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

 



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: Saved by CC's? (Score 1) 470

This passage may prove key:

Mr. Merrill, the spokesman for Mrs. Clinton...said that because Mrs. Clinton had been sending emails to other State Department officials at their government accounts, she had "every expectation they would be retained." He did not address emails that Mrs. Clinton may have sent to foreign leaders, people in the private sector or government officials outside the State Department.

If she CC'd a government email address each and every time she was on gov't business, then technically it would be properly preserved because all gov't email accounts are supposed to be archived. We don't know if or how many were not CC'd in this way yet.

As far as whether using that technique is an official "security risk" is also unclear. Bad practice, yes. Illegal, perhaps not.

I expect a lot of complex and controversial interpreting of the law text during the course of this. Laws involving IT are often vague.

Comment: Re:Politics aside for a moment. (Score 1) 470

What exactly is her big "Benghazi sin"? I cannot get a good, clean answer from conservatives. Civilian workers died in the middle east under W also.

As far as this current (alleged) scandal, give it time to play out. Often these things are more nuanced than initial headlines suggest when one digs into the details and gets more analyst opinions. There are too many drama queens on both sides of the isle.

Comment: Re:Foxconn Factories' Future: Fewer Humans, More R (Score 1) 186

by Tablizer (#49159009) Attached to: Foxconn Factories' Future: Fewer Humans, More Robots

Technology creates new fields

Yes, I realize that, but will it always be enough to offset the losses? I don't see enough "new fields" to replace lost factory jobs. Retail? That seems like a stretch, but the web and self-checkout technologies are eating into that also. Plus, retail pays lower than factory work.

Road construction, gas stations, repair shops, car factories, etc. clearly offset any loss in the "horse and coach" business. I don't see the equivalent in quantity these days.

Comment: Re:Foxconn Factories' Future: Fewer Humans, More R (Score 2) 186

by Tablizer (#49157323) Attached to: Foxconn Factories' Future: Fewer Humans, More Robots

It used to be that new technologies created new jobs as it destroyed old ones. But that's merely a historical pattern, not necessarily a law of nature, and it may end.

It's kind of like Moore's Law: it's held so far, but nobody knows if it will keep.

Many conservatives feel that if the gov't doesn't meddle, new jobs will come from somewhere. However, they are slow to name specifics. The few they could name are also ripe for offshoring.

Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.

Working...