[ucodegen]

[quote=harvey]All of this nonsense is founded upon the premise that the Russian government and its intelligence apparatus are completely benign toward American national security.[/quote]
Wrong. they are malevolent but skilled. They don’t give away any leverage that they can obtain. Where in anything that I wrote – did I say they were benign? False News. The Russian government prefers blackmail to ‘friends’ or allies because an ally can turn on you, but someone under blackmail can’t without significant damage to themselves. I even wrote that previously, so where do you come up with ‘benign’?

[quote=harvey]But it’s those “liberals” – the people that sit next to us and cheer along at our kid’s soccer games – the neighbor who brings in your trash cans when you are on vacation but then votes for Hillary – they are the real threat!

That is the incredible and sorely disappointing theme of our time: So many Americans are so easily duped by cheap propaganda from likes of Sean Hannity.[/quote]
Ok, you are really off the reservation now.

[ucodegen]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=ucodegen]
Sorry neither. That said, it has not been shown that Trump has colluded with Russia. However I do think that Russia was in Hillary’s Email server – for a long time, probably set up automated forwarding of all Emails sent and received, going through several proxies. I don’t think they did this for the Election, I think it was in place for some time. However I don’t think they were the ones that released them – how could Russia profit from that? But it is something that could be subject to blackmail, releasing them and it can no longer be used for blackmail.

[/quote]

Not a single email from Clinton’s server was ever released surreptitiously. Not a single one. There was no evidence that it was ever successfully hacked. Interesting that you think there was. Did fake news help form your impressions of the candidate?[/quote]
Really? I thought the claim was that Russians were the source for the Wikileaks leak of her Emails. How did they get it.. Wikileaks claims that the source was not the Russians – which I tend to believe because Russia does not give away any leverage which they could have over people.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37639370

[ucodegen]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=ucodegen]
You have never handled classified info – that last sentence is incorrect. They were marked, but may have not been marked as per the standard – location on the text, coloring, background. That does NOT make them unclassified.[/quote]

What makes them unclassified is that the information wasn’t classified.

What makes Clinton’s assertion accurate is that if they weren’t correctly marked classified, then they weren’t marked classified.[/quote]

Last line is lawyer speak, and inaccurate. If they weren’t correctly marked classified, they weren’t correctly marked classified. If you see partial markings to the effect that it is classified – it is to be considered classified until otherwise identified – see my link below.

It is not the markings that make things classified, it is the content. BTW where is the assertion that they weren’t really classified – another false news? From what I remember of the video link sent – Comey confirmed that they were classified.

NOTE:
https://www.archives.gov/isoo/faqs/identifying-handling-classified-records.html

Look at end of first bullet under question 3.

[ucodegen]

[quote=harvey]Tell us ucodegen, why are you so tolerant of Trump’s lies about his direct collusion with agents of one of our most dangerous adversaries?

He’s a goddamn disgrace to our country, but you you still stand by him, unwavering, all the while chanting….

BUTTERY MALES![/quote]
Wow – name calling through innuendo, assuming facts not in evidence, red herring. – trying to change a subject.

If you have been paying attention (probably not), you would have seen me state multiple times that this was an election between multiple undesirables. Trump was included on that list.

Looks like you are channeling the Sith – absolutist, either;
hating Trump, loving Hillary or
hating Hillary, loving Trump.

Sorry neither. That said, it has not been shown that Trump has colluded with Russia. However I do think that Russia was in Hillary’s Email server – for a long time, probably set up automated forwarding of all Emails sent and received, going through several proxies. I don’t think they did this for the Election, I think it was in place for some time. However I don’t think they were the ones that released them – how could Russia profit from that? But it is something that could be subject to blackmail, releasing them and it can no longer be used for blackmail.

Comey made a very interesting remark with respect to Russia’s involvement in trying to influence the election. He said they were surprisingly overt. I suspect the real truth is that Russia knows all that was in Hillary’s Email server – including the stuff that was professionally erased. They expected her to win and then blackmail her. That is how Russia works – not by making friends. Friends are unpredictable, people under blackmail are easier to control. This is why I think Russia was so overt in trying to ‘court’ Trump. Remember McCarthyism and peoples response to any taint of Communism and Russia? Put out some innuendo that someone is working with Communism and everyone avoids them.

Normally Russia is not overt in their ‘black arts’ – they want to get in without anyone seeing, and they don’t want those that they have ‘under control’ able to refuse requests. When getting into computers, they break in carefully making sure that they don’t raise flags or break things – either plant a RAT or get what they want and then leave locking the doors on the way out.

China is very overt. They will crash something to get in, they don’t care if it gets traced back to them because in their eyes – the US does not have the ‘balls’ to do anything. The only thing I have seen that is not overt is China compromising ethernet chips that go onto PCs (latent compromise).

