You were all useless pieces of shit in all of your own very special, in every way shape or form, unique way.

thanks

Quote from: Kupo on September 13, 2015, 10:36:58 PM

Quote from: ねこ on September 13, 2015, 10:30:21 PM

Quote from: Kupo on September 13, 2015, 09:07:32 PM

PC version when?

We need to get a group for when the PC Version comes out.

and when your ISP stops being Beaner™ Communications®, Inc., LLC.

but ye

Buy & Pay for me a new ISP?

I'm not a charity.

Quote from: Kupo on September 13, 2015, 09:07:32 PM

PC version when?

We need to get a group for when the PC Version comes out.

and when your ISP stops being Beaner™ Communications®, Inc., LLC.

but ye

PC version when?

oh

How are they not recoverable. Pnce sent online they can be recovered, even your hard disk has remains of info that you deleted.

It's not like she was using friggin' Gmail. >.> But yeah, I elaborated in the OP how they're very likely to be recoverable.

Quote from: Fagcicle on September 13, 2015, 01:29:10 PM

Quote

It also needs to be stated that, according to other Government agencies outside of the state department, some of the information sent through the emails was not deemed classified at the time that it was sent - it's classification as such came later in her tenure, or even after the fact.

This really excuses nothing; if anything, it highlights why it's important to follow security protocols. If any other servicemember had done something similar (classified material via personal accounts or unauthorized means) they'd be in prison. And another huge concern is that she's been meticulously grooming her appearance and reputation for a presidential bid; deleting a swath of emails after a large controversy largely centered around her lies to the public was a strategic move to avoid further embarrassment.

The only problem is that if they weren't classified at the time, she technically didn't do anything wrong with them. Here in the US, I can't think of any legal cases where someone was retroactively punished for violating a future rule.

Not that I'm disagreeing with you, though.

Quote from: Kupo on September 12, 2015, 10:57:17 PM

Quote from: LC on September 12, 2015, 10:21:15 PM

Now I'm no fan of Hillary, but it still confuses me as to why people are making a big deal out of her doing it when every Secretary of State that's proceeded her in the modern era has done the same thing.

Really? TBH I can't say I know about other Secretaries of State. A quick Google search brought up Colin Powell doing the same.

At least from what I know about computers, having a team of security specialists securing a network is much safer than having like, a small handful of people manage it (and probably only that one particular employee using the network). Most people, government officials included, usually aren't as informed or as diligent with computers as comp-sci majors, anyway.

But with Clinton at least, even if there wasn't classified information, she ran afoul of government transparency regulations. Her private server means that a lot of those emails probably weren't archived. While it will ultimately not cause much legal trouble for her, it's at least a distraction for essentially betraying the public's trust. And she's handled the situation horrifically poorly.

That's how I understand it, anyway.

It's been a pretty common thing for a long while now. It's just nobody gave a shit until Hillary ran because the Republicans knew they'd be able to manufacture a fake crisis out of it like they did with the debt ceiling.

They thought they'd kill Obama with the debt ceiling and they think they can kill Hillary with the private server.

I'm kind of hoping they do kill her bid for presidency, but if they were going to start crying foul over private email servers they should have done so decades ago and refused to use them during their administrations as well.

I agree, this is something that Republicans probably wouldn't care so much about if it weren't Hillary.

Though, one thing to note here is that previous Secretaries of State have always used private accounts, but Hillary's the first to use a private server. The former allows emails to be archived and secured by the government's security guys; the latter doesn't. It's not necessarily against the rules, but the rules weren't meant to be interpreted that way, either. To defend the Republicans here, it could have simply never occurred to anyone that someone would circumvent the rules in this way.

But either way, I don't even care what their motives are. It's a topic that was going to warrant a discussion eventually, and I just don't want Hillary elected anyway.

Quote from: Kupo on September 12, 2015, 09:37:29 PM

If I wanted to drink piss, I'd become Bear Gryills.

Would you become bear grills to drink piss or would you drink piss to become bear grills?

well I don't want to do either so

Now I'm no fan of Hillary, but it still confuses me as to why people are making a big deal out of her doing it when every Secretary of State that's proceeded her in the modern era has done the same thing.

