Slashdot Mirror

Did Rice and Powell also use their private email server while their eponymous foundation accepted hundreds of millions of donations from foreign governments during their tenure at the State Department?

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballo...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/new...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08...

On July 2 Lynch stated that she would follow the FBI's recommendation on whether or not to prosecute Clinton. The FBI is recommending no indictment so none will occur.

So we have the DOJ (Lynch) saying she will do what the FBI recommends, and the FBI saying "we recommend the case be dropped because we don't think anybody (especially the DOJ) would prosecute."

Is this one of those few times in which the term "begs the question" can correctly be used?

On July 2 Lynch stated that she would follow the FBI's recommendation on whether or not to prosecute Clinton. The FBI is recommending no indictment so none will occur.

Did anyone bother to look at the graphic (top of page here: http://www.nytimes.com/interac...) ?

  I would assume that if there were traffic control at this intersection it would show limit lines. Without traffic control, it looks like the truck clearly failed to yield right of way. Many times unsafe truck drivers use their size as intimidation to passenger vehicles, failing to yield right of way and just being unsafe. Try to drive 10 miles over the posted speed limit on the Garden State Pky (even in the "slow" lane) without having a 9 ton tractor 1 foot off your bumper and you'll know exactly what I mean.

  Situations where the opposing traffic makes a left hand turn (stateside) kills many, many human drivers No one can assume that even a human here could have avoided the collision except for the truck driver who clearly failed to yield right of way.

  Smells like media bullshit to me.

Never seen a watch for turning traffic sign? I guess there's no need since right of way makes it redundant right?

SHARE THE ROAD. It means you might have to use your brakes once in a while.

Did anyone bother to look at the graphic (top of page here: http://www.nytimes.com/interac...) ?

  I would assume that if there were traffic control at this intersection it would show limit lines. Without traffic control, it looks like the truck clearly failed to yield right of way. Many times unsafe truck drivers use their size as intimidation to passenger vehicles, failing to yield right of way and just being unsafe. Try to drive 10 miles over the posted speed limit on the Garden State Pky (even in the "slow" lane) without having a 9 ton tractor 1 foot off your bumper and you'll know exactly what I mean.

  Situations where the opposing traffic makes a left hand turn (stateside) kills many, many human drivers No one can assume that even a human here could have avoided the collision except for the truck driver who clearly failed to yield right of way.

  Smells like media bullshit to me.

It was all about bashing Monsanto — the "evil" company, that specialized in GMO seeds and holds thousands of patents.

European competitors in particular were so afraid of it rising, they started a PR campaign to mongering fears of GMOs. The campaign created public's perception so negative, some countries (France, Germany) ban GMOs outright and vandals attack growers. Lately Monsanto (and DuPont) must've started fighting back, because American media began defending the technology — even calling its opponents "anti-Science" (where have I heard that before?).

But now that a German firm is seeking to buy Monsanto, Europeans need to be disabused of their misconceptions too.

GMO-haters have nothing but FUD — they've heard it is (or may be) dangerous, but don't know why — somebody told them... See also "chemtrails" and "Trump is racist".

Unfortunately, even in the US food can not be labeled "Organic", if it contains GMOs...

You mean apart from swallowing the fee themselves, like most other companies do?

That would be the "take an 18% loss" option.

Or simply not offering a subscription in-app?

Their claim is that this is what they were trying to do in the update that was rejected. That would be the "or leave" option.

You'd have trouble finding your own ass,

I'm shitting as I write this; I'd say I found my own ass just fine, thanks.

but that's beside the point.

Having read you entire post twice and discarded the invalid, incorrect, or irrelevant portions, I'm left with nothing and have to ask: what was the point?

What Microsoft got in trouble was that they got in trouble before and consented " not to tie other Microsoft products to the sale of Windows " to get out of it.

Yes, that's bundling which is illegal under...

You wouldn't find that statute if you were a lawyer either.

