You're unaware of the rules and the laws involved (though since this story has been out for months, you've had time to acquaint yourself), or you are aware of them and you know you're a spinning, lying shill. Either way, aren't you just a little embarrassed?
Did she just set up her federal account to forward it to her automatically or did she start also telling people (lots of people), "Please send it to hillary@clintonemail.com?
She never had a federal account. State's IT people told her she should, and why, and she decided to ignore that. Yes, she told people, and had her underlings tell people, to use her personal address. It's just that unbelievably simple.
Right. HST-ing reacts to all sorts of released data, market conditions, twitches in reported data, rulings, currency fluctuation, and actions by the invested-in companies. All stuff that's - for publicly traded companies - exactly as available as press releases. But more quickly actionable by people who position themselves to react to it on the fly.
If people can stand the buzzing/droning sound that accompanies many soccer/(football) matches, or show up 50-thousand at a time to watch NASCAR racing (have you ever heard that?), I think the hornet-sounding hum of a performance quadcopter is pretty much a non-issue. If people can follow and cheer a hockey game, including the high speed movement of a little black puck a few inches wide, I think a bunch of 250-mm white or fluorescent quads zipping around some crazy obstacles should be easy by comparison.
Which has NOTHING to do with how illegal it already was (and had long since been) to handle classified material in such a way. But even ignoring that, she violated the law by hanging on to all of her messages, privately, for YEARS after she left her job. On her way out the door, she was supposed to hand over ALL of her stuff, so that the archivists at DoS could decide what was, and was not private vs. official information.
She was in charge of the State Department. She was the person whose judgement on sensitive matters involving international relationships, conflicts, and economics was supposed to be at the top of that entire food chain. She had teams of advisers who regularly briefed her on known-to-be-Top-Secret matters. You're suggesting that her personal judgement was so poor that she couldn't spot a classified communication - EVER - out of tens of thousands of official messages that lived on the server in her house... and yet we're supposed to trust her judgement as she aspires to be even higher up that same food chain, running the executive branch of the government, and being in charge of - among other things - the DoJ, which prosecutes people who do exactly what she did.
The Clinton family learned from experience that their political opponents have free access to dig through anything that's stored on official servers.
So? Are you saying that she knew she'd be doing things, as the nation's top diplomat, that she wouldn't want people to know about? Like, say, using the opportunity of traveling around the world on taxpayer dollars to pressure foreign governments to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars into her family business? That sort of thing?
But it isn't received simultaneously. The co-locator gets it first, before everyone else. They temporarily have information that no-one else has.
Right. Just like people who receive important documents by USPS certified mail coming out of a reporting agency in NYC would get it much more quickly in New Jersey than they'd get it in California. Why? Because the person who's bothered to keep an office or a PO box 10 miles away is going to receive stuff more quickly than the one who keeps their office thousands of miles away.
Just like it takes longer for information to make it across a few hops and into a server across the continent than it does to make it across the hall. Are you really suggesting that we slow down everyone's connections to all of the sources of financial press releases so that someone who wants to operate their brokerage out of a grass hut in Fiji using TCP/IP over Smoke Signals won't be at a "disadvantage" compared to the brokerage that invests in proximity to the industry in which they're participating?
She said so. Anybody saying anything differently is part of a vast right wing conspiracy. Unless they say "was," which is different than "is," the meaning of which depends on which Clinton you're talking to.
It's not even about the risky, lazy handling of her official government documents, or the years she waited before turning her cherry-picked selection (no official emails sent for two months while dealing with Libya, really?) from her collection over to State as she was required to - at the very latest - as she left her office. It's about how dumb she's trying to pretend everyone is, and how phony her attempt to dismiss this is - it's about as sincere as the on-demand phony southern accent (or her Urban Church-y dialect) she uses depending how how she assesses the audience she thinks she's talking to that moment. The condescension would be galling if it weren't so transparent and (you'd think!) embarrassing. But she's so impervious to embarrassment over hypocrisy or being caught lying that it really doesn't matter at this point - she's been working on not letting that bother her since before she started putting up with Bill's abuses in Arkansas.
