I like learning new things and I'd thought it was organics that they'd used and not spinning. I didn't read the article completely except to scan for the name for I am a lazy git. So I'll just operate under the assumption that you're correct. Although when it was on NPR I seem to recall they'd mentioned it was organics and based on the packaging and air but I could be mistaken. I didn't live in Maine but I'd already bought some of the property that I now own - I'd expected to retire here but I'd expected it to take longer. Then I got involved in some sales talks and, well, the rest is history.
By the time the company approached the credit union (a few years later) I was retired and on the board at the credit union. They were hoping to last long enough to be acquired, as I recall. (I'm pretty sure that this isn't something I can't disclose. I kind of hope not.) We declined given that they'd been peddling their wares for a while and there didn't seem to be much of an uptake and my opinion was that it was borderline retarded as anyone who wanted could just rip the DVDs to disk before they stopped functioning - they could even make multiple attempts as long as they did so reasonably quickly.
Anyhow, it's neat to think about the ideas that didn't really catch on. From a quick look, the article might be interesting...
Screw it... I'm going back to read it. I wasn't doing anything better.
Heh! I'm *never* right! I am, for once! Usually, it is my memory that is faulty.
Unopened Flexplay disks stay good in the package for about a year. But once the package seal is broken, a chemical reaction with oxygen begins, giving the owner two days to play the movie as many times as desired.
Now, I don't remember the NPR bit very well but I think they'd mentioned something about corn or a corn derivative? The article doesn't say and I'm not going to bother looking into it further. I'd absolutely not trust my memory where this is concerned. Hell, I was willing to defer to your recollection - it wouldn't surprise me if they'd had more than one incarnation though and that the method you mentioned had also been tried.
It's tempting. I've got the funding to get something of that nature started - I think it'd have to be expensive, very pricey, and would need to have people on-site in many instances so these people would have to be able to up-root and move, with a quickness, for an indeterminate amount of time. I'm really thinking the "super heroes" of IT, Comp Sci, etc...
It needs some mulling and refining but I already sold my business and retired. I'm not sure that I'd want to do much more than provision investment funds and, maybe, guide (not lead - I'm not qualified in the technologies which I'm thinking would be best suited for this). Someone, at some company, has old hardware that is an embedded system, no documentation, and the person who put it in place has long since moved on? Call Neckbeards Inc! Old COBOL and we need an up-time better than the five nines? Call Neckbeard Inc! Need a custom app and need it fast, secure, and effective? Call Neckbeards Inc!
Not just consultants but actual workers - highly qualified and absolutely the best in the industry (or really damned good). Sort of like Geek Squad except with real geeks who know their shit and are actually able to have a diverse set of skills and experiences so they can fix emergencies that can't be easily resolved. From networking, security, forensics, programming, architecture (server), mainframe work, etc... Even consulting - why not bring in the people who've worked in the field to help you set up your new data center? Pay them well and then send them on their way but - in return - get great service.
It would be imperative that the work be truly high quality and that the people involved would have an impeccable service history or at least be able to demonstrate vast sums of knowledge - even if they're just very specifically involved in one field, I guess, but we'd need a bunch.
You must not be familiar with the scarebus guy. If you were then you'd know that it was humor. The guy was, well, I guess I'll use the word epic. It was beautiful and greatly amusing. I too am of the mind that we'll need a human operator, specifically a trained operator, for quite some time with many vehicles. There are some autonomous vehicles in large shipping yards that get and deliver containers - I see that being where the market and growth will really come from - closed circuit type things.
Anyhow, 'twas humor my good sir, no need to read much into it. You should know me by now.;) It's not like I don't type enough inane drivel into/. on a fairly regular basis.
This is true. I sometimes look back at the old inventions - specifically steam. I love steam powered stuff. I got to learn how to operate and drive a Stanley over in Kingfield, Maine (with insurance and a sizable donation). To my point...
I sometimes wonder (no, kind of often wonder) if I'd have been a grand inventor back then. I look at it and it just makes sense. A lot of it is overly and needlessly complex and I've actually pondered doing some work in the field but I'm pretty lazy and I'm not sure how it would relate to modernity so I don't bother. (For instance, I've an idea for a series of weighted pressure release valves but, I digress.)
