Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:This proves nothing... (Score 1) 488

Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong, but he certainly doesn't fall under the category of "reliable and unbiased"

He's commenting on how it's easy to de-duplicate and filter down emails based on some very simple parameters (e.g. "Is this in the existing database?" and "Is this to/from Clinton?") and how that would cull down the number of remaining emails to a reasonable level which a small team could easily sort through.

Having said that, his explanation just muddies up the water further. If they could parse the emails this quickly, then why did it take months to do the initial assessment?

It doesn't muddy the waters at all. The first process was to go through all the emails and then go back to original sources and find it if this information was ever classified and when, and then hand it off to various other agencies for them to be able to determine if they need to retroactively classify and redact the emails before releasing them under the numerous FOIA requests. The initial part of the investigation also involved determining if the server's security had ever been compromised, which meant a bit of a deep forensic analysis and going through reams of logs. It's much more time-intensive than simply saying, "have we seen this before, is it to/from Clinton, and is it of a personal nature?"

Comment Re:30% of my state has voted already. (Score 1) 488

30% of my state has voted already - before hearing the FBI's "verdict" regarding charging Clinton this past weekend.

Many states allow people to change their vote on election day.

This is not the country I want nor how I want our elections to go. [] you will get the government you deserve.

Implying you are somehow not getting the same government?

Comment Re:Stupid (Score 2) 488

It took them several months to do this the first go around because they had to determine the importance and relevance of each individual email, and then before it could be released to the public (as there had been numerous FOIA requests) it had to go through several Federal agencies so they could retroactively classify and redact the documents.

In this case since there are no new emails that are pertinent they don't have to go through the same process, which expedites the timeline.

Comment Re:Unless we know the number of non-dupes. (Score 5, Interesting) 488

Because each email had to go through several Federal agencies to have any retroactively classified information redacted before they could be publicly released.

In this case we have a trove of emails . Also note what Comey said: he said that this doesn't change their decision with regards to recommending to indict Clinton or not, so that means once they hit this point all they have to do is figure out if Clinton had sent any of the remainder of the emails, which is easily accomplished with a simple search.

Badda bing, easy work.

Comment People misunderstand "made with sapphire" (Score 5, Funny) 111

No no no no, people are totally misunderstanding what Apple means when they say their stuff is made "with sapphires," not "out of sapphires." Like when I say "I made this with my friend," there's a chunk of sapphire on the factory floor that people work with, like an pet rock.

Comment Re:Probably Not Russians Anyway (Score 2) 1017

It's not beyond possibility. They also routinely exploited security vulnerabilities in the DNC's databases to extract information from the Clinton campaign. Makes sense they'd have some insider information to aid in the execution of such an attack. Not that I'm saying it was Sanders supporters, just that it's not impossible.

Comment Re: Is that treason yet? (Score 4, Informative) 1017

The First Amendment allows you to speak whatever you wish. It does not protect you from the consequences of that speech. The government cannot prevent me from spilling all sorts of internal secrets, but that doesn't mean my employer cannot sue me for breaking my non-disclosure agreement.

Likewise you're legally free to advocate for treasonous action, and say things that "give comfort and aid to our enemies," but that doesn't mean you can't be indicted for it.

Comment Re: Is that treason yet? (Score 1) 1017

I think the weasel words here would be that it's for personal gain, not to cause damage to the country. In his own mind, it would enable his Presidency, which would be good for the country, and therefore not treasonous. But then again, I'm not a lawyer, so I have no idea if that would stand up to any kind of legal muster.

Comment Re: Why not? (Score 1) 1017

But nothing she sent on that server was classified, right?

I mean, classified at the time, riight?

You say that like she could predict with 100% accuracy everything that could ever be desired to be classified at any time in the future by any other government agency in existence.

Say she's got some schedule of some Iranian government official's visit to the United States, and three years later that government official is implicated in funding of a terrorist group in the United States. The schedule says he was supposed to be at a meeting at a certain time on a certain day, but official records showed he never showed up, and all information available says he was in the right area at the right time to make his connection with the terrorist group. All of a sudden that schedule becomes classified, because we don't want the Iranians to know what we know, so all documents pertaining to this government official and their time in the United States is retroactively classified. Crazy, right?

Slashdot Top Deals

10 to the minus 6th power mouthwashes = 1 Microscope

Working...