Jump to content

Simon

Administrators
  • Content Count

    13,706
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Simon got a reaction from tkdguy in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    You remember 4, 8, and 12 years ago a candidate going so far beyond the pale that their own party disavowed their statements? You remember former Presidents from the candidate's own party refusing to endorse him?  You remember a candidate making racist, bigoted, and mysogynist comments and statements multiple times and doubling down on them when challenged?  
     
    What I remember is growing up in a Jewish household and learning about the Holocaust...and repeating each time "never again."  That didn't mean or insinuate that we should look for Hitler himself to arise again and oppose him -- it meant that we should learn from the past and recognize the signs of a demagogue and a tyrant.  The signs of fascism, bigotry and hatred.  And oppose them. 
  2. Like
    Simon got a reaction from Ternaugh in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    You remember 4, 8, and 12 years ago a candidate going so far beyond the pale that their own party disavowed their statements? You remember former Presidents from the candidate's own party refusing to endorse him?  You remember a candidate making racist, bigoted, and mysogynist comments and statements multiple times and doubling down on them when challenged?  
     
    What I remember is growing up in a Jewish household and learning about the Holocaust...and repeating each time "never again."  That didn't mean or insinuate that we should look for Hitler himself to arise again and oppose him -- it meant that we should learn from the past and recognize the signs of a demagogue and a tyrant.  The signs of fascism, bigotry and hatred.  And oppose them. 
  3. Like
    Simon reacted to Lawnmower Boy in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    "It's okay to elect Trump 'cuz he probably won't get away with half the stuff he'd like to do."
  4. Like
    Simon got a reaction from Shadow Hawk in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    You remember 4, 8, and 12 years ago a candidate going so far beyond the pale that their own party disavowed their statements? You remember former Presidents from the candidate's own party refusing to endorse him?  You remember a candidate making racist, bigoted, and mysogynist comments and statements multiple times and doubling down on them when challenged?  
     
    What I remember is growing up in a Jewish household and learning about the Holocaust...and repeating each time "never again."  That didn't mean or insinuate that we should look for Hitler himself to arise again and oppose him -- it meant that we should learn from the past and recognize the signs of a demagogue and a tyrant.  The signs of fascism, bigotry and hatred.  And oppose them. 
  5. Like
    Simon got a reaction from Pattern Ghost in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    You remember 4, 8, and 12 years ago a candidate going so far beyond the pale that their own party disavowed their statements? You remember former Presidents from the candidate's own party refusing to endorse him?  You remember a candidate making racist, bigoted, and mysogynist comments and statements multiple times and doubling down on them when challenged?  
     
    What I remember is growing up in a Jewish household and learning about the Holocaust...and repeating each time "never again."  That didn't mean or insinuate that we should look for Hitler himself to arise again and oppose him -- it meant that we should learn from the past and recognize the signs of a demagogue and a tyrant.  The signs of fascism, bigotry and hatred.  And oppose them. 
  6. Like
    Simon got a reaction from Doc Shadow in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    You remember 4, 8, and 12 years ago a candidate going so far beyond the pale that their own party disavowed their statements? You remember former Presidents from the candidate's own party refusing to endorse him?  You remember a candidate making racist, bigoted, and mysogynist comments and statements multiple times and doubling down on them when challenged?  
     
    What I remember is growing up in a Jewish household and learning about the Holocaust...and repeating each time "never again."  That didn't mean or insinuate that we should look for Hitler himself to arise again and oppose him -- it meant that we should learn from the past and recognize the signs of a demagogue and a tyrant.  The signs of fascism, bigotry and hatred.  And oppose them. 
  7. Like
    Simon got a reaction from DasBroot in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    You remember 4, 8, and 12 years ago a candidate going so far beyond the pale that their own party disavowed their statements? You remember former Presidents from the candidate's own party refusing to endorse him?  You remember a candidate making racist, bigoted, and mysogynist comments and statements multiple times and doubling down on them when challenged?  
     
