[An] act that intentional or unintentional is a felony count for every instance.
Wrong.
but the Feds would then be going after every person who sent her classified information
I don't know why they are not, other than the "intention" bottleneck would keep coming up over and over. They were the originators of putting most the wrong info on the unclassified systems (regular generic office email) to begin with.
stocked mostly with H1-Bs and owned and ran by Indian immigrants. The way that they abused the heck out of their own countrymen
I worked with one visa worker who confided that he was paid only once every 6 months. He got his full amount, but had to budget carefully. I've seen other shady visa practices also.
I don't like Trump and didn't vote for him, but on THIS issue he is right (perhaps accidentally).
I don't think somebody should outright be fired for something like this. Fined and suspended for a few months is sufficient. People make mistakes and deserve a second chance, barring something extreme. Those punished are usually more careful than average anyhow. They are probably less likely to make more such mistakes than their replacement.
If he/she does something stupid a second time, THEN boot 'em.
I suspect H actually didn't know. Most of, perhaps all, of the "problem emails" were sent TO her by others. She wouldn't just automatically know; should she keep asking for all 40,000 sent? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? 40,000 fricken times.
It shouldn't be her job to vet them anyhow, a low-level grunt could vet them for say 1/5 the cost. As far as the "(c)" markings, those are commonly used for many different things.
Reminds me of that guy who got sacked a while back for loading SETI at Home on a bunch of servers at his work. Is it really that hard to remember that the computers at your employer's company are not yours?
Actually they belong to Europa. Don't touch them and don't land there.
When a shrinking company suddenly jacks up their prices, it usually means they are milking the short-term for all they can and don't expect to be around in the long term (at least not as a real company).
Big tech co's basically have 4 choices when they start slipping:
1. Innovate and keep up 2. Hold existing customers hostage and milk them dry before they finish migrating away 3. Sue other co's using sketchy patent claims, hoping for at least settlements 4. Wither until you are bought out by a holding co. that does nothing useful
They are synergisticly leveraging revenue opportunities by maximizing customer monetary intake to better align their customers with Oracle's enhanced and cutting-edge cloud-based strategic product pricing goals.
Again, you are mixing up two different things. I don't know how to straighten you out, I've explained it twice already. I'll let somebody else try. I fricken give up. Stay Stupid; it suits you.
The "mass fake news" was fake. But that statement says NOTHING about the accuracy of the DNC internal documents one way or another. You seem to be confusing 2 diff issues for unknown reasons.
Russia did (at least) two nefarious things: first, hacked into the DNC internal documents (or at least tried to), and second, posted mass fake news on a variety of topics in a variety of places.
I don't get it. Samsung was stung by battery problems, which should have driven sales to Apple or LG, the only other 2 big players. Tim Cook got dinged pay for flat sales. Buyers gotta go somewhere.
Maybe the market is just near saturation and all 3 phone makers over-invested or over- forecast growth.
More trades / tech schools are needed and they should not be locked in to the 4 year system.
The current 4-year system is preferred because it makes things easy for resume readers (people and machines) to know what your degree really means. A typical opening will receive hundreds of resumes; readers don't have time to figure out obscure education descriptions. If new custom types of degrees/certificates are invented, it will complicate resume reading.
"Oh look, Bob has a Snockular degree. That's nice, but what the hell is a Snockular degree?"
We'd have to come up with simple, common, and certified conventions if we want to replace or improve on the existing conventions.
I propose year-level-based system for a topic (major) and general education. The "general" level group would be for language, history, sociology, communications, art, etc.
General Levels:
1 = High-school or equivalent. 2 = equivalent to general ed. you'd get from an Associate degree. 3 = equivalent to 3 years of general ed. from a 4-year university. 4 = equivalent to the general ed. from a 4-year degree.
Topic (Major) Levels:
1 = A single training course or class. 2 = equivalent to major-related education you'd get from an Associate degree. 3 = equivalent to 3 years of major-related education from a current 4-year university. 4 = equivalent to the major-related education from a current 4-year degree.
(6 may be equiv. of a Master's degree, but I'm not sure we need 5 and 6 yet.)
A resume could then say something like: "Education: Software Programming & Engineering: level 3, general level: 2"
Other than clarifying the level 3's, it's not really much different from the existing system. But it allows a wider mix.
A typical trade school would probably give a level-3 of topic education, but one wouldn't need the general levels, although "1" may be expected or required. That would be a lot cheaper than the education for a 4 general and 4 topic level.
Employers can decide how much value they attribute to general education. I agree general ed. is good, but it's expensive.
I don't think those were teletype noises, but rather mechanical relays. If I remember correctly, the audio staff recorded sounds from different actual systems, and the newer ones didn't make enough interesting noises to use on the show, so they mixed in sounds from an older mechanical relay system, perhaps used for telephone signal switching.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong.
I don't know why they are not, other than the "intention" bottleneck would keep coming up over and over. They were the originators of putting most the wrong info on the unclassified systems (regular generic office email) to begin with.
I worked with one visa worker who confided that he was paid only once every 6 months. He got his full amount, but had to budget carefully. I've seen other shady visa practices also.
I don't like Trump and didn't vote for him, but on THIS issue he is right (perhaps accidentally).
I've learned how to throw marketers and executives a BS bone to keep them off my arse.
I don't think somebody should outright be fired for something like this. Fined and suspended for a few months is sufficient. People make mistakes and deserve a second chance, barring something extreme. Those punished are usually more careful than average anyhow. They are probably less likely to make more such mistakes than their replacement.
