with that approach, you should expect only the lowest quality software engineers, as anyone worth a shit will do something else where they won't get prosecuted.
Chinese are heavier users of smartphones because there are relatively fewer desktop computers there. For whatever reason, perhaps the cost, or space, they use smartphones instead of desktops.
No no no. You are still not gettin' it. The regular State Dept. office email system was NOT designed for classified info. There was a different system for sending and receiving classified info. It's not "email". It doesn't use email standards.
the FBI found that thousands of the records destroyed were plainly State-related work correspondence,
I don't think was "thousands". You are exaggerating. Some categorized as "personal" indeed turned out not the be personal, or mixed. However, there's no evidence it was intentional; for they were bland messages (at least those they were able to recover or re-construct).
Comey said there seemed to be a pattern to those mis-categorized: one would have to read the entire message to see they were work related such that he speculated H's lawyers probably read just the first few lines or just the title to categorize them as work vs. personal.
There is plenty of evidence of slop (by H and/or her lawyers), but so far NONE of intentional coverup or intentional false statements.
Indeed. Rube Goldberg called NASA and wanted Curiosity's landing mechanism back.
When I first saw all the steps involved, the WTF light on my forehead was flashing red. I was surprised it actually worked and had mentally prepared for a failure just before it landed. Good thing I didn't go to a betting site.
Curiosity's landing system was partly a test of "hovering" technology that will allow finer-tuned positioning in the future so that rovers don't waste time and wear roving in boring areas to get to the "good stuff".
We don't know if she conducted "all" correspondence through her own server. We don't have stats about her usage of the secret system (which is typically NOT called email). You are GUESSING.
and when ultimately subpoenaed for that information, she set about destroying federal records.
It depends whether one is looking to the future or the past. If we focus on the future, then it appears Trump is ALSO sloppy with IT.
With email being key to the campaign, it should have crossed his mind many times to make sure his own server house was in order by hiring top security inspectors to verify.
Hillary can perhaps legitimately claim nobody asked, checked, or reminded her about the issue in the course of her work. Trump can't.
There's no evidence using an outside service was outright against policy. The written S.D. policy allegedly said one has to formally get permission to do it, and that's where she went wrong.
Soviets had a lander survive for 14.5 seconds after touch down.
I'm not sure I'd label the Soviet lander "successful". It only sent atmospheric data back, and nothing decode-able about the surface itself reached Earth.
There were known dust-storms in the area. One theory is the wind swept up the parachute, still attached to the lander, and pulled it over so that it's antenna no longer pointed in the right direction.
Another theory at the time was that Mars had a kind of quicksand that swallowed probes. In case the same thing happened to the Viking landers, NASA had them automatically send a photo of a foot-pad back immediately after landing rather than the typical to-the-horizon scene photo.
In the very first photo, you can see dust fogging out the left side (it was slow-scan) because it hadn't settled yet from the retro rockets.
(Although the quicksand theory is probably wrong, later rovers did indeed have problems getting stuck in sand/dust.)
I believe on Apollo 11 a human had to take over on the landing.
If I'm not mistaking, it could have attempted to land on its own even if the astronauts had not intervened. They could have left it on autopilot. Whether it would have been successful is another thing.
Neil was avoiding a boulder field. But it's possible the landing could have still been successful even it if had landed among boulders. Obviously its highly risky, though.
There was a giant rock near Viking 1's landing site on Mars that would have toppled the craft had it landed on it. It lucked out. Viking 2 did land on a foot-sized rock and the craft was titled. But that had only a minor impact on the mission.
And since unmanned probes are cheaper, you can afford more losses (including lower national embarrassment). Thus, while humans are better at handling contingencies, they are also protecting more expensive hardware.
(It's possible to put boulder avoidance tech on auto-landing systems, but that does add to the cost.)
Slashdot Mirror
An "education" link from Goatse U will fix 'em.
Compromise: "phacking"
A state-sponsered hack group wouldn't make that mistake, would they? Maybe Trump is right and it's just a 400-pound dude in his mom's basement.
I invented the TV Note 7.
It will be released July 4th.
