interest by being potential subjects of investigation over email misuse. Hillary Clinton was -- in fact, one of her lawyers got an immunity deal while representing Clinton.
You have been led around by the nose. Stop being such a tool.
Unsurprisingly, the Republican National Committee operated an email server for White House staff to use for partisan communications and purposes. Unsurprisingly, it's illegal to use federal property for purposes like that. Unsurprisingly, there's no federal law that requires the RNC to retain its internal communications indefinitely, like there is for federal records.
Martha Stewart went to federal prison for much less than Hillary Clinton and her cronies did, and with much less firm evidence against Stewart. Clinton benefited from a grotesque double standard that you have to be mindless not to see.
My justification for the FBI not investigating these attacks is only that the there's no obvious US jurisdiction, and none of the victims seem likely to ask the FBI to investigate while providing information that could establish US jurisdiction. Why do you disagree strongly with that?
The rest of your beef seems to be that I have different standards for thinking the FBI should formally investigate a computer crime from other people have for attributing nationalities to the perpetrators of computer crimes. Do you think there should be just one standard for those two different things? If so, why?
The FBI will probably investigate these hacks as soon as the victims come forward and cooperate with the investigations.
Which, considering that they are violating various US laws themselves, doesn't seem very likely.
It's lousy pro-jihadist/pro-Russian propaganda to suggest that the FBI should investigate various random crimes, by someone of only self-described nationality, targeting non-US people using servers in unknown jurisdictions, when there's no clear nexus to US jurisdiction.
Even journalists complain about his smugness, which qualifies him to censor reporting on the complaints, I guess. It's just how his freedom of speech rolls.
For OSes with frequent releases, calendar-based numbering makes more sense than major numbers. What qualifies as a major change in an OS is very subjective, and it means nobody needs to remember how old FooBSD 7.5 or 8.3 or whatever is.
I won't argue that the silly names are a good idea, though.
"Zit", because obviously it's neither zim nor zer.
Hillary Clinton is just as racist as Donald Trump, and perhaps more so. What's your point, that you like to go full Godwin?
You can't debunk any of his points, so you start shouting and calling names. Stay classy, you.
So you oppose Hillary Clinton because she strongly supported the unconstitutional DOMA?
Correction: You won't link to it because you don't want people to see how badly you misrepresented what he wrote.
Try reading, you tool. Hitler explicitly wrote that gassing tens of thousands of Jews was worth losing WW1 and having millions of "good" Germans killed and wounded. Why are you so quick to defend Hitler when somebody gives you specific and direct evidence of his monstrosity?
By the same argument, should laws against polygamy/polyandry or incestuous marriages be repealed? What if one prospective spouse is unable to legally consent?
If you think that maybe the government does have some business deciding which marriages to recognize and which should not be recognized, maybe you should have a bit more respect for people who draw the line somewhere else. You don't have to recognize their position as right or even very reasonable, but you really should recognize them as people who can be respected.
They probably have multiple chips in the flash storage module/package. One 32 GB, eight 16 GB, or eight 32 GB, depending on the model of phone. Having a four-by-32 GB version would probably mean another variation of controller hardware, lower write speeds, and possibly higher cost.
Like a cloth? For wiping servers?
The mobile version of the website doesn't have a preview function, you nitwit.
I bet that Gary Johnson knows how to spell "Crimea", though.
Government restrictions of this thing are a problem, therefore the solution is more government restrictions of this thing!
I had something for this.
Oh, right, a brain.