The BART was supposed to go to Marin. [...] Then Marin pulled out.
True, back then Marinites didn't want to pay the extra sales tax, and didn't want a bunch of riffraff who didn't own cars coming to their tony environs. Ironically, just a few years later, Marin practically became Tree-Hugger Central, and now they'd love it if they had fast, electric-powered public transit. Oops, too late!
So she declassified it. Now prove that isn't in her capacity as Secretary of State.
Honestly, do you really think that if she has the authority to declassify documents, the proper procedure is for her to just order someone to remove classified markings...?
insufficiently protecting information that appears not to have even been explicitly classified at the time
Long ago proven false. Some of the information was of the highest possible level of classification, "born classified" and not anything that could be mistaken for unclassified material. Things like source names and satellite photos.
And items that were classified had their classification removed before being emailed per Hillary's instruction. She had her staff / interns scan/fax shit, remove the designation, and then email it. When it hit her email it wasn't marked classified. It's the equivalent of painting over a handicapped parking spot then parking on it.
You have evidence for this claim? Perhaps a link?
An image of the email in question, from Hillary. The text says: "If they can't, turn into non paper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure." Technically, that's a federal crime punished by 10 years in prison.
Yeah...no.
all you did was prove that you are very unfamiliar with BOTH books and with each religions theological teachings of the books.
And yet, nobody in this thread has presented any evidence regarding a single, specific error I have made. Just a bunch of handwaving about how wrong I am. Your argument would be more convincing with some evidence.
And yet, you have not provided any evidence to contradict anything I wrote. Just a bunch of comically simplistic blather. Try to get beyond the generalization "you're wrong" and use some proof next time.
Thank $diety, the younger generation of Americans brought up in a Muslim have a more balanced view of their religion.
One hopes, but the opposite seems to have happened in France, for example. The Muslims who immigrated in the '50s and '60s caused few problems, AFAIK. It's their grandkids who are burning cars and supporting ISIS. Assimilation there is not working as it's supposed to.
So you're OK with Christians whose holy book advocates pedophilia and incest?
The Koran and Bible are quite different in many ways.
The Bible was written by dozens of people "inspired" by God, in a handful of languages, over hundreds of years. Very few read it in the original languages. The New Testament, centered on the pacifistic Jesus, largely supersedes* the Old. (*This is probably not the theologically-correct word, but you get my meaning.) There's lots of room for interpretation, and nearly all of the bad stuff that people cite is in the Old Testament, which very few Christians treat as central or equal to the New. (Many Bibles simply delete the entire Old Testament.)
The Koran is very different. It was (supposedly) dictated by Allah (who speaks a somewhat archaic Arabic) through Gabriel to Mohammad. Mohammad was very different from Jesus: not a pacifist but a caravan robber, murderer, and warlord. The copies of the Koran on Earth are "perfect" copies of Allah's copy in heaven. Muslims are expected to read it in the original Arabic. (Korans in translation are not "really" Korans in their view.) There is comparatively little room for interpretation.
The Koran itself is almost the opposite of the Bible: it's more peaceful in the beginning, and gets more violent later on, reflecting Mohammad's transformation from caravan robber to prophet to warlord. So you might notice that when Muslim apologists quote the Koran, they quote early passages, and when critics do, they quote later ones. But like the Bible, the latter parts are said to supersede (to some degree) the earlier parts.
In addition to the Koran being Allah's direct words, there's the problem of considering Muhammad "perfect" and a model for all Muslims: that gives you justification for child brides and cousin marriage (hence the well-documented negative eugenic effects of inbreeding in the Muslim world), slavery (ISIS has total theological justification for their sex slavery), hatred of Jews, death for gays, death for apostates, death for blasphemers, etc. And, of course, it's a central Islamic belief that Islam is destined to rule the world, with everyone else officially subjugated as second-class citizens, or converted, or killed. Which happens in every country ruled by Muslims.
You will find very little like that in the Bible, and very few Christians defend violence in the name of Jesus. But many Muslims all over the world are fine with religious violence. And mentioning these facts about Islam counts as "hate speech" in many European countries (not to mention Islamic ones)....
If you say: "Kill gays," it's hate speech, granted. But if you say: "It's a bad idea to let millions of Muslims into Europe, because their holy book instructs them to kill gays," somehow that is "hate speech" against Muslims. Even more idiotically, it's considered "racism" even though Islam is a religion and not a race.