    What I remember is growing up in a Jewish household and learning about the Holocaust...and repeating each time "never again."  That didn't mean or insinuate that we should look for Hitler himself to arise again and oppose him -- it meant that we should learn from the past and recognize the signs of a demagogue and a tyrant.  The signs of fascism, bigotry and hatred.  And oppose them. 
  8. Like
    Simon got a reaction from 薔薇語 in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    Statements early on from the IRS is that they don't do anything in terms of preventing or discouraging the release -- that's entirely on Trump and his legal advisors.
  9. Like
    Simon got a reaction from Shadow Hawk in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    Yeah...problem with that:  Obama stated (and Patrick verified) that they had shared the quotes prior to Patrick's speech -- i.e. Obama had shared the quotes with Patrick and they both used it.  That's not plagiarism.
    You'd be better referencing Biden during his presidential bid...and he dropped out of the race because of it.
  10. Like
    Simon reacted to Starlord in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    Wow, you responded so fast, I didn't have time to add my link. 
     
    http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2016/07/19/melania-trump-obama-patrick/
  11. Like
    Simon got a reaction from Burrito Boy in Issues Executing .jar Files Under Windows   
    You've likely messed it up more at this point by pointing to the wrong directory on your system for .jar files.  Enter the following to take things back to where they were when you started:
     
    ftype jarfile="C:\Program Files (x86)\Java\jre1.8.0_66\bin\javaw.exe" -jar "%1" %* If HD is starting (giving the loading image) then your problem is not with file associations.  Create a new thread and post the contents of the trace.log file from the directory that you installed (unzipped) the HD download into.
  12. Like
    Simon got a reaction from Netzilla in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    If the law for speed limits stated that you needed to show either intent to cause harm (modifying US C 793 here) or gross negligence, then no you shouldn't.  
    But that's not how the speed limit laws and regulations are written.
  13. Like
    Simon got a reaction from Shadow Hawk in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    If the law for speed limits stated that you needed to show either intent to cause harm (modifying US C 793 here) or gross negligence, then no you shouldn't.  
    But that's not how the speed limit laws and regulations are written.
  14. Like
    Simon got a reaction from Iuz the Evil in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    If the law for speed limits stated that you needed to show either intent to cause harm (modifying US C 793 here) or gross negligence, then no you shouldn't.  
    But that's not how the speed limit laws and regulations are written.
  15. Like
    Simon got a reaction from Lord Liaden in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    Put slightly differently: Clinton was authorized to have the classified information that she placed in her emails.  She was authorized to send that information to the individuals she was communicating with. Finally, she was authorized to send that information via the communication channels that were utilized (i.e. unsecured email).  
     
    She was (in Comey's words) extremely careless in her decision to use a personal server as the origin point of those communications, but the communications themselves were not an issue.
  16. Like
    Simon got a reaction from Lord Liaden in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    OK...I think I see where the confusion is: lack of understanding of the nature of the communications channel itself and the impact that has on the ability/likelihood of prosecution.  I alluded to this previously in my data at rest statement.
     
    If you have a system that is a secured system meant to store classified information, there are controls around that system to both limit access to that information only to those qualified to access it, limit the ability of individuals to modify that information, and the limit the ability of individuals to move that information to a non-secured environment.  Take Snowden as an example -- he took classified information from controlled systems and transferred it onto USB drives (and other devices) with the clear and demonstrated intent of providing it to non-qualified individuals.  Regardless of your opinions of his actions as a whistleblower, this meets all definitions for prosecution.
     
    With email, you're dealing with something else entirely -- it's not data at rest.  Clinton did not take files from a controlled/air-gapped system, move them to her personal server, and then send them out.  She communicated (wrote emails containing) classified information.  Even this is not a problem - it's the nature of her job at the time.  That she used a personal server to do this means that one end of the email chain was not under direct control of the government -- everything after the sending server is exactly as it would have been at any other time.  The concern this raises is that her personal server _may_ not have been as well-protected as the State Department systems (though they found no evidence of a compromise to the servers, while the State Department systems were compromised during the same timeframe). The main issue this raises is one of an audit trail or accountability -- it is more difficult for the government to maintain a full audit trail of the communications.  Not impossible -- and this is the nature of what the FBI did (which was pretty impressive)...they reconstructed the audit trail for her email traffic.  In more detail than you would likely get from the State Department systems.
     
