Only someone so naive as to not have heard about multiple instances of government officials using personal email addresses to evade record keeping requirements.
A significant portion of people looked at her address and understood exactly what she was doing form the start.
known only to the select few of anyone with whom she exchanged email.
You really think that everyone swapping email with her knew that their communications were being stored on a poorly configured server kept in her house? So far, the general level of panic being displayed by her many party confidants and lots of people in the business suggests that yes, indeed, the completely absurd circumstances were indeed a secret.
They likely didn't know the storage circumstances but that's just carelessness, that's not the legal issue.
The legal issue is the fact that she was using a personal email to evade record keeping requirements. That much would be obvious to someone by the fact she was using a personal email address.
Wow, you were really straining to make that unrelated political rant seem on topic.
Not at all. I think it's humorous (or would be, if it didn't contribute to a large body of evidence about the Clinton way of doing things)
It could be humorous if you didn't turn it into a political rant. People rarely laugh when you make endorsing your political views a prerequisite.
to think that one of Obama's would-be (at the time) cabinet secretaries, the moment she was named for the job, ran out and paid cash to have a personal mail server set up under a false registrant's name, specifically so that nobody could ever know which or her emails was, or wasn't part of her official legacy in that job - despite the law requiring her to make all such communication part of her ongoing records at State. That she did this under the table, and never even set up an official mailbox at State, and was magically able, for years, to avoid FOIA requests for her official communications, is just fantastically corrupt.
Sure it's corrupt, and sadly business as usual since Bush II.
The parallels with some IT guy in Mexico being asked to set up a shadow communications platform for a corrupt cartel there aren't imaginary, they're actually interesting.
Very, very tenuous parallels.
It's topical because new of Clinton's furtive behavior along these lines is breaking right now, and it's a related topic. The main point of interest for this audience is the notion of being asked (or forced, in the example of TFA) to set up systems under dubious conditions (legality-wise), and keeping mum to avoid the sort of heat that can come down on them from the people who want the work done.
Yes, it was completely top-secret, known only to the select few of anyone with whom she exchanged email.
This wasn't some quiet conspiracy, this was a dodgy practice that is sadly typical in government. And it didn't just come out now because some insider leaked, it came out because for whatever reason this fact that must have been fairly common knowledge finally got around to a reporter who understood it was wrong and actually decided to write about it.
I wonder if that's the same guy who worked under a fictitious name, for cash, to set up the private e-mail server and domain that Hillary Clinton used for HER back-channel communications, in lieu of an official mailbox, throughout her entire tenure as Secretary of State. It has to be odd to be an IT consultant with a high profile customer like that and be unable to mention the gig on your CV. We've all worked under NDAs, but I guess working for a well-funded person or group that insists you actually use a fake name with the registrars and take cash (if you're lucky!) for the job would certainly take on a different flavor.
Wow, you were really straining to make that unrelated political rant seem on topic.
This seems indicative of sense that the rules do not apply to me.
Nobody who would vote for Hillary Clinton will care about things like this.
That's a broad and largely inaccurate statement.
A lot of them will care very much, but not enough to vote for a candidate with much more serious flaws.
I highly doubt it, her cult of personality is too big. Articles defending her using the tu quoque defense are already popping up. Hillary Clinton could tap dance in stilettos on a box full of puppies and PETA would praise her for mercifully saving them from a life of enslavement. If you really cared, you would simply abstain from voting for that particular office. A vote for the lesser of two evils is still evil. If the only choices I had for 2016 were Clinton or Bush, I wouldn't vote for either.
I think that's a mistake.
I think the politicians are terrible, I also know my knowledge is limited, and it's possible that I'm either underestimating them, underestimating the difficulty of the job, or underestimating the necessity of getting your hands dirty.
Just listen to this interview with someone who ran for Prime Minister of Canada and failed quite spectacularly, dirty hands are amazingly effective.
Either way abstaining entirely just hands power to the extremists who have made the situation so awful to begin with. The real solution is for as many people to vote as possible, if you vote for the politician who is slightly less evil then the next pair of candidates are going to be slightly better. It wasn't luck that trimmed the 2012 GOP field of everyone not-Romney, the Republicans realized that when dealing with an election where people paid attention and voted they couldn't get away with a Tea Partier heading the Presidential ticket. If you make a habit of not voting for "evil" candidates you're going to go from Mitt Romney to Ted Cruz, is that really the outcome you're looking for?
