I realise most Americans never travel more than 50 miles from their home, and so this is a non-issue, but for the rest of us it's rather handy.
Perhaps you don't realize how big the U.S is and, consequently, how much travelling that we actually do just to get around in our own states. When I go to visit my family in the neighboring state of South Carolina, the distance I drive is greater than the distance from Brussels to Bonn. I work with several people for whom a 50-mile round-trip commute is standard.
My home is in Georgia, which is *only* the 24th-largest U.S. state. Comparing it just to countries in Europe, Georgia is larger than:
Greece
Bulgaria
Iceland
Hungary
Portugal
Austria
Czech Republic
Serbia
Ireland
Lithuania
Latvia
Croatia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Slovakia
Estonia
Denmark
Switzerland
Netherlands
Moldova
Belgium
Albania
Republic of Macedonia
Slovenia
Montenegro
Kosovo
Azerbaijan
Luxembourg
Andorra
Malta
Liechtenstein
San Marino
Monaco
Vatican City
But, yes we tend to not travel to other countries very often. Personally, however, I've been to Finland, Estonia, Italy, Great Britain, and France. I took my phone to Finland, Estonia, and Italy. No problems -- used my regular T-Mobile SIM card -- unlimited data and text. It was great!
I have a Surface Pro 3 and I use it for everything I do. When I'm at my desk, I have it in a docking station with a StarTech DisplayPort Multimonitor splitter, so I have two large 1920x1200 monitors plus the Surface Pro 2160x1440 display. My system has an i7-4650U CPU, 8 GB RAM, and a 500 GB SSD. It makes for a better development machine than the HP Elitebook that I had before it. I run Visual Studio, Blender, etc. Everything that I had done before, including KDE Neon Linux via VirtualBox.
When I take it out of the docking station, it makes a very nice laptop or tablet, with a high-resolution, pressure sensitive screen for note taking or drawing (I wish I had some artistic talent). Very convenient for watching movies or reading. As a tablet, my one complaint is that the edges are just a bit too angular. Not as nice to hold as some other tablets that I've used. Maybe the Pro 4 is better in that regard, I don't know.
As a laptop, the magnetic connection keyboard could be better (I have a Pro 4 keyboard). I've had the tablet detach and fall when I've pushed the stand back to an awkward angle. But, all-in-all, this is best computer that I've ever had (and I go all the way back to a Commodore Pet).
Even worse, Michael G. Flynn, member of the Trump transition team and son of the next National Security Adviser might be a 4chan shitstain and is spreading this story just for the keks.
We need a government official to fact check this unsubstantiated allegation, right now, before these rumors get out of hand!
My question is - is the task of making a digital assistant so difficult that only large corporations can do it? I'm really amazed that there isn't a reasonably powerful, speaker-independent, non-cloud-based, digital assistant program available for a PC where the audio is processed locally.
Nothing?? Among other things, Hillary gave her maid access to a SCIF so that the maid could monitor the secure fax machine for her!! Just for this alone, anyone else would have been prosecuted. To my knowledge, the FBI reported this only about a week before the election, but it was only barely covered by the press (google search site:cnn.com "hillary" "maid" pulls up nothing relevant). This should have been reported as a bombshell. http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/c...
Portion markings are not required to make an email classified. It is the information contained that makes it classified. After review, there was a determination that many documents containing classified information were passed through Clinton's system. Part of one's responsibility as a classified information processor is to identify classified information.
No, they did find intent - they just refused to say that they found intent.
I've posted this before, but I guess that I'll have to keep reposting it every time someone claims there was no proof of intent.
Transcript of Gowdy questioning Comey. Lots of context, but note the bolded section:
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said "I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material." That is true?
Comey: There was classified information emailed.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?
Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?
Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.
Comey: That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there's no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?
Comey: No.
Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I'm not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. False exculpatory statements are used for what?
Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.
Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?
Comey: That is right?
Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent? In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve.
You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also — intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether
They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.
Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You're right. An average person does know not to do that.
This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn't say that in '08 but says it now.
She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.
So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked and you don't know whether or not she was.
And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records and yet you say there is insufficient evidence of
Not that I disagree, but how do you handle the situation where a company (many, many people) are responsible for the creation of the work (such as a movie)? If you assign copyright to every single person that worked on the movie, how do extension requests work?
It's wrong when people get hurt.
See here Alex Jones caught on tape planning terror attacks against Clinton rally: video link.
That video link shows the opposite of what you claim.
A new video investigation released Monday by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas Action shows how Democratic-aligned organizations used a tactic called 'bird-dogging' to incite violence and chaos at Trump rallies for media consumption. A key Clinton operative is captured on camera saying, "It doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say, we need to win this motherfucker."
