Over and over and over again, we see she was receiving documents on her personal email. How is that breaking the law?
Once you receive classified information on an unclassified system, you have minimal amount of time to respond. Your response is to immediately contact the facility security officer. Failure to do so is a crime punishable by large fines and prison -- just as if you sent the e-mail to an unclassified server.
With security, as soon as you know something is amiss, if you immediately reported it to your facility security officer, there are minimal repercussions.
Just like Watergate, the real issue is the cover up.
Unless the State Department gives you explicit permission to do as she did. Which they did. Until they didn't.
I'm sorry. You're either being a partisan shell or you don't understand the issue. No one can give you permission to hold classified information on an unclassified server.
Frankly, I think the problem runs deeper. How does an unsecured server end up on the same network as classified information?
Well, frankly, no matter how repugnant the person was, publicly slamming an obscure person after they're dead and have no chance of defending themselves seems reasonably petty. Given how vehement Robotech_Master is on the subject, one has to wonder how she personally offended him (note: this is rhetorical, no one but RM cares).
where once again, the white man is going to come in and tell the black man what to do with his land.
Yes. Yes, I know. It will be for his own good. He's too [stupid|short-sighted|ignorant|uneducated] to live his life correctly. The wise white man has to tell him what to do.
Even when you dress it up in left-wing causes, racism is pretty ugly.
Since I was at work and could not see the person who he was responding to -- and he didn't quote what he was responding to -- then no. I didn't read it.
I only saw someone say how fucking brilliant they were and that the public school was falling all over itself to treat him like the second coming of Christ.
I realize that you're absolutely brilliant and have god-like powers (do you mind if I put on my shades, your brightness is blinding), but I could only respond to what you wrote and, as a mere mortal, am unable to read your mind. You only stated that the public schools were phenomenal.
Now, I realize that you're able to read minds (since you expected me to read yours), but I think you got the guy in the cube next to mine. I have re-read my post and I never found where I said anything about charter schools. Maybe I missed it and you, in your infinite brilliance, were able to spot it in some form of Da Vinci code. If so, it was completely unintentional on my part.
So I'm having a really hard time understanding the relevance of the search that you, in your god-like wisdom, suggested. So forgive this mere mortal thinker in asking what relevance the search has to what I stated -- except, perhaps, peripherally because I pointed out that some schools are not as awesomely brilliant as the ones that you originally described.
And obviously, based on your being marked up to high, one data point does prove everything statistically this week; silly me didn't realize.
Good teachers are much more than subject matter experts
What's with this dogma that teachers are subject matter experts? Yes, I have had some teachers that knew their subject and were enthusiastic about teaching it. But that wasn't the rule. I attended two different high schools, and my children attended a third. It varies. Some teachers are outstanding, some should be fired with prejudice -- and the quality of the teacher has no impact on the compensation that the teacher receives.
The people who put down public schools and experienced union teachers are "visionaries" but they don't have facts to back them up. If you want the facts, do a Google search for "Diane Ravitch."
Ah yes, a single data point proves everything. Sorry. No.
I have had exceptional public school teachers that cared about the students, knew their material, and provided a rich, learning environment. I have had hideous public school teachers that made it obvious that they hated the students, wished they were elsewhere, and only because thy had been on the job so long and were tenured that it was too late to change careers at that point. I have had public school teachers at almost every point in between.
I'm extremely glad that you had only exceptional experiences with public school teachers. But please, don't start pretending that you're representative of all public school students' experience or that your teachers were representative of all public school teachers.
We do have a justice system, but only if you can afford it. If you can't, then you get caught up in the legal system....
I respectfully disagree. The person that I know who got off with the misdemeanor, time served, and parole destroyed two lives in the process of committing his crime. I would be really hard pressed to say that justice was served with the light sentence that he received.
One of the victims (I have the joy of knowing both perp and victims) is constantly, angrily pointing out that the life of the person who attacked her is now completely back to normal while hers and the other victim are still dealing with the aftermath of the crime.
If he wouldn't have received 35 years, then why the hell were they threatening it? This stuff affects people, guilty or innocent. They should be required to determine a reasonable set of charges and stick with it - they're the experts, and having them act as henchmen is demeaning to the process of justice.