I guess, I'd like to think I'd have been a mad engineer-cum-scientist back then. I realize that's just a fantasy because, really, I've invented very little. It's mostly my hopes that I'd have thought of those things but, really, I probably wouldn't have. They seem trivial and simple now. They seem obvious. I think it was Heron of Alexandria who did the first steam "engine" and never actually turned it into work. To me, that seems obvious... Put a pulley on there or a gear and let's do something - he was brilliant with his gears by all accounts. So, it seems painfully obvious and I have to wonder how much further we'd be if many of those old inventors from antiquity had just taken their inventions one, or a few, steps further...
Of course, I do realize that I'm looking at things with a whole different perspective. I really like to think that I'd have been a maker back in the days of yore. That I'd be wiling time away in my workshop making mad things - much to the church's chagrin. Or, perhaps like Heron, helping the church con more money from people.
So, yeah, I'd like to think I'd have been great but I probably would have shoveled shit until I died from the plague or, perhaps better, been a scribe in the church. But I would like to hope that it would have been I who had founded some of the great founding principles of mathematica or even authored the early laws of physics. I don't think I'd have discovered calculus or trig but I might have done well with planer geometry or advanced algebraic maths. But, no... I'd have shoveled shit... Well, maybe I'd have been a blacksmith or something. Probably not, I'd probably have shoveled shit.
Today, well, many of you are shoveling bits or smithing them together or scribing their functions or whatnot. What great invention will you be known for in 300 years? Meh... I have some published papers. Some citations... I helped to found a new use for computers (which would have been done just fine without me). I'll be forgotten, that's okay. But I kind of wish I was the guy who realized the benefit of adding a governor to a steam engine - it seems really damned obvious to me but, again, I'm looking at it from today's perspective and with the benefit of it already having been done.
I'm a Buddhist. Not a very *good* Buddhist and sure as hell not a monk but a Buddhist nonetheless. I think the government should definitely spy on and imprison extremist Buddhists! Every last one of those zealots! Especially the terrorist Buddhists! We generally run around blowing up everything and deserve to be watched. It's for your own safety that I'm suggesting we put a tail on the Dalia Lama. Also, we should make him some tea.
You don't live on Earth? If we're limiting ourselves to 50 years and mass murder (not war) then I'd suspect the prize goes to Pol Pot and crew. They were atheists and didn't kill in the name of their religion or lack of religion. They killed for their ideology so it's not far off but it's still not specifically religious.
Meh... It won't be the first time I've broken the law. I've got a dollar or two, I can fight the case. I don't normally save images or anything but I probably will just to piss 'em off and to see how the technology works.
I was using a little hand-held Tandy with an external modem to upload content to a newspaper a long time ago when I was doing some freelance work for extra money. So, I dunno... I'm not sure where I'm going with that but I don't think you're *quite* accurate.
What has a pink/red color got to do with the application, anyhow? Perhaps you meant 'rogue?' I don't know if it is always you but this seems to be a common one for ACs. Well, I finally got bored enough to point it out. While maybe not you, 'alot' is not a word and there's a difference between fewer and less.
Well, yeah. I did mention that. They're both much older than I, too. I don't normally have a thing for old people but those two have been on my list for years and years now. I have no idea why. I've pondered this and I've yet to figure out why. It's just them. My current lady friend, sort of - long story, is around 1/3 my age so it's not like I normally have a thing for old people. I dunno... I'm horrified at the thought but it's strangely alluring. *shrugs* I'm sure I'll never get the chance to act on it.
I 'throw away' my vote because the number crunchers will eventually notice that there's an increasing number of disenfranchised who will not vote for the two leading party representatives because of all the bullshit. I've voted in the presidential elections ten times (forty years) and only once have I voted for a Democrat or a Republican. I voted for Bill Clinton during his second term - I liked Bill. I suspect I'll be 10/11 after this coming election but 9/10 is pretty good by my reckoning. I've voted for people I wouldn't even want in office (like Nader) just to make sure that those that crunch the numbers and file the reports actually see this. Hopefully the number increases and we get more choices in our representation.