A new video investigation released Monday by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas Action shows how Democratic-aligned organizations used a tactic called 'bird-dogging' to incite violence and chaos at Trump rallies for media consumption. A key Clinton operative is captured on camera saying, "It doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say, we need to win this motherfucker."
But he didn't make that claim. That was the inference of Politifact. They admitted that the claim was true, added their own inference, claimed that their own inference was false (on the basis of missing evidence, which means that their own inference was simply "unproven") and then somehow assess the original claim as "half true".
Using that approach, any statement can be assessed as "half true".
Percentage of Trump's coverage (during the primary) that was positive or neutral in tone:
USA Today: 74%
Fox: 73%
LA Times: 71%
Wall Street Journal: 68%
CBS: 66%
NBC: 65%
Washington Post: 65%
NY Times: 63%
[source: shorensteincenter.org]
I wish I knew the figures for the post-Convention coverage.
It appears that the media helped Hillary get the opponent that she wanted [source: Wikileaks].
"You (Hillary Clinton) get a subpoena, and after getting the subpoena you delete 33,000 emails." -- Donald Trump
Politifact rates that a "Half-Truth" because (according to Politifact):
Trump’s timeline is correct. The congressional subpoena came on March 4, 2015, and an employee deleted the emails sometime after March 25, 2015, three weeks later.
However, the implication — that Clinton deleted emails relevant to the subpoena in order to avoid scrutiny — is unprovable if not flat wrong.
The FBI’s investigation did find several thousand emails among those deleted that were work-related and should have been turned over to the State Department. However, FBI Director James Comey said in a July 2016 statement that the FBI investigation "found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them."
That's absurd. First of all, you don't fact check on an implication, it was a very straight-forward statement of fact. Secondly, the FBI finding "no evidence" doesn't even prove the implication false.
Slashdot Mirror
I realise most Americans never travel more than 50 miles from their home, and so this is a non-issue, but for the rest of us it's rather handy.
Perhaps you don't realize how big the U.S is and, consequently, how much travelling that we actually do just to get around in our own states. When I go to visit my family in the neighboring state of South Carolina, the distance I drive is greater than the distance from Brussels to Bonn. I work with several people for whom a 50-mile round-trip commute is standard.
My home is in Georgia, which is *only* the 24th-largest U.S. state. Comparing it just to countries in Europe, Georgia is larger than:
Greece
Bulgaria
Iceland
Hungary
Portugal
Austria
Czech Republic
Serbia
Ireland
Lithuania
Latvia
Croatia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Slovakia
Estonia
Denmark
Switzerland
Netherlands
Moldova
Belgium
Albania
Republic of Macedonia
Slovenia
Montenegro
Kosovo
Azerbaijan
Luxembourg
Andorra
Malta
Liechtenstein
San Marino
Monaco
Vatican City
But, yes we tend to not travel to other countries very often. Personally, however, I've been to Finland, Estonia, Italy, Great Britain, and France. I took my phone to Finland, Estonia, and Italy. No problems -- used my regular T-Mobile SIM card -- unlimited data and text. It was great!
Plus, she regularly brought her maid (with no clearance) into a SCIF so that the maid could monitor a secure fax machine!!
Aha! Very good.
Pfft. You'd need some kind of, I don't know, "International Network" to do that.
By the way that you have stated this, it appears that you think that the term "internet" is shorthand for "International Network". It is not.
I have a Surface Pro 3 and I use it for everything I do. When I'm at my desk, I have it in a docking station with a StarTech DisplayPort Multimonitor splitter, so I have two large 1920x1200 monitors plus the Surface Pro 2160x1440 display. My system has an i7-4650U CPU, 8 GB RAM, and a 500 GB SSD. It makes for a better development machine than the HP Elitebook that I had before it. I run Visual Studio, Blender, etc. Everything that I had done before, including KDE Neon Linux via VirtualBox.
When I take it out of the docking station, it makes a very nice laptop or tablet, with a high-resolution, pressure sensitive screen for note taking or drawing (I wish I had some artistic talent). Very convenient for watching movies or reading. As a tablet, my one complaint is that the edges are just a bit too angular. Not as nice to hold as some other tablets that I've used. Maybe the Pro 4 is better in that regard, I don't know.
As a laptop, the magnetic connection keyboard could be better (I have a Pro 4 keyboard). I've had the tablet detach and fall when I've pushed the stand back to an awkward angle. But, all-in-all, this is best computer that I've ever had (and I go all the way back to a Commodore Pet).
Try xonsh (http://xon.sh). Python as shell, so you get objects. Pretty cool.
Sorry, until Snopes covers it, or a government official verifies it, this allegation must remain "Fake News".
Even worse, Michael G. Flynn, member of the Trump transition team and son of the next National Security Adviser might be a 4chan shitstain and is spreading this story just for the keks.