Social engineering could also mean putting yourselves into the mind of the owner, and trying to guess his passcode. Hmmm, Islamic terrorists: How about 7284 (PBUH)?
Ah, the old "It's not censorship because it's a private company" thing that we always hear from leftists when non-leftist speech is suppressed. This is a principle of convenience, of course. Do these same people support the 1950s Hollywood (private company) blacklists of communists and fellow-travelers? Of course not! That's entirely different, somehow....
How To Lie With Statistics by Darrell Huff is an old but classic work that everyone should read. Its lessons about the ways that statistics are misused are as relevant as ever today. I read it in junior high school, but a bright 10-year-old should have no problem grasping it. It has entertaining cartoon-style illustrations, which help.
Good points, but here are a few more: 1) One party only rarely keeps the White House for three terms in a row, and the general mood of the country (and especially that of a lot of swing voters) is not: "Oh please, let's have four more years like the last eight!" 2) Trump is quite popular in New York. It's not out of the question that he could beat Hillary there.
The defenestration of Brendan Eich didn't help, either. All I have are anecdotes, but it seemed like quite a number of people were ticked off enough to stop using Firefox, including some sysadmins who said they removed it from some large installations.
Slashdot Mirror
PayPal seems to have no trouble doing business there. What are Saudi Arabian bathroom policies like? How are LGBT rights doing there?
http://www.crm114.com/algore/q...
The BART was supposed to go to Marin. [...] Then Marin pulled out.
True, back then Marinites didn't want to pay the extra sales tax, and didn't want a bunch of riffraff who didn't own cars coming to their tony environs. Ironically, just a few years later, Marin practically became Tree-Hugger Central, and now they'd love it if they had fast, electric-powered public transit. Oops, too late!
So she declassified it. Now prove that isn't in her capacity as Secretary of State.
Honestly, do you really think that if she has the authority to declassify documents, the proper procedure is for her to just order someone to remove classified markings...?
It looks like a violation of 18 USC Sec. 793 to me.
No, the mere fact that the server was used at all is a violation of the Freedom of Information Act.
Plus, erasing all those emails counts as destruction of public records. Unless anyone thinks she had thousands of emails about yoga appointments.
insufficiently protecting information that appears not to have even been explicitly classified at the time
Long ago proven false. Some of the information was of the highest possible level of classification, "born classified" and not anything that could be mistaken for unclassified material. Things like source names and satellite photos.
And items that were classified had their classification removed before being emailed per Hillary's instruction. She had her staff / interns scan/fax shit, remove the designation, and then email it. When it hit her email it wasn't marked classified. It's the equivalent of painting over a handicapped parking spot then parking on it.
You have evidence for this claim? Perhaps a link?
An image of the email in question, from Hillary. The text says: "If they can't, turn into non paper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure." Technically, that's a federal crime punished by 10 years in prison.
Yeah...no. all you did was prove that you are very unfamiliar with BOTH books and with each religions theological teachings of the books.
And yet, nobody in this thread has presented any evidence regarding a single, specific error I have made. Just a bunch of handwaving about how wrong I am. Your argument would be more convincing with some evidence.
And yet, you have not provided any evidence to contradict anything I wrote. Just a bunch of comically simplistic blather. Try to get beyond the generalization "you're wrong" and use some proof next time.
lol.. what a load of crock. You are an obvious Muslim hater..
I've read books on Islam, both pro and con. Have you? I'd like to know exactly what's a "crock" about anything I wrote.
Thank $diety, the younger generation of Americans brought up in a Muslim have a more balanced view of their religion.
One hopes, but the opposite seems to have happened in France, for example. The Muslims who immigrated in the '50s and '60s caused few problems, AFAIK. It's their grandkids who are burning cars and supporting ISIS. Assimilation there is not working as it's supposed to.
So you're OK with Christians whose holy book advocates pedophilia and incest?
The Koran and Bible are quite different in many ways.
The Bible was written by dozens of people "inspired" by God, in a handful of languages, over hundreds of years. Very few read it in the original languages. The New Testament, centered on the pacifistic Jesus, largely supersedes* the Old. (*This is probably not the theologically-correct word, but you get my meaning.) There's lots of room for interpretation, and nearly all of the bad stuff that people cite is in the Old Testament, which very few Christians treat as central or equal to the New. (Many Bibles simply delete the entire Old Testament.)