I'm not sure what the DoJ thinks they're going to find on an Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind wiped server, though.Those drives are cleaner by now than the day they were manufactured.
The issue isn't the algorithms or access to faster computers, it's paying to receive trade data before your competitors do.
No, it's investing the infrastructure and street address that lets you see and process - as quickly as possible - the information that's simultaneously released to everyone. If we were relying only on radio broadcasts from NYC for stock press releases, would you consider taking advantage of the speed of light to be an unfair advantage? Yes, those shrewd bastards who have their radios closer to the transmitter will hear the broadcast a moment before the guy on the west coast. UNFAIR!
Since either guy can do so but there's only one edge to buy, it's a bidding war, and the person who starts with greater resources wins.
Right. If you bring more to the table than your competitor, you usually do better than your competitor. Why is it you feel that's unfair? Should somebody who does LESS work, or risks less, be subsidized or otherwise granted an advantage over the person who risks more or does more? You consider THAT fair? I work my ass off. Why should someone who's not willing to work as hard be granted the same results? Let me guess: you're an "everyone is entitled to the same outcome" SJW type, right? But when you go shopping for a car, you end up doing business with the company that actually treats you better and offers you a better price, right? Why? Shouldn't you reward the inferior dealership that wants to charge you more and give you crappier service? Of course you should. Social Justice FTW!
A large portion of the stock market no longer pays dividends.
So use the very purpose of the market to reward those companies that DO, and invest in them instead of another company that you think is unwisely re-investing its proceeds back into growing the company.
That's the whole point of the market. Put your money where you want to. Mature companies pay dividends, but are less likely to increase dramatically in value. Younger, more hungry companies tend to have their stocks grow (or fall!), but hold off on paying dividends until they're well settled in. Nothing has changed in that respect for a couple hundred years, at least.
Isn't High-frequency trading just another kind of insider trading?
No. That's like saying that you should be penalized because you're smarter and can think more quickly than the guy next to you. You both can make the same arrangements to (for example) become aware of a new request for bids on some project... but because you position yourself to be able to put every available second before the due date to put together a more attractive offer, and figure out how to respond persuasively in a way that's more profitable for you than it is for the slower, dumber guy standing next to you, you'll be ahead of the game. It's not FAIR that people who take the time and invest the resources to more quickly respond to opportunities end up having more opportunities. Not FAIR! Waah!
Except, it IS fair. Because they're responding to published information, not to insider information that isn't supposed to be disclosed (yet).
In fact this secondary purpose had created an entire industry around it whose purpose is simply to make money for themselves with no interest in the companies they are investing in.
Except that the people who attempt to make money trading in stocks about which they are ignorant usually lose money.
So, I own small handfuls of shares in lots of companies, and they pay dividends. I've yet to ever sell a stock. Wait... I once sold 20 shares of GoDaddy when they spooked me with some policy or another. But otherwise, I enjoy a bit of income from dividends, and absolutely DO like the fact that stocks like Amazon and Starbucks have gone up hundreds of percent since I bought them - more than is simply accounted for by currency devaluation. The companies are far more valuable than when I bought shares, and that's reflected in the share prices. What do you mean by "used to?"
Muddle-headed politicians pandering to environmentalist wackadoos are currently running the executive branch of the government. So yes, environmentalists' agenda is very much running the regulatory process - because the regulators' boss wants the environmentalists' political support.
Some murder cases are solved, and some aren't. Let's say your daughter was in a relationship with a guy you didn't like, and you didn't like him because you had a pretty solid feeling that he and his running buddies were into some facet of organized crime, and might be dragging your daughter into it.
She disappears one day, and he's found dead, his phone nearby. Tell me you honestly wouldn't want the investigators searching for your daughter to know not just which cell towers he'd been near or to whom he'd made calls, but any other (usually abundant) details that the phone might bring to light on what he'd been up to, how and with whom he'd been communicating, etc., prior to his death.