I read that three times as the Donner party. I read it that many times because I was awfully confused and wondering what reference I was missing. I need to go back to bed.
Rightly or wrongly, every single law passed is a restriction on someone's rights. An example would be removing the right to own slaves - an absolutely correct law to make and an appropriate right to remove. However, we've already got a lot of laws in place. Yet the job of the legislative body is, de facto, creating more laws which means more rights eroded. Like you imply, I agree - a deadlocked or otherwise slowed legislative process is probably a good thing. I actually like that the legislators are full of (ideally) varied opinions - even if they don't match my ideology individually. Though I should say that I like the ideal, it doesn't seem to be borne out in reality.
The law in question has not changed. It has been in place since the 1920s. Ignore the whole email and server thing. The mishandling of classified information is what was illegal and there have been plenty of reports that indicate the FBI has confirmed there were, indeed, some classified documents found during the forensics. Additionally, classification is based on content (by certain people) and certain documents that should be classified must be classified by certain handlers - of which she was and was trained as one or she could not have handled the documents to begin with. She had to know the rules, she had to know how to apply the rules, and she had to know what types of information would need to be classified if they were not already.
This part of the discussion has been glossed over and ignored. As it is likely the only thing that would result in a conviction, well, I have my suspicions. However, the above can all be verified by simply doing a search for the relevant information. How much of what is reported and is actually factual is up to you to determine for yourself. I've nary a nickel invested - I will not be voting for her regardless. I do like the idea of Sanders/Warren. I don't see that happening and I expect I'll be voting for a third party presidential candidate for the 9th time in 40 years. (I voted for Clinton's second term. I liked him.)
If I had to draw one conclusion from this whole email thing and use that to determine whether I should vote for her or not then it would be this: Factually, the email system was difficult to work through. She was in a position of power and obligated to work within that system. She had the power and obligation to delegate the authority to change that system. She did not change that system when she could have insisted that it be repaired and then followed up to ensure that it was.
Opinion: This is not a trivial thing and demonstrates a few issues with the most important being that people often think they are more competent than they are. A leader must be able to delegate authority, recognize their own deficiencies, and act accordingly by following up and by requesting additional information and help from people who are experts in the field.
Conclusion: I don't think she'll make a good president but I have a bunch of other reasons for thinking that. This speaks only towards this incident and is thus limited in scope. Finally, if she actually did willfully and knowingly mishandle classified documents then she needs to be stand before a judge because regulations don't work when not applied equally.
And yes, yes (it should be fairly well known/assumed/guessed that) I will absolutely say the same thing - regardless of the party affiliation, gender, race, creed, etc... I'm a pretty staunch Classical Libertarian (no, don't think economical model or those who are loud and 'represent' the party) am actually far more likely to vote for Sanders than I am for any other candidate offered at this time.
Nah, you can lie to some. You can't lie to someone who is investigating you of during sworn testimony and stuff like that but you can call your senator up and lie to them all you want - we call that lobbying.
Me? Because it's (potentially - not 'guilty' yet in a court of law) wrong no matter who does it. Then again, I base my political beliefs on an ideology and not on a single party or person. I know, I'm a freak. Mishandling of classified information is bad. Failing to retain what is public record is also bad. Having sex with sheep is also bad but that's off-topic.
Also, if her comms were bad then she was in her role specifically to delegate power and authority and not to work around it. Do you really want a president who is incapable of delegating authority? I suspect she failed to learn a lesson that seems tough for all of us. Sometimes we need to sit down, shut up, and listen to those who know more than we do. I've done a lot of thinking and I think that may have been one of the reasons that I was able to get to where I am - knowing when I don't know and being willing to defer to those who do. It's a blow to one's ego but it really is for the best in many circumstances.
Anyhow, no... Some of us aren't partisan hacks. We actually engage in critical thinking and "but Bush did it" is a tired and worn out excuse for bad behavior and for excusing bad behavior. Please, think about that. I'm doing my best to reply politely and re-reading it makes me think I have.
Why is this modded down? Truth should not be a problem. I hate the idea of Hillary as president. I think she belongs in the Senate, probably. I don't agree with her politics but I do think we need wide and varied opinions to ensure we get a reasonable blend of legislation.
