My attitude on the whole H1B visa thing is that you need to require that they pay them... lets say 20 percent more than the going rate for domestic labor of the same kind.

In particular, employers of H1Bs are not required to contribute to SOME of the social programs they aren't eleigble for. Part of any H1B reform should be a requirement that they pay them at LEAST as much more as the difference in government fees saves them. Otherwise there is a strong financial incentive to use H1Bs in preference to citizens.

(An additional complication is that the employers often put the H1Bs to work on things above their official job title and its resulting pay scale.)

N-acetyl carnosine drops have been used with good success for a while. Bought them for my grandmother in law. Over the course of a couple of years it halted and mostly reversed her developing cataracts. Can get them from multiple sources.

Good information - especially while we're waiting for this stuff to become available.

I note, though, that:
  - This newly-identified material substantially clears cataracts in six days while N-acetyl carnosine takes four months for significant improvement to show.
  - This newly-identintified material appears to be what the eye normally uses in a specific mechanism to prevent/repair cataracts, while N-acetyl carnosine appears to have more generic antioxidant and chelation properties. (It's a modification of carnosine to a form which can penetrate the tissues of the eye and is converted back to carnosine within them. Carnosine is great for retarding several ageing mechanisms but it looks more like a generic helper than a specific repair-mechanism component or trigger for cataracts.)
  - The discovery of this new stuff occurred by identifying what was missing in people with a genetic early-cataract problem. If this is necessary for cataract prevention/repair and its production declines (but doesn't fully stop) with age, N-acetyl carnosine might not work for people who don't make it at all.

So though N-acetyl carnosine looks good, this looks great and specific. (And I don't see any reason to stop the former even if taking the latter. Unless some specific interaction issue shows up I'd expect them to work well together.)

Just put "bomb" and "assassinate" in every line. ... It's all going to get backed up.

But getting them to restore it after it's gotten lost or corrupted is difficult.

She didn't destroy anything that Congress asked for. She deleted personal emails, which were not covered by the subpoena.

Did you actually READ TFA before you posted that?

Hint: Email exchanges have (at least) two ends. They've found the other end of a number of email exchanges where Hillary DIDN'T produce her end for Congress, some of which were not just State Department business but which, in retrospect, SHOULD have been classified (and are now).

But that was her (original) story and you're sticking to it, right?

Oh, and explain to me again why this is on /. ? I thought this site was about tech and tech-related news.

Because it relates to criminal penalties for mishandling email servers and classified information in email form?

Sounds like "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters" to me.

Even assuming that most of the elected officials have less of a clue than the average citizen ("It's a series of tubes!"), ...

As a network professional who has done substantial architectural work on high-end networking products, where we used the term of art "pipes", I don't fault Ted Stevens, a non-techie, for instead saying "tubes" (when moderately-accurately describing the downside of naive network neutrality "treat all packets identically, regardless of type of service" prescriptions).

I may take issue with OTHER aspects of his argument. But I consider ongoing ridicule for using "tubes" in place of "pipes" to be a cheap shot (even if it IS funny).

But ... What difference does it make?

What difference does it make if you convict a murderer or let him go. Convicting him doesn't bring the victim back to life. (And people DO use this argument ...)

Answer: Laws deter illegal behavior by applying penalties to those who break them, in the hope that at least some people will, as a result, decide not to break them when it would otherwise be in their interest to do so. So if someone high-profile breaks the law and gets away with it (thus also establishing a precedent making it very hard to prosecute anyone ELSE who breaks the law in the same way), the law becomes just old words on paper, rather than an effective prohibition.

Bill's escape from significant consequences in his little adventure effectively gutted the enforcement of some sexual harassment laws. If it turns out Hillary actually broke a law that was in force at the time, in a deliberate and flagrant way, and gets away with no substantial penalty, the same will happen to the laws on how to handle classified information.

The quoted law would probably be found not applicable for public, IE elected, office by reason of unconstitutionality. ... The intent is that you can't just DQ your opponents from public office with targeted laws ...

Yep.

If the electorate wants a (known at the time of the election) felon to hold the office, that's their prerogative.

I liked Shrillary better back when she was letting interns do her real job for her.

That just shows that she knows how to delegate important tasks to someone competent to perform them - which is an important presidential qualification.

Scooter Libby was convicted on two counts of perjury, one count of obstruction, and one count of making false statements. ...

Hillary will likely get the same: no conviction for anything to do with missing emails.

But will she get penalized for the coverup, as Scooter Libby was? Wiping, rather than producing, the system disk sure looks like "one count of obstruction". (For perjury and false statements we'll have to wait for the mill to grind some more, but the TFA says it doesn't look good for her right now on those, either.)

You would get fired if someone outside sent non classified data to an individual inside ?
Thats what happened

No, that's NOT what happened. Hillary gave out her home-administered email address to her State Department contacts and they then sent email containing classified info, as she (did or should have) expected them to do.

This is more likely misdemeanor mishandling of classified information.

Which, you'll recall, is what they let General David Petraeus plea-bargan to when they canned and prosecuted him.

During his affair with his female biographer he had given her access to his classified email account - so they could exchange love letters in the "drafts" folder. They apparently did this in the hope of avoiding the creation of an archived email trail, which they knew would occur if they sent the mail but didn't know would also occur with the system backups of the drafts folder.

The "mishandling of classified info", if I understand it correctly, is because she could, in principle, have read his other mail. Just as anyone who participated in the administration of Hillary's private mail server or the network connection to it could, in principle, have read or copied the State Department related emails containing classified info.

This is sub Saharan africa we are talking about where people go to the local witch doctor to get a potion based on body parts of albino's on the promise of wealth, success and power . You think they are going to believe that a mosquito bit causes Malaria?

Driving has never been safer because motor vehicles have never been safer and because structurally roads have never been safer. The last one means things like replacing intersections/crossroads with roundabouts where death rates drop 90% as a result.

On the other hand there are numerous cases of people being killed by txting on a phone, just Google it. Just because driving is safer now than ever before does not justify someone txting on a phone while driving.

Actually it is two different learning styles. One is visual aka "look and say", and the other is auditory aka phonics. But hey lets ignore the evidence that proves your personal beliefs are wrong. I could not give a toss about your links, and I have not read them because I don't need to because they are *WRONG*.

The first thing to understand about educational theorists is that they are a bunch of ideologically driven morons, who would not know what experimental design was if it came and bit them in the backside.