the server was older
I thought it was the one that her part-time husband Bill used when he was the President.
Hillary Clinton's announcement that she will run for the presidency of the United States has seen Republican candidate Rand Paul offer her hard drive for sale. “You've read about it on the news, now you can get one for yourself,” reads Paul's e-commerce mockup. “100% genuine erased clean email server. Buyer beware, this …
Clinton's insistence the server was not used for classified information hasn't gone down well and became the focus of political attacks.
Focus of political attacks? How about she seriously violated more than a few federal laws? I really like Hillary but this stinks to high heaven.
For those of you not familiar with US politics (I was involved in the inner-politics of the Dems in the 1990's), the US Democratic party is split into two wings: the (late)Kennedy wing and the Clinton wing. Obama got elected through the backing of the Kennedy wing. Most of the attacks you see on Hillary are proxy attacks from the Kennedy wing. MSNBC is part of the Kennedy wing which is why they keep attacking Hillary. The Clintons are conservatives in practice which is why FOXNews goes (relatively) easy on her.
Sorry, but anyone with any time working for a large enough corporation knows that they own your email servers.
Hillary's use of her personal email account had at least tacit approval from the WH and as a lawyer, Clinton knew she had the legal responsibility to retain any and all emails sent or received by this account. (Including anything personal.)
The reason that they are claiming the requests for the emails and that she face a congressional hearing are 'political' is that the Democrats and the Democratic Party are placing their own self interests ahead of the oaths of office that they took when they were elected.
Lets be clear. Democrats are afraid to stand up for the law.
Hillary admitted to having deleted any and all emails that were 'personal' as well as deleting emails that she printed out and gave to the US Government in hard copy only.
This is obstruction and she should be wearing Orange Jumpsuits and taking lessons from Martha Stewart.
"Lets be clear. Democrats are afraid to stand up for the law."
You keep saying "democrat" when you should be saying "politician".
Let's be *perfectly* clear; any politician's (or, realistically, any non-politician's) desire to stand up for the law has absolutely nothing to do with what party they belong to. It is the exact same situation when applied to the interests of their party, or their personal interests, in regards to the oaths they take.
No, I said Democrats because no Politician from the Democratic Party is standing up against Clinton. They are in fact putting their party's interest ahead of this country.
I agree that it should be any politician, but when you only have Republicans standing up and calling for a Congressional Hearing and investigation, while the Democratic party, the WH and DoJ turn a blind eye?
I think its fair to blame the Democrats on this one.
Nope, the facts say otherwise. Nixon? Resigned when confronted by members of his own party. Trent Lott, gone. Bill "the rapist Clinton"? Yep, that's right, Dems circled the wagons and denied he even committed perjury. Same thing with a whole raft of Hillary issues starting with Whitewater billing records and cattle futures, but never, ever ending.
"Does the world want a president who is unaware of the passing of IDE and the ascent of SATA?"
Well, the more serious issue is: Does the world want a president who wants to be president, as it is a well-known and much lamented fact that those people who most want to rule people are ipso facto those least suited for the job.
The one with the cassette tapes of the Hitchikers Guide radio play in the pocket please
Does anybody else remember when the job of an email server was simply to store and forward email and it got deleted once it had been delivered?
Email introduced a level of surveillance that did not exist with snail mail. So much so that we now regard it as suspicious when backup records of emails get deleted. One of my supervisors at U was regarded as a bit odd because he kept (and filed) all the hate mail he received - he did say that one day it would be someone's research project into the psychopathology of green ink letter writers - but now we have enormous databases of the ravings of lunatics and nobody seems even slightly surprised.
It depends whether you mean an MTA, MDA or MUA.
Really traditionally (in the days of UUCP mail), the MDA and the MUA were often the same system, quite frequently a multi-user UNIX system, and the mails often remained on the system in peoples own mail folders. It was only the MTA that only kept a transient copy of the mail, and in the very early days, a single server was often MTA, MDA and MUA all rolled together.
The first time I really encountered what would be regarded as a pure MTA was a system called IHLPA at AT&T Indian Hill, Chicago, which seemed to act as a UUCP mail router for pretty much the whole world. If you remember routing UUCP mail, you can't have failed to notice ...xxx!ihlpa!xxx... somewhere in the mail route.
But that was a long time ago.
You're just boasting about being even older than I am.
But you're missing my point - the mails that remained on the system in user folders were under the control of the users, and could be deleted. Things changed when backups were archived of all the mail going through the system.
Yes, you're right. I was indulging in rose-tinted glasses. Life was much more simple then (as long as you didn't have to configure sendmail rules by hand), and I really miss those days.
Most users at that time would probably be using their modem-attached microcomputers as termials to either their work place or a bulletin board.
User data on the multi-user systems was also backed up normally (users tend to get a bit irate if a system failure wiped out their files, including their mail), so control of their data was never totally in their hands. Even if they deleted the mails, they may exist on backup tapes, and most users had absolutely no idea about how long the backup regime would keep copies of their files.
At one point I was a system owner as defined by the original UK Data Protection act. I was petrified of a request to amend all copies of some incorrect data, because I had no idea how to edit the backup tapes that I kept for significant amounts of time. I was told that there was provision for this in the act, but nobody told me what it was!
80MB of disk! Luxury.
The first UNIX system I was sysadmin for had 2 x 32MB SMD disks and 1MB of memory (although the disks were short-stroked, and we eventually persuaded the engineers to remove the limit, doubling the available disk space).
The first UNIX system I used was a PDP11/34 with 2 RK05 (2.5MB removable disks), and a 10MB Plessey badged fixed disk that was about 10MB. When I first logged on in 1978 it had 128KB memory, although that was max'd out to 256KB later, it was running UNIX Edition/Version 6 originally, although V7 (with the Calgary mods to allow it to work) was installed later, and supported 6 Newbury Data Systems glass teletypes (not screen screen addressable, so no screen editors) and 2 Decwriter II hardcopy terminals. And it supported a community of about 60 computing students, and was permanently short on disk space!
I might give this a shot if it goes at a reasonable price, I spent my weekend trying to repair a failed a decade ago Deskstar by swapping the heads with a good drive (I now have two dead drives), clearly I need more practice so this could be another project drive for me.
But the listing doesn't say what's wrong with it, no symptoms like "BIOS gives error code 11" or "Drive makes ATAPI noise" so not sure if it's worth a punt.
It's the US political system that's broken, not the drive. We think that people like Fallon lower the tone of political discourse, but by US standards he's Mahatma Gandhi. No matter how low a US politician can go, there's another one can slide under his belly wearing a ten gallon hat without tickling him (not my quote, I wish it was.)
The U.S. has a dual-boot OS, both unfortunately fixed at Windows. But we get to choose between ME and Vista. We never save anything to the HD, so when we shut down after every election, we forget everything and have to start over at the next one. Alternative OSes aren't even given a fair chance to compete in our so-called "market economy." If the personal computer business tracked American politics we'd still be using 8-inch floppies.
If we assume Clinton bought her server in 2009, we either have a presidential candidate with a liking for soon-to-be-obsolete tech or one with a willingness to run crusty old kit in mission-critical environments.
Or one with enough insider knowledge to choose the only remaining tech without backdoors?
The author has clearly given enourmous enjoyment to a large number of people, and I commend him for that.
But I ask you, the commentators, was it necessary to include the cheap shot (and false) suggesting that she, or her political staff, were responsible for specifying a hard disk for a new server at her ISP* at the time she took up her state department job?
*Yes, I know that her ISP is an affiliated company. Don't dodge the question.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019