2GB? You gotta be kidding. Windows crawls with 2GB. It might be okay for 6 months or so, but if you do anything or install anything real, you'll go crazy waiting for the hard-drive.
They do offer a 4GB model for more money, but 4 should be the baseline.
The article didn't distinguish much between testing stage regulations and production stage regulations. Did Amazon have problems finding a testing area? Why not just use the big backyard of some executive or some other private property to test?
But I imagine that regulations will be sticky in Canada also if and when they want to go to production deliveries. I've seen no evidence Canada has friendlier skies for real deliveries.
I suspect it's merely a PR stunt to embarrass the USA into creating friendlier sky laws.
Ruby-on-Rails? That's yesterday's fashion. NodeJS is the latest buzz. That is until enough devs make spaghetti code out of it like they do everything else and ruin it's cred.
It's why co's still use COBOL: nobody is interested in f8cking with it such that it doesn't surprise you: it sucks consistently and sucks reliably. Predictable suckage is preferred over unpredictable suckage. Hear that Comcast?!
No, your writing is just bad and meandering and assumptive. How about you pick a specific "guilty" scenario, a "sample" email, and we'll each run that scenario through our models (assumptions/perspectives) about how Fed emails and/or the email-related laws work or don't work step by step.
Rather than make that good faith effort, she deliberately acted to keep her records from going anywhere near State's servers
You claim that, but have no solid proof.
slower method with more work involved, it reflects a deliberate choice to produce the required documents in a way that maximizes the delay...
That's merely your personal speculation based on pre-conceived notions. Maybe there is a perfectly logical reason it was done that way. For example, maybe her personal system didn't have a converter to convert messages into a digital format the judge's system can import. Without more info, I see no reason to continue to speculate on that. It's off topic anyhow as it's not about your crime claim.
Actually according to the New Yorker's Jony Ive profile, Apple requires that all its employees, engineers included, have an eye for design. They won't hire you if you're borderline autistic.
What's autism have to do with art ability? Graphics designers I've encountered, both in computer media and home decor, often have worse people skills than coders even (which is hard to achieve).
Clinton herself signed a memo to her staff reminding them that they had to use state.gov mailboxes for their official correspondence.
Hypocrisy is not a crime. You claimed a crime. Internal memos are not laws. (Peronsally, I suspect she rubber-stamped it without thinking about it much.)
Do you really think that when someone at, say, the FAA gets a FOIA request, that it's the intention or the practice for their own records people to then contact hundreds of other agencies and departments to scour THEIR records for FAA-related correspondence?
Sorry, you lost me here. What does "THEIR" refer to, FAA or FOIA.
You're essentially saying that absolutely no career archivists and investigators can be trusted to know if they've looked through stored email records, but we can trust Hillary Clinton to be 100% upright when she...
False dichotomy. I'm only applying "innocent until proven guilty". Criminal behavior of archive diggers is not the topic here. And you forgot that the investigators suggested there were problems with State Dept. archives. It could be a hardware problem; I never implied it was sabotage; I'm only saying there could be gaps in what's is available here and now based on such statements. Don't read more into what I said and invent intent and conspiracies. If they go searching for something and don't find it, it could be (at least) one of two things: 1) It never existed, or 2) the server or archive machine has a defect, bug-based, or servicer error-based gap, as earlier suspected. (They didn't say the cause of the problem.)
But the State Department disclosed on Friday that until last month it had no way of routinely preserving senior officialsâ(TM) emails. Instead, the department relied on individual employees to decide if certain emails should be considered public records, and if so, to move them onto a special record-keeping server, or print them out and manually file them for preservation.
This patchwork system, reflecting a broader confusion and slowness throughout the government as federal agencies struggle to catch up with the digital age, raises the possibility that some emails from Mrs. Clinton to other State Department officials may have been lost altogether.
(End Quote)
Thus, mere using of the State Department emails BY ITSELF would not guarentee longer-term archiving. Had she merely used the State Dept. email system (and/or Fwd/CC'd S.D. staff), such emails would have STILL been at risk of being lost. As far as what is supposed to be placed on the mentioned "special record-keeping server", I don't have any details on that. If you do, please present them.