Full disclosure, I've a weird thing for Hillary Clinton and Martha Stewart. Yes. Yes I would sex them both. At the same time. On Thanksgiving Day. During dinner. On the dining room table. With my family throwing food at me and calling me names. On national television. But I don't want either one as president. Well, maybe Martha.
Am I mistaken or are you suggesting a return to the dumb terminal?
Actually, with so much computing being done in "the cloud" it really has started to look like a return to those days. Hmm... That which is old is new again. I am not, honestly, sure what side I am on assuming that I own and control the remote resources as well as the 'terminal' that is attached to it. It does seem like we're sort of returning to those days just with more local resources to work with the remote data, load more content, and cycle it faster.
Are you new? That's not only typical but considered highbrow around here. Usually we just screech and throw fecal matter at each other. At least this time we're using words.
Somehow, I kind of doubt the US government's doing that but I'm open to proof - of course. Do you have any such proof? A quick Google doesn't seem to indicate that as being true in any current (or even recent) reports.
A quick count and, and I'm not sure that this is either supporting or whatnot, I've used 11 of the distros in that list. Albeit in a VM, sure but some have made it to bare metal. The kicker is, I'm an OS whore. Sad but true... I jump between distros and often don't even install an OS but just run from a live disk. (I've got enough RAM and compute power to do that. Comfortably, too.)
So, I'm not sure if this supports your statement or detracts from it. However, some of them are fairly robust, have some history, and will likely be around for a while to come. Now, I'm not sure that they're all that popular (Ubuntu really seems to rule the popularity contest between it and its official flavors - not counting forks.) But there are options and some of them are viable. I don't prefer them - I'm actually in the Cannonical camp with Lubuntu as of late. Though, again, I'm just as likely to be using CentOS tomorrow.
Slashdot Mirror
Same company - I think we may have now both learned a little something new.
http://archive.bangordailynews...
I like learning new things and I'd thought it was organics that they'd used and not spinning. I didn't read the article completely except to scan for the name for I am a lazy git. So I'll just operate under the assumption that you're correct. Although when it was on NPR I seem to recall they'd mentioned it was organics and based on the packaging and air but I could be mistaken. I didn't live in Maine but I'd already bought some of the property that I now own - I'd expected to retire here but I'd expected it to take longer. Then I got involved in some sales talks and, well, the rest is history.
By the time the company approached the credit union (a few years later) I was retired and on the board at the credit union. They were hoping to last long enough to be acquired, as I recall. (I'm pretty sure that this isn't something I can't disclose. I kind of hope not.) We declined given that they'd been peddling their wares for a while and there didn't seem to be much of an uptake and my opinion was that it was borderline retarded as anyone who wanted could just rip the DVDs to disk before they stopped functioning - they could even make multiple attempts as long as they did so reasonably quickly.
Anyhow, it's neat to think about the ideas that didn't really catch on. From a quick look, the article might be interesting...
Screw it... I'm going back to read it. I wasn't doing anything better.
Heh! I'm *never* right! I am, for once! Usually, it is my memory that is faulty.
Unopened Flexplay disks stay good in the package for about a year. But once the package seal is broken, a chemical reaction with oxygen begins, giving the owner two days to play the movie as many times as desired.
Now, I don't remember the NPR bit very well but I think they'd mentioned something about corn or a corn derivative? The article doesn't say and I'm not going to bother looking into it further. I'd absolutely not trust my memory where this is concerned. Hell, I was willing to defer to your recollection - it wouldn't surprise me if they'd had more than one incarnation though and that the method you mentioned had also been tried.
It's tempting. I've got the funding to get something of that nature started - I think it'd have to be expensive, very pricey, and would need to have people on-site in many instances so these people would have to be able to up-root and move, with a quickness, for an indeterminate amount of time. I'm really thinking the "super heroes" of IT, Comp Sci, etc...
