It can be marked as edited along with a link to the original text to reduce hit-and-run deceitful changes, or a "correction" section at the bottom to describe corrections.
The last thing she needs is more conspiracy theories surrounding her. One part of her is probably glad she won all six tosses, but another is thinking, "Oh great, yet another #@!% conspiracy I gotta keep answering reporters about."
I bet Fox hopes she goes all the way because it will save them a ton of money by reusing 1990's conspiracies and spin. They could fire most their staff and just replay and reread the 90's.
Hillary gave a press release somewhere (I can't find the link) shortly after that revelation where she said that cleaning the emails of their classified parts so that the unclassified portions could be distributed was a common practice, and her aide knew exactly what she meant. Her "remove heading" wording was merely shorthand, according to her, and that the aide was a fastidious person when it came to knowing how to clean per guidelines.
#1 - We don't know if they matter in this case, we don't have sufficient details.
#2 - How is one to magically know what's supposed to be classified? For example, she may receive an email that says, "The queen of Elbonia will arrive at 7pm." Perhaps that's from a classified source, perhaps not. One cannot tell by reading that fact alone. It's not "self-classifying". It's unrealistic to say she's in charge of verifying everything sent in the office. That should NOT be the job of S.O.S. anymore than the plumbing.
#3 - See #2
#4 - Please clarify. That doesn't make sense to me.
#5 - The rules at the time did NOT forbid a home server. (Politifact claims she broke the rules by not turning in copies of her server emails within a given deadline after resigning. I couldn't find further details on that. Others speculate that if she CC'd others or if a copy passed through the office server, then it's covered already as the law is written and she didn't owe a copy back. The law in question is subject to interpretation.)
Until the details come out of who sent them, when they were classified, and who should have known it was problem material, there is not much use in speculating at this point.
Also note that the "regular" office server she allegedly should have been using was NOT designed for classified info either. The same issue would still exist: classified stuff winding up on the wrong equipment. Whether anybody would then still know or care in that case is another matter.
If you actually bothered to look into the DETAILS, usually it's right-wing spin. Often it's gray areas where if you don't like her, you won't give her the benefit of the doubt and vice-versa. Politics biases people.
As far as the "Bosnian sniper" issue, it's possible she mixed up two different events in her mind. I've done it also. Human memory is an odd thing. Fortunately I'm a nobody such that my mistakes don't mean much on the world stage.
When I first saw an illustration of this thing, I thought, "WTF: it's a satellite dish on raft; those rocket scientists are projecting their vacation dreams". A lot of things have to go right in its deployment.
I wonder what happens if something goes wrong such as a jammed deployment? It's not in low-Earth-orbit like Hubble is, but further than even Apollo went.
Would they give up on it under that scenario? Scramble-rush the launch of a fix-it bot? They should start the planning now, because there's probably at least a 10% chance of deployment issues.
It would be a good test run of post-moon manned missions, but it would probably take too long to prepare such. A fix-it bot is probably more viable.
[in developing countries] lots of young people plus no money = lots of hungry manpower
That's why I've been thinking that linking to existing overseas brains to remote-control may be cheaper than AI and bot automation tuning, if bandwidth gets cheap enough.
However, hungry desperate people may also be inclined to cheat and steal for small bribes, something we wouldn't normally expect from a self-running bot.
Just hack into somebody else's bot at 2am. As long as you set it back to its original spot before the morning alarm clock and don't break the china, the owner may never know the diff. Pick an already-messy house and use the bot to clean it up. A net gain for both sides.
goombah99 says almost half the effort is troubleshooting hardware-side issues and you say it's only about 5%.
That's a big difference. Why the discrepancy? Do pro's have better simulators? Does arm-work require more hardware-side diddling than roving? (Domain differences.) Do pro's have the experience to avoid most newbie hardware mistakes?
Slashdot Mirror
It can be marked as edited along with a link to the original text to reduce hit-and-run deceitful changes, or a "correction" section at the bottom to describe corrections.
The last thing she needs is more conspiracy theories surrounding her. One part of her is probably glad she won all six tosses, but another is thinking, "Oh great, yet another #@!% conspiracy I gotta keep answering reporters about."
I bet Fox hopes she goes all the way because it will save them a ton of money by reusing 1990's conspiracies and spin. They could fire most their staff and just replay and reread the 90's.
How do they emulate drunk pedestrians?
Fickle font fiddlers forever face fiddling fastidiously for fantastically fine font fits.
Being Monday, I made the same reading mistake at first, thinking, "Wow, hackers got some powerful tools. Darth Vader would be proud."