If he/she does something stupid a second time, THEN boot 'em.
I suspect H actually didn't know. Most of, perhaps all, of the "problem emails" were sent TO her by others. She wouldn't just automatically know; should she keep asking for all 40,000 sent? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? 40,000 fricken times.
It shouldn't be her job to vet them anyhow, a low-level grunt could vet them for say 1/5 the cost. As far as the "(c)" markings, those are commonly used for many different things.
Example:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca....
Actually they belong to Europa. Don't touch them and don't land there.
Must ... resist ... Trump ... jokes ...
Reminds me of another old joke:
Q: What's the difference between God and Larry Ellison?
A: God doesn't think he's Larry.
Well, it can offer a form of checks and balances. A constitution is an example.
When a shrinking company suddenly jacks up their prices, it usually means they are milking the short-term for all they can and don't expect to be around in the long term (at least not as a real company).
Big tech co's basically have 4 choices when they start slipping:
1. Innovate and keep up
2. Hold existing customers hostage and milk them dry before they finish migrating away
3. Sue other co's using sketchy patent claims, hoping for at least settlements
4. Wither until you are bought out by a holding co. that does nothing useful
(Not necessarily mutually exclusive.)
Don't laugh, I've seen at least 100 stupid ideas start out similarly. I always have my life-raft ready.
Examples:
"We'll just use Microsoft Access instead of a real database and save lots of time and money!"
"Relax, it might be slow today, but it'll get faster; hardware is getting increasingly cheaper and faster..."
"Relax, the deadline looks tight, but we'll be using Methodology X that I just read about, so it will go twice as fast..."
"Login prompts are too annoying, let's skip it. We all trust each other..."
"We don't need a spare server, the boss's cousin is a great sys admin!"
"Just tell the lawyers we are working on it, maybe they'll forget and go away..."
"Demo looks good enough to me, ship it!"
"Just code fast, the QA department will find your bugs for you..."
"The customer doesn't have time to answer questions, just guess and code it, and we'll use trial and error..."
"Don't worry about an actual test, the sales rep gave me his personal word all is good..."
They are synergisticly leveraging revenue opportunities by maximizing customer monetary intake to better align their customers with Oracle's enhanced and cutting-edge cloud-based strategic product pricing goals.
"Photoshop the crowds larger, or the camera gets it. -Agent Orange"
They make bullshit.
Humans are corrupt.
Again, you are mixing up two different things. I don't know how to straighten you out, I've explained it twice already. I'll let somebody else try. I fricken give up. Stay Stupid; it suits you.
The "mass fake news" was fake. But that statement says NOTHING about the accuracy of the DNC internal documents one way or another. You seem to be confusing 2 diff issues for unknown reasons.
Russia did (at least) two nefarious things: first, hacked into the DNC internal documents (or at least tried to), and second, posted mass fake news on a variety of topics in a variety of places.
Bernie was not even a registered Democrat. He should NOT expect equal treatment to a registered Democrat.
I don't get it. Samsung was stung by battery problems, which should have driven sales to Apple or LG, the only other 2 big players. Tim Cook got dinged pay for flat sales. Buyers gotta go somewhere.
Maybe the market is just near saturation and all 3 phone makers over-invested or over- forecast growth.
The current 4-year system is preferred because it makes things easy for resume readers (people and machines) to know what your degree really means. A typical opening will receive hundreds of resumes; readers don't have time to figure out obscure education descriptions. If new custom types of degrees/certificates are invented, it will complicate resume reading.
"Oh look, Bob has a Snockular degree. That's nice, but what the hell is a Snockular degree?"
We'd have to come up with simple, common, and certified conventions if we want to replace or improve on the existing conventions.
I propose year-level-based system for a topic (major) and general education. The "general" level group would be for language, history, sociology, communications, art, etc.
General Levels:
1 = High-school or equivalent.
2 = equivalent to general ed. you'd get from an Associate degree.
3 = equivalent to 3 years of general ed. from a 4-year university.
4 = equivalent to the general ed. from a 4-year degree.
Topic (Major) Levels:
1 = A single training course or class.
2 = equivalent to major-related education you'd get from an Associate degree.
3 = equivalent to 3 years of major-related education from a current 4-year university.
4 = equivalent to the major-related education from a current 4-year degree.
(6 may be equiv. of a Master's degree, but I'm not sure we need 5 and 6 yet.)
A resume could then say something like: "Education: Software Programming & Engineering: level 3, general level: 2"
Other than clarifying the level 3's, it's not really much different from the existing system. But it allows a wider mix.
A typical trade school would probably give a level-3 of topic education, but one wouldn't need the general levels, although "1" may be expected or required. That would be a lot cheaper than the education for a 4 general and 4 topic level.
Employers can decide how much value they attribute to general education. I agree general ed. is good, but it's expensive.
tastes like plastic chicken
What, they want to shoot pollution?
I didn't claim it was. I invite you to read my post more carefully this time.
I don't think those were teletype noises, but rather mechanical relays. If I remember correctly, the audio staff recorded sounds from different actual systems, and the newer ones didn't make enough interesting noises to use on the show, so they mixed in sounds from an older mechanical relay system, perhaps used for telephone signal switching.
Correction:
Finished version of the second-to-last sentence: "Election" is a more general word/concept than "voting machine".
I accidentally bumped "Send" instead of "Preview".