If 500 eyes looked thru 30k of my emails they'd find POTENTIAL inconsistencies in my statements also that could be compiled together to make me look bad. I've had shit like that happen before when somebody was hellbent to get me fired because they wanted my position.
she changed her story several more times [on device quantity issue]
Do you have evidence of this to present?
It's now clear that that explanation was pure, deliberate fiction.
Sorry, but it's not clear to me. The scenarios I laid out are plausible. You have not logically proved them impossible. Take some logic courses.
The FBI director says that her assertions about having asked for and received such approvals were "untrue" - they never happened. It goes on and on.
It has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt she was not given verbal approval. Verbal approval is not recorded. A criminal prosecutor would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she never had received verbal approval. That's a really tall order if you stop to think about it.
Anyhow, those are issues about State Dept. policies. State Dept. policies are NOT law.
You've presented zero evidence of your assertion that the current administration is not prosecuting due to bias. The past case history challenge the Director gave and I reminded you of still stands.
Nobody has been successfully prosecuted for 50 odd years for merely being sloppy with classified info (except perhaps a no-name dude who can't afford decent lawyers.)
O has not been in the Whitehouse for 50 years so you cannot blame the 42 year gap on him.
Is someone so spectacularly incompetent, careless, forgetful, and unable to judge the hiring of underlings to the point...
Like I said above, if an army combed thru 30k of my emails, they'd find a handful of typos and mistakes also. The problems directly attributed to H by the Director were small in number. That's within the normal purview of human error.
Perhaps she should have asked for assistance in reviewing messages.
I'm not saying she's great, but The Donald has shown no propensity for details either. At least H knows how to be mostly careful with speech. The Donald not shown he's careful with ANYTHING.
It's a choice between C- and F.
GOP should have ran Kasinich, but they flubbed it for the Carnival Barker.
First, she made the decision early in her SOS position. Maybe the other devices were not yet assigned. The main point would still remain that 4 devices are better than 5 later on etc (all things being equal).
Second, the device quantity has nothing to do with secrecy laws. You are wandering off topic. The FBI investigated mishandling of classified material, NOT device quantity.
Maybe she used a max of 7 devices but averaged 2.3. We don't know, we don't have that detail of what was used when. Why yap withOUT detail? Get details, facts, and numbers and THEN yap.
I make factual errors all the time, and most are NOT lies. Some are due to carelessness, such as not double-checking, some are due to receiving incorrect information from others, and some are due to misinterpreting text because English is inherently vague and/or one context can be mistaken for another.
Work-related emails are often terse and assume prior work knowledge, domain lingo, and/or context.
This is "Office Life 101", I shouldn't have to explain it. Normal people know all this.
Reread your original post where you said "lying about". The Director said that NO clear evidence of intentional misconduct was found. Being sloppy is not "lying" to normal English users. I'm not condoning her sloppy behavior here, just pointing out that your claim as written has no evidence behind it. You are sloppy also, ironically.
You seem to miss that HRC is not the DNC. Why would the DNC having poor network security have anything to do with Clinton, or reflect on her at all?
One could argue that ultimately the prez is held responsible by the public for just about everything regardless of whether they had direct control over it or not because they always have at least indirect influence. It's the old famous "The Buck Stops Here" situation.
That's fine, as long as applied evenly, such that Trump gets blamed for plagiarizing by the RNC speakers, for example.
My Windows 7 Home-Premium PC had a process called scvhost.exe that was running full core CPU-wise. I eventually found it's related to the Windows Update service, and switched off updates.
Before that I applied all kinds of alleged fixes and patches without success. Some suggested it's related to the "encouraged" Windows 10 upgrading process.
What the h8ll is it doing so long that hogs an entire core? I don't see a lot of disk activity from it. Anybody else encountered this and studied the guts by chance?
Who said "working with"? I found no claim of the GOP working with Russia to pull off the hack. So far the DNC claim is that Russia hacked or backed the hacks because Russia wants Trump to win.