Unfortunately, that's not how the current system works. The current system is designed to avoid expensive, nasty trials where someone might actually have to work to put someone behind bars. The current system has the D.A. pile on as many charges as she can remotely sound plausible to scare the defendant into plea bargaining regardless of their guilt or innocence.
Someone I know recently had this happen. 95 different charges were made with effectively "You'll never see the light of day again" thrown at him. His fist (incompetent) lawyer said "you better take the deal for 5 years." His second (competent) lawyer got a plea down to a misdemeanor, time served, and parole.
It's probably good to remember we don't have a justice system, but a legal system. Justice has next to nothing to do with it except by unexpected coincidence.
I numbered my "features", but they really are in random order.
1. Don't assume that I entered a partial word or that you "know" better than I do what I want to search for. Specifically, if I use the search term "ord" I do not mean "order".
2. Give sufficient context into the results that I know how the page uses the terms. Having the context be part of the links going off the page is of very little value. Specifically, back to the "ord" search above, returning "http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/%sitename%/blog;pos=%pos%;ord=123456789?" is useless.
3. Only index relevant stuff. See above ad.doubleclick.net example that should never be counted as a hit when searching for "ord".
4. Use https
5. We're addicted to speed. Results need to be returned in a reasonable time frame.
6. If I type in my search results and hit "Enter", take that as hitting the submit button.
7. Renaming the "reset" button "clean" seems like a needless change in terminology.
8. Advertisement that is relevant to the search THAT DOES NOT TRACK ME is tolerable as long as it is clear that it is advertisement. If I type in "tents for sale" I'm kind of asking for advertisements.
You might be able to solve the problem(at the expense of a great deal of additional workload) by larding the caseload with samples specifically constructed to be non-matches; but then blinded and packaged the same as any other sample, to identify people who just lean positive; but that would probably require a lot of additional work to do in enough quantity to counteract the obvious pressure.
Add in that on a random basis you don't have any legitimate suspects in the collection being analyzed. The goal isn't to find best match. The correct answer has to be none of the above on a regular basis as well.
The only acceptable solution (if you care about justice) is to stop putting so much weight on fingerprint evidence. It's basically worthless. The weight applied to DNA evidence needs to be scaled right back too.
I'm not questioning that you're correct, but since eye witness testimony is even worse evidence than either fingerprint or DNA, what sort of evidence do you think should be accepted?
If the client is dead, and you're only appealing the criminal portion, exactly what do you intend to do?
Doesn't it usually happen that after an innocent person is released from custody the state gives them a big fat check and a "We're sorry. Don't sue us." agreement? The person's heirs could still get the check if its proved that good old Dad really didn't commit that crime.
NG has the contract for fixing the lines in the region and is the main energy broker, unfortunately.
This is the ultimate problem: having the power lines and the energy broker/provider be the same entity. The power lines are an obvious natural monopoly. The supply of energy across those power lines is not a natural monopoly. The lines should be owned by one company and the power selling/brokerage should be by a different company.
Maybe because people are getting tired of systemd posts on every single story,...
That I can easily accept. But then why not mark the person who posed the question about systemd as troll versus the person who gave a reasonable (?) answer?
Otherwise you are not innocent until proven otherwise.
Do you honestly take someone you presume is innocent and put them on trial? Do you make someone you presume is innocent and make them post bond or be locked up in prison?
Of course the answer is no! You only do these things to people you presume are guilty. The innocent until proven guilty is only for the jurors. The presiding judge is schizophrenic, doing some things you'd only do if you presume the person was guilty and doing other things as if the defendant was innocent.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not what was asked.
What was asked was ignorant deflection.
Over and over and over again, we see she was receiving documents on her personal email. How is that breaking the law?
Once you receive classified information on an unclassified system, you have minimal amount of time to respond. Your response is to immediately contact the facility security officer. Failure to do so is a crime punishable by large fines and prison -- just as if you sent the e-mail to an unclassified server.
With security, as soon as you know something is amiss, if you immediately reported it to your facility security officer, there are minimal repercussions. Just like Watergate, the real issue is the cover up.
*whaddya gonna do?*
In the primary, vote for Sanders. In the general, who knows. I voted for Hillary in 2008. I won't vote for her again.
He's there to scare people into voting for her anyway. *Think of the alternative!* is working out to be a neat trick.
