Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:Other Key facts (Score 1) 216

1. Link?
2. It would have reduced total number either way. That's splitting hairs
3. Alarms are a different issue. The SS has neither confirmed nor denied monitoring. They probably can't talk about it.
4. Link? Note that a subpoena for work-related emails and a subpoena for the server are two different things.
5. Has yet to be proven. Much of it was classified AFTER the fact.
6. The info Blumenthal sent was already public. It was not secret.
7. Link?

Comment Re:Key facts (Score 1) 216

She didn't think classified stuff would be flowing through that server? Uh huh.

Review #2. It's NOT a home versus office server issue. If she had put classified info on the "regular" office server, it would STILL be the INcorrect action.

But when her email was subpoenaed it would have been turned over in a timely manner

I'm not sure what your point is here. (Actually, the office server died. It would have been gone.)

This is how we know that when she cherry picked her messages to turn over, she left quite a few out.

I have seen NO evidence she left out work-related messages in the stuff she handed over. If you have some, please show it.

The only reason I would ever vote for Hillary is if Jeb were her opponent.

It's tweedle-dee versus tweedle-dum.

Comment Key facts (Score 1) 216

Here are some key facts that many people get wrong. If you have evidence they are incorrect, feel free to provide alternative evidence.

1. She claimed she did not knowingly send or receive classified info through her server. It's quite possible somebody ELSE sent her classified info when they should not have, and didn't label it properly. Whose "fault" that is, well, we will wait and see.

2. The "office" server she should have been using was NOT designed for classified material either. (There was a separate system(s) for that.) Thus, her home server being more of a secrecy risk than the regular office server is a questionable claim.

3. Messages that were deemed to have classified info were either mostly or entirely re-classified after the fact. The scope of this is still under investigation.

4. Using a home server was NOT illegal at the time, as long as a copy of each work message came from/to a gov't server, which would typically be the case. (So far they have not found a non-copied work message that I know of.)

5. She has admitted twice that her "home server" decision was a poor decision.

6. Jeb also has "email problems" such that if the two face off in the final election, the email issue is mostly a wash.

Comment Re:Automating software creation (Score 1) 246

Really, the same or similar code has probably been written hundreds of thousands of times through the years. We keep paying coders to write the same code again and again.

You would think so, but part of the problem is that UI fads keep coming along and making the prior fad set obsolete. If we "froze" the UI conventions long enough to perfect them, then we'd get a nice standard such that we stop having to diddle with lower-level UI details so much.

But, that's not going to happen because humans seem wired to chase fads. Faddism has even been found in remote hunter-gatherer tribes. Plus, some of the change is actual progress and not just change for the sake of change, as I'll get to later.

Some claim one can "abstract out" the UI from "business logic", but this is largely a bunch of boloney I have come to conclude. The UI shapes how users view business logic and vise-verse. They are inherently intertwined. I know it's heresy to say, but so be it: it's largely bunk.

For example, we used to think of "data entry" separate from "reports". "Requirements" treated them as different things and nobody questioned that: it became ingrained in our world view of IT.

But now it's easier to have interaction such that people want to be able to view things AND change them on the same screen. Managers now view data via web interfaces and want to click on objects in the "reports" to change them then and there so they don't have to walk out to a clerk or fire off an email to have it changed.

The idea of the data entry clerk being a different person than the report viewer is going away.

Comment Re:Wasn't this what "OOP" was largely about? (Score 2) 246

Yip, I also remember the OOP hype. Objects would magically "handle themselves" as you snap them together like Legos.

Don't get me wrong, OOP can be a useful tool used in the right place and time, but it's merely one more tool in our design belt, and makes a mess if misused just like any other tool or technique.

I'm seeing similar hype of late in FP and node.js. I'm sure they are useful for certain projects or parts of projects, but they are not even close to a general panacea.

Ironically a lot of the JavaScript-related functional programming (FP) and node.js hype is because JavaScript's OOP model is crappy. One wouldn't need so many FP "tricks" and anonymous functions if JS had decent OOP.

If you try to use a new (or more of an existing) paradigm to plug holes in a poor implementation of another paradigm, it's just passing the buck. It should be considered a work-around and NOT a revolution.

Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad.