Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Not terrorism ? (Score 1) 286

by ScentCone (#49376987) Attached to: Attempted Breach of NSA HQ Checkpoint; One Shot Dead

Who said they were using violence?

Failing to stop your multi-thousand-pound vehicle as you drive at a military checkpoint is telegraphing violent intent. At least, that's how the guards have to treat it. Driving a suicide car bomb at/through checkpoints is a well established tactic, and has produced a no-compromises protocol in response. When you give off all the signs of violent intent, there's really no way to just let them carry on and decide later if they were a threat. It's not video game with a retry button the guards can push after they've been blown to pieces.

Comment: Re:Not terrorism ? (Score 1) 286

by ScentCone (#49376979) Attached to: Attempted Breach of NSA HQ Checkpoint; One Shot Dead

I took it to mean that the perps were white. If they were brown then it would have been a terrorist case.

No, you're getting your media memes all wrong. If they were brown, it would have been, by default and without any need for further analysis, another case of police brutality blah blah blah. Please get your coverage spin in sync with contemporary standards. There are people who make a living off of faux racial outrage, and if you don't help their hype, they're going to have to find other work.

Comment: Re:maybe because it's a quote (Score 1) 286

by ScentCone (#49376963) Attached to: Attempted Breach of NSA HQ Checkpoint; One Shot Dead

Example: "It needs fixed" vs. "It seems fixed"

A poor choice of things to compare.

"It needs to be fixed" can read like "It needs to be changed from its current state to a new state, in which is has been fixed." What it needs is something that, once done, will put the act of fixing it in the past tense. "It needs some fixing, so that it will then be fixed." If you're going with the shorter "It needs to be fixed," the "to be" needs to be there if you're going to used that future-sense changed state of "fixed." Or, one should just use: "It needs fixing," where "fixing," a gerund, acts like any other noun that would serve as the object of the sentence.

"It seems fixed," on the other hand, is a completely different construction. There is no assertion of the need for an action (like needing TO BE fixed). It's an observation about its current state (it's in the state of already having been fixed). The "seems" casts mild doubt on the quality of the assertion, but that's just modifying the word "fixed" in this case, which is acting as an adjective (the thing is fast, the thing is light weight, the thing is expensive, the thing is fixed). Think of saying, "It looks blue." Normal usage is rarely, "It looks to be blue," any more than it is, "It seems to be fixed." You could replace "seems" with "feels," knowing that you'd also be far more likely to say, "It's no longer wobbly. It feels fixed," than you would "It feels to be fixed."

So, are you one of those grammatical hypocrites

No, it seems I'm not.

Inquiring minds want to know.

No, an inquiring mind would have thought it through before trotting that one out.

Comment: Re:News for nerds (Score 2) 286

by ScentCone (#49372877) Attached to: Attempted Breach of NSA HQ Checkpoint; One Shot Dead

But why didn't the FBI's country-wide license plate trackers not catch them?

Hint: not everything you see on NCIS or CSI:Wherever actually works like it dos on TV.

Or is that only to trace their movements after they do something bad?

It can definitely help to be able follow the trail after someone does something especially awful - sometimes bad guys actually have accomplices.

But more to the point in this case: reports are that the vehicle they used was stolen, along with its license plates.

Comment: Re:*sigh* (Score 1) 290

by ScentCone (#49371907) Attached to: Iowa's Governor Terry Branstad Thinks He Doesn't Use E-mail

Sending to the Senate and Congress would ALSO likely qualify, since they are Federal systems.

No, that doesn't cut it. Each agency/department has its own archiving systems, especially those that deal (as State does) with sensitive and frequently compartmentalized information. That's why FOIA requests go to the agency and to "the government." And of course that still doesn't have anything to do with all of her correspondence with other governments and other non-State.gov parties.

Let's ignore Blumenthal, since you have lots of patience still waiting for him to say that's not his correspondence with Clinton. He's only had a couple of years, so I'm sure he's still gathering his notes. Happily, he's apparently not nearly as clever as Clinton herself, and used an AOL mailbox while routinely sending her his intel memos. And AOL will have retained all of that, and is very responsive to subpoenas.