Trump is running the most successful false-flag operation in the history of American politics.
Truly, any other person would be out of a job and looking for an easy-going thing to confess to, months or years ago.
Except, maybe, Colin Powell, but, well, you know... that's different
If Powell had classified information on his private e-mail server, he too should be prosecuted.
Were you hoping for if they break they law, I get to break the law?
Unless the State Department gives you explicit permission to do as she did. Which they did. Until they didn't.
I'm sorry. You're either being a partisan shell or you don't understand the issue. No one can give you permission to hold classified information on an unclassified server.
Frankly, I think the problem runs deeper. How does an unsecured server end up on the same network as classified information?
Well, frankly, no matter how repugnant the person was, publicly slamming an obscure person after they're dead and have no chance of defending themselves seems reasonably petty. Given how vehement Robotech_Master is on the subject, one has to wonder how she personally offended him (note: this is rhetorical, no one but RM cares).
where once again, the white man is going to come in and tell the black man what to do with his land.
Yes. Yes, I know. It will be for his own good. He's too [stupid|short-sighted|ignorant|uneducated] to live his life correctly. The wise white man has to tell him what to do.
Even when you dress it up in left-wing causes, racism is pretty ugly.
Aren't you the pot calling the kettle black.
You racist prick!
More to the point: you can't read.
Since I was at work and could not see the person who he was responding to -- and he didn't quote what he was responding to -- then no. I didn't read it.
I only saw someone say how fucking brilliant they were and that the public school was falling all over itself to treat him like the second coming of Christ.
I realize that you're absolutely brilliant and have god-like powers (do you mind if I put on my shades, your brightness is blinding), but I could only respond to what you wrote and, as a mere mortal, am unable to read your mind. You only stated that the public schools were phenomenal.
Now, I realize that you're able to read minds (since you expected me to read yours), but I think you got the guy in the cube next to mine. I have re-read my post and I never found where I said anything about charter schools. Maybe I missed it and you, in your infinite brilliance, were able to spot it in some form of Da Vinci code. If so, it was completely unintentional on my part.
So I'm having a really hard time understanding the relevance of the search that you, in your god-like wisdom, suggested. So forgive this mere mortal thinker in asking what relevance the search has to what I stated -- except, perhaps, peripherally because I pointed out that some schools are not as awesomely brilliant as the ones that you originally described.
And obviously, based on your being marked up to high, one data point does prove everything statistically this week; silly me didn't realize.
Good teachers are much more than subject matter experts
What's with this dogma that teachers are subject matter experts? Yes, I have had some teachers that knew their subject and were enthusiastic about teaching it. But that wasn't the rule. I attended two different high schools, and my children attended a third. It varies. Some teachers are outstanding, some should be fired with prejudice -- and the quality of the teacher has no impact on the compensation that the teacher receives.
The people who put down public schools and experienced union teachers are "visionaries" but they don't have facts to back them up. If you want the facts, do a Google search for "Diane Ravitch."
Ah yes, a single data point proves everything. Sorry. No.
I have had exceptional public school teachers that cared about the students, knew their material, and provided a rich, learning environment. I have had hideous public school teachers that made it obvious that they hated the students, wished they were elsewhere, and only because thy had been on the job so long and were tenured that it was too late to change careers at that point. I have had public school teachers at almost every point in between.
I'm extremely glad that you had only exceptional experiences with public school teachers. But please, don't start pretending that you're representative of all public school students' experience or that your teachers were representative of all public school teachers.
We do have a justice system, but only if you can afford it. If you can't, then you get caught up in the legal system....
I respectfully disagree. The person that I know who got off with the misdemeanor, time served, and parole destroyed two lives in the process of committing his crime. I would be really hard pressed to say that justice was served with the light sentence that he received.
One of the victims (I have the joy of knowing both perp and victims) is constantly, angrily pointing out that the life of the person who attacked her is now completely back to normal while hers and the other victim are still dealing with the aftermath of the crime.
Perhaps justice is a myth.
If he wouldn't have received 35 years, then why the hell were they threatening it? This stuff affects people, guilty or innocent. They should be required to determine a reasonable set of charges and stick with it - they're the experts, and having them act as henchmen is demeaning to the process of justice.