Are you ready to stand corrected? The Sherman Antitrust Act, as well as the Clayton Antitrust Act. I wasn't sure either applied in this case, so I gave them another read-through. The Sherman Act is short so you can probably manage to read it all, but look specifically at section 2. Since it's quite packed with legalese (now, I did say IANAL, but I did not say I don't have any formal education in the field; I do and I can read and understand this crap just fine, I simply don't work with it every day in order to be able to recall it on-demand), you might have some difficulty in following it, so here are a couple easier references for the Sherman Act.

The Clayton Act clarifies the Sherman Act, specifically stating:

(f) Knowingly inducing or receiving discriminatory price

It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, knowingly to induce or receive a discrimination in price which is prohibited by this section.

and

Sec. 14. Sale, etc., on agreement not to use goods of competitor

It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities, whether patented or unpatented, for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, or fix a price charged therefor, or discount from, or rebate upon, such price, on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce .

Here's an easier to follow reference for the Clayton Act, as well.

And, before I drive my point home, the Black’s Law Dictionary definition of “induce", found on page 915 of the referenced edition (4th):

To bring on or about, to affect, cause, to influence to an act or course of conduct, lead by persuasion or reasoning, incite by motives,

Musk may have a problem here. I wonder in all this analysis if anybody considered the possibility that the driver saw the truck and assumed the car's autopilot would deal with it, and went back to watching his DVD? Even if the Tesla's autopilot recognized that the situation was beyond its scope, would giving control back to the driver have averted the fatality? The answer is quite probably no.

In any wrongful death suit that the driver's family brings against Tesla Motors, what is going to be on trial is not the autopilot technology, but whether or not its capabilities were accurately represented to the public. The fact that a DVD player with content actively queued up was found in the wreckage would support the idea that the driver -- at a minimum -- believed that the autopilot could handle whatever came along. Even if they successfully argue that Tesla Motors created no such expectation with their marketing materials, Musk's lawyers are still going to have to show that the autopilot could successfully transition control back to the driver in time to prevent the fatality. That is where I think Elon is in big trouble, because that particular problem, called the handoff problem, has not been solved, and probably can't be solved, according to anybody involved with autonomous vehicles (just google "driverless car handoff problem.")

If I were on Musk's defense team, I'd be pushing for an out-of-court settlement at this point. The handoff problem is exactly why Google will not go into the business of autonomous vehicles until federal regulations are rewritten so that Google can deploy vehicles on public roads with no human in the loop, period.

First off, it seems to me that driving on an experimental 'autpilot' in a roadway that has intersections (as is shown in the police report figure in: ( http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07... ) is tremendously more dangerous than using it on an interstate. That, and the reported presence of a dvd player causes one to question the drivers decision making.

But a greater concern, at least for me, is that the truck appears to have turned right in front of the Tesla. One possibility there is that the intersection had traffic lights, whose detection was missed by both driver and computer, which if true, is a bigger concern than missing the side of a white truck on a bright background. The other is that the truck did not yield to the oncoming car when making its turn, that is the truck cut off the tesla in the intersection. Apart from the liability issues raised, that circumstance is much more difficult to react to, either in person or by computer.

Any one have any further info?

No doubt harder, but it still happens.

Here's one. Here's another. Here's one almost as bad as Pulse. And another. One more.

This implies that even if you magically make every gun in the world disappear right now, you will still have not halted mass killings. A better approach than gutting the 2nd amendment is required.

This is not true.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfor...

She forgot to mention that government is in cahoots with big business to stifle competition. Licensing requirements raise the requirements to start a business, or to be hired. The NY Times reports that occupational therapists, manicurists and barbers, fortune tellers, massage therapists, shampoo assistants, librarians, beekeepers, electrologists and movie projector operators all need to be licensed in various states.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03...

Existing business can provide campaign donations, otherwise known as graft, to politicians to make rules to keep out the competition.