And the third, fourth, and fifth time is our Middle East policy.
I'll change my name to "Page 7" and drive the clerks crazy if it's a short document.
"Now where the hell is page 6?"
Hillary gave a press release somewhere (I can't find the link) shortly after that revelation where she said that cleaning the emails of their classified parts so that the unclassified portions could be distributed was a common practice, and her aide knew exactly what she meant. Her "remove heading" wording was merely shorthand, according to her, and that the aide was a fastidious person when it came to knowing how to clean per guidelines.
What exactly are you asking proof of? Give a specific example.
You mean shooting at the plane, not at her specifically.
And there could have been an incident like that at some other time. Nobody's ruled it out.
Hanlon's razor
There's no evidence (released) that it was classified AT THE TIME of her receiving it. Most if not all were retroactively classified.
#1 - We don't know if they matter in this case, we don't have sufficient details.
#2 - How is one to magically know what's supposed to be classified? For example, she may receive an email that says, "The queen of Elbonia will arrive at 7pm." Perhaps that's from a classified source, perhaps not. One cannot tell by reading that fact alone. It's not "self-classifying". It's unrealistic to say she's in charge of verifying everything sent in the office. That should NOT be the job of S.O.S. anymore than the plumbing.
#3 - See #2
#4 - Please clarify. That doesn't make sense to me.
#5 - The rules at the time did NOT forbid a home server. (Politifact claims she broke the rules by not turning in copies of her server emails within a given deadline after resigning. I couldn't find further details on that. Others speculate that if she CC'd others or if a copy passed through the office server, then it's covered already as the law is written and she didn't owe a copy back. The law in question is subject to interpretation.)
Interesting you use Politifact as a source. Compare her score to those of other key candidates. Trump and Cruz score noticeably worse.
Until the details come out of who sent them, when they were classified, and who should have known it was problem material, there is not much use in speculating at this point.
Also note that the "regular" office server she allegedly should have been using was NOT designed for classified info either. The same issue would still exist: classified stuff winding up on the wrong equipment. Whether anybody would then still know or care in that case is another matter.
It depends on the nature of the problem. If a boom gets snagged, for example, it may just need a little nudge from the right angle.
I will agree that if say a system board or lens had to be replaced, then the R&D to prepare a bot for that would take a good while.
If you actually bothered to look into the DETAILS, usually it's right-wing spin. Often it's gray areas where if you don't like her, you won't give her the benefit of the doubt and vice-versa. Politics biases people.
As far as the "Bosnian sniper" issue, it's possible she mixed up two different events in her mind. I've done it also. Human memory is an odd thing. Fortunately I'm a nobody such that my mistakes don't mean much on the world stage.
"Trump" is a headline grabber. I give some kudos to the marketers who found a way to link their turbine story to Trump.
You flunked history, kid.
And their VCR's didn't flash "12:00" all day
If it costs $1 billion to fix a new $10 billion machine, it seems worth it. Better to spend 11b and have it working than 10b with nothing.
I'm frankly surprised the sky-crane thing worked as planned. It had a whole lotta critical steps. But, perhaps luck was also involved. Bleep happens.
You cannot test the entire thing under 100% real conditions.
When I first saw an illustration of this thing, I thought, "WTF: it's a satellite dish on raft; those rocket scientists are projecting their vacation dreams". A lot of things have to go right in its deployment.
I wonder what happens if something goes wrong such as a jammed deployment? It's not in low-Earth-orbit like Hubble is, but further than even Apollo went.
Would they give up on it under that scenario? Scramble-rush the launch of a fix-it bot? They should start the planning now, because there's probably at least a 10% chance of deployment issues.
It would be a good test run of post-moon manned missions, but it would probably take too long to prepare such. A fix-it bot is probably more viable.
That's why I've been thinking that linking to existing overseas brains to remote-control may be cheaper than AI and bot automation tuning, if bandwidth gets cheap enough.
However, hungry desperate people may also be inclined to cheat and steal for small bribes, something we wouldn't normally expect from a self-running bot.
Just hack into somebody else's bot at 2am. As long as you set it back to its original spot before the morning alarm clock and don't break the china, the owner may never know the diff. Pick an already-messy house and use the bot to clean it up. A net gain for both sides.
goombah99 says almost half the effort is troubleshooting hardware-side issues and you say it's only about 5%.
That's a big difference. Why the discrepancy? Do pro's have better simulators? Does arm-work require more hardware-side diddling than roving? (Domain differences.) Do pro's have the experience to avoid most newbie hardware mistakes?