(Side note: Ideally an assistant would assist H in doing that rather than her spending her own time deciding what needs "official" archiving. It's not something a Sr. official should spend their time diddling with. Further, it may be cheaper and more reliable to archive everything rather than pay sifters.)
She's the one who deliberately transformed convenient, searchable electronic records with context-providing header info into clumsy, labor-requiring hardcopies
So printing is a crime? Lovely. Maybe the judge wanted printed copies. Why invent PrintGate out of nowhere? Why are focusing on that? You are meandering again. Bad habit.
Her own description of her actions shows that she didn't provide State with any magical CCs of her communications with external third parties or other agencies...
Link? I don't trust your reading comprehension after you fouled up the Al Jez. quote.
The only way your lame, blithe dismissal of that can be anything other than shameless spin is if you are asserting that she never exchanged a single piece of official email with anyone in another agency, branch of government, or third party/nation.
It's too early to really know. The new CEO is feeling his way. Although he doesn't seem to wish to stir pots just yet, you never know what will happen when he gets comfortable.
And there are usually more training material, tutorials, and road-tested reference info for older stuff. Look one version back and you can get $7 books even. Established technologies don't change that much between versions such that say a book for version 7 won't be much different from the latest, version 8. You can usually find a "what's new in version 8" article on the web for the differences so that you don't have buy the latest book.
That can't be true since email didn't really exist in the 1950's. Obviously one was not required to keep every single correspondence to everybody in the paper era forever. Further, paper could be damaged from rain, fire, insects, etc.
Why the heck can't Outlook by default display a warning about such with wording similar to: "You are about to send a message to 100 or more people. Please confirm....".
I've had some embarrassing moments myself from such mistakes.
And a similar default warning for large messages or attachments.
I don't believe most AI experts outright dismiss doomsday AI; they merely think the possibility is a good ways off because they've personally seen how slow and difficult it is to get even incremental AI improvements.
We still have nothing even remotely close to a general-purpose AI (at least not beyond insect level). We are just beginning to make practical highly-specialized savants which are complete morons outside of their carefully-crafted specialty. (Then again, so is Congress:-)
Did they officially deny creating Stuxnet? I vaguely remember them saying something like "We don't comment on such as is our policy, and thus won't confirm nor deny".
Each agency/department has its own archiving systems, especially those that deal (as State does) with sensitive and frequently compartmentalized information.
Again, the relevant laws AS WRITTEN do NOT dictate which specific systems are to do the "storing". If you believe they do, then give the exact passage and demonstrate how your interpretation of the text is the One and Only Proper interpretation. Otherwise, it appears you are making up rules out of your tail end.
Why? Because two years worth of FOIA requests to State turned up no such emails.
We don't know how thorough their digging was and/or how much was lost or damaged over time. Maybe FOIA are lazy and dumping the problem onto other agencies. Gov't can be like that. If somebody wants to make a case that prior searches were thorough enough to cover everything possibly sent, they can, but I have NOT seen such a presentation. You are welcome to present such evidence. Otherwise, please don't speculate based on your impressions and personal notions about how the guts of gov't work or don't work.
Please stop wasting my time with so much idle speculation. She's not going to prison based on mere guesses and nebulous accusations of the other side.
But not a single one tucked away as a CC or BCC from Clinton's home-based private server that shows sending or receiving such mail.
Which specific item of mail are you talking about here? Please be clear about timelines, and who, what, when, and where.
Are you really suggesting that all of a secretary of state's sensitive and official communication is with her own staff? That she has no communication with people in the senate, the congress,...
Sending to the Senate and Congress would ALSO likely qualify, since they are Federal systems. It doesn't have to be only to her department's own servers. Besides, she may have CC'd or forwarded such to her department staff. Anyhow, you have presented NO clear evidence that she failed to CC/copy sufficiently to comply. I just see meandering speculation from you.
You're convinced that, for example, Blumenthal's emails are all fake? Be specific.
I have not seen them confirmed by a reliable source. It appears to be mostly right-wing conspiracy sites echoing around that story, with no concrete citations. Further, H may have forwarded a copy of them to her staff/department. There is no proof she didn't. Even IF the hacker's copy had no CC with such, that doesn't mean she didn't BCC or forward a copy AFTER sending to Blumenthal. The hacker wouldn't see such on B's box. I assumed you worked in an office before and understand forwarding and BCC.
