Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×

Comment Re:Lying scum (Score 5, Insightful) 303

Hillary Clinton should know what a "server wipe" is because she was in charge of the people who were managing this, she was the head of a Federal Department, and she wants to be President. Your parents might be random schmoes with no reason to know simple computer jargon, but high-level executives in the modern world do not have that excuse.

Comment Re: Lying scum (Score 4, Insightful) 303

The way that you get everyone to follow the same laws is to enforce them fairly and predictably, regardless of who violates them. M. K. Gandhi is widely credited with saying (something like) "An eye for an eye will leave everyone blind", which exemplifies why the enforcement of this kind of thing should be as impartial as practical: otherwise it looks like partisan hits, which is corrosive to both compliance with the law and the larger political environment.

Comment Re: What with a cloth?!?!?! (Score 4, Informative) 303

The RNC case and this are worlds apart. The RNC operated email servers for partisan purposes that are illegal to perform using government resources (labor time, equipment, and so forth). Hillary Clinton operated a private email server to keep government records out of the government's hands, contrary to both policy and statute, when both of those were crystal clear about what was required. Any law or policy violations in the RNC case went against specific direction from higher-ups. In the more recent case, the law and policy violations were directed by a member of the Cabinet.

Comment Re: Lying scum (Score 5, Informative) 303

Whether she knows what a server wipe is depends on the meaning of the word "is".

We've known this family is full of lying scum for at least 20 years. We've also known she (rather than Bill) likes to use informal processes to avoid government openness laws since the HillaryCare shenanigans in the early 90s.

Comment Re: Likely misdemeanor mishandling of classified i (Score 1) 434

What is your point about Amb. Gration? That he had at least five other bone-headed practices, so violating the Federal Records Act is not really an offense worth caring about? Even if true, does this help an official who presented Russia with an "overcharge" button for diplomacy, who wanted to obscure the events leading up to Benghazi because she pretended to not see what difference it would make to understand the truth, and who flagrantly violated State Department policy while her immediate underling was persecuting an ambassador for violating that same policy?

Perhaps Colin Powell also violated the Federal Records Act. State Department policy did not officially require use of government email servers (except in emergency situations) until the year he left the office. If he wants to run for president, there should certainly be a public debate over what he did or didn't do with regards to that. However, his primary defense -- that most of his emails were sent to government addresses -- is also Hillary Clinton's primary defense.

I did not directly address your facile arguments about what a foreign government would want from a Cabinet secretary's email because I thought the holes were so obvious: Hacking her server would give far more information than they could capture from a single conversation in her house, it is easier to do deniably, and at any rate the undeniable breach of federal law is in failing to put federal records in proper custody for preservation and oversight. For high-level officials, mishandling classified and SBU information is a real risk (and what the IGs here want to be investigated), but is not such a clear violation.

Comment Re: Likely misdemeanor mishandling of classified i (Score 2) 434

The law requiring official records to be retained for future reference and use was, like all statutes, passed by Congress and signed by the President. HRC also fired an ambassador for keeping email on a non-government server, so she knew what the rules were. She just didn't think she should have to follow them -- and the Obama DOJ apparently agrees that she is too good for our laws to apply to her.

Comment Re:How does it hurt academic research? (Score 1) 101

At least in CS, most research in journals is hardly relevant the real world, and most of it is largely redundant with what the authors could get published in other venues. Both of those pathologies are due mostly to incentives in academia to publish or perish. Corporate researchers have incentives to describe their research and move on, not milk their one decent idea (and funding stream) until it is dry. Looking at the organizational affiliations of published papers' authors does not say much about where relevant research is done.

Comment Re: Sort of.. (Score 1) 86

On top of that, the more of these things you expect to deploy, the better an investment in test and verification amortizes. How much does the testing cost, and how long does it take someone to replace a failed system, and how many replacements does it take before the operations cost exceeds the verification cost?

Comment Re:No. (Score 1) 507

Sounds like a typical offshoring disaster. I hope somebody somewhere up the command chain felt the consequences.

I've also had luck with waterfall-like development models, on projects from six months to about four years (although the four-year project did have three distinct iterations in order to manage risk). That was for a vehicle-mounted sensor to detect land mines, so there were obvious reliability concerns -- and we could meet them because waterfall let us budget time for detailed failure mode analyses, rather than trying to make that fulfill some user story within a single sprint.

He: Let's end it all, bequeathin' our brains to science. She: What?!? Science got enough trouble with their OWN brains. -- Walt Kelly