Thus, it just may be impossible to prove that Mrs. H "never sent a compliant copy of message X"

But the existence of a single piece of correspondence with her long-time aide/confidant Blumenthal or anyone else outside of State will show where she was violating the law. Why? Because two years worth of FOIA requests to State turned up no such emails. You're saying that maybe she CC'd them to unknown mailboxes at State in order to archive them. If so, multiple exhaustive FOIA requests would have turned up perhaps ONE email, yes? State's mail servers contain untold thousands of messages between staffers there and correspondents throughout the rest of the government and other third parties around the world. But not a single one tucked away as a CC or BCC from Clinton's home-based private server that shows sending or receiving such mail. State's IT people responded to FOIA requests saying there was no such data. They have her notes to staff, but nothing between her and third parties that she CC'd in the way you're suggesting. None.

Comment: Re:How about (Score 1) 175

How about getting a president that isn't so unpopular he needs protecting from anything and everything?

Because with some crazy people, the fact there even is a president is enough to want to kill him/her. Or the fact that the president is whoever is in that role on a given day when Crazy Person suddenly decides they've had enough of the fact that the US allows people to grow and cut down trees ... or allows women to go to school ... or allows anyone to own domestic animals ... or allows men to walk around without beards or not protect everyone from the Space Aliens, whatever.

Comment: Re:*sigh* (Score 1) 290

by ScentCone (#49369225) Attached to: Iowa's Governor Terry Branstad Thinks He Doesn't Use E-mail

Those rules only specified they be stored on gov't systems ... I've explained this already.

No, what you've done is continued to avoid the actual issue. Are you really suggesting that all of a secretary of state's sensitive and official communication is with her own staff? That she has no communication with people in the senate, the congress, with other federal agencies? That she has no communication with anyone in the White House (you know, where her boss works), and - as the country's top diplomat - no communication with other diplomats, heads of state, or foreign ministers? No communication with the people in other countries who then turned around and wrote huge checks to her family enterprise? Is that your assessment of how little she did in that role? Or are you really going to keep up the charade that all of her email was with, and only with, people who reported to her at State? If she sent a single email outside of those bounds, then your blanket assertion of her compliance is incorrect. So, do you really think not a single email was sent to her from outside of State? You're convinced that, for example, Blumenthal's emails are all fake? Be specific. He hasn't said the leaked mail was fake, but you seem to know something he doesn't.

There wasn't what?

Any mechanism in place to automatically mirror her correspondence with third parties. None.

No it's not. The debate is not about GENERAL party accuracy. My debate points don't depend on prior partisan accuracy.

So, you'd be all for what the current investigation proposed: handing her server over to completely neutral third party for forensic analysis, and review of her tens of thousands of hidden emails by the same archivists that already review the mixed-with-private emails of other government officials to decide what's relevant as public records? Sounds pretty satisfactory, doesn't it? Woops, too late, her lawyer says that she has deliberately destroyed all of those records with no chance for said archivists to review them, and that they will never let anyone else look at the server.

Until that happens, I'm not going to guess out of my ass.

Except in the ways you already have, which contradict things she's saying in public, you mean.

I originally asked for specific laws, not opinions about them.

The laws that matter? How about the Federal Records Act? It requires federal officials to proactively keep their public documents available for things like FOIA searches. She actively hid her records from such searches, and in fact multiple FOIA requests came and went both during and following her tenure that absolutely would have included correspondence to and from her - but came up dry because she had not provided the records, even after she left office. When a federal official deliberately keeps their records out of public scrutiny, it's a violation of the US Code (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071), a criminal offense.

You're probably going to contend that her violation of that law was magically un-done by her eventual coughing up of her cherry-picked hardcopies when she was hounded, years later, by investigators. No go. This isn't the Presidential Records Act, which provides for a "cooling off" period before those records are subject to FOIA. Her correspondence with people like Blumenthal, or with the entities in Saudi Arabia that handed her millions of dollars, are subject to immediate FOIA scrutiny. She took deliberate actions that made that impossible. https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

Comment: Re:*sigh* (Score 1) 290

by ScentCone (#49367457) Attached to: Iowa's Governor Terry Branstad Thinks He Doesn't Use E-mail

I don't believe you

That's not true. You're just doing your best to play like you really think all of this is just a misunderstanding. It's not, and you know it. I know you've already spent ten seconds and Googled for things like this, but I'll play along if it makes you feel better. Here's just one random first-on-Google example:

http://america.aljazeera.com/a...

I never claimed that. I don't know where you got that idea.

You've speculated that her records were kept correctly (despite what she and everyone else says), and that there's no evidence she's done anything wrong. The implication then, by you, is that she did things correctly - and the ONLY way that could be, is if there was some sort of mechanism in place to do what the 2009 NARA and other rules required. But there wasn't. SHE SAID THERE WASN'T. So you are tap-dancing around the whole "show me proof" thing in order to avoid just plain facing what the woman involved has herself been saying. Why, I can't imagine. Are you working for her or her party?