Trump has talked about dismantling or shrinking NATO, which Russia would be happy with. GOP doesn't have to be involved for Russia to make such a conclusion.
What happens if a country breeds a superior "economic race" and starts kicking our ass economically? I don't think we'd want to stay as is, or else they'd kick our ass in war.
There's some evidence that the human brain is optimized for efficiency over computational power because famine repeatedly puts a lot of evolutionary pressure on efficiency and conservation. With some genetic engineering, brains may be more wasteful calorie-wise, but much smarter.
Manufacturing brought product after product into the purchasing ability of common man that he either could never have afforded
Perhaps so, but that's a different issue. I'm talking about jobs and the general economy.
We know that's not true from decades of deflationary pressure in Japan.
Japan has not directly tried HM.
you can't create demand for money by increasing the supply.
Demand for money? Who's talking about demand for money?
politicians not giving a shit about any problem they could kick down the road.
The problem is voters then, not the gov't. GIGO. But that doesn't change my point that if you reduce pensions you'll have to increase salaries, trading one expenditure for another. (Local gov't pensions should be federally regulated in my opinion to ensure they are properly funded. It becomes a national problem if lots of local govt's make the same mistake.)
jobs at the federal level now typically pay more than the private sector
I call false on that. There may have been more parity of late because private sector wages have stagnated since the early 2000's.
Everything's obvious in hindsight, but no one saw (or very few) what was coming, jobwise, until we were well into ramping up those new jobs.
Do you have any evidence of this? When cars replaced horses, automobiles presented manufacture, repair, and refueling jobs almost immediately. It's true horse experts probably fell on bad times, but in general, new car-related jobs were already appearing and booming.
When factories started disappearing overseas in the late 1970's, the term "service economy" was coined for the office and food-service work that was ALREADY growing at the time.
As far as Helicopter Money, it's not so much about the money as it is circulatory pressure. I liken it to a hydraulic system. If there is not enough water pressure, then it's sluggish. You need enough pressure in the system for it to function optimally. The best economies are when inflation is around about 2.2 to 2.5% a year. We've been hovering around 1.8 for too long: not enough water pressure in the system.
Capacity has increased via automation and more 3rd-world countries "donating" cheap labor, but there's not enough consumption to use this potential capacity because wages and jobs are sluggish. HM can close the gap by increasing the hydraulic pressure.
The vast majority of state and local taxes these days goes to pension plan funding.
Hogwash. Pensions were long common until the private sector made them unfashionable. The gov't typically pays about 15% less than the private sector, making up for it via pensions and benefits. If gov't slashes pensions, then they'll have to pay higher salaries if they want decent employees.
Deregulation and smaller gov't hasn't worked so well in Texas and Kansas. Their job picture may be slightly above average, but social services and infrastructure are notorious: they are essentially competing with the 3rd world by becoming the 3rd world.
This is just the Nth automation transition since the Industrial Revolution begun. It's no more (or less!) scary than any of them. The disaster you're predicting was predicted over and over throughout history, and it's just as wrong this time.
Past trends/patterns are not necessarily future trends/patterns.
One thing that is different is that automation in the past mostly enabled people to do more, NOT replace them. Power tools and tractors still had a human operator. Second, "office work" (AKA "service economy") started taking up the slack caused by factory automation and offshoring.
But now office work is undergoing a similar transition, and nobody can find the New Thing that will replace all the displaced office workers. Can YOU see it? The "New Thing" wasn't so hidden in the past.
The only possibility I see right now is the "customization economy" where people get customized cars, landscaping, kitchens, etc.
However, not enough people have high enough wages to afford customization. I see "Helicopter Money" (HM) theory as one possible solution.
We also have rotting infrastructure that needs repair, but no means to fund it.
It may take a combination of HM, taxing the rich, socialism, and public works to crack this puzzle.
Slashdot Mirror
"Agile" means changing jobs quickly when bleep hits the fan due to IT fads and bad management.
