Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Take advantage of Black Friday with 15% off sitewide with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" on Slashdot Deals (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re:Am I missing something? (Score 1) 303

Maybe because it's part of a pattern of "willful" coverup under her tenure?

"Over two years ago, the department claimed that 'no records responsive to your request were located' - a baffling assertion, given Reine's well-documented correspondence..." "Last last week, however, the State Department came up with a very different answer: It had located an estimated 17,000 emails responsive to Gawker's request."

It took a lawsuit to uncover the State Department's illegal response to a Freedom of Information Act request. In this case, "20 boxes" of official emails were found on the personal account of Reines.

Philippe Reines was the former deputy assistant secretary of state and "aggressive defender" of Hillary Clinton.

Perhaps you don't like Gawker. Well, how about the Associated Press which is also suing the State Department to force the release of email correspondence and documents because of their unresponsiveness to FOIA requests:

The choices of what's going on are easily reduced to a small number:

- Clinton and her top aides simply care nothing about protocol because they're going to do things their way and screw what everyone thinks about it

- Clinton and her top aides willfully violated the law on multiple occasions and don't care what anyone thinks of it

- Clinton and her top aides were consistently incompetent in executing their statute-mandated responsibilities

- It's a vast, right-wing conspiracy to bring down the Clintons.

Now, which of the first three choices leads anyone to believe that Clinton deserves to be President?

If you still think it's a vast, right-wing conspiracy then I guess you have to throw the federal district courts and Clinton-appointed judges into the mix.

Comment Re:Translation (Score 1) 213

I don't know if the numbers will ever be in the gazillions. It is a good fit for me though. I used to wear watches which were as much jewelry as functional timepieces. I stopped wearing them when I retired and would simply pull my phone out of my pocket to see what time it was.

However, I do a lot of hiking and play a lot of golf where I walk the course.

I was looking at the purpose-built devices from Garmin and others to do distance and fitness tracking but was hesitant to spend the money to get the features I wanted. I went with the Apple watch because the price point was not much different from the purpose-built devices and could provide additional functionality.

There are a ton of features I don't care about and the non-Apple applications tend to suck right now.

As with many general-purpose devices, the features that fit in either my desired or undesired sets are probably different than the sets of other people. The fact that purpose-built devices such as those you list were growing in the market leads me to believe that a general purpose device should find a market.

The fact that analysts either want the watch to be wildly successful or a complete failure is of no importance to me. The analyst opinions are generally mirroring what I see from people who've tried the watch - they either love it or hate it. I tend to be in the middle, it delivers functionality I desire and I don't care about the additional functionality I choose not to use.

Comment Re:Nope! (Score 2, Insightful) 409

A functional democracy?

Are you fucking kidding?

A democracy requires a free and open market of ideas. Do you really believe such a market exists in Iran?

Iranian Chain Murders
Internet Censorship in Iran
Blogger jailed for "propaganda against the state"

It doesn't take much of a Google search to find examples of suppression of free speech in Iran.

I'm sure the Iranian regime has deserved "better press [than] they have tended to get since Khomeiny toppled the puppet shah." "Better press" would have made the pure evilness of the regime much better known.

The "demented ravings of some of their past leaders?" How about the demented ravings of their current leaders (and here)?

- The west is plotting to "arouse the sexual desires" in Islamic Iran
- Israel is run by sub-human leaders
- Death to America
- Israel is the sinister, unclean rabid dog of the region
- Every Muslim who does not want to fight Israel is violating religious law
- The destruction of Israel ... is one of the pillars of the Iranian Islamic regime

Submission + - U.S. Office of Personnel Management Hacked - Again

tranquilidad writes: According to a story in the Washington Post, China hacked into the computer system of the United States' Office of Personnel Management last December. This was the second major intrusion in less than a year. According to an AP story, personally identifiable information of approximately 4 million individuals may have been compromised. The compromised information was related to security clearances and employee records. Using new tools, the breach was discovered in April. The agency's director said, "Protecting our federal employee data from malicious cyber incidents is of the highest priority at [Office of Personnel Management]."

Comment Re:Because he made it one (Score 4, Informative) 510

Dennis Hastert was 6 years old when the current version of the law making it illegal to lie to the FBI was created. It's origin goes back to the False Claims Act of 1863, long before the FBI existed.

His big issue, as was Martha Stewart's and a bunch of other folks, was lying about it.

The secondary issue of reporting financial transactions is based on a law from 1970, the Bank Secrecy Act. The requirement of the bank to report suspicious activity was part of the Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering Act from 1992.