[ucodegen]

[quote=SK in CV]
Ok, then. Then nothing in that piece of the clip is evidence of Clinton lying. Gowdy claimed Clinton said something. Comey said “that would be false”. That’s not evidence Clinton lied. Because the things that Gowdy claimed Clinton said, were lies. She had never said those things.[/quote]
Humm so this time index about her claiming Emails being on the State Department server does not exist? and that all here Emails were available?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOFENuFHwTk&t=7m54s

I can find a lot more.. all in her words, recorded.

You also bring into context that 3 (from your link) were not properly marked — leaving approx 2997 marked.

Another note: Per your link;

FBI Director James Comey: no…There were three e-mails. Yhe “c” was in the body, in the text but there was no header on the e-mail or the text.

Rep. Matt Cartwright: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what’s classified and what’s not classified, and were following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?

FBI Director James Comey: That would be a reasonable inference.

That one I would like to see(video).. because if you see the (C) at the top of an email – you may consider that it was cut-pasted, and to ask questions. Markings are not limited to the header. There are top of page requirements, for every page. See your second section

• Conspicuously place the overall classification at the top and bottom of the page.
• Mark other internal pages either with the overall classification or with a marking
indicating the highest classification level of information contained on that page.

NOTE: The per page marking is required in the even the body gets separated from the header or ‘cover page’ on printed versions of the document. It is to also cause the printed to have the markings (not complete markings) should someone print the Email.

Per your quote, it was marked at the top of the page – should have been marked on the header as well. This did not make it unclassisfied.

[quote=SK in CV]They were marked classified. Incorrectly. Which is the same as if they weren’t marked classified at all.[/quote]
You have never handled classified info – that last sentence is incorrect. They were marked, but may have not been marked as per the standard – location on the text, coloring, background. That does NOT make them unclassified.

[ucodegen]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=ucodegen]2) Find it or it doesn’t exist – Comey saying that they did not mark properly.
[/quote]

Not really. It exists whether I can find it or not. That might be the most stupid argument I’ve ever seen posted here.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/fbi-director-admits-hillary-clinton-emails-were-not-properly-marked-classified/%5B/quote%5D
And I could call that ‘false news’…
Video is a better truth.. no translations, re-wording etc. I noticed that you omitted part of the requirements on handling classified info including the fact that mis-marking as per DD 254 does not make them unclassified.

[ucodegen]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=ucodegen]1) Most of the ‘answers’ were ‘not true’. So you are saying that FBI Director James Comey was lying – and if I am not mistaken, this recording was of him on the record under oath.
[/quote]

No, I’m saying Gowdy is lying.[/quote]
Umm.. Gowdy was not making statements of fact. He was posing questions… to which Comey answered. One of these questions was whether the items were marked classified – Comey affirming that they were.

How is that Gowdy lying? Again, Comey was making statements of fact however Gowdy was asking questions of the ‘yes’ or ‘no’ type to be answered by Comey. ie. is this true or not.

[ucodegen]

[quote=SK in CV]Yeah, Gowdy is a former prosecutor. He knows how to frame a question. “Clinton said blah blah blah, is that true?”, when in fact, Clinton never said blah blah blah. Example: Clinton said she didn’t use more than 1 device at a time. She didn’t say she only used 1 device. I think she went through about 5 different cell phones. But never two at the same time.

There’s another clip out there with Comey acknowledging that the emails were not properly marked classified.[/quote]
1) Most of the ‘answers’ were ‘not true’. So you are saying that FBI Director James Comey was lying – and if I am not mistaken, this recording was of him on the record under oath.
2) Find it or it doesn’t exist – Comey saying that they did not mark properly.
3) Classification marks can be as simple as “(C)” or “(S)” at the top of the page – the question would also be as to what standard.
4) Comey did state that they were marked classified – I can get you the time index if you want.. At that point, whether it is ‘proper marking’ or not is no longer the question. Comey said they were marked as opposed to your statement. With classified info, if there is doubt as to proper marking as classified (ie. says classified but not according to how it was supposed to be marked per DD 254 – you treat it as classified – period.)
5) When you are read into a classified project – you are notified as to the markings and responsibility.

The unspoken problem again, is how did this classified data get on an unclassified system – given MLS. Someone had to construct a bypass.

NOTE: Gowdy also knows when someone is being evasive on the answer and not answering directly – that is why the specific yes/no that he was looking for. He was also trying to frame the question as to be able to compare with legal statute.

