It may be just a Pavlovian response, but twinkies were cheap in my childhood and lots of parents handed them out as treats when the kids were good. I doubt that I am the only one with fond memories of eating twinkies. The current iteration does not live up to my memories, but Woody Harrelson captured the essentials with his role in Zombieland.It may just be a cultural thing but watching that movie may help make some sense of it.

While I feel sorry for the workers who lost their jobs, there was no way they could continue to operate at their previous costs. There is a side of me that is relieved to know that I can still buy a box of twinkies to enjoy with one of my favorite Zombie movies.

Too much of my childhood was spent with twinkies and it was depressing to think that future generations would be denied that opportunity.

I fail to see why this is such a big deal. This type of approach has been used for years. I am most familiar with the Oracle ILOM but IBM, HP, and others do something similar. I guess when they do it on a chip basis people treat it differently than when they do it on a system. When I first started working with computers, the machines would use multiple boards to implement the cpu. Now people act as if the world has been recreated because we have System-in-a-chip technology. While I recognize the progress and agree that things have improved, the approach is still the same when you think in terms of functional units.

I never received any training, and I've worked at multiple agencies, and I still have active clearance. Maybe the process isn't as robust as you'd like to think?

While I have no problem thinking that the system is not robust and can be improved, instead I think about what Occam's razormight contribute to your claim. Maybe you have no idea what you are talking about.

And those for whom 'a security clearance is available' will recognize what was said here.

I disagree. And instead of trial by media, maybe we let due process take it's course. Because I assure you, there are people much a smarter than us, who hate Clinton much more than anyone here, and they want blood.

I am curious about what you disagree with. Do you disagree that I attempted to add something to the discussion? Or perhaps you disagree that false claims are being promoted?

If you are foolish enough to think that the laws about handling classified information have not been violated, your problem is much worse than simple false claims. There are plenty of people here who have held security clearances (some still with an active clearance). There is a lot of training that goes along with that clearance.

I say she's fine and will survive intact and be the next president. You may not like that, but it won't make it any less true.

I would remind you what you posted above about "maybe we let due process take it's course". And hopefully anyone seeing this information will not be thinking they know what I personally like but will be in a better position to know what is less true.

I don't know what the real story is

So instead, you make your own childish comment about them not providing any references and you provide a Wikipedia link that proves their point. If you had read your own link, you could have noticed a reference to emails that "were classified from the start." and "born classified". But since it seems to be too much effort to look at reference #90 in that sea of information, I will simplify it for you by providing that link here.

But perhaps your goal was to sound informative and hope that the truth would be buried too deep for most people to actually understand it. Just my attempt to add something to this discussion. The false claims still seem to be promoted but evidence clearly shows the laws about handling classified information were broken.

So, when they say her e-mail has classified information... I say: No doubt!
Now, if they say she sent information that was MARKED as classified at the time she sent it... Yes, that's bad! She should be penalized for that.

I am waiting to hear what you say when you realize that "they say" some of the classified emails were born classified.

he has a hate-boner for Obama and a political axe to grind

The fact that this is what you take away from the article speaks volumes about you.

For those who actually work with classified data, it does not matter what classification is used. Call it Secret, Top Secret, or any other term but the obligation to protect it is universal. There is no RED vs BLUE political discussion when it comes to protecting classified data. Any professional working with a clearance understands that.

And to address the point that Aighearach makes, sometimes there is a time sensitivity to classified data. It does not relieve you of your obligation to protect that data just because you know it will become unclassified in the future.

In 2008 and 2012 we elected twice.

And in 2010 and 2014 Congress was elected. And in 2009 Obama clearly espoused that "elections have consequences" so it should not be surprising that this situation exists. It seems that many in the cherry picking crowd fail to comprehend that others might like a different cherry flavor.

And some consider 2008 an especially good flavor with the big D controlling the Presidency, House, and Senate.

This is not the only attempt to say that NASA can't afford to continue to use resources they've already developed and launched.

If you look at the SOFIA Project, you will find that the aircraft recently reached a fully operational status. This is a platform that should run for about 20 years collecting data and expanding our scientific understanding. They were scheduling and assigning people time slots for years on out before this budget release.

The budget proposal shows other priorities. NASA has been asked to mothball this platform to save the money that would be required to operate the airplane.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I am not an uninterested party. My spouse is a civil servant working on that program. We are close enough to retirement to handle these types of priority changes. But I do feel sorry for the younger people who moved from AMES and bought a house here expecting to collect scientific data for years to come.

AOL

It is possible that different Centers have different codes, but Dryden (or should I now say Armstrong) does not enforce a dress code. I wear a tie for personal reasons but that means I am overdressed.

ACES typically sends out low skill people who can swap parts. The brighter ones realize that their customers may be engineers who would be considered power users in any organization. When the ACES people listen to their customer, they frequently find a good solution. But then they have to go back to their pointy-haired-boss and explain what happened. Their is no escaping the bureaucracy though.

the level of animosity directed at OWS is more telling about Slashdot than about the movement itself.

So what does my animosity tell you? I find it hard to parse your comments. I may see myself as part of the 99% who will struggle making a living for the rest of their life, but that does not mean I will turn a blind eye to the stupidity involved in the OWS movement. I do think about how OWS is relevant. I enjoy reading the comments from others about how it is relevant. But then again, I am only looking at 148 of those comments since 412 are too abbreviated for my consideration as it currently stands.

Of course your MMV and you are free to set your threshold wherever you want.