Comey used the words "extremely careless", which, in legal terms, is synonymous with "grossly negligent".
Case history often determines that. Do you have a law degree? And Comey is not a judge, juror, nor lawmaker. His statements are not necessarily legal declarations or conclusions.
"intent" is not "gross negligence", as demonstrated by...
How does that paragraph set demonstrate that exactly? I don't see it.
(a) appears to cover "takes" and (b) appears to cover "copies".
That's probably McAfee scanning a Java library EVERYtime the app uses a single method from one. McAfee's default settings hate Java, and the security group doesn't understand enough to fix it. Drives people bats at work.
If they did [care], they wouldn't change the location of functions from one version to the next.
Other than "the ribbon", They've been mostly the same from one version to the next in my observation.
I don't know their rational for the ribbon, but that change sure ticked off many. I saw many prior-version how-to books in the trash shortly after. Maybe they figure it's okay to do a complete overhaul of the UI every 15 years, and live with short-term grumbling.
the regulations she is subject to while serving do not require 'intent'.
Please give references to the EXACT text of such law(s). I've asked on/. multiple times, and all claimers have failed. Can you, Sir Anonymous, finally pull the sword out of the stone? [crowd gathers]
(One mentioned "gross negligence", but the common legal interpretation of that phrase is pretty much the same as "intent".)
Doesn't recognize what classified markings look like...
By some accounts, it's merely a "C." -- two characters. Comey estimated there were 3 such messages found, per question from a Senator (IIRC).
And it wasn't clear whether the content itself had classified facts, or that the markers by themselves were left in. In other words, presence of markers and presence of classified material in the same given message are not necessarily the same thing.
3 messages with "C." out of roughly 40,000? Would you catch them? Be honest.
Maybe she thought somebody mis-typed "H. C.", her initials:-)
I agree she was careless, but that's not a reason to exaggerate or accuse-without-details yourself. Two wrongs don't make a right. Don't mirror her carelessness in YOUR claims.
According to this article [washingtontimes.com],...
Sorry, but Washington Times is known for political bias and spin. My advice is either find and quote the original source of their info, or ignore them. You might as well cite a tabloid (which they arguably are).
Funny, every one of us poor bastards who actually would go to jail over a classified release remembers the briefing distinctly
Those who end up in jail over such things either somehow left an evidence trail that definitely indicates "intent", not merely carelessness, OR could not afford good lawyers. The wealthy are going to have better lawyers than us. That's life. (It's lopsided in socialistic and commie nations also, where connections are "cash".)
That being said, in my opinion it should NOT be the job of the executives (or equiv.) to micromanage usage and verification of classified info and related training. There should be a dedicated team to ensure training, along with signatures to prove such training was received, and constant monitoring of all communications to ensure classified info doesn't slip through; and if it does, initiate cleanup and investigation. (Executives would still be obligated to notify the team of all potential usages. All phone and email should probably be automatically saved for inspection.)
You WANT the top people to be able to focus on the big picture rather than the proverbial plumbing.
I'm NOT saying lack of such a team gets her off the hook, only that from an organizational management perspective, the system was broken and put too much burden-of-details on the top level. Classified material usage is too important to let busy executives self-monitor so often.
Both Donald and Hillary are spoiled by usually having "grunts" around to handle most details. Hillary was probably expecting somebody else to monitor email content* and verify server rules. Her assumptions were wrong and her bad habits were not corrected by anyone, and thus kept degenerating.
I bet it would happen to roughly 90% of typical politicians. I'd probably gradually slip also under the same circumstances. "If nobody has been complaining then nobody probably cares" is a common human foible that I've seen in every work-place I've been: big, small, public, private.
Walk a mile in Hillary's pumps.
* Some may suggest such is not possible if she uses her own server, but most of the time she probably copied at least one federal worker. (I've read it's hard to know because the State Dept. server had defective backups.)
God, I wish I could have met the guy who first suggested that name and kick him in the balls
What if a chick suggested it?
Stupid names are how open-source gains street-cred. It's why we have Gimp, PostreSql, Mozilla, and Ogg Vorbis. The more un-corporate it sounds, the better.
It's gotta sound alien, commie, and/or like medical symptoms. Extra kudo points if you cover all three.
MS Office will always be superior. Why use a crappy clone when the best is readily available?