I think it's because she took so long to support it, well after many other prominent Democrats were publicly in favor. Also, she had an almost 20 year public record of being against gay marriage when she was First Lady and Senator Clinton. And, she has shown an amazing record of telling specific audiences what they want to hear in order to further her own goals:

1996: President clinton signs DOMA. I'm sure she didn't have anything to say about that at the time.
1999: When running for Senate, she tells a gay audience that she was against her husband's "Don't ask / Don't tell" policy. Another line the same article clarifies her views on gay marriage and DOMA:

Mrs. Clinton's spokesman, Howard Wolfson, said that the first lady, like her husband, supported legislation passed by Congress in 1996 that effectively banned gay marriages.

2000: Speaking in White Plains, NY:

Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman.

Also 2000: She supports rights equality with gay civil unions:

"I have supported the kind of rights and responsibilities that are being extended to gay couples in Vermont,"

2004: Senate floor speech where she was against a Federal amendment banning same-sex marriage. She still opposed gay marriage in the 2004 speech, but was against enshrining it into the Constitution.
2006: Tells group of gay politicians that and she wouldn't block it if New York passed a law allowing it. Never mind that she couldn't under the 10th Amendment.
2007 - 2008 Presidential Primary: Asked about her opposition on gay marriage by a gay-oriented television network, she gives this:

"Well, I prefer to think of it as being very positive about civil unions. You know, it’s a personal position. How we get to full equality is the debate we’re having, and I am absolutely in favor of civil unions with full equality of benefits, rights, and privileges."

2013: Full throated support of gay marriage now that DOMA is about to be shot to sunshine by the Supreme Court
2014: During her book tour, she interviews on NPR's "Fresh Air" where Terry Gross asks her about her past positions on gay marriage, and Hillary gets a little pissy about it, throwing out the "playing with my words" accusation. About 1/3 of the way through the transcript is where the exchange takes place.

Only now that the majority of the electorate supports gay marriage does she support it. Flip flop on an issue that is religious / moral with a nice sprinkling of civil rights when the polls say to? That's how you define leadership!

(For the record, I'm fine with gay marriage, so don't get up in my business as being some homophobic whatever.)

I think it's because she took so long to support it, well after many other prominent Democrats were publicly in favor. Also, she had an almost 20 year public record of being against gay marriage when she was First Lady and Senator Clinton. And, she has shown an amazing record of telling specific audiences what they want to hear in order to further her own goals:

1996: President clinton signs DOMA. I'm sure she didn't have anything to say about that at the time.
1999: When running for Senate, she tells a gay audience that she was against her husband's "Don't ask / Don't tell" policy. Another line the same article clarifies her views on gay marriage and DOMA:

Mrs. Clinton's spokesman, Howard Wolfson, said that the first lady, like her husband, supported legislation passed by Congress in 1996 that effectively banned gay marriages.

2000: Speaking in White Plains, NY:

Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman.

Also 2000: She supports rights equality with gay civil unions:

"I have supported the kind of rights and responsibilities that are being extended to gay couples in Vermont,"

2004: Senate floor speech where she was against a Federal amendment banning same-sex marriage. She still opposed gay marriage in the 2004 speech, but was against enshrining it into the Constitution.
2006: Tells group of gay politicians that and she wouldn't block it if New York passed a law allowing it. Never mind that she couldn't under the 10th Amendment.
2007 - 2008 Presidential Primary: Asked about her opposition on gay marriage by a gay-oriented television network, she gives this:

"Well, I prefer to think of it as being very positive about civil unions. You know, it’s a personal position. How we get to full equality is the debate we’re having, and I am absolutely in favor of civil unions with full equality of benefits, rights, and privileges."

2013: Full throated support of gay marriage now that DOMA is about to be shot to sunshine by the Supreme Court
2014: During her book tour, she interviews on NPR's "Fresh Air" where Terry Gross asks her about her past positions on gay marriage, and Hillary gets a little pissy about it, throwing out the "playing with my words" accusation. About 1/3 of the way through the transcript is where the exchange takes place.

