Thing is, if she manages to get the job, she'll forget about even trying.

External health costs? Do you have any idea how many highly toxic chemicals are used, in quantity, to turn polysilicon into a working solar cell? *

Better idea: Use environmental and workplace safety laws to enforce and minimize those health costs, instead of using the concept as a cudgel to push cronyism.

* I have worked in the solar industry - even the polycrystal and monocrystal cells use an astounding amount of toxic gases and fluids to prep and coat a solar cell, and don't ask what goes into a thin-film solar panel...

They can question all they want, but if the envelope is sealed, you can answer such questions with "get a warrant". They may arrest you, but unless they can get said warrant, they're specifically not allowed to know what's inside the thing.

Now if there are complaints of blackmail going on and your name is attached to those complaints, or the envelope tests positive for narcotics, that's a different bucket of fish... but you gave no real details on the transaction, so "get a warrant if you want to know - otherwise, if I am not being detained or arrested, am I free to go?" is a perfectly legal answer to give to such questioning.

Actually, most folks are told part of that by lawyers, first and foremost. The police are not there to interpret laws, and most are not fully aware of them all. But then, that has never been their job. The police only exist for one reason: public safety. Their one job is to keep order and peace, and to forcibly detain those who violate said order and peace. That's it. So they do the enforcement part, but not the knowledge part of it.

It is the job of prosecutors, judges, and juries to know the law - the prosecutors to discern and prioritize who broke what laws, a judge to preside over any proceedings that determine guilt or innocence, and a jury to ultimately decide whether the prosecutor's specific assertion(s) would be legitimate or bullshit. Then of course there's the defendant and his/her lawyer, which get their say in all of this.

The cops are only there to try and ensure that no one gets hurt otherwise.

So yeah, you are correct in that bit of it... the police do not and are not expected to know the law, at least not enough so that they can determine whether or not one was broken. Of course they can testify to any breakage they witness, but otherwise that's the limit of their input as per laws.

Similar to sibling, I have previously worked for a defense contractor, subject to similar regulations... and among my duties, I was the primary sysadmin on the email MTAs (both the company and the DoD/DLA-owned ones).

If I would have merely seen someone in the company do what the Clintons did, and had not reported it? I would have immediately lost my IT-1 clearance, gotten fired on the spot, my employer would have probably been kicked off the contract, then we'd both be blacklisted from any further DoD consideration.

If I had done it myself? Getting fired would have been the least of my worries.

Err, in order for an SSH brute force vuln to work against a Mac, sshd has to be on (it's not - you need to go to System Preferences -> Sharing, enable Remote Login, and then include the specific users in "Allow Access For..." )

Well, that and get them to configure and launch sshd... it's off by default on OSX.

Bullshit - mopeds full of backup tapes is the new standard for that size range now.

I believe it was a joke...

Funny-but-true: A buddy I work with tried that on a developer's MacBook Pro today. He wound up munging /etc/sudoers instead. Now they're currently trying to figure down how to get a live distro running that can mount Mac filesystems so they can fix that. It's kind of hilarious from my POV..

Overall, if you already have physical access to the box, it's game-over anyway, and given the astronomically tiny percentage of Macs running OSX 10.10, that has sshd running, and happens to be on a publicly accessible network (either public wifi or a public IP addy)? Prolly not a really big concern...

Fuck sakes, he was most likely referring to threads.h , which is the std. C++ library for multithreading.

Strangely enough, that's why I voted "Don't care" - mostly because I can't scrape up any sympathy for the hackers, the site, or its customers... they can all die in a fire for all I care.

Man, this misanthropy really does creep up with age... scary part is, I kinda enjoy it.

I'm just hoping the NSA doesn't get any ideas.

It does lead to a question, though - could someone in North Korea (with a sufficient level of ability) remove or obfuscate those, or is the source code even available to the typical user in NoKo?

If you cannot bring yourself to keep your dick in your pants and it didn't involve your being raped, you have no one to blame but yourself. Like I said, it's not that hard to do for someone with a sufficient level of emotional maturity.

If you want to have sex outside of a relationship so bad, then at least be man enough to either say as much to your S/O directly, and/or end the relationship first.

This isn't one of those gray-area fuzzy moral issues where circumstances could excuse the actions... it's a very simple task: Remain faithful to the person you made the commitment to, or don't enter into a commitment until you are capable.

The reasons why folks marry have changed over time, but until recently, the basic principles of it has not (even if people routinely violate said principles.)

Yes, I'm fully aware of "open" marriages - few of them last very long, at least judging from folks in my social circles. Then again, why would they be embarrassed by the revelation of their names on such a website? Are you saying that even a quorum (let alone a majority) of the folks on that site practice such relationships? If so, the revelation of their names shouldn't be a problem (though actively seeking to hook up with folks from non-open marriages is rather questionable). I'm more than willing to wager that the vast majority of the users are keeping up a façade at home while cruising for some strange on the website.

Sleep with dogs, wake up with fleas. There are most likely websites out there for folks in open marriages to meet up and do whatever they please... can't really bring myself to feel sorry for 'em.

There is no puritanism here, merely a respect for marital trust, and the unwillingness to violate it.

Marriage isn't a mere contract that you can seek out loopholes for, or something you do just so that you can have sex-on-demand. It's a commitment; a sacred trust between two individuals who become as one in spirit. You do this for life, and bind your lives and fortunes together.

Many things are negotiable in this world, even in marriage - but remaining faithful to someone you are married to is not something you can (or should ever) negotiate over. If you haven't the maturity to understand that, then don't get married.