We need a government official to fact check this unsubstantiated allegation, right now, before these rumors get out of hand!
My question is - is the task of making a digital assistant so difficult that only large corporations can do it? I'm really amazed that there isn't a reasonably powerful, speaker-independent, non-cloud-based, digital assistant program available for a PC where the audio is processed locally.
Why do you have to debunk something that hasn't yet been proven?
???
Really?
Sourced from FBI notes. That would be a pretty bold claim for the NY Post to get wrong.
How about repeatedly bringing her maid into a SCIF so that she could monitor a secure fax machine? http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/c...
Those that would trade liberty for security get none and deserve neither. Thomas Jefferson said it best.
Even better than Benjamin Franklin?
Nothing?? Among other things, Hillary gave her maid access to a SCIF so that the maid could monitor the secure fax machine for her!! Just for this alone, anyone else would have been prosecuted. To my knowledge, the FBI reported this only about a week before the election, but it was only barely covered by the press (google search site:cnn.com "hillary" "maid" pulls up nothing relevant). This should have been reported as a bombshell. http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/c...
Not a Trump supporter, but I'll start. From the summary:
Trump's ignorance about tech and telecom policy was on full display throughout the election season.
I guess this is supposed to be weighed against Clinton's tech acumen - "Like with a cloth?"
Portion markings are not required to make an email classified. It is the information contained that makes it classified. After review, there was a determination that many documents containing classified information were passed through Clinton's system. Part of one's responsibility as a classified information processor is to identify classified information.
No, they did find intent - they just refused to say that they found intent.
I've posted this before, but I guess that I'll have to keep reposting it every time someone claims there was no proof of intent.
Transcript of Gowdy questioning Comey. Lots of context, but note the bolded section:
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said "I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material." That is true?
Comey: There was classified information emailed.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?
Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?
Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.
Comey: That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there's no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?
Comey: No.
Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I'm not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. False exculpatory statements are used for what?
Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.
Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?
Comey: That is right?
Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent? In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve. You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also — intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.
Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You're right. An average person does know not to do that.
This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn't say that in '08 but says it now.
She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.
So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked and you don't know whether or not she was.
And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records and yet you say there is insufficient evidence of
Don't you have to have won some electoral college votes to be selected by the House?
Not that I disagree, but how do you handle the situation where a company (many, many people) are responsible for the creation of the work (such as a movie)? If you assign copyright to every single person that worked on the movie, how do extension requests work?
I don't absolve anybody of anything. That's quite a leap that you make!
It's wrong when people get hurt. See here Alex Jones caught on tape planning terror attacks against Clinton rally: video link.
That video link shows the opposite of what you claim.
A new video investigation released Monday by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas Action shows how Democratic-aligned organizations used a tactic called 'bird-dogging' to incite violence and chaos at Trump rallies for media consumption. A key Clinton operative is captured on camera saying, "It doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say, we need to win this motherfucker."
A new video investigation released Monday by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas Action shows how Democratic-aligned organizations used a tactic called 'bird-dogging' to incite violence and chaos at Trump rallies for media consumption. A key Clinton operative is captured on camera saying, "It doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say, we need to win this motherfucker."
But he didn't make that claim. That was the inference of Politifact. They admitted that the claim was true, added their own inference, claimed that their own inference was false (on the basis of missing evidence, which means that their own inference was simply "unproven") and then somehow assess the original claim as "half true".
Using that approach, any statement can be assessed as "half true".
Not just NBC.
Percentage of Trump's coverage (during the primary) that was positive or neutral in tone:
USA Today: 74%
Fox: 73%
LA Times: 71%
Wall Street Journal: 68%
CBS: 66%
NBC: 65%
Washington Post: 65%
NY Times: 63%
[source: shorensteincenter.org]
I wish I knew the figures for the post-Convention coverage.
It appears that the media helped Hillary get the opponent that she wanted [source: Wikileaks].
"You (Hillary Clinton) get a subpoena, and after getting the subpoena you delete 33,000 emails." -- Donald Trump
Politifact rates that a "Half-Truth" because (according to Politifact):
Trump’s timeline is correct. The congressional subpoena came on March 4, 2015, and an employee deleted the emails sometime after March 25, 2015, three weeks later.
However, the implication — that Clinton deleted emails relevant to the subpoena in order to avoid scrutiny — is unprovable if not flat wrong.
The FBI’s investigation did find several thousand emails among those deleted that were work-related and should have been turned over to the State Department. However, FBI Director James Comey said in a July 2016 statement that the FBI investigation "found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them."
That's absurd. First of all, you don't fact check on an implication, it was a very straight-forward statement of fact. Secondly, the FBI finding "no evidence" doesn't even prove the implication false.