Give it ten years.

Molecular printers, flying cars and fuel-cell smartphones...

They're on it

we'll see if she can't talk her way out of this first.

I'm not sure the fourth amendment should apply to email.

Yet another reason why people just shouldn't use email for anything substantive.

I'm a liberal who wants the next president to be a sharp operator who knows how to keep her hands clean and has no compunction about crushing her enemies. So yes, it helps me quite a bit.

So, the Bush White House had its staffers use government email for government stuff, who'da thunk it?

Nah, you see the problem was that they didn't really pay attention to what business was running on either blackberry, or they intentionally used the non-government emails for business that was clearly government-related ("we should fire these US Attorneys") but they didn't want captured by the Records Act.

You see, when you give people two email systems it doesn't address the ethical problem, since you're now allowing someone to choose wether their correspondence is recorded or not. The only alternative now is to force people to turn over their private emails as long as they're government employees.

Note, by the by, that the argument that all her official correspondence with State Dept. staff is a matter of public record because the worker bees were using government accounts is specious.

I don't think ANY emails of ANY kind should be public record. I thought I made that clear.

There is a concerted effort throughout government to communicate in manners that cannot be audited.

Like phone calls, or meeting another official at a bar.

I just don't think emails should be regarded this way, they're far too casual and they don't really reflect the official acts of people in the way that a true "record" does (in the sense that someone in the 1960s would understand the term "government record.") Emails should be afforded the same leniency as phone calls -- maybe we keep them for a little while, but people, even people in government, should have the right to delete them.

Sometimes I wonder if transparency advocates won't be happy until they've stapled a Google Glass onto the head of every government employee recording a 24 hour stream of their every sight and utterance. The problem with this approach is that the only people who actually use government transparency are other politicians, mainly to dig up dirt, and lobbyists -- it makes their job so much easier when they can confirm that a politician remains bought. Beyond a certain point transparency only benefits the loud and wealthy, it makes discretion impossible and it subjugates elected officials to the whim of anyone that runs a PR operation.

She said that anything that is classified isn't handled via email at all, but via secure diplomatic channels and cables, which are all done via the State department and on record.

On record at Wikileaks, that is.

This sort of thing isn't unprecedented, the Bush White House had a policy of issuing important staffers two Blackberries, one that had a whitehouse.gov email and one that had a gop.org email, and using both systems indifferently for communication.

I sorta don't care in either place, at least from an ethics perspective, since all emails ever seem to do is trigger dopey years-long investigations and pseudo-controversies about the parsing of language and people going off half-cocked. Case in point: Benghazi.

On the other hand, I'd rather not people like this be president of the United States. I think Lindsey Graham has the right idea, if you're an official person, NEVER USE EMAIL. Write official documents carefully, or just call someone.

The difference between Pi and the golden ratio is that the golden ratio isn't transcendental, it's just irrational. In fact, you can state Phi perfectly as (1 + sqrt(5)) / 2.

Yeah, I'm a fan of Darren Aronofsky

He should pay his PAs better.

And for what the Kindle does it's can't replace an iPad.

If it ain't publicly known and reproducible then it ain't science. No public policy or regulation should be based in reasons that are not subject to examination and validation. This is pretty simple.

This is ridiculous. Real after me: It is impossible to scientifically prove that environmental damage is bad, or should be illegal. It is impossible to scientifically prove that killing innocent people is wrong. It is impossible to scientifically prove that theft is wrong. It is impossible to scientifically prove that the risk of particulate pollution above level X creates an intolerable hazard, but below the level does not, and lacking that level of predication, rule making becomes impossible.

If you create the standard that a law must be justified by science, no law could be sufficiently justified. The EPA makes regulations based on science, but also on things like risk assessments, ethics, moral attitudes on the value of human life, and popular democratic demands. Risk assessments and ethics aren't science and never can be, making them into science is scientism. If the people vote for clean air or dirty air, or their legislators demand it, they should get clean or dirty air, science be damned.

Exactly, they're a single concept, so they should use the same operator. And if C++ don't have overloading, that would be impossible.

"Concepts" don't come from a language, they come from the programmer.

Buy a Mac, install Windows.