If you mean MS-Office is more compatible with MS-Office documents (glitch-for-glitch), well, that should be obvious.
Microsoft needs competition. Without competition they get slimier and slimier, and more expensive.
And yes, MS-Office is feature-rich I will agree, but that's because they want users to get used to those features so that they don't switch brands.
The MS-Office UI is a mess in my opinion, but once you get used to where everything is, you tend to want to stick with the same brand: the devil you know.
If it works as advertised, it violates the law of conservation of energy, so its energy efficiency can be infinite.
If it "works" in practice, that doesn't mean it's understood HOW it works, only that the thing actually moves.
For example, perhaps its converting matter to energy using some poorly-understood quantum phenomenon. A small amount of matter can in theory produce a hell of a lot of energy, and this does not violate known laws. (That's somewhat comparable to the claims of cold-fusion.)
Create an Action instance then you add it to one or more controls, such as a button
It's simpler to just have the button object have an "onClick" method. Why have a middle-man object? It may help things 5% of the time, but it's better to optimize the design for what you do 95% of the time, even if it makes the 5% a little harder.
In Java controls aren't in charge of their position.
Whether they should or not would make an interesting discussion, especially in terms of whether Java's UI API's have too many middle-men objects/classes. But, it's not really related to Lambdas so I'll skip that. My example was simplified for illustration. (GUI's should have the option of coordinate-based placement in my opinion (relative to a container). WYSIWYG can be very helpful at times, yet was murdered by the dogmatic flowites.)
The OOP nature of Java's APIs allow you reuse objects in ways that are hard to manage in more dynamic languages
I'd like to see an example practical scenario.
I find web development fundamentally unnatural
Me too, the HTML-stack is a plague on developer productivity and should be replaced by a network-friendly GUI standard, as I've ranted about many times on/. but that's probably off-topic also.
Being able to add a method onto a class during runtime breaks static [compile-time?] checking. That was my first impression of your description, but I might have misunderstood it.
Why did you get that impression? The way Java is now it's messy to have methods on lower-level things. The distinction between a class and an object should be blurred. A button "instance" with an OnClick method should be easy and normal.
And inserting lambdas into a listener registry/list is adding behavior during run-time. So if adding behavior during run-time is "bad", why would it be bad to add a method during run-time (assuming I was actually proposing such) but not via lambdas? That seems like a double-standard.
And I'm not against the idea of adding a method during run-time, but in THIS case it's not needed. Perhaps a class/object can use "final" or the like to prevent future additions/changes if the designer so feels, but I've seen similar "locks" cause problems because the class designer couldn't properly foresee future needs.
so if you want the layout to stay the same but the event to change you can swap Action objects instead of creating two buttons and having having one hidden.
I'm not sure what problem you are attempting to address or prevent. I must be missing context. Perhaps an example scenario/use-case would help illustrate it.
How do you test the chips then? If it crashes, you don't know if it's the chip or Windows 10 because Windows 10 is (currently) crashy.
I suppose you could compare with Windows 10 on an older chip, but timing difference could make them out of sync such that screen-grabbing auto-tests may often fail. For example, you launch app A and then app B. App A may open before App B on chip X but the reverse for chip Y. The relative computing time for a given sequence of instructions is likely to be different between generations of chips.
Ofc in the way how a button right now is implemented the inherited fields like title etc. are likely private and you need to call a setter...
Some OOP languages allow one to call "set" behind the scenes using assignment notation. I personally find that a nice syntactic shortcut feature, especially for testing-stubs.
They are orthogonal concepts and you can only very badly mimic lamdas with OO concepts and the opposite not at all... Again: you clearly show that don't know much about the stuff you are talking about.
Show it, don't claim it. Can you present a use-case to demonstrate such? In other words, provide a practical (real world) example of something that lambda's noticeably improve upon compared to an OOP version of the same thing. (We'll try to ignore language-specific differences/limitations, but that's not always easy.)
Do you really [think] basically all new languages are introducing lamdas/closures like mad if they simply could 'improve' OO?
I do believe functional programming is in "fad mode" right now. Language designers are all me-too-ing.
Further, overhauling an OO model in existing languages without breaking existing apps may be harder than tacking on lambdas.
I believe the poster's comment was about the language itself and not code written in the language. You seem to be comparing Java coders to C# coders.
Microsoft did have existing Java implementations and code bases to learn from when designing C#, and by many accounts learned from Java's rough edges to incorporate the lessons into C#.