You suggested she committed a crime, and the usual assumption is "innocent until proven guilty". Can you solidly PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt she never forwarded or BCC'd the alleged Blumenthal message? (Let it alone it's legitimacy to begin with?) Some hacker's blog is hardly crime-level evidence by itself.
Any mechanism in place to automatically mirror her correspondence with third parties. None
I never claimed there was.
So, you'd be all for what the current investigation proposed: handing her server over to completely neutral third party for forensic analysis...
That's a side issue. Let's focus on your crime allegation.
which contradict things she's saying in public
No I didn't. You just have an incorrect model of reality in your head, probably obtained from cheesy blogs. You should focus on objective info available instead of the conspiracy blog plot claims.
It requires federal officials to proactively keep their public documents available for things like FOIA searches. She actively hid her records from such searches,...
Incorrect. It requires official gov't business be saved, not "public documents". So far there is no evidence she failed to comply. She's is NOT obligated to turn over copies of personal emails (so far. A judge may rule otherwise eventually, but that's future.)
because she had not provided the records, even after she left office
Her "server dump" is bonus info. She may have copied/CC'd the proper people/servers during the course of her time as SOS, but THE ORIGINAL SYSTEM IS SCREWED UP. That's not her fault.
I will agree the retention laws were F'd up at the time, but that's not directly her fault, and even if she failed to manage IT "well", it's not a criminal act.
From a technical standpoint, to track email properly and make sure none are missing, something similar to an ACID-compliant database with unique sequential message keys would probably needed. But, the law at the time didn't require such (and seemingly still doesn't), and thus it's difficult to prove certain messages were never sent. One can prove the existence of a message under such a rickety system, but maybe not the ABSENCE of. Thus, it just may be impossible to prove that Mrs. H "never sent a compliant copy of message X" because the technology used was not just powerful enough to document and prove the "hole".
"We tried," the employee said. "We told people in her office that it wasn't a good idea. They were so uninterested that I doubt the secretary was ever informed." [emph. added]
You claimed she was DIRECTLY informed (as worded). This is why I ask for links: details matter.
if there was some sort of mechanism in place to do what the 2009 NARA and other rules required...
Those rules only specified they be stored on gov't systems, and said almost nothing about the technology and technique to do it. If she copied or CC'd gov't employees, she would be abiding by the law. I've explained this already.
SHE SAID THERE WASN'T.
There wasn't what?
It's perfectly reasonable to ask you if you found the prior investigation - which was run by HER party - to be likewise.
No it's not. The debate is not about GENERAL party accuracy. My debate points don't depend on prior partisan accuracy.
and those are the ones that show the date gaps, a matter which they (unlike her, with tens of thousand of mixed-in emails we'll never see) will be placing right in front of your nose to review.
Fine, I'll wait until they actually do so rather than rely on your or vague GOP claims. If details come out that smack her, fine. Until that happens, I'm not going to guess out of my ass.
As far as Jason Baron's comments, they are not explicitly connected to any specific text of the law. It's hard to tell if they are an opinion or not. I originally asked for specific laws, not opinions about them.
State Department IT staff are on the record having told her multiple times that her method of communicating was preventing them from archiving her official email as required.
Link to them. I don't believe you.
that somehow there was a magic link between her private server and some archiving mechanism at State?
I never claimed that. I don't know where you got that idea.
Do you consider the investigation run congress when it was controlled by HER own party (which established after spending millions of dollars looking into related things, that there were NO such records at State) to have also been polticized against her?
What's this question have to do with anything? I see no relation. And I already explained how no found records at the present is not the same as no records ever.
When the investigators looking into this say something, you and they know that they will be fact checked to death by her political operatives.
Politicians often spin for short-term gain and don't care about fact-checkers much.
In cases of private communications being mixed in with official ones, government archivists are supposed to look at ALL records
Where is this rule written?
When cornered you seem to get wordy. Please focus more instead of idle speculation about motivations. Motivation speculation is rarely useful info.