What's the blue screen mean? Windows is giving me one now.
If 500 eyes looked thru 30k of my emails they'd find POTENTIAL inconsistencies in my statements also that could be compiled together to make me look bad. I've had shit like that happen before when somebody was hellbent to get me fired because they wanted my position.
Do you have evidence of this to present?
Sorry, but it's not clear to me. The scenarios I laid out are plausible. You have not logically proved them impossible. Take some logic courses.
It has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt she was not given verbal approval. Verbal approval is not recorded. A criminal prosecutor would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she never had received verbal approval. That's a really tall order if you stop to think about it.
Anyhow, those are issues about State Dept. policies. State Dept. policies are NOT law.
You've presented zero evidence of your assertion that the current administration is not prosecuting due to bias. The past case history challenge the Director gave and I reminded you of still stands.
Nobody has been successfully prosecuted for 50 odd years for merely being sloppy with classified info (except perhaps a no-name dude who can't afford decent lawyers.)
O has not been in the Whitehouse for 50 years so you cannot blame the 42 year gap on him.
Like I said above, if an army combed thru 30k of my emails, they'd find a handful of typos and mistakes also. The problems directly attributed to H by the Director were small in number. That's within the normal purview of human error.
Perhaps she should have asked for assistance in reviewing messages.
I'm not saying she's great, but The Donald has shown no propensity for details either. At least H knows how to be mostly careful with speech. The Donald not shown he's careful with ANYTHING.
It's a choice between C- and F.
GOP should have ran Kasinich, but they flubbed it for the Carnival Barker.
Sue them under anti-trust laws.
Addendum
Two more points.
First, she made the decision early in her SOS position. Maybe the other devices were not yet assigned. The main point would still remain that 4 devices are better than 5 later on etc (all things being equal).
Second, the device quantity has nothing to do with secrecy laws. You are wandering off topic. The FBI investigated mishandling of classified material, NOT device quantity.
Maybe she used a max of 7 devices but averaged 2.3. We don't know, we don't have that detail of what was used when. Why yap withOUT detail? Get details, facts, and numbers and THEN yap.
"Untrue" is not the same as lying.
I make factual errors all the time, and most are NOT lies. Some are due to carelessness, such as not double-checking, some are due to receiving incorrect information from others, and some are due to misinterpreting text because English is inherently vague and/or one context can be mistaken for another.
Work-related emails are often terse and assume prior work knowledge, domain lingo, and/or context.
This is "Office Life 101", I shouldn't have to explain it. Normal people know all this.
Now they get on my lawn at 10pm. In the old days they were off it by 7.
I have literalitus. I lack the gland that allows one to "read between the lines".
"If"? That's not an accusation, but a conditional. And it's probably not from the DNC staff; they don't cuss in press releases.
Reread your original post where you said "lying about". The Director said that NO clear evidence of intentional misconduct was found. Being sloppy is not "lying" to normal English users. I'm not condoning her sloppy behavior here, just pointing out that your claim as written has no evidence behind it. You are sloppy also, ironically.
One could argue that ultimately the prez is held responsible by the public for just about everything regardless of whether they had direct control over it or not because they always have at least indirect influence. It's the old famous "The Buck Stops Here" situation.
That's fine, as long as applied evenly, such that Trump gets blamed for plagiarizing by the RNC speakers, for example.
Sorry, I could not find it. Could you please provide an EXACT quote so I have unambiguous context in order to read it? Thank You.
The Donald sided against Apple per the back-door issue. He wants to snoop on "those scary people". He ain't gonna help.
My Windows 7 Home-Premium PC had a process called scvhost.exe that was running full core CPU-wise. I eventually found it's related to the Windows Update service, and switched off updates.
Before that I applied all kinds of alleged fixes and patches without success. Some suggested it's related to the "encouraged" Windows 10 upgrading process.