What's this question have to do with anything? I see no relation.

Yeah, sure. It was someone else hacking your account when you complained that the current people looking at the matter weren't objective and a-political enough for you. It's perfectly reasonable to ask you if you found the prior investigation - which was run by HER party - to be likewise. You're implying it's not, which means you're being hypocritical on the subject. Only the party you don't like can be political in such matters, or only the party you favor can be objective?

Politicians often spin for short-term gain and don't care about fact-checkers much

The politicians doing the spin, here, are the ones relying on the fact that the person they're backing has conveniently destroyed records. The politicians conducting the investigation are relying on the documents SHE cherry-picked, and those are the ones that show the date gaps, a matter which they (unlike her, with tens of thousand of mixed-in emails we'll never see) will be placing right in front of your nose to review. Asserting that they're probably lying as they talk about public records you can review, while proposing the exact opposite about a stridently partisan person who has just been caught avoiding the very rules she said her department employees must all follow, shows how objective you're (not) being.

Where is this rule written?

This has been the case for a long time. Jason Baron, former director of litigation with the National Archives, explains the problem here. He said in an interview that "Clinton’s use of a private server gave her exclusive control, thus preventing the department from having full access to emails she sent and received while a federal employee. Government employees have no right to privacy on government computers and even personal emails are subject to review and perhaps release at the department’s discretion. Setting up a private server to conduct public business inappropriately shifts control of what is accessible to the end user alone rather than allowing the institution to decide threshold questions.” That's been true of federal records for decades: the agency archivists decide what's private, not the person running her official email on a server she's keeping in her home.

When cornered you seem to get wordy

Who's cornered? Not me. I'm just explaining the facts to someone who seems really desperate for them to go away.

Comment: Re:The Better, Longer Lasting, Cheaper Bulb (Score 1) 166

by ScentCone (#49367203) Attached to: Graphene Light Bulbs Coming To Stores Soon
No. Pretending that market pressures don't drive companies updating their products and their pricing is ridiculous. You have to know that. So what are you trying say, by pretending that it's otherwise? My "argument" isn't wrong: companies continue to improve their products and adjust their pricing because markets require that. It's very reasonable to wonder about someone's experience and awareness of economics and business realities when they say otherwise.

Comment: Re:The Better, Longer Lasting, Cheaper Bulb (Score 1) 166

by ScentCone (#49366021) Attached to: Graphene Light Bulbs Coming To Stores Soon

That is not "market economics" but improvements in production ...

Why the hell do you think that people who make things bother to improve production? Because if they don't someone else will, and they'll lose their market. You really do lead a sheltered life, don't you. I can tell you've never actually made anything, or been tuned into the bottom line of any business entity that does. You should. You'd learn a lot.

Comment: Re:*sigh* (Score 1) 290

by ScentCone (#49364317) Attached to: Iowa's Governor Terry Branstad Thinks He Doesn't Use E-mail

They also said their records are poor in general. "We don't have a record of X" thus does NOT rule out X having existed in the past.

State Department IT staff are on the record having told her multiple times that her method of communicating was preventing them from archiving her official email as required. Are you saying that despite the steps she took to make sure that no mail sent to and from her counterparts all around the world, to and from other agencies and branches of government (including the White House) , and to and from the well known mile-long list of donors to her family enterprise and political operation, that somehow there was a magic link between her private server and some archiving mechanism at State? A link that you think might exist, but which SHE acknowledges did not exist, and which some how - despite no email address involving state.gov being used in such communication - magically somehow got archived at State, and not one single example of such can be found by multiple investigative teams? And why would they find it - preventing it from getting into that system is exactly why she built a path around it. State's archives have copious correspondence from hundreds and hundreds of their other officials, staff, contractors, previous cabinet appointees and related users - just not a single scrap from her? Of course they don't: she didn't use that system.

And SHE HERSELF says that she thinks having corresponded with staffers inside State was a good enough way to retain those messages. She hand-picked reporters and pre-approved questions in the only Q&A she's allowed on the subject, and so conveniently was able to avoid being asked how she thought that method would apply when corresponding with people like Blumenthal (who hasn't denied that the leaked emails were his, by the way). Which is why she's never had to address the fact she wasn't personally taking any steps to CC or otherwise mirror all of the mail sent to and from her private server, as required by law. She hasn't mentioned CCing her State.gov mailbox that because at her direction, State's IT never even established an email account for her to which she would mirror her mail.