I couldn't get it to do it smoothly, but if it can somehow be done, that's great, and emphasizes my original point that you don't need lambdas to associate actions with objects.
I'm not a Java expert by any stretch and didn't claim be. (I don't use it at work.) BUT, my original point is more about lambdas than Java.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps she never got any. It is the government; they do fsck up
Case history often determines that. Do you have a law degree? And Comey is not a judge, juror, nor lawmaker. His statements are not necessarily legal declarations or conclusions.
How does that paragraph set demonstrate that exactly? I don't see it.
(a) appears to cover "takes" and (b) appears to cover "copies".
That's probably McAfee scanning a Java library EVERYtime the app uses a single method from one. McAfee's default settings hate Java, and the security group doesn't understand enough to fix it. Drives people bats at work.
Other than "the ribbon", They've been mostly the same from one version to the next in my observation.
I don't know their rational for the ribbon, but that change sure ticked off many. I saw many prior-version how-to books in the trash shortly after. Maybe they figure it's okay to do a complete overhaul of the UI every 15 years, and live with short-term grumbling.
Please give references to the EXACT text of such law(s). I've asked on /. multiple times, and all claimers have failed. Can you, Sir Anonymous, finally pull the sword out of the stone? [crowd gathers]
(One mentioned "gross negligence", but the common legal interpretation of that phrase is pretty much the same as "intent".)
By some accounts, it's merely a "C." -- two characters. Comey estimated there were 3 such messages found, per question from a Senator (IIRC).
And it wasn't clear whether the content itself had classified facts, or that the markers by themselves were left in. In other words, presence of markers and presence of classified material in the same given message are not necessarily the same thing.
3 messages with "C." out of roughly 40,000? Would you catch them? Be honest.
Maybe she thought somebody mis-typed "H. C.", her initials :-)
I agree she was careless, but that's not a reason to exaggerate or accuse-without-details yourself. Two wrongs don't make a right. Don't mirror her carelessness in YOUR claims.
Sorry, but Washington Times is known for political bias and spin. My advice is either find and quote the original source of their info, or ignore them. You might as well cite a tabloid (which they arguably are).
Those who end up in jail over such things either somehow left an evidence trail that definitely indicates "intent", not merely carelessness, OR could not afford good lawyers. The wealthy are going to have better lawyers than us. That's life. (It's lopsided in socialistic and commie nations also, where connections are "cash".)
That being said, in my opinion it should NOT be the job of the executives (or equiv.) to micromanage usage and verification of classified info and related training. There should be a dedicated team to ensure training, along with signatures to prove such training was received, and constant monitoring of all communications to ensure classified info doesn't slip through; and if it does, initiate cleanup and investigation. (Executives would still be obligated to notify the team of all potential usages. All phone and email should probably be automatically saved for inspection.)
You WANT the top people to be able to focus on the big picture rather than the proverbial plumbing.
I'm NOT saying lack of such a team gets her off the hook, only that from an organizational management perspective, the system was broken and put too much burden-of-details on the top level. Classified material usage is too important to let busy executives self-monitor so often.
Both Donald and Hillary are spoiled by usually having "grunts" around to handle most details. Hillary was probably expecting somebody else to monitor email content* and verify server rules. Her assumptions were wrong and her bad habits were not corrected by anyone, and thus kept degenerating.
I bet it would happen to roughly 90% of typical politicians. I'd probably gradually slip also under the same circumstances. "If nobody has been complaining then nobody probably cares" is a common human foible that I've seen in every work-place I've been: big, small, public, private.
Walk a mile in Hillary's pumps.
* Some may suggest such is not possible if she uses her own server, but most of the time she probably copied at least one federal worker. (I've read it's hard to know because the State Dept. server had defective backups.)
What if a chick suggested it?
Stupid names are how open-source gains street-cred. It's why we have Gimp, PostreSql, Mozilla, and Ogg Vorbis. The more un-corporate it sounds, the better.
It's gotta sound alien, commie, and/or like medical symptoms. Extra kudo points if you cover all three.
If you mean MS-Office is more compatible with MS-Office documents (glitch-for-glitch), well, that should be obvious.
Microsoft needs competition. Without competition they get slimier and slimier, and more expensive.
And yes, MS-Office is feature-rich I will agree, but that's because they want users to get used to those features so that they don't switch brands.
