Regardless, he'll still be around for quite a while yet. In an interview with Wired, he said he just wants to live until the year of Linux On The Desktop.
Let's be pragmatic here. She didn't decide the logistics of her email server and how to secure it or delete emails. Her IT intern did this.
Let's be realistic here. She didn't tell her IT guy what tools to use. She didn't have to. Someone -- and it doesn't take too much intelligence to guess who -- gave a directive to make that server and all its contents disappear Jimmy Hoffa style. That directive was given only after the existence of the server became public knowledge and its contents were requested. Can guilt be proven by such an action? No. But can anyone make any remotely plausible, intelligent, cohesive argument as to why someone running for POTUS would knowingly put themselves in such an awkward, damaging position?
Clinton is no fool. She knew wiping the server after it was discovered would leave her open to charges of hiding things. The most plausible explanation of why she'd do this was because there were things on the server that were even more awkward and damaging.
Whether the secure wipe was used as a simple matter of Best Practice, or was done for Nefarious reasons, is not known. So when the article makes judgements such as "When you're using BleachBit, it is something you really do not want the world to see." it becomes a political mudslinging story.
What exactly is the purpose of BleachBit? As described on its own web page, BleachBit "tirelessly guards your privacy." It doesn't matter if it was wiped because of "best practices" (something rather laughable given that Sec. Clinton was violating the "best practices" of the very department she was head of according to the head of IT at SecState) or to hide nefarious activities. The main purpose of BleachBit is to preserve privacy by "obfuscating forensic evidence." The OP's statement was completely correct and made no judgments whatsoever about the guilt or innocence of Sec. Clinton. You're calling it mudslinging because you don't like the idea of people questioning her motives and wish to deflect attention.
The worst confidential info "scandal" was when she gave the order to send talking points for the day...
So, you either don't actually know what SAP material is (in which case you're being willfully ignorant on this topic and should stop expressing opinions until you read up on it), or you DO know, and you're just being another liar in the service of a liar.
Yeah, because the FBI knows nothing about gathering information, amirite?
The FBI can only gather what's given to them, or what can be forensically recovered. If she blew away 30,000 emails, and they've got under 20,000 of them to look at, there's some they couldn't get. It's not really very complicated.
seriously. What event? Aside from the scandal itself what, exactly, did Hilary do that was a) a criminal offense and b) revealed in the emails?
The emails revealed that she was incredibly reckless in handling classified information - some of it SAP-level stuff so sensitive that it can't even be talked about when it's 100% redacted, content-wise. People lose their careers and their liberty over such carelessness. And we're now seeing evidence of pervasive corruption as her family was enriched while their family business sold access to her while she was in office. So, you're either simply not paying attention or (more likely) you know all of this and are a Shillary.
While I'm on it, which is it? Is she a fool who couldn't run an email server or a Machiavellian genius who successfully evaded the FBI and an entire political party's attempts to bring her to justice?
She's had a long career of throwing underlings under the bus or having her party cover for Clinton Machine mis-steps. So yes, incompetence (but mostly arrogance). And no, she hasn't evaded the FBI or congress
Her team did not "delete" emails -- that is a deliberately misleading term.
Yes, they did delete them. They even SAID they deleted them. That the server that had contained them had had all of its contents destroyed once they were done picking out the stuff that was work related.
What *actually* happened is they used discovery software to filter emails based on keywords.
But the lie she told was that her lawyers read each and every email. She knew that wasn't true, and so was lying. But that's OK, because her supporters know she lies to them, and they like being lied to.
People should really appreciate the amount of effort the FBI put into looking for malfeasance.
People should also recognize that they FBI could only look for corruption (and worse) within the material they had available. Clinton did not provide all of the requested material. She said she did, but that was another lie. Not an oversight, but a lie. Because we're not talking about "oops, a couple of emails you should have seen slipped through the cracks" - but "oops, thousands and thousands of emails you should have seen in that pile I printed out without header info were deleted."
In short: this fantasy that Hillary attempted to delete evidence is completely without basis
Other than the part where, you know, her records were deleted after her team put on a show of pulling out what they thought would make the appearance of complying with her requirements
What she *has* done is tried to *misrepresent*, the most egregious being her assertion that Comey agrees with her.
That was egregious, but it's hardly the worst of it. She knowingly, willingly, and repeatedly lied about her motivations and actions, and deliberately slow-walked and stonewalled at every turn. The fact that she'd whip up yet another lie to make it sound like the FBI's very clear identification of her multiple "untruths" on the matter is only egregious because it shows that she's still willing to lie even when she knows that we all know she's doing it. None of that matters, of course. Her supporters like that she lies, and none of that is legally meaningful. What IS legally meaningful is her testimony in front of congress. She spent long hours carefully avoiding direct answers to questions to she wouldn't perjure herself. We'll see if she's still as slippery on that front as her reputation suggests.
Separate from all of that, of course, is the actual content of the messages now being read. They exhibit a very clear pattern of tying access to her and her policy influence to being willing to dump piles of cash into her family business while she was in office. Legal jeopardy there? Hard to say. That would once again be Loretta Lynch's call, and we already know where she stands.
Not because he's necessarily more honest than Hillary but simply because 95% of the press will refuse to give him a free pass for literally everything he does.
If Hillary gets elected then press-protected official bribery becomes the new "normal".
HDR HEVC video on 4K is not trivial to process on a very low power CPU. That's where the hardware acceleration comes in as being important.
As a point of reference, my desktop 4770K that's overclocked to 4.7GHz can have problems with playback of 60 Hz 4K HEVC video when in software mode, and that's with a software decoder that's using all available cores too.
With mpv setup properly, my GTX-1080 can show the same videos perfectly smoothly with single-digit CPU usage and the GPU doesn't even really heat up that much either since only a relatively small part of the GPU actually does the video acceleration. The hardware accelerated paths for video decoding are quite important.
H.264? There are evil patents associated with that right?
This just sounds like Microsoft is trying to act like a positive in the freedom dimension Linux distro by refusing to support that evil patenty thing and by refusing to support webcams, which we all know could be used as NSA backdoors and are therefore evil.
Here's a radical idea: why don't we do a decent job of educating early teens of what fields are hiring out there and how rewarding they are, then leave them the hell alone and let them choose what they want to do? This whole "diversity is our goal" crap is morphing into a grand social engineering project where young girls are going to be told "you must be an engineer so you can better represent females!" and young men are going to be told...well, I'm not sure other than "you represent oppression and the male patriarchy and must be punished."
What I see is that women who are very smart get hired, average and dumb women don't get hired. However average and dumb men do get hired. Just look around and see all the idiots you have to work with and ask yourself if those idiots are more qualified than every woman or minority who wanted those jobs.
Given that hiring an unknown is always something of a gamble, wouldn't this outcome be the EXPECTED outcome when there's an oversupply of male candidates and relative scarcity of female candidates? By Jove, yes it is! The scarcity of female candidates virtually guarantees the vast majority of them are in the field because it is a passion for them. The overabundance of males also virtually guarantees many are there because "I need the money" and have no real interest in what they do. Certainly there are outliers in each category but they are, after all, outliers; they make the exception, not the rule.