You FAILED the original challenge. Don't try to wiggle out now. The claim implied it was CLEARLY illegal. No disclaimers were given. The relevant law is vague and nuanced, and "gross negligence" is typically a high legal hurdle. The fact that so many politicians have screwed up email in various ways strongly suggests that hurdle would be tricky to clear in a trial. As the mock trial showed, "(c)" markers are a dime a dozen in other kinds of documents.
Sorry, I just hear a bloviating politician pretending to be the prosecution in an imaginary court case.
ZERO clear evidence was given of intent, period. If you heard otherwise, then I question the logical or linguistical functioning of your brain and suspect you either have a low IQ or are highly self-deceived due to bias.
As far as "one device", the decision over the server was made early in her tenure. She may have LATER used other devices for various reasons. R's seem to expect her to predict the future. I agree she should have been probed for more details on the timeline of that, but so far we don't have sufficient info to model exactly how the quantity of devices was analyzed in her decision process.
There is ZERO evidence of a "cover up". The FBI retrieved some of the "deleted" emails that H's team deemed "personal" originally using various methods, and there was NOTHING nefarious found in that sample. There were mistakes in reading to determine "personal", but the pattern fit sloppy reading, NOT an evil plot.
"I'm fed up with all these leaks and hacks. I'm getting my own personal email server, and it will be the best and most secure server ever because I know servers better than the generals and Zuckerbug, or whatever the hell his name is. And it will have a huuuge fire-wall, and the Fake News will pay for it!"
none of the doomsday movies i've seen even came close to predicting this mess
It's like a Batman villain became prez. If somebody had made a Batman movie a decade ago where The Joker becomes prez, people would've called it far-fetched.
People are being compensated in other ways (mainly, healthcare).
Most working people had healthcare plans from work even before ACA. Anyhow, ACA is due to a gov't program, not the economy in general.
The only reason to do so would be to mislead
You are NOT a mind reader. Stop pretending you are.
And no, it's not a "misleading statistic". It may not show the whole picture, but no ONE value can. Thus ANY single value (metric) could be said to be "misleading" by your implied standard. Think about it.
Blowing up the [early Trek] ship is such a big and irreversible decision that it originally required multiple steps by multiple officers...but by the time they get to Captain Janeway [it was one step]
Janeway's ship was "lost" out in nowhere-land. There was no Federation to inspect or enforce such rules. They probably hot-wired the ship to give her more control to be more nimble since there was no help around. It was the space equivalent of the Wild West.
Sure, blame the intern actually typing the command.
A (now retired) colleague of mine, I'll call Bob, once was a mainframe operator. An incompetent programmer used to blame his accounting application adding errors on Bob for "entering the command wrong".
It was something simple like "RUN ACCT7", but Bob was accused of doing it wrong without specifics, and formally written up for that. HR didn't know anything about computers, so it was easy to bullshit them per creating reprimands.
We'd always joke when something went wrong that "Bob pressed the Enter key at the wrong angle."
Lies. In the 30s, no one knew where the jobs would come from. They were searching desperately. But come about, they did.
War? What specific "replacement" technology are you talking about; or at least give an example.
I've give one: jets. People probably expected passenger sea-ship jobs would go down but airline jobs up because even MORE people could travel, thanks to jets. I don't know of a case where people claimed jets would result in a net loss of jobs. (Although the sea-shipping biz's were probably pissed; however, goods-trading via sea-ships went up.)
Poverty is dropping across the globe.
Let's focus on the USA for the moment to avoid an overly-broad discussion. We can revisit the world later.
Wages have fairly flat in the USA for about two decades, and the percent of adults working is also flat or down.
If somehow you could measure the volume and velocity of money traded before and after [craigslilst] I would bet you it has increased.
No, because wages haven't increased much over the last 2 decades or so. Consumers would have the same amount to spend regardless of whether they purchased via craigslist or newspaper ads.
I will agree technology gives consumer more choice, but we are discussing jobs here. Technology indeed gives us marvelous choices of widgets and goods, but so far NOT jobs and wages.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but doesn't contradict anything I've said.
Projection.
You FAILED the original challenge. Don't try to wiggle out now. The claim implied it was CLEARLY illegal. No disclaimers were given. The relevant law is vague and nuanced, and "gross negligence" is typically a high legal hurdle. The fact that so many politicians have screwed up email in various ways strongly suggests that hurdle would be tricky to clear in a trial. As the mock trial showed, "(c)" markers are a dime a dozen in other kinds of documents.
Flunkboy U B
The reasoning given can be summed up as "sophisticated hackers knew how to brake into systems configured as H's equipment was."
