The emails were classified retroactively because they should have been classified and would have been classified at the time that they were sent. They bypassed security regulations when they generated the email and, as such, they were not marked classified from the beginning.

Hmmm no bias detected in that statement... though you did openly admit that you're a camp 1 member later on. I will tell you right now that I've worked for several companies with people like you calling the security shots. I can also tell you right now that I will never carry a company phone, no matter what my boss wants. Most engineers I know have zero interest in a company phone. The only people I know who do want one are managers and sales types. If you want somebody outside of those two groups to be connected, you have to allow BYOD to some extent. You may not like it, and you may think its all about the toys, but that's just because you're way too uptight and don't realize that people want a work life balance. Carrying a corporate phone is like having an electronic leash around your neck.

You can have all the security in the world if you disconnect your network from everyone else. No one will be able to get anything meaningful done. You have to balance the needs of your employees with the needs of the business. I would never work at your business unless I was absolutely desperate. Thankfully, I have never been that desperate.

You're right. Pure polyester was in vogue back then. It has much better durability, which is very important for a conqueror.

You know that this is exactly what Apple did with the iPhone, right? The original iPhone was just a glorified iPod until Apple allowed 3rd party developers to start writing their own apps. I rarely use any of the software that originally shipped with the iPhone - the only exceptions being the texting app and the calendar app.

See Four for information about how the EMV transition will work. Basically there are two entities involved in determining whether to use chip and pin for each transaction. The card issuer has to issue a PIN for the card. The payment processor has to have hardware and infrastructure to verify the PIN in order for the chip and PIN portion to work. The payment processor works on behalf of the merchant accepting the transaction. Everyone wants to pass the financial responsibility of fraud up the chain from merchant to the card issuer. Eventually the US will transition to chip and PIN just to avoid liablity.

My understanding is that it is a two part process. The US is doing chip and signature for a few years and then will transition to chip and pin once the hardware all transitions. The purpose of the transition is due to a legislative change that puts the liability for transaction fraud on the weakest link in the card processing chain. If the card is EMV capable (chip and pin/signature) and the card reader is magnetic swipe, then the merchant bears the liability on accepting the swipe. If the merchant has EMV terminals and the card is magnetic swipe only, then the card issuer is liable. Most people in the US would not know their credit card PIN unless they routinely make cash advances. In a year or two the banks will start issuing or forcing people to reset their PIN somehow.

I would not be surprised if you were guessing incorrectly. The California DMV website makes no mention of auto renewal. Part of your registration fee is a "Vehicle License Fee", which is a tax on the vehicle's value. Since it is a tax (and deductible from your federal taxes), the California State Franchise Tax Board probably uses its authority to automatically take it's money from your bank account directly. I could be wrong, however.

Anyway, when I left the state of California I found that California gave me one of two options: A) Pay income tax for the year you give up your residency at the non-resident rate, even if you did not work a single day in the state of California. B) pay state income tax on my out of state income even for tax years where I was no longer living in the state until I forsake my residency. They'll do whatever they can to get as much money as possible from you.

burma shave?

Taylor Swift's current album is #4 for the week, according to billboard. It's been in the top 10 since November of 2014, when it was released. I highly suspect that, no matter what you or I think of her music, she will be very popular for years to come. She's been a success for 9 years now, topping the charts since she was 15 years old. In 5 years from now Neil Young will be getting less and less airplay as classic rock stations move more and more into the 90's. You can already hear Red Hot Chili Peppers, Nirvana, and other 90's groups on classic rock stations throughout the country. I would be surprised if Neil Young is getting more airplay than Taylor in 5 years.

Anyone else try to look up the documentary "My Country, My Country" on IMDB? You can quite literally put in the full movie title and the only auto-complete search it finds for you is "My Cousin, Vinny". I've never seen that with any other movie on IMDB, no matter how obscure. Even foreign films. But if you actually force it to execute the search, you'll see that the title is on IMDB. I wonder if I am on the watch list, now? :P

Hah. It may just have been me having a stressful day because I see the sarcasm in it this morning.

So what is a business owner going to disclaim all of their proclivities and hatreds in a profile so that I know I need to go to Bob's Bakery instead of Alice's Bakery to get handicap service? How am I supposed to know that a business doesn't support gay marriage? It's not like they usually advertise that information. And my guess is that they just didn't find a Muslim bakery that they wanted to make their cake. Even in cases where the business owner's views are well established (see Chick Fil A), I guarantee you a gay couple would still be served there.

Right. Or a KKK member baker from making a black person's wedding cake. Or for a eugenics supporter to not serve a handicapped person. And the list goes on and on. There's no reason to protect any of those people from discrimination. It's not like there has been a history of any of these groups of people being oppressed, or anything like that... oh wait.

But you're still missing the point of what was implied by her supposedly saying that. It wasn't suggesting that she was going to ensure that they were fed. In fact, the statement "Let them eat cake" is meant to show complete disregard and respect for the starving. But instead to imply that if they can't afford bread (cake being more expensive than bread), they may as well just starve.