It needs some mulling and refining but I already sold my business and retired. I'm not sure that I'd want to do much more than provision investment funds and, maybe, guide (not lead - I'm not qualified in the technologies which I'm thinking would be best suited for this). Someone, at some company, has old hardware that is an embedded system, no documentation, and the person who put it in place has long since moved on? Call Neckbeards Inc! Old COBOL and we need an up-time better than the five nines? Call Neckbeard Inc! Need a custom app and need it fast, secure, and effective? Call Neckbeards Inc!
Not just consultants but actual workers - highly qualified and absolutely the best in the industry (or really damned good). Sort of like Geek Squad except with real geeks who know their shit and are actually able to have a diverse set of skills and experiences so they can fix emergencies that can't be easily resolved. From networking, security, forensics, programming, architecture (server), mainframe work, etc... Even consulting - why not bring in the people who've worked in the field to help you set up your new data center? Pay them well and then send them on their way but - in return - get great service.
It would be imperative that the work be truly high quality and that the people involved would have an impeccable service history or at least be able to demonstrate vast sums of knowledge - even if they're just very specifically involved in one field, I guess, but we'd need a bunch.
This might actually be viable.
You must not be familiar with the scarebus guy. If you were then you'd know that it was humor. The guy was, well, I guess I'll use the word epic. It was beautiful and greatly amusing. I too am of the mind that we'll need a human operator, specifically a trained operator, for quite some time with many vehicles. There are some autonomous vehicles in large shipping yards that get and deliver containers - I see that being where the market and growth will really come from - closed circuit type things.
Anyhow, 'twas humor my good sir, no need to read much into it. You should know me by now. ;) It's not like I don't type enough inane drivel into /. on a fairly regular basis.
This is true. I sometimes look back at the old inventions - specifically steam. I love steam powered stuff. I got to learn how to operate and drive a Stanley over in Kingfield, Maine (with insurance and a sizable donation). To my point...
I sometimes wonder (no, kind of often wonder) if I'd have been a grand inventor back then. I look at it and it just makes sense. A lot of it is overly and needlessly complex and I've actually pondered doing some work in the field but I'm pretty lazy and I'm not sure how it would relate to modernity so I don't bother. (For instance, I've an idea for a series of weighted pressure release valves but, I digress.)
I guess, I'd like to think I'd have been a mad engineer-cum-scientist back then. I realize that's just a fantasy because, really, I've invented very little. It's mostly my hopes that I'd have thought of those things but, really, I probably wouldn't have. They seem trivial and simple now. They seem obvious. I think it was Heron of Alexandria who did the first steam "engine" and never actually turned it into work. To me, that seems obvious... Put a pulley on there or a gear and let's do something - he was brilliant with his gears by all accounts. So, it seems painfully obvious and I have to wonder how much further we'd be if many of those old inventors from antiquity had just taken their inventions one, or a few, steps further...
Of course, I do realize that I'm looking at things with a whole different perspective. I really like to think that I'd have been a maker back in the days of yore. That I'd be wiling time away in my workshop making mad things - much to the church's chagrin. Or, perhaps like Heron, helping the church con more money from people.
So, yeah, I'd like to think I'd have been great but I probably would have shoveled shit until I died from the plague or, perhaps better, been a scribe in the church. But I would like to hope that it would have been I who had founded some of the great founding principles of mathematica or even authored the early laws of physics. I don't think I'd have discovered calculus or trig but I might have done well with planer geometry or advanced algebraic maths. But, no... I'd have shoveled shit... Well, maybe I'd have been a blacksmith or something. Probably not, I'd probably have shoveled shit.
Today, well, many of you are shoveling bits or smithing them together or scribing their functions or whatnot. What great invention will you be known for in 300 years? Meh... I have some published papers. Some citations... I helped to found a new use for computers (which would have been done just fine without me). I'll be forgotten, that's okay. But I kind of wish I was the guy who realized the benefit of adding a governor to a steam engine - it seems really damned obvious to me but, again, I'm looking at it from today's perspective and with the benefit of it already having been done.
I'm a Buddhist. Not a very *good* Buddhist and sure as hell not a monk but a Buddhist nonetheless. I think the government should definitely spy on and imprison extremist Buddhists! Every last one of those zealots! Especially the terrorist Buddhists! We generally run around blowing up everything and deserve to be watched. It's for your own safety that I'm suggesting we put a tail on the Dalia Lama. Also, we should make him some tea.
