Once upon a time the icon would have been a shark. Sigh.
Once upon a time the icon would have been a shark. Sigh.
Will it replace 30-year-old recordings with newer, compressed (made louder) versions?
none of it was per se illegal
Copy-pasted from here:
Title 18 of the U.S. Code of the Espionage Act in sections 793, 798 and 1001
Section 793 applies to anyone who has been “entrusted” with information relating to the national defense. The law applies to a federal official who “through gross negligence permits” information “to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, to be lost, stolen, abstracted or destroyed.”
Section 798 applies to any government official who “knowingly and willfully communicates” information “to an unauthorized person.” Section 1001 addresses giving “false statements.”
Clinton and her aides also could be charged under section 1924, which is a misdemeanor. This was the April, 2015, charge former CIA Director David Petraeus negotiated with prosecutors for sharing classified information with a mistress who also served as his biographer.
Espionage act. Negligent disregard for securing state secrets is a federal crime. Obstruction of justice. Destroying protected information. Destroying evidence. That much is certain. Less certain is public corruption, also a federal crime. Taking money for delivering favors through your government position. It's obvious that she's done it, but it's unknown if her emails contain proof, though lesser figures have been jailed on patterns alone, and her patterns have many more data points.
Everything's a rightwing claptrap when you're hearing what you don't want to hear. I've been accused of using rightwing propaganda for siting the State Department Inspector General report. You know, the rightwing Obama administration State Department for which she was Secretary of State? Damned rightwing claptrap.
This is who is voting for her:
I had not taken the time to parse my fealty and that of my friends to Hillary, until a few weeks ago. Sitting in the swivel chair at a friend’s beauty salon, I followed the election news coverage on a small television screen atop the counter. Suddenly, my beautician friend leaned over me and asked: “Do you know why ‘they’ hate Hillary so much.” I shook my head, more out of curiosity than an inability to supply a host of reasons recycled from media reports. “She’s a ‘n*gger-lover’” my friend said with a loving vehemence that took me aback. And within that instant, it all fell into place. By “all”, I mean, the feelings of intimacy that I too felt for this rich, white woman.
Her beautician tells her that Sanders and his supporters hate Hillary because she's a "n*gger lover", and she suddenly realizes why she loves Hillary.
Apparently, Hillary's attempt to erase Sanders' civil rights record has succeeded with her supporters.
I've been wondering how Clinton, of "bring them to heel" and "super predators" fame, had managed to get most of the black vote, and I now see it's through disinformation.
The Clinton News Network is full of shit. The Inspector General report lists violations in State Department policy that directly correspond to violations of law, so there is already evidence of "criminal wrongdoing". If they have the will, they can charge her with violations of the espionage act, and probably others.
And if reports are true that they've recovered most of her deleted emails, there will probably be evidence of public corruption regarding the Clinton Foundation.
Doesn't matter what the boss knows. If he's been asked to deliver a system that does ___, and you take advantage of his not understanding what you do so you can take the opportunity to learn four new frameworks that aren't helpful for ___, and deliver a bloated piece of crap in twelve times the amount of time as is necessary, that is going to permanently saddle your employer with supporting technology they didn't need, then you're doing it wrong.
If you're looking for a project to demonstrate your ability to do the work for a living, don't write a game. Not that a game won't demonstrate useful coding skills, but the bigger skill you want to demonstrate is that you are able to solve problems. A game is a self-directed problem. You have not demonstrated that you can take someone else's requirements, communicate with them, and solve their problem. You haven't shown that you can work with or for other people.
Unless the game is for someone else, but then it still looks like you have to be entertained to be motivated.
The bosses don't care whether there is 1.8 M of js or just some few kb.
That's not the point.
If you code to please your boss, you do the best job you can. You eventually learn that the simple solution gets the job done faster and results in more robust, easier to maintain code.
If you code to please a web forum, you create the most complex code you can manage, in case someone ever has to look at it. You want them to be satisfied you've learned your minutiae, and that you've been clever, and that you understand complex things.
The external dependencies don't actually make the work go faster. Programmers use them because other programmers use them. Web forums tell them to do it this way. It's a safe solution. And if your career is nothing but choosing safe solutions from web forums, you never develop the skills to do things yourself, or the confidence that you *can* do things yourself.
The problem is that developers no longer answer to their bosses. They answer to web forums. They are so afraid of doing things other programmers wouldn't find acceptable that they'll code to please web forums rather than doing their job. That means using the heaviest frameworks available and writing the deepest, most complex code they can manage to understand themselves.
No shit Sherlock.
Aren't you just awesome.
But those nobody responds to, no big deal. I don't need that kind of social validation.
If nobody responds, then it was only seen by a few people. Facebook stopped showing it to people when the first few didn't respond.
Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?