If it's your family member that's in danger or maybe dead... yeah, to you, having more information would indeed change the world. Your world. Contemporary smart phones can shed wildly more information on a criminal's (or victim's, for that matter) circumstances than just call/tower records. Yeah, something like photo and video information may very well be present on that phone - not in the Hollywood "filmed my own murder" sense, but in the pieces-of-the-puzzle sense. Lots of details like that can be life or death clues for investigators, and the phone is treasure trove, that way, when they're trying to find (for example) your daughter.
Except that the little guy can register his works, he and his family can enjoy exactly the same duration of copyright, and pursue (as many have, to the tune of millions of dollars) punitive infringement damages in court. Your narrative is phony.
At the moment, citing those guidelines is just as likely to impact a thoughtless RC pilot as is citing Miss Manners. If they're the type who already doesn't care, they already don't care. Telling them that an agency with no ability to actually impact them in any way because of the where they are, at that moment, flying... isn't going to change baked-in jackassery one bit.
The problem is that the workflow, once you've got access to high enough level mailboxes, can be corrupted. Payment approval might be done via a two-part process in the ERP and an accompanying email, for example. Good enough social hacking, and that's that.
Once you've got key email accounts compromised, that can mean access to the ERP. Prepping the procurement chain, or faking up a contract reference becomes fairly straightforward at that point.
I wish I was wealthy enough to be defrauded of 46 million dollars...
There's no body who was that wealthy and defrauded. That was some of the operating cash of a fairly good sized publicly traded company funded by lots of investors - you might even be one of them if you own some mutual funds.
Slashdot Mirror
You're unaware of the rules and the laws involved (though since this story has been out for months, you've had time to acquaint yourself), or you are aware of them and you know you're a spinning, lying shill. Either way, aren't you just a little embarrassed?
Did she just set up her federal account to forward it to her automatically or did she start also telling people (lots of people), "Please send it to hillary@clintonemail.com?
She never had a federal account. State's IT people told her she should, and why, and she decided to ignore that. Yes, she told people, and had her underlings tell people, to use her personal address. It's just that unbelievably simple.
Right. HST-ing reacts to all sorts of released data, market conditions, twitches in reported data, rulings, currency fluctuation, and actions by the invested-in companies. All stuff that's - for publicly traded companies - exactly as available as press releases. But more quickly actionable by people who position themselves to react to it on the fly.
If people can stand the buzzing/droning sound that accompanies many soccer/(football) matches, or show up 50-thousand at a time to watch NASCAR racing (have you ever heard that?), I think the hornet-sounding hum of a performance quadcopter is pretty much a non-issue. If people can follow and cheer a hockey game, including the high speed movement of a little black puck a few inches wide, I think a bunch of 250-mm white or fluorescent quads zipping around some crazy obstacles should be easy by comparison.
Which is you being careful not to address the reality of steel buckling in the heat from fuel fires. Propaganda! Inside job! Has to have been Bush!
Except that structural steel is routinely weakened in fires. It's normal.
Which has NOTHING to do with how illegal it already was (and had long since been) to handle classified material in such a way. But even ignoring that, she violated the law by hanging on to all of her messages, privately, for YEARS after she left her job. On her way out the door, she was supposed to hand over ALL of her stuff, so that the archivists at DoS could decide what was, and was not private vs. official information.
You're wrong, and you know it. Handling classified information in the way she did has been felony-level bad for decades.
She was in charge of the State Department. She was the person whose judgement on sensitive matters involving international relationships, conflicts, and economics was supposed to be at the top of that entire food chain. She had teams of advisers who regularly briefed her on known-to-be-Top-Secret matters. You're suggesting that her personal judgement was so poor that she couldn't spot a classified communication - EVER - out of tens of thousands of official messages that lived on the server in her house ... and yet we're supposed to trust her judgement as she aspires to be even higher up that same food chain, running the executive branch of the government, and being in charge of - among other things - the DoJ, which prosecutes people who do exactly what she did.