The MS-Office UI is a mess in my opinion, but once you get used to where everything is, you tend to want to stick with the same brand: the devil you know.
If it "works" in practice, that doesn't mean it's understood HOW it works, only that the thing actually moves.
For example, perhaps its converting matter to energy using some poorly-understood quantum phenomenon. A small amount of matter can in theory produce a hell of a lot of energy, and this does not violate known laws. (That's somewhat comparable to the claims of cold-fusion.)
Hey Mr. Researcher, would you like to see my Zune collection?
[SLAM]
Uh, I'll take that as a "no".
It's similar to the problem of testing lie-detectors: how do you measure actual lying, and not just poker-style lying in a lab? Poker means shit.
Telling a good whopper could get one in the slammer, so who's going to rat out their punishable sins to researchers?
And how do the researchers verify alleged lies? Dig up bodies in the forest?
It's simpler to just have the button object have an "onClick" method. Why have a middle-man object? It may help things 5% of the time, but it's better to optimize the design for what you do 95% of the time, even if it makes the 5% a little harder.
Whether they should or not would make an interesting discussion, especially in terms of whether Java's UI API's have too many middle-men objects/classes. But, it's not really related to Lambdas so I'll skip that. My example was simplified for illustration. (GUI's should have the option of coordinate-based placement in my opinion (relative to a container). WYSIWYG can be very helpful at times, yet was murdered by the dogmatic flowites.)
I'd like to see an example practical scenario.
Me too, the HTML-stack is a plague on developer productivity and should be replaced by a network-friendly GUI standard, as I've ranted about many times on /. but that's probably off-topic also.
Why did you get that impression? The way Java is now it's messy to have methods on lower-level things. The distinction between a class and an object should be blurred. A button "instance" with an OnClick method should be easy and normal.
And inserting lambdas into a listener registry/list is adding behavior during run-time. So if adding behavior during run-time is "bad", why would it be bad to add a method during run-time (assuming I was actually proposing such) but not via lambdas? That seems like a double-standard.
And I'm not against the idea of adding a method during run-time, but in THIS case it's not needed. Perhaps a class/object can use "final" or the like to prevent future additions/changes if the designer so feels, but I've seen similar "locks" cause problems because the class designer couldn't properly foresee future needs.
I'm not sure what problem you are attempting to address or prevent. I must be missing context. Perhaps an example scenario/use-case would help illustrate it.
How do you test the chips then? If it crashes, you don't know if it's the chip or Windows 10 because Windows 10 is (currently) crashy.
I suppose you could compare with Windows 10 on an older chip, but timing difference could make them out of sync such that screen-grabbing auto-tests may often fail. For example, you launch app A and then app B. App A may open before App B on chip X but the reverse for chip Y. The relative computing time for a given sequence of instructions is likely to be different between generations of chips.
in a flying car
In the old days we called them "trolls".
It wasn't an explosion, but rather a Rapid Unplanned High-Temperature Disassembly.
Well comb too flash dot, Siri.
Side note:
Some OOP languages allow one to call "set" behind the scenes using assignment notation. I personally find that a nice syntactic shortcut feature, especially for testing-stubs.
I don't know why you are talking about chips.
Show it, don't claim it. Can you present a use-case to demonstrate such? In other words, provide a practical (real world) example of something that lambda's noticeably improve upon compared to an OOP version of the same thing. (We'll try to ignore language-specific differences/limitations, but that's not always easy.)
I do believe functional programming is in "fad mode" right now. Language designers are all me-too-ing.
Further, overhauling an OO model in existing languages without breaking existing apps may be harder than tacking on lambdas.
I believe the poster's comment was about the language itself and not code written in the language. You seem to be comparing Java coders to C# coders.
Microsoft did have existing Java implementations and code bases to learn from when designing C#, and by many accounts learned from Java's rough edges to incorporate the lessons into C#.
I couldn't get it to do it smoothly, but if it can somehow be done, that's great, and emphasizes my original point that you don't need lambdas to associate actions with objects.
I'm not a Java expert by any stretch and didn't claim be. (I don't use it at work.) BUT, my original point is more about lambdas than Java.
It's often found that placebo pills help. Maybe we can use a Placebo Drive to get somewhere interesting.
The pilot episode of Trek kind of explored that; so did Onion.
Goatse cured me of that habit.