[ucodegen]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=ucodegen]clipped out – look above[/quote]

I’m quite sure she never claimed there were only 8 emails on her server related to her work at state. She did tell congress that she didn’t think she had any emails that were marked classified. Comey, in his testimony, supported by the FBI report, confirmed that she had no emails that were properly marked classified when sent to her.[/quote]

As for your statements:

PS: Trey Gowdy is a former prosecutor – grilling James Comey. -Note, she originally told congress a low number of Emails total. I may dig that video up.

As for Hillary’s Email – it keeps on ‘giving’. I thought she gave all known Emails to FBI… oops!
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/watchdog-uncovers-new-evidence-quid-pro-quo-hillary-state-dept/

On the marking issue – that is a very nebulous excuse. I don’t know if you have had and operated with a clearance. It is not an excuse. Add to that fact that she was an originator of classified material with SCI/SA access – and you know when it is questionable. I have dealt with classified material, so I am not pulling this out of my *ss. I have had to remove material from someones desk that is in an open area an turn it into security – the markings were not on it, but I knew the origination of the material (and security got to deal with that person).
–It does beg the question as to how the material got on her Email account in the first place because the classified net is supposed to be air-gapped when at the SCI/SA level and at a minimum – MLS with encrypted channels. For computer nerds
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multilevel_security

[ucodegen]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=livinincali] That Hilary Clinton was full of shit. Some choose to support her anyway because everybody does it or she’s better than the alternative, but nobody thinks she wasn’t lying. [/quote]

I don’t think she was lying. I think the FBI report exonerates her from accusations of lying.[/quote]
Really? Claimed something like 8 Emails relative to her work at State Department on her server, found several thousand with almost 3000 classified at differing levels and more than 4 at Special Access. That is a pretty big lie in itself.

What you don’t get is that it needs to be ‘actionable’.. she did not lie under oath, she avoided being placed under oath (remember – she understood that distinction from being an attorney). You can’t prosecute someone for lying unless it is under oath. It also looks like you didn’t read the FBI report or pay much attention to it.

Important takeaway – politicians are not required to tell the truth, and they usually don’t.

[ucodegen]

A useful link on items needed for permits/plans..

top level:
https://www.sandiego.gov/development-services/industry/information/codesregreq

PDFs:
https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/dsdpsm_sec_01.pdf
https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/dsdpsm_sec_02.pdf
https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/dsdpsm_sec_02a.pdf
https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/dsdpsm_sec_04.pdf

Building Codes: Nice to have them online now, though I can do without the flash and page flipping noises (can be turned off). Would be better to have in PDF in entirety.
http://www.bsc.ca.gov/codes.aspx

Update: found a way to download a PDF version — well at least of the plumbing code (I might look later for other code books .. but I gotta get back to what I was working on and stop being distracted)
https://ia801202.us.archive.org/12/items/gov.ca.bsc.title24.2016.05/gov.ca.bsc.2016.05.pdf

Ok, ok… got a little distracted: Here is California Residential code:
https://ia801201.us.archive.org/12/items/gov.ca.bsc.title24.2016.02.5/gov.ca.bsc.2016.02.5.pdf

[ucodegen]

[quote=CarlsbadCub]Full buyout was quoted at $88k. Prepay was quoted at $51k. I’m told that the home generates about 18k kWh annually or 1,500 kWh per month.[/quote]

Looking at quoted production 1,500kWh per month, roughly 31 days in a month and 4 hours of peak production per day would give about 48 solar panels (4 panels by 12)? That is a fairly large system. How big is the house?

Is there any way to verify the production? They may be inflating the amount. 1,500kWh is a fairly large system.

[ucodegen]

humm.. new time poster, just signed up to post this.

One of the big problems is the lack of transparency / honesty on this transaction. There are too many missing pieces of information to answer the question.

[ucodegen]

[quote=harvey][quote=ucodegen]We already debated the AGW subject to death, and it didn’t hold up.[/quote]

I was wondering who kept the official record on what we decided.

Thanks for clearing that up.[/quote]
I didn’t keep the official record – it is out there for all to see on Piggington, all you have to do is dig into the previous postings. That means that Piggington has kept the official record of the discussions that occurred on Piggington. I was just reminding people of those discussions and what happened at the end.

[quote=zk][quote=ucodegen]
We already debated the AGW subject to death, and it didn’t hold up. [/quote]

The only places this is true are in right-wing media and with others who have an agenda.[/quote]
If the basic math doesn’t hold up, then it doesn’t hold up. It is kind of simple there.

[quote=FlyerInHi]Ucodegen, regardless of your point of view, what’s wrong with green tech and green living?

Remember Michele Bachman and her light bulb choice act? Well now you can buy LED bulbs at the 99c store. Are the dumbasses who stocked up on incandescent bulbs still running them and paying the electricity?