Really? TBH I can't say I know about other Secretaries of State. A quick Google search brought up Colin Powell doing the same.

At least from what I know about computers, having a team of security specialists securing a network is much safer than having like, a small handful of people manage it (and probably only that one particular employee using the network). Most people, government officials included, usually aren't as informed or as diligent with computers as comp-sci majors, anyway.

But with Clinton at least, even if there wasn't classified information, she ran afoul of government transparency regulations. Her private server means that a lot of those emails probably weren't archived. While it will ultimately not cause much legal trouble for her, it's at least a distraction for essentially betraying the public's trust. And she's handled the situation horrifically poorly.

That's how I understand it, anyway.

A new development in the scandal over Hillary Clinton's private email server means that this issue won't be going away any time soon:

Source

Hillary Clinton's private emails may be recoverable: Washington Post

The company that managed Hillary Clinton's private email server said it has "no knowledge of the server being wiped," indicating that tens of thousands of emails Clinton said were deleted could be recovered, the Washington Post reported on Saturday.

Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, and her aides have said she deleted her personal emails from her time as secretary of state, but unless the server has been "wiped" experts say those 31,000 emails could be recovered, the Post reported.

A representative of the Clinton campaign could not immediately be reached for comment on the report.

The controversy over her use of an unsecured private server to conduct government business while America's top diplomat has cut into her lead in opinion polls for the Democratic nomination to run in the November 2016 election.

Denver-based company Platte River managed the server.

"Platte River has no knowledge of the server being wiped," company spokesman Andy Boian was quoted as saying by the Washington Post. "All the information we have is that the server wasn't wiped."

Republican Senators Charles Grassley and Ron Johnson, chairmen of the Judiciary and Homeland Security committees, respectively, said they would push for the deleted emails to be reviewed if they can be recovered, the Post said.

On Tuesday, Clinton apologized for using a private server rather than the government system.

Clinton has said she sent no information via email that was classified at the time and received no material marked that way.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is examining the server to see whether any information, including classified information, was mishandled.

The State Department, under a court order, has been releasing more than 30,000 Clinton work-related emails in monthly batches.

(Reporting by Eric Beech; Editing by Grant McCool)

Understanding the gravity of the situation here requires some knowledge of how 'deleting data' works. Typically, when you 'delete' something, the data isn't actually erased immediately: the operating system just removes it from the user's view, and behind the scenes, marks the data such that it's no longer important and can be overwritten.

Overwriting is one way to make data difficult to recover. Some programs and operating systems have features that will deliberately write over deleted data. The Department of Defense recommends seven 'passes', or overwrites, to sanitize data on a storage medium. (And for added security, one should probably encrypt that data before deleting it.)

It's probably no surprise that a 67-year-old (or most people) wouldn't think of doing something like that.

So if these emails were to be recovered, their contents wouldn't be the only source of negative attention for Clinton--it'd be the lack of steps taken to actually secure that data.

Yeah, they have >.>

Obligatory reminder that the best way to avoid spoilers is to go dark.

don't tell me what to do

What other options are there? Either morality is directly tied to god (which would be subjective) or morality exists outside of him (Objective).

Morality cannot exist outside of God. The idea would be that God, being the omnipotent creator of everything in existence (essentially setting the rules for logic itself), would be the only true objective force in the universe. Morality would have to be objective because it would be based on factual, provable information decided by God. Thus, morality would be objective because God would define logic to make it such.

Quote from: Kupo on September 10, 2015, 06:15:09 PM

Science reaches objective facts, but physics only reaches conclusions based on assumptions?

All science only reaches conclusions on the basis of some assumed values. All human activity in the quest for knowledge take place on the basis of some assumed values. You have to make the assumption to get the ball rolling, otherwise there is nowhere to go.

So... wouldn't morality be the same way?

But we're digressing here. I'll say this again: there's still the problem that there is no objective, factual basis for morality. It cannot exist in the absence of a divine being--and there's zero evidence that morality is anything other than a subjective concept defined by people. I feel like you're dancing around that because there's no good answer to that rebuttal.

People not realizing that The Marty Army is literally Marty's group? Guess all the oldfags left B.net by now.

LOL