Unfortunately, that's not how the current system works. The current system is designed to avoid expensive, nasty trials where someone might actually have to work to put someone behind bars. The current system has the D.A. pile on as many charges as she can remotely sound plausible to scare the defendant into plea bargaining regardless of their guilt or innocence.
Someone I know recently had this happen. 95 different charges were made with effectively "You'll never see the light of day again" thrown at him. His fist (incompetent) lawyer said "you better take the deal for 5 years." His second (competent) lawyer got a plea down to a misdemeanor, time served, and parole.
It's probably good to remember we don't have a justice system, but a legal system. Justice has next to nothing to do with it except by unexpected coincidence.
I numbered my "features", but they really are in random order.
1. Don't assume that I entered a partial word or that you "know" better than I do what I want to search for. Specifically, if I use the search term "ord" I do not mean "order".
2. Give sufficient context into the results that I know how the page uses the terms. Having the context be part of the links going off the page is of very little value. Specifically, back to the "ord" search above, returning "http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/%sitename%/blog;pos=%pos%;ord=123456789?" is useless.
3. Only index relevant stuff. See above ad.doubleclick.net example that should never be counted as a hit when searching for "ord".
4. Use https
5. We're addicted to speed. Results need to be returned in a reasonable time frame.
6. If I type in my search results and hit "Enter", take that as hitting the submit button.
7. Renaming the "reset" button "clean" seems like a needless change in terminology.
8. Advertisement that is relevant to the search THAT DOES NOT TRACK ME is tolerable as long as it is clear that it is advertisement. If I type in "tents for sale" I'm kind of asking for advertisements.
9. Don't track me. Don't remember me.
You might be able to solve the problem(at the expense of a great deal of additional workload) by larding the caseload with samples specifically constructed to be non-matches; but then blinded and packaged the same as any other sample, to identify people who just lean positive; but that would probably require a lot of additional work to do in enough quantity to counteract the obvious pressure.
Add in that on a random basis you don't have any legitimate suspects in the collection being analyzed. The goal isn't to find best match. The correct answer has to be none of the above on a regular basis as well.
The only acceptable solution (if you care about justice) is to stop putting so much weight on fingerprint evidence. It's basically worthless. The weight applied to DNA evidence needs to be scaled right back too.
I'm not questioning that you're correct, but since eye witness testimony is even worse evidence than either fingerprint or DNA, what sort of evidence do you think should be accepted?
If the client is dead, and you're only appealing the criminal portion, exactly what do you intend to do?
Doesn't it usually happen that after an innocent person is released from custody the state gives them a big fat check and a "We're sorry. Don't sue us." agreement? The person's heirs could still get the check if its proved that good old Dad really didn't commit that crime.
NG has the contract for fixing the lines in the region and is the main energy broker, unfortunately.
This is the ultimate problem: having the power lines and the energy broker/provider be the same entity. The power lines are an obvious natural monopoly. The supply of energy across those power lines is not a natural monopoly. The lines should be owned by one company and the power selling/brokerage should be by a different company.
Yeah, I'm in the Secret Service, and I'll just let good ol' Pres handle his own affairs while I'm on the shitter.
Because every secret service agent is checking his voice mail every 10 minutes ... just in case. Even while they're sleeping.
Sorry, leaving a voice mail and expecting any sort of action within an hour is pretty stupid.
You need to think harder. Really.
So you throw people you presume innocent into prison and make them defend themselves? Damn. I don't wan to live in your fascist world.
Remember who was behind SCO on its patent claim against Linux?
M$
Don't forget Sun as well.
Why is the above post marked troll?
Maybe because people are getting tired of systemd posts on every single story, ...
That I can easily accept. But then why not mark the person who posed the question about systemd as troll versus the person who gave a reasonable (?) answer?
He sent them a message a full hour in advance, saying that they should expect him.
Wasn't the warning left on a voice mail? Was the secret service agent even in the office during that hour?
Otherwise you are not innocent until proven otherwise.
Do you honestly take someone you presume is innocent and put them on trial? Do you make someone you presume is innocent and make them post bond or be locked up in prison?
Of course the answer is no! You only do these things to people you presume are guilty. The innocent until proven guilty is only for the jurors. The presiding judge is schizophrenic, doing some things you'd only do if you presume the person was guilty and doing other things as if the defendant was innocent.