And there are usually more training material, tutorials, and road-tested reference info for older stuff. Look one version back and you can get $7 books even. Established technologies don't change that much between versions such that say a book for version 7 won't be much different from the latest, version 8. You can usually find a "what's new in version 8" article on the web for the differences so that you don't have buy the latest book.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
I'd never trade readability for "elegance" or, worse, "performance".
Code golf may be fun, but it needs to be kept very far away from everything outside those games.
Oddly enough, I've seen that cause more problems than it's solved.
It's often misinterpreted, in the same way you so conveniently put it, which is then used to justify some pretty awful decisions regarding third-party libraries. I'm convinced that this is the leading cause of bloated software.
Even when used correctly, I've seen some pretty impressive code-contortions to avoid even a very small amount of duplicate code. Sometimes, it's okay to just do a check twice. As long as the code is easy to read and modify, you're fine. Really.
But that's the problem with programming, isn't it? It's little more than wishful thinking and folk-wisdom. That would be okay (it's an art, after all) but too many developers have deluded themselves in to thinking it's more in-line with mathematics or engineering. They've convinced themselves the cute little acronyms they repeat to one another have some objective, rational, basis and must be obeyed at all cost.
It's silly, really.
How much for scaring a neighbor via drones? I thought they were going drone.
That can't be true since email didn't really exist in the 1950's. Obviously one was not required to keep every single correspondence to everybody in the paper era forever. Further, paper could be damaged from rain, fire, insects, etc.
Why the heck can't Outlook by default display a warning about such with wording similar to: "You are about to send a message to 100 or more people. Please confirm....".
I've had some embarrassing moments myself from such mistakes.
And a similar default warning for large messages or attachments.
Not one of them is an expert in AI systems.
I don't believe most AI experts outright dismiss doomsday AI; they merely think the possibility is a good ways off because they've personally seen how slow and difficult it is to get even incremental AI improvements.
We still have nothing even remotely close to a general-purpose AI (at least not beyond insect level). We are just beginning to make practical highly-specialized savants which are complete morons outside of their carefully-crafted specialty. (Then again, so is Congress
Robots are now forbidden in Indiana stores
Indeed. He made the train-wreck more interesting. If you are going to be a jerk, be an interesting jerk.
Did they officially deny creating Stuxnet? I vaguely remember them saying something like "We don't comment on such as is our policy, and thus won't confirm nor deny".
Each agency/department has its own archiving systems, especially those that deal (as State does) with sensitive and frequently compartmentalized information.
Again, the relevant laws AS WRITTEN do NOT dictate which specific systems are to do the "storing". If you believe they do, then give the exact passage and demonstrate how your interpretation of the text is the One and Only Proper interpretation. Otherwise, it appears you are making up rules out of your tail end.
Why? Because two years worth of FOIA requests to State turned up no such emails.
We don't know how thorough their digging was and/or how much was lost or damaged over time. Maybe FOIA are lazy and dumping the problem onto other agencies. Gov't can be like that. If somebody wants to make a case that prior searches were thorough enough to cover everything possibly sent, they can, but I have NOT seen such a presentation. You are welcome to present such evidence. Otherwise, please don't speculate based on your impressions and personal notions about how the guts of gov't work or don't work.
Please stop wasting my time with so much idle speculation. She's not going to prison based on mere guesses and nebulous accusations of the other side.
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.
Which specific item of mail are you talking about here? Please be clear about timelines, and who, what, when, and where.
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,
Sending to the Senate and Congress would ALSO likely qualify, since they are Federal systems. It doesn't have to be only to her department's own servers. Besides, she may have CC'd or forwarded such to her department staff. Anyhow, you have presented NO clear evidence that she failed to CC/copy sufficiently to comply. I just see meandering speculation from you.
You're convinced that, for example, Blumenthal's emails are all fake? Be specific.
I have not seen them confirmed by a reliable source. It appears to be mostly right-wing conspiracy sites echoing around that story, with no concrete citations. Further, H may have forwarded a copy of them to her staff/department. There is no proof she didn't. Even IF the hacker's copy had no CC with such, that doesn't mean she didn't BCC or forward a copy AFTER sending to Blumenthal. The hacker wouldn't see such on B's box. I assumed you worked in an office before and understand forwarding and BCC.
You suggested she committed a crime, and the usual assumption is "innocent until proven guilty". Can you solidly PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt she never forwarded or BCC'd the alleged Blumenthal message? (Let it alone it's legitimacy to begin with?) Some hacker's blog is hardly crime-level evidence by itself.
Any mechanism in place to automatically mirror her correspondence with third parties. None
I never claimed there was.
So, you'd be all for what the current investigation proposed: handing her server over to completely neutral third party for forensic analysis...
That's a side issue. Let's focus on your crime allegation.
which contradict things she's saying in public
No I didn't. You just have an incorrect model of reality in your head, probably obtained from cheesy blogs. You should focus on objective info available instead of the conspiracy blog plot claims.
It requires federal officials to proactively keep their public documents available for things like FOIA searches. She actively hid her records from such searches,...
Incorrect. It requires official gov't business be saved, not "public documents". So far there is no evidence she failed to comply. She's is NOT obligated to turn over copies of personal emails (so far. A judge may rule otherwise eventually, but that's future.)
because she had not provided the records, even after she left office
Her "server dump" is bonus info. She may have copied/CC'd the proper people/servers during the course of her time as SOS, but THE ORIGINAL SYSTEM IS SCREWED UP. That's not her fault.
I will agree the retention laws were F'd up at the time, but that's not directly her fault, and even if she failed to manage IT "well", it's not a criminal act.
From a technical standpoint, to track email properly and make sure none are missing, something similar to an ACID-compliant database with unique sequential message keys would probably needed. But, the law at the time didn't require such (and seemingly still doesn't), and thus it's difficult to prove certain messages were never sent. One can prove the existence of a message under such a rickety system, but maybe not the ABSENCE of. Thus, it just may be impossible to prove that Mrs. H "never sent a compliant copy of message X" because the technology used was not just powerful enough to document and prove the "hole".
Link to Original Source
/Oblg. "Government: Terrorists who extorts its citizens to prevent another group of terrorists from taking over its job."
Your own link:
"We tried," the employee said. "We told people in her office that it wasn't a good idea. They were so uninterested that I doubt the secretary was ever informed." [emph. added]
You claimed she was DIRECTLY informed (as worded). This is why I ask for links: details matter.
if there was some sort of mechanism in place to do what the 2009 NARA and other rules required...
Those rules only specified they be stored on gov't systems, and said almost nothing about the technology and technique to do it. If she copied or CC'd gov't employees, she would be abiding by the law. I've explained this already.
SHE SAID THERE WASN'T.
There wasn't what?
It's perfectly reasonable to ask you if you found the prior investigation - which was run by HER party - to be likewise.
No it's not. The debate is not about GENERAL party accuracy. My debate points don't depend on prior partisan accuracy.
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.
Fine, I'll wait until they actually do so rather than rely on your or vague GOP claims. If details come out that smack her, fine. Until that happens, I'm not going to guess out of my ass.
As far as Jason Baron's comments, they are not explicitly connected to any specific text of the law. It's hard to tell if they are an opinion or not. I originally asked for specific laws, not opinions about them.