The Clinton family learned from experience that their political opponents have free access to dig through anything that's stored on official servers.
So? Are you saying that she knew she'd be doing things, as the nation's top diplomat, that she wouldn't want people to know about? Like, say, using the opportunity of traveling around the world on taxpayer dollars to pressure foreign governments to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars into her family business? That sort of thing?
Which queue is being jumped? Transactions are run serially.
Let me guess: you think that when ten sprinters take off in a race, the guy who's faster wins because he's "jumped ahead" unfairly, right? Yeah.
But it isn't received simultaneously. The co-locator gets it first, before everyone else. They temporarily have information that no-one else has.
Right. Just like people who receive important documents by USPS certified mail coming out of a reporting agency in NYC would get it much more quickly in New Jersey than they'd get it in California. Why? Because the person who's bothered to keep an office or a PO box 10 miles away is going to receive stuff more quickly than the one who keeps their office thousands of miles away.
Just like it takes longer for information to make it across a few hops and into a server across the continent than it does to make it across the hall. Are you really suggesting that we slow down everyone's connections to all of the sources of financial press releases so that someone who wants to operate their brokerage out of a grass hut in Fiji using TCP/IP over Smoke Signals won't be at a "disadvantage" compared to the brokerage that invests in proximity to the industry in which they're participating?
She said so. Anybody saying anything differently is part of a vast right wing conspiracy. Unless they say "was," which is different than "is," the meaning of which depends on which Clinton you're talking to.
It's not even about the risky, lazy handling of her official government documents, or the years she waited before turning her cherry-picked selection (no official emails sent for two months while dealing with Libya, really?) from her collection over to State as she was required to - at the very latest - as she left her office. It's about how dumb she's trying to pretend everyone is, and how phony her attempt to dismiss this is - it's about as sincere as the on-demand phony southern accent (or her Urban Church-y dialect) she uses depending how how she assesses the audience she thinks she's talking to that moment. The condescension would be galling if it weren't so transparent and (you'd think!) embarrassing. But she's so impervious to embarrassment over hypocrisy or being caught lying that it really doesn't matter at this point - she's been working on not letting that bother her since before she started putting up with Bill's abuses in Arkansas.
I'm not sure what the DoJ thinks they're going to find on an Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind wiped server, though.Those drives are cleaner by now than the day they were manufactured.
The issue isn't the algorithms or access to faster computers, it's paying to receive trade data before your competitors do.
No, it's investing the infrastructure and street address that lets you see and process - as quickly as possible - the information that's simultaneously released to everyone. If we were relying only on radio broadcasts from NYC for stock press releases, would you consider taking advantage of the speed of light to be an unfair advantage? Yes, those shrewd bastards who have their radios closer to the transmitter will hear the broadcast a moment before the guy on the west coast. UNFAIR!
Since either guy can do so but there's only one edge to buy, it's a bidding war, and the person who starts with greater resources wins.
Right. If you bring more to the table than your competitor, you usually do better than your competitor. Why is it you feel that's unfair? Should somebody who does LESS work, or risks less, be subsidized or otherwise granted an advantage over the person who risks more or does more? You consider THAT fair? I work my ass off. Why should someone who's not willing to work as hard be granted the same results? Let me guess: you're an "everyone is entitled to the same outcome" SJW type, right? But when you go shopping for a car, you end up doing business with the company that actually treats you better and offers you a better price, right? Why? Shouldn't you reward the inferior dealership that wants to charge you more and give you crappier service? Of course you should. Social Justice FTW!
A large portion of the stock market no longer pays dividends.
So use the very purpose of the market to reward those companies that DO, and invest in them instead of another company that you think is unwisely re-investing its proceeds back into growing the company.
