Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:C is the best (Score 1) 47

C and assembly are all you need to know. The rest is just syntactic sugar.

That's what the Lisp folks usually say: it can be any paradigm you want, even one you made up.

(Which can back-fire when you use it to model how your head works, leave the company, and the new guy discovers you are insane by his/her standards.)

Comment Re:As a C programmer (Score 1) 47

People struggle with pretty much every language, it's just that the bugs are different in each.

It's usually not the language that throws me for a loop (no pun intended), but the screwy poorly-documented API's and Web UI stacks (DOM, CSS, etc.), which seem to break whenever a new browser version comes out and have to be tested on gazillion devices and browser brands. Time to rethink web UI (non) standards: it's a fscking time sink. [Insert the rest of my usual UI rant here.]

Comment Country? [Re:As a C programmer] (Score 1) 47

Being more devices and consumer goods probably have embedded programming in them, I suspect that accounts for most of the C increase, and it's probably being done overseas, where the manufacturing hubs are.

Keep that in mind before jumping on the C bandwagon.

I purchased a fairly basic electric fan, and it has a digital control for level and a timer. It's probably programmed in C. I even saw a toilet seat in one store that glows via an LED light that turns on when you sit on it, if the light is off. Could be C in that controller also. You may be sitting on C now and not even know it.

Comment Re:So that makes it OK then (Score 1) 656

18 USC/599 only applies to the candidate themselves, not to campaign workers or party staff. Nor did I see any promises of employment in the emails, only seating favors.

"Whoever, being a candidate, directly or indirectly promises or pledges the appointment, or the use of his influence or support for the appointment of any person to any public or private position or employment, for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Comment Hanlon's Razor [Re:Yea Sure] (Score 0) 656

"No material marked classified on my server"

30k emails and only ONE had part of classification mark left in it. And it doesn't appear the classified fact itself was with it; just the marker (although the Bureau's language is vague on that). That's not a bad record. She should have said "don't recall seeing any", CYA language.

"I handed over all work related emails"

There's no evidence she intentionally skipped over some. The "recreated" ones not handed over with the original set appear to have been missed because the lawyers who helped her filter them did a quick-and-sloppy reading job, scanning only the intro. There was nothing in the content of these "missed" emails to suggest they were hidden/removed to hide the content. The missed ones were boring and generic.

It appears to be good old fashioned rush-jobs and slop. Not a conspiracy to hide stuff nor lie.

"No material on my email that was classified at the time"

There's no evidence she knowingly received classified material. Again, she should have used CYA language and used the word "knowingly".

While working there, she should have also put in extra staff in place to monitor and verify classification compliance. Even if they couldn't work quick enough to keep up with rush-job projects, at least they could catch mistakes closer to the point of error and reprimand the offenders to reduce repeats.

She's a Type-A boss and probably pushed staff a bit harder than normal.

As far as CYA mistakes, she made similar per Benghazi when conveying the intelligence of the moment by not using words like "probably is" or "probably not", or "the best indication is that it was caused by an X", etc. Again, missing CYA language.

I don't know why she excludes standard CYA language. Perhaps she's often been accused of "acting too lawyerly" and compensates by making definitive statements. The cure is worse than the disease, though.

Comment Re:Horse Hockey (Score 1) 764

If 500 eyes looked thru 30k of my emails they'd find POTENTIAL inconsistencies in my statements also that could be compiled together to make me look bad. I've had shit like that happen before when somebody was hellbent to get me fired because they wanted my position.

she changed her story several more times [on device quantity issue]

Do you have evidence of this to present?

It's now clear that that explanation was pure, deliberate fiction.

Sorry, but it's not clear to me. The scenarios I laid out are plausible. You have not logically proved them impossible. Take some logic courses.

The FBI director says that her assertions about having asked for and received such approvals were "untrue" - they never happened. It goes on and on.

It has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt she was not given verbal approval. Verbal approval is not recorded. A criminal prosecutor would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she never had received verbal approval. That's a really tall order if you stop to think about it.

Anyhow, those are issues about State Dept. policies. State Dept. policies are NOT law.

You've presented zero evidence of your assertion that the current administration is not prosecuting due to bias. The past case history challenge the Director gave and I reminded you of still stands.

Nobody has been successfully prosecuted for 50 odd years for merely being sloppy with classified info (except perhaps a no-name dude who can't afford decent lawyers.)

O has not been in the Whitehouse for 50 years so you cannot blame the 42 year gap on him.

Is someone so spectacularly incompetent, careless, forgetful, and unable to judge the hiring of underlings to the point...

Like I said above, if an army combed thru 30k of my emails, they'd find a handful of typos and mistakes also. The problems directly attributed to H by the Director were small in number. That's within the normal purview of human error.

Perhaps she should have asked for assistance in reviewing messages.

I'm not saying she's great, but The Donald has shown no propensity for details either. At least H knows how to be mostly careful with speech. The Donald not shown he's careful with ANYTHING.

It's a choice between C- and F.

GOP should have ran Kasinich, but they flubbed it for the Carnival Barker.

Slashdot Top Deals

Kiss your keyboard goodbye!