You don't live on Earth? If we're limiting ourselves to 50 years and mass murder (not war) then I'd suspect the prize goes to Pol Pot and crew. They were atheists and didn't kill in the name of their religion or lack of religion. They killed for their ideology so it's not far off but it's still not specifically religious.
Meh... It won't be the first time I've broken the law. I've got a dollar or two, I can fight the case. I don't normally save images or anything but I probably will just to piss 'em off and to see how the technology works.
That's optional and just a bonus feature. Think of it as DLC.
Hmm... Fucking Long-term Assinine Security Hazard.
I was using a little hand-held Tandy with an external modem to upload content to a newspaper a long time ago when I was doing some freelance work for extra money. So, I dunno... I'm not sure where I'm going with that but I don't think you're *quite* accurate.
What has a pink/red color got to do with the application, anyhow? Perhaps you meant 'rogue?' I don't know if it is always you but this seems to be a common one for ACs. Well, I finally got bored enough to point it out. While maybe not you, 'alot' is not a word and there's a difference between fewer and less.
That's the most nondescript URL I've seen in a while. Why the hell do companies still do that?
Well, yeah. I did mention that. They're both much older than I, too. I don't normally have a thing for old people but those two have been on my list for years and years now. I have no idea why. I've pondered this and I've yet to figure out why. It's just them. My current lady friend, sort of - long story, is around 1/3 my age so it's not like I normally have a thing for old people. I dunno... I'm horrified at the thought but it's strangely alluring. *shrugs* I'm sure I'll never get the chance to act on it.
I 'throw away' my vote because the number crunchers will eventually notice that there's an increasing number of disenfranchised who will not vote for the two leading party representatives because of all the bullshit. I've voted in the presidential elections ten times (forty years) and only once have I voted for a Democrat or a Republican. I voted for Bill Clinton during his second term - I liked Bill. I suspect I'll be 10/11 after this coming election but 9/10 is pretty good by my reckoning. I've voted for people I wouldn't even want in office (like Nader) just to make sure that those that crunch the numbers and file the reports actually see this. Hopefully the number increases and we get more choices in our representation.
I read that three times as the Donner party. I read it that many times because I was awfully confused and wondering what reference I was missing. I need to go back to bed.
Clippy: I see you're trying to use the word "unilateral." Would you like a dictionary?
Rightly or wrongly, every single law passed is a restriction on someone's rights. An example would be removing the right to own slaves - an absolutely correct law to make and an appropriate right to remove. However, we've already got a lot of laws in place. Yet the job of the legislative body is, de facto, creating more laws which means more rights eroded. Like you imply, I agree - a deadlocked or otherwise slowed legislative process is probably a good thing. I actually like that the legislators are full of (ideally) varied opinions - even if they don't match my ideology individually. Though I should say that I like the ideal, it doesn't seem to be borne out in reality.
The law in question has not changed. It has been in place since the 1920s. Ignore the whole email and server thing. The mishandling of classified information is what was illegal and there have been plenty of reports that indicate the FBI has confirmed there were, indeed, some classified documents found during the forensics. Additionally, classification is based on content (by certain people) and certain documents that should be classified must be classified by certain handlers - of which she was and was trained as one or she could not have handled the documents to begin with. She had to know the rules, she had to know how to apply the rules, and she had to know what types of information would need to be classified if they were not already.
This part of the discussion has been glossed over and ignored. As it is likely the only thing that would result in a conviction, well, I have my suspicions. However, the above can all be verified by simply doing a search for the relevant information. How much of what is reported and is actually factual is up to you to determine for yourself. I've nary a nickel invested - I will not be voting for her regardless. I do like the idea of Sanders/Warren. I don't see that happening and I expect I'll be voting for a third party presidential candidate for the 9th time in 40 years. (I voted for Clinton's second term. I liked him.)
If I had to draw one conclusion from this whole email thing and use that to determine whether I should vote for her or not then it would be this: Factually, the email system was difficult to work through. She was in a position of power and obligated to work within that system. She had the power and obligation to delegate the authority to change that system. She did not change that system when she could have insisted that it be repaired and then followed up to ensure that it was.