This seems indicative of sense that the rules do not apply to me.
Nobody who would vote for Hillary Clinton will care about things like this.
That's a broad and largely inaccurate statement.
A lot of them will care very much, but not enough to vote for a candidate with much more serious flaws.
There might be some hoopla on Twitter and Fox News for a few days, and then there will be some stragglers like with Benghazi, but it will mostly fade out of the mainstream media within a few hours from now.
What does this have to do with Benghazi? If anything there's a major difference in that Clinton actually did something wrong in this one.
I fear that with the death of Gene Roddenberry and the worlds ever intense focus on money, which while always existing, has become sharpened the last decade or two, you're just not going to see a classic return to original, cheesy, fun Star Trek. It has to have an edge to appeal to the mainstream. Maybe some tits or a fistfight or someone lying or cheating or bullshit drama.
In TnG when someone cheated or did something bad, it was addressed, it was weird, they investigated, found why the person was sad / angry / hateful and they fixed it because it's not productive, it's not good to be like that. Nowadays as per
The sad thing is that Star Trek had far more edge than almost anything on currently, they just put the edge in the ideas rather than the personal relationships.
Modern SF is either dramas or action set in space, original Star Trek was short stories set in space, I don't know if TV is ready to try that again.
Have you actually talked to an average user? Have you ever tried to get people to use Firefox over Internet Explorer? Do you remember what an uphill battle that was? Now step back and understand that you're now trying to change their operating system.
How well do you think that will go over if it was virtually impossible to get them to stop using the worst browser in the world?
The problem with arguments like yours is they're made on the basis of rationality. However the people you're talking about aren't rational most of the time.
It's not about changing their operating system. It's about choosing a different operating system when they get a new computer.
Linux is now a viable default.
The city announced work on a new interchange involving the major arterial road running through the city, significant delays are expected while construction is underway.
When asked for a timeline on when the construction would be completed the lead engineer answered "Who knows? We generally underestimate these things by months or years so I might as well not bother."
Work is expected to commence sometime after they finish their current set of maintenance roadwork.
Good night, this was your 11 o'clock news at 11:23 because we needed a little more time to finish writing our stories.
It's not great. It's only good for staunch advocates who refuse to run any other operating system. Linux still isn't good enough for joe sixpack to run it as a daily driver. Until they get joe sixpack on board, it'll forever be a niche product without enough inroads to support a gaming ecosystem.
Developers have had decades to get Linux right on the desktop, and they've failed at every turn. Even distros which did a lot more right than the others still aren't as polished and usable as the alternatives. It's time to get your head out of the sand on this, and start examining the reality. OS X has more of a chance at becoming a capable gaming OS than Linux does, and that's really saying something.
What does the typical joe sixpack need?
Web browsing? That works aside from some newer niche Flash stuff
Word processing? That works for a big majority of cases
Email? Works.
Playing Music? No iTunes, but otherwise works.
Games?
For every common usecase there's a fairly generic app you can use to get things done regardless of the OS. Sure there's sometimes warts on Linux, but you get warts on Windows and Mac OS as well. My mother has had trouble with her Mac that take me just as much esoteric googling to figure out as anything on Linux.
But games, well that's been the problem. If you want Joe Sixpack to use your system he needs to be able to run almost every game, since Linux has never had that capability of course it's not going to become big on the desktop.
Now that's changed. Linux can do a lot of games and the major obstacle to Joe Sixpack is gone.
It's still not great (gaming is still a problem outside of Steam), and Linux still lacks the marketing power. But I could really see a lot more casual users coming on board, or even some OEMs coming on board with well configured pre-installed Linux machines, either low-end machines made cheaper by not having the Windows tax and having some crappy OEM apps added, or higher-end machines targeted towards power-users who just want a laptop with an Ubuntu or RHEL system where all the esoteric hardware works.
I am an independent inventor (and Uni. scientist by day). I have tried to sell a basket of CMOS-related patents for 10 years. All I ever hear is "not invented here."
Now, the big Corps. are suddenly "discovering" what I already patented 10 years ago. I have no choice but to sue, sue, sue.
They bring this on themselves.
