Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Lying scum (Score 2) 303

Actually we do and she is still doing it. She is a civilian in possession of classified material that she collected while she wasn't a civilian. End of the fucking discussion. She is still breaking the law.

The documents were not classified at the time. Contrary to the assertion in Routers article, FGI (foreign government information) are not 'born classified' - this is shown both by the wording of the statutes themselves; court interpretation of the statutes and executive orders; and according to the State Department itself.

It is far from clear what duty, if any, she has in the case of retroactively classified documents, but almost certainly she has no legal culpability.

Comment Re:This was all about convenience (Score 2) 303

The mishandling of email was probably a simple, unintentional mistake that as both a lawyer and politician she is automatically lying about. *shrug* unsurprising.

There is no evidence yet of her mishandling email. There have been a lot of false claims about the classified nature of the email. The courts have ruled that information from a foreign government is not 'born classified', it must be explicitly stated that it is classified by the foreign government for it to be treated as classified material.

Comment The emails were not 'born classified' (Score 4, Informative) 303

Read the effin statutes. The emails are not automatically classified if they are from a foreign government. They are only classified if the foreign government has stated they are classified.

The courts have ruled that being from a foreign government is not sufficient to be classified. The State Department argued that it was in a FOIA case and lost.

The case and the law are discussed in this link,

This provision of Executive Order 12,958 was a significant factor in a 1998 decision by the federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that rejected the government's claim that a communication from the United Kingdom could be withheld from a FOIA requester because it had been classified by the Department of State. Weatherhead v. United States, 157 F. 3d 735 (9th Cir. October 1998), vacated as moot, 528 U.S. 1042 (1999) . The Ninth Circuit found that the government was unable to demonstrate that there was any specific reason for withholding the documents at issue and, therefore, without a presumption that foreign government information should be classified, the government could not justify withholding this document under the 1995 Order. The Court of Appeals panel also examined the letter, and found that its contents were innocuous and disclosure could not reasonably be expected to result in damage to the national security.

http://www.bushsecrecy.org/pag...

Comment Re:They Brought It On Themselves (Score 1) 1029

For example, Citizen Kane was a great movie and that isn't impacted by the fact the main characters are all heterosexual and white. It wouldn't be improved -- nor detracted from -- if the characters were of a different race or sexual orientation. The story stands alone.

Citizen Kane is an awful movie. It was an important to the film industry due to introducing some important innovations that were influential and adopted by later films, but as a movie it was horrendous. Bad acting, bad writing, etc. It is worse than just about anything that has made it to the big screen - indeed Gigli - as awful as it was - is better in terms of being a movie than Citizen Kane.

Comment Re:Unfortunately (Score 1) 467

The CDC's own study came up with gun use victims (including those threatened with, not shot, and including a lot of suicides) at 150,000 to 300,000, and during the same period, defensive uses between 500,000 and 3,000,000.

It wasn't a study, it was a summary of some of the literature from preexisting studies. It ignored the criticisms of the literature (that most DGUs claimed are actually not DGUs but assault with a deadly weapon; and that simple extrapolation shows that the DGU 'statistics' are ridiculously overstated since there would have to be a huge number more serious gun injuries at hospitals; that false positives dramatically skew the statistics; etc).

Comment Re:Unfortunately (Score 1) 467

I know it happens but honestly I would like to see a link to your study. I'm thinking it doesn't happen all that often.

The 'defensive gun uses' the previous poster is referring to include actual defensive gun uses, but also people pulling their guns inappropriately because they thought someone looked suspicious; or being in an argument and pulling the gun to end the argument. Neither of which are actual DGUs but make up the vast majority of claimed DGUs that are a part of DGU statistics.

Comment Re:Not going to pull plastic out of the ocean (Score 1) 183

The harm most people are concerned about is mammals and birds. Pieces of plastic that are 'the size of a grain of rice' - don't pose any risk to mammals and birds. They also don't pose a risk to the majority of marine life.

The author claims the devices will 'break really quick' - devices engineered to be submerged in the ocean constantly have different design constraints than devices that are for capturing wind energy. There is no reason to believe that a properly designed structure will be prone to failure and breakage.

The author claims the devices will 'harm wildlife' - as long as it is a net harm reduction (which seems likely) who cares? Also she grossly exaggerates the risks of harm.

The author has a point that the captured plastic won't be desired by recyclers - not sure why that matters. Worse case scenario is burn it.

Her next two points have nothing to do with the device - beach clean up can occur independently of the booms.

Devices to reduce plastic waste flow to the oceans can still be done.

Comment The numbers don't make sense (Score 1) 81

At 220 calories per day deficit over 6 months they would lose about 11 lbs of fat.

6*220*30/3500 = 11.3

At 220 calories deficit over 7 days, they would lose .4 lbs of fat.

220*7/3500 = .4

So the 1.5 lbs doesn't make sense (in reality they probably just depleted their glucose storage a little bit which lost a 1+ of water weight).

You are in a maze of UUCP connections, all alike.

Working...