But most systems everywhere probably are, including the State Department's "regular" office email servers (which were breached).
Thus, I don't see it as a significant statement.
Sorry, I just hear a bloviating politician pretending to be the prosecution in an imaginary court case.
ZERO clear evidence was given of intent, period. If you heard otherwise, then I question the logical or linguistical functioning of your brain and suspect you either have a low IQ or are highly self-deceived due to bias.
As far as "one device", the decision over the server was made early in her tenure. She may have LATER used other devices for various reasons. R's seem to expect her to predict the future. I agree she should have been probed for more details on the timeline of that, but so far we don't have sufficient info to model exactly how the quantity of devices was analyzed in her decision process.
Other opinions welcome.
By the way, here's one interpretation as a mock trial:
http://econ-ecoff.blogspot.com...
Perhaps, but worth it for the fun of all having Don King hair.
Maybe they are fried. It would explain how that xenophobic Orange Toddler got elected by the masses.
So if somebody sent classified info TO me using my own server, I myself would be performing in illegal act JUST by receiving it?
Or are you inventing laws out of your anterior end?
Further, why would being on AOL versus a generic home server make any difference in existing laws? (Both suck security-wise.)
There is ZERO evidence of a "cover up". The FBI retrieved some of the "deleted" emails that H's team deemed "personal" originally using various methods, and there was NOTHING nefarious found in that sample. There were mistakes in reading to determine "personal", but the pattern fit sloppy reading, NOT an evil plot.
What specific phrase are you processing in your mind? You appear to be misunderstanding the meaning of spoken words.
"Fall off"? You, sir, take the short bus to the moon.
Is there really enough demand by the rich, or even enough rich people to justify all this?
Any idea that sounds like Instant Jetsons usually flops, or only happens gradually.
Paint me mega-skeptical. And, first give us (practical) flying cars for petesakes, Bezos. Why only help the rich?
No he did not.
I fully expect this from T soon:
"I'm fed up with all these leaks and hacks. I'm getting my own personal email server, and it will be the best and most secure server ever because I know servers better than the generals and Zuckerbug, or whatever the hell his name is. And it will have a huuuge fire-wall, and the Fake News will pay for it!"
Prove it or get modded to Hell and back. The State Dept. policy manual is not law.
People exchanging old table lamps is not going to create real jobs.
I'm suggesting issues the writers may have considered. If you don't like reading speculation on such, don't read it.
It's like a Batman villain became prez. If somebody had made a Batman movie a decade ago where The Joker becomes prez, people would've called it far-fetched.
Any non-trivial org ran by humans will be at risk of corruption. Human nature. Solution: kill all humans.
Most working people had healthcare plans from work even before ACA. Anyhow, ACA is due to a gov't program, not the economy in general.
You are NOT a mind reader. Stop pretending you are.
And no, it's not a "misleading statistic". It may not show the whole picture, but no ONE value can. Thus ANY single value (metric) could be said to be "misleading" by your implied standard. Think about it.
1. Elect Trump
2. Profit!
3. Die
I'm hoping T's fingers are too short to reach the Red Button. I'm hoping O had a collar soldered to it that only fit his long fingers.
Janeway's ship was "lost" out in nowhere-land. There was no Federation to inspect or enforce such rules. They probably hot-wired the ship to give her more control to be more nimble since there was no help around. It was the space equivalent of the Wild West.
A (now retired) colleague of mine, I'll call Bob, once was a mainframe operator. An incompetent programmer used to blame his accounting application adding errors on Bob for "entering the command wrong".
It was something simple like "RUN ACCT7", but Bob was accused of doing it wrong without specifics, and formally written up for that. HR didn't know anything about computers, so it was easy to bullshit them per creating reprimands.
We'd always joke when something went wrong that "Bob pressed the Enter key at the wrong angle."
War? What specific "replacement" technology are you talking about; or at least give an example.
I've give one: jets. People probably expected passenger sea-ship jobs would go down but airline jobs up because even MORE people could travel, thanks to jets. I don't know of a case where people claimed jets would result in a net loss of jobs. (Although the sea-shipping biz's were probably pissed; however, goods-trading via sea-ships went up.)
Let's focus on the USA for the moment to avoid an overly-broad discussion. We can revisit the world later.
Wages have fairly flat in the USA for about two decades, and the percent of adults working is also flat or down.
No, because wages haven't increased much over the last 2 decades or so. Consumers would have the same amount to spend regardless of whether they purchased via craigslist or newspaper ads.
I will agree technology gives consumer more choice, but we are discussing jobs here. Technology indeed gives us marvelous choices of widgets and goods, but so far NOT jobs and wages.