This is a legit question, did you actually contribute anything when you made your patents? The 10 year lag suggests they weren't ripping off your original patent or sale proposal, though maybe they're using your academic publications the patents are based on, more likely these were simply problems they weren't interested in yet.
Not knowing anything about your patents in particular I suspect that most patents are fairly obvious once you start addressing the problem in question. But the idea that you can address a future problem with a bunch of patents, but not actually build anything to go along with it, I just don't see the value to society. It seems like a perversion of the system, like someone taking the cab to the finish line of a race without doing any actual running, the true value isn't in the finish, it's what's created along the way.
Patents are supposed to promote innovation, by your own admission your patents were ignored and didn't seem to do anything to push the technology forward, why should you be rewarded with a pile of money?
They need a new model. Streaming on its own for $10/month is clearly not enough money to go around. Spotify has infrastructure costs and has been bleeding money (I think they had a break-even or profitable quarter just recently?). Meanwhile, they also need to distribute the remainder of the already paltry $10 between a zillion artists. It makes no sense.
This strikes me as highly non-obvious, do you think the average person spends more than $10/month purchasing music?
Annual US music sales are about $7bn
With the US population at 320 million that's only ~$22/year per capita, not counting Spotify's cut (and whatever portion of that already comes from streaming) that's means if no-one bought music any more only 22% of the US population would have to stream to make up the difference.
I doubt there are many people spending $120/year purchasing music long term. $10/month strikes me as a wildly lucrative prospect for the music industry.
I used to think Canadians - even those out in the forsaken, endless prairies - were far more wise and progressive than us USians, but no. How long has GOP-backed and advised Harper been in power now? What happened? Was it tar sand greed? Pure apathy? The assumption they were all as 'funny' as Laughable Bublefuck Rob Ford?
Quite sad; I thought the Canadians were better than, well, just about everybody, but now no different than the rest of the Right-Wing Police State, Might Makes Right, Western world. [le sigh]
It's a combination of three things.
1) Harper isn't nearly as bad as the US right. There are certainly elements of that in his party, but he would still be a better fit as a Democrat than Republican in the US.
2) First past the post exaggerates strong minorities into big majorities. He should be PM but he shouldn't have a majority.
3) Even being a decent PM, he's still too far right for Canadians. The reason he's stuck around is he is good at winning elections, and the Liberal candidates not nearly as much. That might change, since Justin Trudeau took over he has actually out polled Harper fairly regularly, but whether Trudeau holds up through an election campaign is a big question.
My interpretation of the comment was that 88.2% of Linux kernel developers have Linux kernel development in their job description.
First, yes some patent trolls are evil. But some are very good.
The key service a Non-producing Patent holder provides is that they purchase patents from inventors. This allows the inventing company to convert their Ideas into cash. When companines die they may cease producing but their IP is still valuable. And it can be sold. It's that value that the shareholders of the company were investing in. So they were entitled to sell it. Patent "trolls" create this marketplace for Ideas and the money they pay goes on to be re-invested in other good things.
I think I understand your argument. But I think there's an important distinction: Is dead company A selling the technology to new company B, or just the right to use the technology?
If they're selling the technology, ie "company A knew how to do X, lets buy their IP so we can do X" then they're contributing something and new company B benefits from the exchange.
But if the situation is more like "we want to do X, but it turns out company A has patents on X, therefore we need so pay off those patents" then I'm a lot more skeptical. Sure company A's innovative investors make some money off of B, but that money came from B's innovative investors so I'm not sure you're actually promoting investment in innovation. Not only that but the patents added a lot of overhead, cash that would have been better used innovating by both parties.
It's sometimes hard to tell these apart because sometimes a cherished technology we all love really does have a legitimate patent holder not an ogre behind it. The Eolas patent on all web browser plug ins seems like a reasonable case. If they can really show that the basic concept of the web browser plug in was not obvious and had no prior art and that they legitmately patented it with sufficient breadth of description then it really doesn't matter that this catches everyone by surprise. It's worth a fortune obviously but that too is not a reason to say it's wrong. It would be wrong if they got lucky an patented as trivial idea and then tried to extort people with it.
As to my point I'm very skeptical Eolas actually did anything to further the development of browser plugins. Why are they entitled to a fortune when they never actually contributed anything of value?
What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite. -- Bertrand Russell, "Skeptical Essays", 1928