Further, the Blumenthal story appears to be hearsay only. The hacker only claims they are legit. Nobody of respect has verified the hacker's full claim, to my knowledge.
State said they had none of it, nor any record of having seen any such correspondence
They also said their records are poor in general. "We don't have a record of X" thus does NOT rule out X having existed in the past.
Investigators say that what she provided has gaps of weeks and months missing.
I can only find Republicans claiming that, not objective (non-political) examiners. Do you have a better link?
Her smart lawyer says there's no point allowing anyone with any forensic skills to look at her server to see if she's lying or not because she's deleted everything off of it.
What's that have to do with points being discussed? I didn't dispute that they (eventually) deleted it from her server.
She provided NONE of her email to State during her time there (required by the 2009 NARA)
You don't have any evidence of that.
in responding to FOIA requests, said they had 100% of nothing of hers to meet those requests.
Link? Like I said, the State Department servers happen to be in poor shape. That may be the reason the FOIA people didn't use it, NOT necessarily because H didn't follow proper notification steps. Or maybe FOIA is too lazy to sift for CC's etc.
her emails were not kept there, they were kept on her server at home.
It can be both.
She's said as much
No she didn't. Making sure a full set is available here and now is NOT the same as admitting past copies were not sent.
Making sure is simply making sure. If I make sure I've locked the car door that does NOT mean it was not locked.
Anyhow, let the smart lawyers work it out. You are not a lawyer with sufficient experience on this such that I cannot trust your judgement.
Slashdot Mirror
2GB? You gotta be kidding. Windows crawls with 2GB. It might be okay for 6 months or so, but if you do anything or install anything real, you'll go crazy waiting for the hard-drive.
They do offer a 4GB model for more money, but 4 should be the baseline.
It's those pesky Canadian drones. They should regulate those better.
The article didn't distinguish much between testing stage regulations and production stage regulations. Did Amazon have problems finding a testing area? Why not just use the big backyard of some executive or some other private property to test?
But I imagine that regulations will be sticky in Canada also if and when they want to go to production deliveries. I've seen no evidence Canada has friendlier skies for real deliveries.
I suspect it's merely a PR stunt to embarrass the USA into creating friendlier sky laws.
Let's see if we can get DroneCare through Congress.
Cars run on Perl, no?
Ruby-on-Rails? That's yesterday's fashion. NodeJS is the latest buzz. That is until enough devs make spaghetti code out of it like they do everything else and ruin it's cred.
It's why co's still use COBOL: nobody is interested in f8cking with it such that it doesn't surprise you: it sucks consistently and sucks reliably. Predictable suckage is preferred over unpredictable suckage. Hear that Comcast?!
NodeCOBOL? Hmmm...
No, your writing is just bad and meandering and assumptive. How about you pick a specific "guilty" scenario, a "sample" email, and we'll each run that scenario through our models (assumptions/perspectives) about how Fed emails and/or the email-related laws work or don't work step by step.
You claim that, but have no solid proof.
That's merely your personal speculation based on pre-conceived notions. Maybe there is a perfectly logical reason it was done that way. For example, maybe her personal system didn't have a converter to convert messages into a digital format the judge's system can import. Without more info, I see no reason to continue to speculate on that. It's off topic anyhow as it's not about your crime claim.
What's autism have to do with art ability? Graphics designers I've encountered, both in computer media and home decor, often have worse people skills than coders even (which is hard to achieve).
Hypocrisy is not a crime. You claimed a crime. Internal memos are not laws. (Peronsally, I suspect she rubber-stamped it without thinking about it much.)
Sorry, you lost me here. What does "THEIR" refer to, FAA or FOIA.
False dichotomy. I'm only applying "innocent until proven guilty". Criminal behavior of archive diggers is not the topic here. And you forgot that the investigators suggested there were problems with State Dept. archives. It could be a hardware problem; I never implied it was sabotage; I'm only saying there could be gaps in what's is available here and now based on such statements. Don't read more into what I said and invent intent and conspiracies. If they go searching for something and don't find it, it could be (at least) one of two things: 1) It never existed, or 2) the server or archive machine has a defect, bug-based, or servicer error-based gap, as earlier suspected. (They didn't say the cause of the problem.)