The Koran is very different. It was (supposedly) dictated by Allah (who speaks a somewhat archaic Arabic) through Gabriel to Mohammad. Mohammad was very different from Jesus: not a pacifist but a caravan robber, murderer, and warlord. The copies of the Koran on Earth are "perfect" copies of Allah's copy in heaven. Muslims are expected to read it in the original Arabic. (Korans in translation are not "really" Korans in their view.) There is comparatively little room for interpretation.
The Koran itself is almost the opposite of the Bible: it's more peaceful in the beginning, and gets more violent later on, reflecting Mohammad's transformation from caravan robber to prophet to warlord. So you might notice that when Muslim apologists quote the Koran, they quote early passages, and when critics do, they quote later ones. But like the Bible, the latter parts are said to supersede (to some degree) the earlier parts.
In addition to the Koran being Allah's direct words, there's the problem of considering Muhammad "perfect" and a model for all Muslims: that gives you justification for child brides and cousin marriage (hence the well-documented negative eugenic effects of inbreeding in the Muslim world), slavery (ISIS has total theological justification for their sex slavery), hatred of Jews, death for gays, death for apostates, death for blasphemers, etc. And, of course, it's a central Islamic belief that Islam is destined to rule the world, with everyone else officially subjugated as second-class citizens, or converted, or killed. Which happens in every country ruled by Muslims.
You will find very little like that in the Bible, and very few Christians defend violence in the name of Jesus. But many Muslims all over the world are fine with religious violence. And mentioning these facts about Islam counts as "hate speech" in many European countries (not to mention Islamic ones)....
> If you say: "Kill gays," it's hate speech
If a Muslim says: "Kill gays" is that hate speech?
Apparently not in England or Norway.
If you say: "Kill gays," it's hate speech, granted. But if you say: "It's a bad idea to let millions of Muslims into Europe, because their holy book instructs them to kill gays," somehow that is "hate speech" against Muslims. Even more idiotically, it's considered "racism" even though Islam is a religion and not a race.
The crackdown on "incorrect" thoughts is reaching absurdities. Criticize feminism on Twitter, and you'll get banned. They'll even suppress the protest hashtag #FreeStacy by disabling autocomplete for it. But somehow the hashtag #KillAllWhiteMen is nothing for the "Trust and Safety Council" to be concerned about.
A 15-year-old student in the UK visited the UKIP website in class. His teachers then reported him to the police, who interrogated him for hours.
If that isn't enough to frighten you, here's some research about how easily Google could game elections by skewing search results in favor of one candidate or another, and how Facebook could do the same with targeted ads and by deciding what shows up on your wall. And the leadership of both companies are Hillary fans. That doesn't mean that they'll do it, but they have the motive, means, and opportunity to do so. And how would we know if they had?
then why not just ask that employee what they changed it to?
Exactly. If IT changed the password, they must know the new password.
Social engineering could also mean putting yourselves into the mind of the owner, and trying to guess his passcode. Hmmm, Islamic terrorists: How about 7284 (PBUH)?
I guarantee that the same people who are "allergic" to WiFi will be "allergic" to pollen-based batteries....
The problems with adopting the "Nordic model":
1. It's based on a fuzzy and overly-rosy view of what Scandinavia is like.
2. It assumes the USA is a small, homogeneous country filled with Nordics.
Ah, the old "It's not censorship because it's a private company" thing that we always hear from leftists when non-leftist speech is suppressed. This is a principle of convenience, of course. Do these same people support the 1950s Hollywood (private company) blacklists of communists and fellow-travelers? Of course not! That's entirely different, somehow....
True, I didn't write it. Just thought this was a good time to tell it.
...and the resulting company will be known as YouTwitFace.
How To Lie With Statistics by Darrell Huff is an old but classic work that everyone should read. Its lessons about the ways that statistics are misused are as relevant as ever today. I read it in junior high school, but a bright 10-year-old should have no problem grasping it. It has entertaining cartoon-style illustrations, which help.
Good points, but here are a few more: 1) One party only rarely keeps the White House for three terms in a row, and the general mood of the country (and especially that of a lot of swing voters) is not: "Oh please, let's have four more years like the last eight!" 2) Trump is quite popular in New York. It's not out of the question that he could beat Hillary there.
The defenestration of Brendan Eich didn't help, either. All I have are anecdotes, but it seemed like quite a number of people were ticked off enough to stop using Firefox, including some sysadmins who said they removed it from some large installations.