That's the whole point of the market. Put your money where you want to. Mature companies pay dividends, but are less likely to increase dramatically in value. Younger, more hungry companies tend to have their stocks grow (or fall!), but hold off on paying dividends until they're well settled in. Nothing has changed in that respect for a couple hundred years, at least.
There's no way a Russian missile could get hot enough to melt an airliner.
Isn't High-frequency trading just another kind of insider trading?
No. That's like saying that you should be penalized because you're smarter and can think more quickly than the guy next to you. You both can make the same arrangements to (for example) become aware of a new request for bids on some project ... but because you position yourself to be able to put every available second before the due date to put together a more attractive offer, and figure out how to respond persuasively in a way that's more profitable for you than it is for the slower, dumber guy standing next to you, you'll be ahead of the game. It's not FAIR that people who take the time and invest the resources to more quickly respond to opportunities end up having more opportunities. Not FAIR! Waah!
Except, it IS fair. Because they're responding to published information, not to insider information that isn't supposed to be disclosed (yet).
In fact this secondary purpose had created an entire industry around it whose purpose is simply to make money for themselves with no interest in the companies they are investing in.
Except that the people who attempt to make money trading in stocks about which they are ignorant usually lose money.
So, I own small handfuls of shares in lots of companies, and they pay dividends. I've yet to ever sell a stock. Wait ... I once sold 20 shares of GoDaddy when they spooked me with some policy or another. But otherwise, I enjoy a bit of income from dividends, and absolutely DO like the fact that stocks like Amazon and Starbucks have gone up hundreds of percent since I bought them - more than is simply accounted for by currency devaluation. The companies are far more valuable than when I bought shares, and that's reflected in the share prices. What do you mean by "used to?"
Muddle-headed politicians pandering to environmentalist wackadoos are currently running the executive branch of the government. So yes, environmentalists' agenda is very much running the regulatory process - because the regulators' boss wants the environmentalists' political support.
Some murder cases are solved, and some aren't. Let's say your daughter was in a relationship with a guy you didn't like, and you didn't like him because you had a pretty solid feeling that he and his running buddies were into some facet of organized crime, and might be dragging your daughter into it.
... yeah, to you, having more information would indeed change the world. Your world. Contemporary smart phones can shed wildly more information on a criminal's (or victim's, for that matter) circumstances than just call/tower records. Yeah, something like photo and video information may very well be present on that phone - not in the Hollywood "filmed my own murder" sense, but in the pieces-of-the-puzzle sense. Lots of details like that can be life or death clues for investigators, and the phone is treasure trove, that way, when they're trying to find (for example) your daughter.
She disappears one day, and he's found dead, his phone nearby. Tell me you honestly wouldn't want the investigators searching for your daughter to know not just which cell towers he'd been near or to whom he'd made calls, but any other (usually abundant) details that the phone might bring to light on what he'd been up to, how and with whom he'd been communicating, etc., prior to his death.
If it's your family member that's in danger or maybe dead
Except that the little guy can register his works, he and his family can enjoy exactly the same duration of copyright, and pursue (as many have, to the tune of millions of dollars) punitive infringement damages in court. Your narrative is phony.
At the moment, citing those guidelines is just as likely to impact a thoughtless RC pilot as is citing Miss Manners. If they're the type who already doesn't care, they already don't care. Telling them that an agency with no ability to actually impact them in any way because of the where they are, at that moment, flying ... isn't going to change baked-in jackassery one bit.
The problem is that the workflow, once you've got access to high enough level mailboxes, can be corrupted. Payment approval might be done via a two-part process in the ERP and an accompanying email, for example. Good enough social hacking, and that's that.
Once you've got key email accounts compromised, that can mean access to the ERP. Prepping the procurement chain, or faking up a contract reference becomes fairly straightforward at that point.
I wish I was wealthy enough to be defrauded of 46 million dollars...
There's no body who was that wealthy and defrauded. That was some of the operating cash of a fairly good sized publicly traded company funded by lots of investors - you might even be one of them if you own some mutual funds.