Here is a link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03...
(Begin Quote)
But the State Department disclosed on Friday that until last month it had no way of routinely preserving senior officialsâ(TM) emails. Instead, the department relied on individual employees to decide if certain emails should be considered public records, and if so, to move them onto a special record-keeping server, or print them out and manually file them for preservation.
This patchwork system, reflecting a broader confusion and slowness throughout the government as federal agencies struggle to catch up with the digital age, raises the possibility that some emails from Mrs. Clinton to other State Department officials may have been lost altogether.
(End Quote)
Thus, mere using of the State Department emails BY ITSELF would not guarentee longer-term archiving. Had she merely used the State Dept. email system (and/or Fwd/CC'd S.D. staff), such emails would have STILL been at risk of being lost. As far as what is supposed to be placed on the mentioned "special record-keeping server", I don't have any details on that. If you do, please present them.
(Side note: Ideally an assistant would assist H in doing that rather than her spending her own time deciding what needs "official" archiving. It's not something a Sr. official should spend their time diddling with. Further, it may be cheaper and more reliable to archive everything rather than pay sifters.)
So printing is a crime? Lovely. Maybe the judge wanted printed copies. Why invent PrintGate out of nowhere? Why are focusing on that? You are meandering again. Bad habit.
Link? I don't trust your reading comprehension after you fouled up the Al Jez. quote.
How do you conclude that, exactly?
It's too early to really know. The new CEO is feeling his way. Although he doesn't seem to wish to stir pots just yet, you never know what will happen when he gets comfortable.
And there are usually more training material, tutorials, and road-tested reference info for older stuff. Look one version back and you can get $7 books even. Established technologies don't change that much between versions such that say a book for version 7 won't be much different from the latest, version 8. You can usually find a "what's new in version 8" article on the web for the differences so that you don't have buy the latest book.
How much for scaring a neighbor via drones? I thought they were going drone.
That can't be true since email didn't really exist in the 1950's. Obviously one was not required to keep every single correspondence to everybody in the paper era forever. Further, paper could be damaged from rain, fire, insects, etc.
Why the heck can't Outlook by default display a warning about such with wording similar to: "You are about to send a message to 100 or more people. Please confirm....".
I've had some embarrassing moments myself from such mistakes.
And a similar default warning for large messages or attachments.
I don't believe most AI experts outright dismiss doomsday AI; they merely think the possibility is a good ways off because they've personally seen how slow and difficult it is to get even incremental AI improvements.
We still have nothing even remotely close to a general-purpose AI (at least not beyond insect level). We are just beginning to make practical highly-specialized savants which are complete morons outside of their carefully-crafted specialty. (Then again, so is Congress :-)
Robots are now forbidden in Indiana stores
Indeed. He made the train-wreck more interesting. If you are going to be a jerk, be an interesting jerk.
Did they officially deny creating Stuxnet? I vaguely remember them saying something like "We don't comment on such as is our policy, and thus won't confirm nor deny".
Again, the relevant laws AS WRITTEN do NOT dictate which specific systems are to do the "storing". If you believe they do, then give the exact passage and demonstrate how your interpretation of the text is the One and Only Proper interpretation. Otherwise, it appears you are making up rules out of your tail end.
We don't know how thorough their digging was and/or how much was lost or damaged over time. Maybe FOIA are lazy and dumping the problem onto other agencies. Gov't can be like that. If somebody wants to make a case that prior searches were thorough enough to cover everything possibly sent, they can, but I have NOT seen such a presentation. You are welcome to present such evidence. Otherwise, please don't speculate based on your impressions and personal notions about how the guts of gov't work or don't work.
Please stop wasting my time with so much idle speculation. She's not going to prison based on mere guesses and nebulous accusations of the other side.
Which specific item of mail are you talking about here? Please be clear about timelines, and who, what, when, and where.
Sending to the Senate and Congress would ALSO likely qualify, since they are Federal systems. It doesn't have to be only to her department's own servers. Besides, she may have CC'd or forwarded such to her department staff. Anyhow, you have presented NO clear evidence that she failed to CC/copy sufficiently to comply. I just see meandering speculation from you.