    The best non-technical example I can give is similar to the one used above:  you have someone making a phone call to an individual outside of the US. The person knows classified information and is authorized to discuss it with the person she is calling. While they have apparently taken precautions to ensure that their own phone is not compromised or monitored, they are not calling from a functionally identical phone within the State Department.  This means that there is some concern that the originating phone may not be as secure as it could be.  Everything after the originating phone is still exactly as it would be in any other case:  the lines of communication between the two individuals could still be monitored in either case, the receiving phone could be compromised and/or monitored in either case, or the receiving individual could be compromised and/or monitored in either case.
  17. Like
    Simon reacted to Old Man in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    It kind of had to, since he's a Republican but doesn't have enough evidence to recommend prosecution.
     

    That's actually not accurate. U.S. Code 793 does require intent to injure the United States, in the very first sentence. Gross negligence is also mentioned, but that legal standard has not been met either.
     

    Not really. The standard of intent for purposes of Espionage Act violations is really high. The spy who worked at my last company, who happened to take TS documents home where his girlfriend, who happened to be from the People's Republic of China, happened to be, didn't go to jail. Neither did Petraeus, who unquestionably gave TS material to his biographer, who he happened to be having an affair with. Neither did Scooter Libby, who intentionally leaked TS information to out a CIA agent in the field.
     

    Another thing that no one seems to remember is that senior government officials have considerable leeway to use their judgment when it comes to disseminating classified information. It is a logistical nightmare to properly move classified information across SIPR, JWICS, dozens of government agency and military networks, and foreign governments. And keep it all air gapped from NIPR or the internet. I would expect State to have the ability to circumvent those procedures in a crisis situation.
     

    Thousands? How about 22 million? Not that it really excuses the deletion of any records. Although that would be one way to maintain the security of the information.
     

    It's possible that an unclassified system was exactly the place for those conversations, although without knowing what was in the emails, we'll never know.
     

    I should point out that it was State's servers, not Hillary's, that got hacked. It's conceivable that Hillary's server was more secure. Or at least less of a disaster.
     
     

    Well, she can't carry a SCIF with her. What would matter here is the security and encryption on her mobile, not which server she used.
  18. Like
    Simon got a reaction from 薔薇語 in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    Put slightly differently: Clinton was authorized to have the classified information that she placed in her emails.  She was authorized to send that information to the individuals she was communicating with. Finally, she was authorized to send that information via the communication channels that were utilized (i.e. unsecured email).  
     
    She was (in Comey's words) extremely careless in her decision to use a personal server as the origin point of those communications, but the communications themselves were not an issue.
  19. Like
    Simon got a reaction from 薔薇語 in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    OK...I think I see where the confusion is: lack of understanding of the nature of the communications channel itself and the impact that has on the ability/likelihood of prosecution.  I alluded to this previously in my data at rest statement.
     
    If you have a system that is a secured system meant to store classified information, there are controls around that system to both limit access to that information only to those qualified to access it, limit the ability of individuals to modify that information, and the limit the ability of individuals to move that information to a non-secured environment.  Take Snowden as an example -- he took classified information from controlled systems and transferred it onto USB drives (and other devices) with the clear and demonstrated intent of providing it to non-qualified individuals.  Regardless of your opinions of his actions as a whistleblower, this meets all definitions for prosecution.
     
    With email, you're dealing with something else entirely -- it's not data at rest.  Clinton did not take files from a controlled/air-gapped system, move them to her personal server, and then send them out.  She communicated (wrote emails containing) classified information.  Even this is not a problem - it's the nature of her job at the time.  That she used a personal server to do this means that one end of the email chain was not under direct control of the government -- everything after the sending server is exactly as it would have been at any other time.  The concern this raises is that her personal server _may_ not have been as well-protected as the State Department systems (though they found no evidence of a compromise to the servers, while the State Department systems were compromised during the same timeframe). The main issue this raises is one of an audit trail or accountability -- it is more difficult for the government to maintain a full audit trail of the communications.  Not impossible -- and this is the nature of what the FBI did (which was pretty impressive)...they reconstructed the audit trail for her email traffic.  In more detail than you would likely get from the State Department systems.
     