What the h8ll is it doing so long that hogs an entire core? I don't see a lot of disk activity from it. Anybody else encountered this and studied the guts by chance?
Democrats have the worse luck with email. Time to switch to smoke signals perhaps?
Some poor martian will be continually shouting, "Ow! Knock it off! Ow! stop following me!..."
Who said "working with"? I found no claim of the GOP working with Russia to pull off the hack. So far the DNC claim is that Russia hacked or backed the hacks because Russia wants Trump to win.
Trump has talked about dismantling or shrinking NATO, which Russia would be happy with. GOP doesn't have to be involved for Russia to make such a conclusion.
You have no evidence of this, ScentCone; you are talking out of your ass again, as usual on Clinton matters.
The FBI director asked anyone for a case of successful prosecution of similar charges going back several decades. Nobody named any.
Perhaps our laws need updating, but that's another matter.
They want bigger Wangs.
What happens if a country breeds a superior "economic race" and starts kicking our ass economically? I don't think we'd want to stay as is, or else they'd kick our ass in war.
There's some evidence that the human brain is optimized for efficiency over computational power because famine repeatedly puts a lot of evolutionary pressure on efficiency and conservation. With some genetic engineering, brains may be more wasteful calorie-wise, but much smarter.
Now they can come in Soylent Blue and Soylent Red also.
Perhaps so, but that's a different issue. I'm talking about jobs and the general economy.
Japan has not directly tried HM.
Demand for money? Who's talking about demand for money?
The problem is voters then, not the gov't. GIGO. But that doesn't change my point that if you reduce pensions you'll have to increase salaries, trading one expenditure for another. (Local gov't pensions should be federally regulated in my opinion to ensure they are properly funded. It becomes a national problem if lots of local govt's make the same mistake.)
I call false on that. There may have been more parity of late because private sector wages have stagnated since the early 2000's.
Do you have any evidence of this? When cars replaced horses, automobiles presented manufacture, repair, and refueling jobs almost immediately. It's true horse experts probably fell on bad times, but in general, new car-related jobs were already appearing and booming.
When factories started disappearing overseas in the late 1970's, the term "service economy" was coined for the office and food-service work that was ALREADY growing at the time.
As far as Helicopter Money, it's not so much about the money as it is circulatory pressure. I liken it to a hydraulic system. If there is not enough water pressure, then it's sluggish. You need enough pressure in the system for it to function optimally. The best economies are when inflation is around about 2.2 to 2.5% a year. We've been hovering around 1.8 for too long: not enough water pressure in the system.
Capacity has increased via automation and more 3rd-world countries "donating" cheap labor, but there's not enough consumption to use this potential capacity because wages and jobs are sluggish. HM can close the gap by increasing the hydraulic pressure.
Hogwash. Pensions were long common until the private sector made them unfashionable. The gov't typically pays about 15% less than the private sector, making up for it via pensions and benefits. If gov't slashes pensions, then they'll have to pay higher salaries if they want decent employees.
Deregulation and smaller gov't hasn't worked so well in Texas and Kansas. Their job picture may be slightly above average, but social services and infrastructure are notorious: they are essentially competing with the 3rd world by becoming the 3rd world.
Past trends/patterns are not necessarily future trends/patterns.
One thing that is different is that automation in the past mostly enabled people to do more, NOT replace them. Power tools and tractors still had a human operator. Second, "office work" (AKA "service economy") started taking up the slack caused by factory automation and offshoring.
But now office work is undergoing a similar transition, and nobody can find the New Thing that will replace all the displaced office workers. Can YOU see it? The "New Thing" wasn't so hidden in the past.
The only possibility I see right now is the "customization economy" where people get customized cars, landscaping, kitchens, etc.
However, not enough people have high enough wages to afford customization. I see "Helicopter Money" (HM) theory as one possible solution.
We also have rotting infrastructure that needs repair, but no means to fund it.
It may take a combination of HM, taxing the rich, socialism, and public works to crack this puzzle.