When finally capitulating to demands that her public records actually be made available, she didn't print out 55,000 pages of them because of a failure by the staff and systems at State, she printed them out because that was the only way she was willing to make them available. She could have forwarded them electronically, in their entirety, as required (so that, as the law requires, a government archivist can evaluate the messages and cull the official from the private). But no - she and her lawyers opted for a method that would absolutely maximize the additional delays in allowing other people to look through the records, would remove helpful header information, and would add untold thousands of hours of taxpayer-funded work to turn the documents back into searchable form. That was a deliberate choice that added work on her part in order to make the process more difficult and slow for investigators and the press, who had been requesting the documents for years.

I can only find Republicans claiming that, not objective (non-political) examiners.

Do you consider the investigation run congress when it was controlled by HER own party (which established after spending millions of dollars looking into related things, that there were NO such records at State) to have also been polticized against her? Now - under pressure - she's dumped hardcopies of the records that actually did exist all along (well, just some of them), and investigators who - unlike the last ones - aren't in her pocket for political gain say that the records have large date gaps. Unlike HER, they are conducting activity that will be entirely in the public record. When the investigators looking into this say something, you and they know that they will be fact checked to death by her political operatives. Despite her deliberate attempts to hide her communications from standard public review, you are giving her the benefit of the doubt ... but when a long-time career prosecutor (with a sterling record) and now congressman who knows that everything he says will be subject to endless review tells you what's present (and absent) in what are now public records available soon for YOU to look at, too, you're assuming he's lying?

What's that have to do with points being discussed?

It goes to establishing her deliberate actions in this area. In cases of private communications being mixed in with official ones, government archivists are supposed to look at ALL records, separate the official from the private, and return the private records to the person who blended them together. She knew this, and took actions to deliberately prevent such review. And knowing that subpoenas were coming, destroyed all evidence of how such decisions were made.

Comment: Re:The Better, Longer Lasting, Cheaper Bulb (Score 1) 166

by ScentCone (#49364235) Attached to: Graphene Light Bulbs Coming To Stores Soon

Yes, for the same price, not for cheaper.

And in many cases, also cheaper. The examples I cited above show that behavior as well. You need to get out more if you think that, say, a given tablet computer from this year isn't better and cheaper than it was a year or two ago. Or that an off-the-shelf quadcopter and gimbaled camera rig isn't many times as capable for a fraction of the cost it was just a couple years ago. Eeeeeevil market economics at work.

Comment: Re:*sigh* (Score 1) 290

by ScentCone (#49363907) Attached to: Iowa's Governor Terry Branstad Thinks He Doesn't Use E-mail

You don't have any evidence of that.

What? The evidence is that State said they had none of it, nor any record of having seen any such correspondence until she just recently dumped that self-selected pile of paper on them. SHE said that was when she provided them with "the appropriate" copies. Not when she was in office. Not when she left office. But years later when forced to. SHE said so, not me. Congressional investigators (under both parties) could find not a single indication she had ever provided those records, State's internal records show no such thing. FOIA and subpoena-based requests turned up no such thing.

So what is it you're looking for, to understand this? She herself says you're wrong. Does that cover it for you?

Making sure a full set is available here and now

She did NOT make a "full set" available, as required by law. She made available redacted hardcopies of only those that she decided she wanted other people to see. Investigators say that what she provided has gaps of weeks and months missing. What part of that are you refusing to hear?

Anyhow, let the smart lawyers work it out.

Her smart lawyer says there's no point allowing anyone with any forensic skills to look at her server to see if she's lying or not because she's deleted everything off of it. You don't have to trust MY judgement. Trust the "smart lawyer" you just cited. If you don't like THAT smart lawyer, trust the smart lawyers from the congressional investigations that took place multiple times now, and the smart lawyers from the Associated Press, all of whom disagree with you.

Comment: Re:The Better, Longer Lasting, Cheaper Bulb (Score 1) 166

by ScentCone (#49363801) Attached to: Graphene Light Bulbs Coming To Stores Soon

The price is usually only cheaper for products that have the same or less qualities / features.

That may be the point he was trying to make, but it's incorrect. Just look around. I can pick up a new camera from Nikon that's essentially the same price as the previous model while enjoying better features. The same is true of TV's from Samsung, or countless other devices. In real dollars, the same is true of cars, major appliances, all sorts of things.

After any salary raise, you will have less money at the end of the month than you did before.

Working...