    The best non-technical example I can give is similar to the one used above:  you have someone making a phone call to an individual outside of the US. The person knows classified information and is authorized to discuss it with the person she is calling. While they have apparently taken precautions to ensure that their own phone is not compromised or monitored, they are not calling from a functionally identical phone within the State Department.  This means that there is some concern that the originating phone may not be as secure as it could be.  Everything after the originating phone is still exactly as it would be in any other case:  the lines of communication between the two individuals could still be monitored in either case, the receiving phone could be compromised and/or monitored in either case, or the receiving individual could be compromised and/or monitored in either case.
  20. Like
    Simon got a reaction from Lord Liaden in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    A lead-in note: be very careful going forward about quoting only those parts of an article or statement that agree with the point that you're looking to make.
     
    From Comey's statement:
     
     
     
     
    Email is fundamentally different from data at rest.  An obvious enough statement, but one that has been often and repeatedly overlooked in this whole discussion.
     
    Now...I can't speak to hostel actors, who are generally concerned with finding cheap lodging, but hostile actors appear to be defined in Comey's statement as those who serve nation-states whose interests conflict with those of the U.S.  Saying that hostile actors likely had compromised the accounts of some of those Clinton was communicating with is not saying what you think it is -- it's saying that it doesn't matter in the slightest how secure the system she was sending from was, the recipient's system was compromised.  She could have been sending from an email server located in the depths of NORAD with 24/7 armed guard, it wouldn't have mattered in the slightest.
     
    This is part of the problem with email -- it is communication over insecure channels, often to parties/systems with whom you have no direct control or oversight into.
  21. Like
    Simon got a reaction from Netzilla in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    A lead-in note: be very careful going forward about quoting only those parts of an article or statement that agree with the point that you're looking to make.
     
    From Comey's statement:
     
     
     
     
    Email is fundamentally different from data at rest.  An obvious enough statement, but one that has been often and repeatedly overlooked in this whole discussion.
     
    Now...I can't speak to hostel actors, who are generally concerned with finding cheap lodging, but hostile actors appear to be defined in Comey's statement as those who serve nation-states whose interests conflict with those of the U.S.  Saying that hostile actors likely had compromised the accounts of some of those Clinton was communicating with is not saying what you think it is -- it's saying that it doesn't matter in the slightest how secure the system she was sending from was, the recipient's system was compromised.  She could have been sending from an email server located in the depths of NORAD with 24/7 armed guard, it wouldn't have mattered in the slightest.
     
    This is part of the problem with email -- it is communication over insecure channels, often to parties/systems with whom you have no direct control or oversight into.
  22. Like
    Simon reacted to Iuz the Evil in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    Obviously, Applejack is the very best pony. Great strength, a lasso, and down home simplicity.
     
    I'll take the Mustang though. My drivers side window is plastic and duck tape on my 2003 Altima, and I hit 230k miles today. I need a car.
  23. Like
    Simon got a reaction from Twilight in DC Movies- if at first you don't succeed...   
    Hm.  Let's try it this way and see if we get better results:
     
    BACK OFF.  Now.
     
    If you cannot keep the conversation civil and discussing the topic rather than the posters, you will not be involved in the conversation.  Clear?
  24. Like
    Simon got a reaction from Pariah in DC Movies- if at first you don't succeed...   
    Hm.  Let's try it this way and see if we get better results:
     
    BACK OFF.  Now.
     
    If you cannot keep the conversation civil and discussing the topic rather than the posters, you will not be involved in the conversation.  Clear?
  25. Like
    Simon got a reaction from lou_tennant in Issues Executing .jar Files Under Windows   
    It seems that there are some rather nasty updates to either Windows itself or Java running under Windows that is removing the file association for .jar files for a number of users.  It is not clear at this time why this is happening, but it is preventing people from running HD by double-clicking on the HD6.jar file (or any shortcut they've created).
     
    I'll use this thread for troubleshooting this issue with folks -- the fix information in this post will be edited as needed to help out.
     
     
    The following is the most direct way to check and/or set the file association for .jar files under Windows:
     
    1.  Open a command prompt (Start -> Run... -> cmd)
     
    2.  To check the file association for jar files, enter the following (please post the output of this command in this thread if you are still having problems):
    ftype | find "jarfile" 3.  To reset the file association for jar files, you would enter the following, replacing the path to javaw.exe with the absolute path to the file on your system :
    ftype jarfile="C:\Program Files\Java\jre7\bin\javaw.exe" -jar "%1" %*
×
×
  • Create New...