I have not seen them confirmed by a reliable source. It appears to be mostly right-wing conspiracy sites echoing around that story, with no concrete citations. Further, H may have forwarded a copy of them to her staff/department. There is no proof she didn't. Even IF the hacker's copy had no CC with such, that doesn't mean she didn't BCC or forward a copy AFTER sending to Blumenthal. The hacker wouldn't see such on B's box. I assumed you worked in an office before and understand forwarding and BCC.
You suggested she committed a crime, and the usual assumption is "innocent until proven guilty". Can you solidly PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt she never forwarded or BCC'd the alleged Blumenthal message? (Let it alone it's legitimacy to begin with?) Some hacker's blog is hardly crime-level evidence by itself.
I never claimed there was.
That's a side issue. Let's focus on your crime allegation.
No I didn't. You just have an incorrect model of reality in your head, probably obtained from cheesy blogs. You should focus on objective info available instead of the conspiracy blog plot claims.
Incorrect. It requires official gov't business be saved, not "public documents". So far there is no evidence she failed to comply. She's is NOT obligated to turn over copies of personal emails (so far. A judge may rule otherwise eventually, but that's future.)
Her "server dump" is bonus info. She may have copied/CC'd the proper people/servers during the course of her time as SOS, but THE ORIGINAL SYSTEM IS SCREWED UP. That's not her fault.
I will agree the retention laws were F'd up at the time, but that's not directly her fault, and even if she failed to manage IT "well", it's not a criminal act.
From a technical standpoint, to track email properly and make sure none are missing, something similar to an ACID-compliant database with unique sequential message keys would probably needed. But, the law at the time didn't require such (and seemingly still doesn't), and thus it's difficult to prove certain messages were never sent. One can prove the existence of a message under such a rickety system, but maybe not the ABSENCE of. Thus, it just may be impossible to prove that Mrs. H "never sent a compliant copy of message X" because the technology used was not just powerful enough to document and prove the "hole".
Your own link:
"We tried," the employee said. "We told people in her office that it wasn't a good idea. They were so uninterested that I doubt the secretary was ever informed." [emph. added]
You claimed she was DIRECTLY informed (as worded). This is why I ask for links: details matter.
Those rules only specified they be stored on gov't systems, and said almost nothing about the technology and technique to do it. If she copied or CC'd gov't employees, she would be abiding by the law. I've explained this already.
There wasn't what?
No it's not. The debate is not about GENERAL party accuracy. My debate points don't depend on prior partisan accuracy.
Fine, I'll wait until they actually do so rather than rely on your or vague GOP claims. If details come out that smack her, fine. Until that happens, I'm not going to guess out of my ass.
As far as Jason Baron's comments, they are not explicitly connected to any specific text of the law. It's hard to tell if they are an opinion or not. I originally asked for specific laws, not opinions about them.
Link to them. I don't believe you.
I never claimed that. I don't know where you got that idea.
What's this question have to do with anything? I see no relation. And I already explained how no found records at the present is not the same as no records ever.
Politicians often spin for short-term gain and don't care about fact-checkers much.
Where is this rule written?
When cornered you seem to get wordy. Please focus more instead of idle speculation about motivations. Motivation speculation is rarely useful info.
Further, the Blumenthal story appears to be hearsay only. The hacker only claims they are legit. Nobody of respect has verified the hacker's full claim, to my knowledge.
They also said their records are poor in general. "We don't have a record of X" thus does NOT rule out X having existed in the past.
I can only find Republicans claiming that, not objective (non-political) examiners. Do you have a better link?
What's that have to do with points being discussed? I didn't dispute that they (eventually) deleted it from her server.
You don't have any evidence of that.
Link? Like I said, the State Department servers happen to be in poor shape. That may be the reason the FOIA people didn't use it, NOT necessarily because H didn't follow proper notification steps. Or maybe FOIA is too lazy to sift for CC's etc.
It can be both.
No she didn't. Making sure a full set is available here and now is NOT the same as admitting past copies were not sent.
Making sure is simply making sure. If I make sure I've locked the car door that does NOT mean it was not locked.
Anyhow, let the smart lawyers work it out. You are not a lawyer with sufficient experience on this such that I cannot trust your judgement.