Plus Trump is not putting resources that would be applied to the Paris accord into other environmental solutions.[/quote]
There is nothing wrong with green tech itself, as well as green living, but true green tech has much more to do with other things than just Carbon Dioxide. Science should not be twisted to manipulate or exploit a populace. Science should always be pure and honest – regardless of politics.

Trump is not yet putting resources that would be put to the Paris accord. We don’t know how that money will be directed. Some really simple things have very effective results. My opinion is to continue the Solar rebates and enforce Net Metering on the power companies (yes, that is you Nevada). Of course this would not be popular with certain big businesses, but it helps individuals and it also a very effective way for individuals to save money – and be efficient. It is also very effective way to reduce fossil fuel usage. If you burn 300KWh in a month, that is the same as 3.33 full recharges on a Tesla P90 (effectively 3.33 full ‘refuels’.)

The Paris accord is like ‘paying indulgences’ to the Catholic church. It really doesn’t fix things. The entire Carbon trading scenario has been usurped by investment banks to make money at the expense to everyone else. They make a percentage as the ‘broker’ on the deal, yet contribute nothing. The money that goes to the third world countries doesn’t really go to the people of those countries. Most of the third world countries are not democracies, or are democracies with considerable internal corruption.

Green and green tech is much, much more than ‘carbon’. This is why I pointed out the problems with sewage treatment, particulate matter and heavy metals like lead and mercury. There is a good natural ‘uptake’ or ‘sequestration’ channel for Carbon Dioxide (plants and trees), but none for the other items I mentioned.

This is also why I mentioned China, who is turning a good portion of their country into an ecological disaster. Yet this same country barely has any responsibility for their emissions under the current Paris accord, which are nearly twice the US carbon dioxide emissions not to mention particulate, lead and mercury – and other noxious chemicals. No wonder they agree to it, it seriously hamstrings all other nations while leaving China free reign.

On a side note, I thought the people who stocked up on tungsten lights were idiots than, and are still idiots. The only tungsten lights I stocked up on were the ones that go into ovens. CF and LED can’t take the heat of an oven, the only tech that I know of that can is the old tech. Besides, all the waste energy of a tungsten light is heat – and an oven is used for heating things.. I also didn’t stock up on CFs when they came out and had discounts, because in mass manufacturing – prices almost always go down – and new and better tech tends to be around the corner.
NOTE: The only other thing I find tungsten light useful for is indoor photography. Most CFs have a weird color temperature as well as some LEDs.

[ucodegen]

[quote=zk]Right-wing media are destroying our country and trying to take the world down with us. These fox-watching fools voted for this.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/donald-trumps-screw-you-to-the-world%5B/quote%5D
We already debated the AGW subject to death, and it didn’t hold up. ‘The math doesn’t add up’. I can find the thread where there was a debate between Dr. Chaos and myself.. I don’t feel like repeating it, and I don’t think that most of you have the qualifications that he has. Quick ending summary was that even Hansen of NOAA had to agree that water was not accurately reflected in the climate models. I had even supplied a link supporting such. The underlying problem is that water is a significantly stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. It also occurs in higher concentrations than carbon dioxide. For example, while worried about carbon dioxide at 400ppm, air at 70 degrees Fahrenheit and 37 percent humidity (which is on the dry side), contains more than 9200ppm of water. Carbon dioxide does not appear in significant concentrations in the upper atmosphere – which would be required for a greenhouse gas (why is there an ‘alpine tree line’?) Some claim that it is because cold or snow cover lasts too long – but this is dis-proven by visiting areas of Alaska. Final thing to consider; it takes 1 Calorie to heat 1 gram of water 1 degree Centigrade, but it takes more than 500 Calories to vaporize the same amount of water. When it condenses in the upper atmosphere, it releases that same energy from the planet.

So while we are chasing this carbon dioxide ghost, we are ignoring some real and critical problems. Do you know that most Third World countries dump their sewage into rivers and oceans almost completely untreated? This exposes the ocean and its residents to human viruses including HPV, AIDS. It also exposes the ocean to human hormones which have been proven to affect fish. At the time of the Olympics, Rio was treating less than 25% of their sewage (if you are really interested, I might be able to dig up that study, though I think it is still accessible on the web).

With the money we have thrown at the IPCC on this designer cause, we could have fixed a significant portion of the Third World clean water and sanitation problems. By the way, take look at studies showing how lack of clean water an sanitation adversely affect child development, including mental development.

By the way, the current Paris accord puts minimal restrictions on China, while putting much more significant restrictions on the United States. Currently China produces approximately twice the carbon dioxide that the United States does – not to mention airborne particulates that also include mercury, lead and sulfur.

[Author]

Posts