Opinion: This is not a trivial thing and demonstrates a few issues with the most important being that people often think they are more competent than they are. A leader must be able to delegate authority, recognize their own deficiencies, and act accordingly by following up and by requesting additional information and help from people who are experts in the field.
Conclusion: I don't think she'll make a good president but I have a bunch of other reasons for thinking that. This speaks only towards this incident and is thus limited in scope. Finally, if she actually did willfully and knowingly mishandle classified documents then she needs to be stand before a judge because regulations don't work when not applied equally.
And yes, yes (it should be fairly well known/assumed/guessed that) I will absolutely say the same thing - regardless of the party affiliation, gender, race, creed, etc... I'm a pretty staunch Classical Libertarian (no, don't think economical model or those who are loud and 'represent' the party) am actually far more likely to vote for Sanders than I am for any other candidate offered at this time.
Nah, you can lie to some. You can't lie to someone who is investigating you of during sworn testimony and stuff like that but you can call your senator up and lie to them all you want - we call that lobbying.
Me? Because it's (potentially - not 'guilty' yet in a court of law) wrong no matter who does it. Then again, I base my political beliefs on an ideology and not on a single party or person. I know, I'm a freak. Mishandling of classified information is bad. Failing to retain what is public record is also bad. Having sex with sheep is also bad but that's off-topic.
Also, if her comms were bad then she was in her role specifically to delegate power and authority and not to work around it. Do you really want a president who is incapable of delegating authority? I suspect she failed to learn a lesson that seems tough for all of us. Sometimes we need to sit down, shut up, and listen to those who know more than we do. I've done a lot of thinking and I think that may have been one of the reasons that I was able to get to where I am - knowing when I don't know and being willing to defer to those who do. It's a blow to one's ego but it really is for the best in many circumstances.
Anyhow, no... Some of us aren't partisan hacks. We actually engage in critical thinking and "but Bush did it" is a tired and worn out excuse for bad behavior and for excusing bad behavior. Please, think about that. I'm doing my best to reply politely and re-reading it makes me think I have.
Why is this modded down? Truth should not be a problem. I hate the idea of Hillary as president. I think she belongs in the Senate, probably. I don't agree with her politics but I do think we need wide and varied opinions to ensure we get a reasonable blend of legislation.
Full disclosure, I've a weird thing for Hillary Clinton and Martha Stewart. Yes. Yes I would sex them both. At the same time. On Thanksgiving Day. During dinner. On the dining room table. With my family throwing food at me and calling me names. On national television. But I don't want either one as president. Well, maybe Martha.
Am I mistaken or are you suggesting a return to the dumb terminal?
Actually, with so much computing being done in "the cloud" it really has started to look like a return to those days. Hmm... That which is old is new again. I am not, honestly, sure what side I am on assuming that I own and control the remote resources as well as the 'terminal' that is attached to it. It does seem like we're sort of returning to those days just with more local resources to work with the remote data, load more content, and cycle it faster.
Curiouser and curiouser.
Are you new? That's not only typical but considered highbrow around here. Usually we just screech and throw fecal matter at each other. At least this time we're using words.
Somehow, I kind of doubt the US government's doing that but I'm open to proof - of course. Do you have any such proof? A quick Google doesn't seem to indicate that as being true in any current (or even recent) reports.
A quick count and, and I'm not sure that this is either supporting or whatnot, I've used 11 of the distros in that list. Albeit in a VM, sure but some have made it to bare metal. The kicker is, I'm an OS whore. Sad but true... I jump between distros and often don't even install an OS but just run from a live disk. (I've got enough RAM and compute power to do that. Comfortably, too.)
So, I'm not sure if this supports your statement or detracts from it. However, some of them are fairly robust, have some history, and will likely be around for a while to come. Now, I'm not sure that they're all that popular (Ubuntu really seems to rule the popularity contest between it and its official flavors - not counting forks.) But there are options and some of them are viable. I don't prefer them - I'm actually in the Cannonical camp with Lubuntu as of late. Though, again, I'm just as likely to be using CentOS tomorrow.