It's not so much "the media", but that readers solicitously enjoy hearing about pompous rich farts being waffled by their wayward robot toys.
It reminds me of McDonald's failed attempts at selling health-food: nobody wants it; buyers want Big Macs and fries.
(And no, I don't mean this kind of Big Mac)
Well, you should have given your father a ride.
go into politics
In space, nobody can hear your cluelessness.
Chinese are heavier users of smartphones because there are relatively fewer desktop computers there. For whatever reason, perhaps the cost, or space, they use smartphones instead of desktops.
Where did you get this claim?
No no no. You are still not gettin' it. The regular State Dept. office email system was NOT designed for classified info. There was a different system for sending and receiving classified info. It's not "email". It doesn't use email standards.
I don't think was "thousands". You are exaggerating. Some categorized as "personal" indeed turned out not the be personal, or mixed. However, there's no evidence it was intentional; for they were bland messages (at least those they were able to recover or re-construct).
Comey said there seemed to be a pattern to those mis-categorized: one would have to read the entire message to see they were work related such that he speculated H's lawyers probably read just the first few lines or just the title to categorize them as work vs. personal.
There is plenty of evidence of slop (by H and/or her lawyers), but so far NONE of intentional coverup or intentional false statements.
Indeed. Rube Goldberg called NASA and wanted Curiosity's landing mechanism back.
When I first saw all the steps involved, the WTF light on my forehead was flashing red. I was surprised it actually worked and had mentally prepared for a failure just before it landed. Good thing I didn't go to a betting site.
Curiosity's landing system was partly a test of "hovering" technology that will allow finer-tuned positioning in the future so that rovers don't waste time and wear roving in boring areas to get to the "good stuff".
So it wasn't properly grounded.
It may be a problem with the Matrix
Maybe if the industry valued real issues over eye-candy and buzzwords.
The name confused the math team; they accidentally used polar coordinates.
This is Murica, we guess quickly, and talk out of our ass.
His little fingers mis-typed "trumporn.com"
We don't know if she conducted "all" correspondence through her own server. We don't have stats about her usage of the secret system (which is typically NOT called email). You are GUESSING.
That's spin. You know it.
It depends whether one is looking to the future or the past. If we focus on the future, then it appears Trump is ALSO sloppy with IT.
With email being key to the campaign, it should have crossed his mind many times to make sure his own server house was in order by hiring top security inspectors to verify.
Hillary can perhaps legitimately claim nobody asked, checked, or reminded her about the issue in the course of her work. Trump can't.
There's no evidence using an outside service was outright against policy. The written S.D. policy allegedly said one has to formally get permission to do it, and that's where she went wrong.
Their batteries leeco all over you.
Chewing gum over the leak.
I'm not sure I'd label the Soviet lander "successful". It only sent atmospheric data back, and nothing decode-able about the surface itself reached Earth.
There were known dust-storms in the area. One theory is the wind swept up the parachute, still attached to the lander, and pulled it over so that it's antenna no longer pointed in the right direction.
Another theory at the time was that Mars had a kind of quicksand that swallowed probes. In case the same thing happened to the Viking landers, NASA had them automatically send a photo of a foot-pad back immediately after landing rather than the typical to-the-horizon scene photo.
In the very first photo, you can see dust fogging out the left side (it was slow-scan) because it hadn't settled yet from the retro rockets.
(Although the quicksand theory is probably wrong, later rovers did indeed have problems getting stuck in sand/dust.)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
If I'm not mistaking, it could have attempted to land on its own even if the astronauts had not intervened. They could have left it on autopilot. Whether it would have been successful is another thing.
Neil was avoiding a boulder field. But it's possible the landing could have still been successful even it if had landed among boulders. Obviously its highly risky, though.
There was a giant rock near Viking 1's landing site on Mars that would have toppled the craft had it landed on it. It lucked out. Viking 2 did land on a foot-sized rock and the craft was titled. But that had only a minor impact on the mission.
And since unmanned probes are cheaper, you can afford more losses (including lower national embarrassment). Thus, while humans are better at handling contingencies, they are also protecting more expensive hardware.
(It's possible to put boulder avoidance tech on auto-landing systems, but that does add to the cost.)