While it might be nice to claim that Hastert was hoisted by his own petard with the Patriot Act, the fact is the Patriot Act's expansion of these previously existing money laundering and bank secrecy acts were related, primarily, to international money transfers. In fact, the title of that section is, "International Money Laundering Abatement and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001."

Although the Patriot Act expanded the reporting requirements of a structured transaction, the banks were already required to report such structured transactions to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network by the 1992 law as part of a Suspicious Activity Report. The IRS already had authority to seize monies given a warrant based on Suspicious Activity Reports.

The big changes found in the Patriot Act were related to making it easier to recognize structured transactions, the expansion of the definition of a financial institution and a number of changes to the infrastructure and reporting mechanisms related to the reporting requirements.

What Hastert did was illegal long before the Patriot Act.

(There is a section of Wikipedia that claims that the Patriot Act made it illegal to to structure transactions in a manner that evades reporting requirements. However, that was already illegal and the wording in Wikipedia is more probably related to the structuring of foreign transactions or transactions that involve foreign currency and coin.)

I won't defend either Hastert or the Patriot Act - they both suck. But the fact is, these reporting requirements go back a long way and they sucked just as much before 2001 as they do now. This case is another example of why you don't answer the FBI's questions about anything without an attorney.

Comment Re:Stupid reasoning. (Score 1) 1094

Someone doesn't want to work more than 40 hours then they shouldn't. That's their choice. They don't want to pool their resources with others, then don't.

Make the choices you want but stop looking for society to "make them whole" when they make choices that fail to deliver the standard of living you or they desire.

If you want people to be reasonably comfortable and secure in their lives then stop making them victims, remove the incentives that keep them from doing more for themselves and stop forcing me at gunpoint to support their lifestyle. Yes, it is as simple as that.

Every mandate you place on a business or impose from the government further limits choices and opportunities for people to succeed.

Comment Re:Stupid reasoning. (Score 1) 1094

Rest, spending time with family and friends, having enough to support yourself means dignity, means lower stress and from there [much] lower health costs [include here the better food that you can afford], lower crime [lower cost of security], lower suicide rate....the benefits for SOCIETY are enormous. I am sorry but anyone who argues against this is not living in reality and is bringing more water for the mill of evil..

All of the above is your perception of what is valued and your reason for why it is of value.

I am not willing to tie my choices to someone else's value system. Nor am I willing to tie my choices to a single company and single job so that I can become a cog in someone else's idea of Utopia.

I know a lot of people who work more than 8 hours a day very productively. I did that for many years. I am not willing to trade away the benefits to me as an individual for someone else's idea of societal benefits. No one, including you, is in a position to decide what is best for me.

You can not create a world where you mandate this much in the economy without additionally mandating many things even you would not like to have.

Comment Re:Wrong answer to the wrong question (Score 1) 1094

What the fuck is a living wage?

Why should taxpayers subsidize big business more than it already does?

Indeed, they shouldn't.

If an individual feels they want a better standard of living than they get from their lower-skilled job then they should either pool their resources or get an additional job, or both. This concept that individuals should be able to get a "living wage" by working a single job and living alone is absurd.

First, you would have to define a "living wage" by also defining what an individual is allowed to purchase. Does a living wage include the ability to have a cell phone? Cable TV? An automobile? Steak vs. tofu? Abortions? Nice clothes or just so-so clothes? A shared room in a flop house, a one-bedroom apartment or a house?

Secondly, you can't have this world of a guaranteed "living wage" without taking away individual choice. You want to work part-time? Sorry, you must earn your living wage. You want to work two jobs? Sorry, that other job is required by another person so that person can earn their "living wage."

People make choices every day. They choose whether or not to improve their skills in order to earn more. They choose the items for which they will trade their currency. They choose the labor they are willing to provide in exchange for currency or barter.

There is no reason for taxpayers to subsidize big business because the mean, old businesses won't pay a "living wage."

If you can't earn a living wage from your job then choose a lower standard of living, choose to work more than one job or choose to pool your resources with another person.

Comment Re:Stupid reasoning. (Score 0) 1094

This argument about government subsidies is way too fucking idiotic to have picked up this much steam.

Since when was it a good idea to mandate that a job, any job, that an individual holds must enable that person to be self-sufficient in and of itself?

What do you have against someone willing to work more than one job?
What do you have against someone willing to pool their resources with another person?

This argument is essentially an argument that everyone should be guaranteed a certain amount of leisure time. Workers of the world, unite; you can, as an individual, work only 40 hours per week and have all of your dreams come true.

There are plenty of people on minimum-wage who don't get government services. You seem very willing to trade away individual liberty and choice in order to reach your Utopian world that every job provide self-sufficiency.

"Spock, did you see the looks on their faces?" "Yes, Captain, a sort of vacant contentment."