Only now that the majority of the electorate supports gay marriage does she support it. Flip flop on an issue that is religious / moral with a nice sprinkling of civil rights when the polls say to? That's how you define leadership!

(For the record, I'm fine with gay marriage, so don't get up in my business as being some homophobic whatever.)

But radical Muslims blowing up other Muslims? Not a peep.

Drudge Report was all over the Istanbul bombing almost as soon as it happened. CNN reported too. As did Fox News...

Today — the next day — New York Times had their article. And Washington Post.

Are you taking your talking points from these dimwits, perhaps?

Firstly, this is not about all VW cars, but only those fitted with one specific type of engine (EA189) and then only those sold in one specific country.

You are wrong on all points here. There are multiple engines involved, and German authorities say that VW cheated in Europe, too.

Plaintiffsâ(TM) lawyers brush aside the distinction being drawn by Volkswagen. âoeThe issue of whether or not it is a defeat device amounts to very little in a legal sense,â said Bozena Michalowska Howells, a partner at the London law firm Leigh Day.

âoeTheyâ(TM)re going to remove it and fix it, and for regulatory purposes, itâ(TM)s being deemed a defeat device,â she said.

So in fact, this is about a broad range of cars sold in multiple countries, and you have no idea what you are talking about. Why not step aside, and let the adults speak?

I was traveling abroad shortly after this scandal broke. I had gone on a guided tour and had dinner with a German family afterwards. The father liked my camera and was interested in getting my pictures from the trip. We chatted for hours and he gave me his business card. It turned out that he is the head of "Risk Management" for a large car manufacturer. I asked him of what he thought of the situation with VW. He made two claims to me that I (for obvious reasons) cannot verify. He said that he was personal friends with his counterpart at VW and that the company did make the decision to cheat at a high enough level that his counterpart was involved. He also claimed that VW only broke the law in the US despite the fact that it cheated emissions tests in multiple countries. He said that it was only the US that would be able to hold VW accountable as a country. Whether or not these statements are true, I cannot say.

Firstly, this is not about all VW cars, but only those fitted with one specific type of engine (EA189) and then only those sold in one specific country.

You are wrong on all points here. There are multiple engines involved, and German authorities say that VW cheated in Europe, too.

Plaintiffsâ(TM) lawyers brush aside the distinction being drawn by Volkswagen. âoeThe issue of whether or not it is a defeat device amounts to very little in a legal sense,â said Bozena Michalowska Howells, a partner at the London law firm Leigh Day.

âoeTheyâ(TM)re going to remove it and fix it, and for regulatory purposes, itâ(TM)s being deemed a defeat device,â she said.

So in fact, this is about a broad range of cars sold in multiple countries, and you have no idea what you are talking about. Why not step aside, and let the adults speak?

Volkswagen is a foreign company, so that makes the same thing over 300 times worse then when an American company does it, apparently.

NYC meter maids would never, ever, EVER write bogus tickets. The only reason the NYPD started using the handheld ticket machine was to try to cut down on the number of tickets that were thrown out because they were questionable or obviously bogus. It was an attempt to keep them honest (so the city would get more money). When I moved to NYC my truck was ticketed so often for being a "commercial" vehicle (despite not meeting any of the requirements) that I ended up selling it because fighting every single ticket wasn't worth the hassle. Most of the city employees are good, hard working people but there are enough corrupt ones to screw with a lot of people.

NYC meter maids would never, ever, EVER write bogus tickets. The only reason the NYPD started using the handheld ticket machine was to try to cut down on the number of tickets that were thrown out because they were questionable or obviously bogus. It was an attempt to keep them honest (so the city would get more money). When I moved to NYC my truck was ticketed so often for being a "commercial" vehicle (despite not meeting any of the requirements) that I ended up selling it because fighting every single ticket wasn't worth the hassle. Most of the city employees are good, hard working people but there are enough corrupt ones to screw with a lot of people.

Did you know that judges are 70% less likely to be lenient when hungry?

@Coren22: "Yes, conspiracy theories surely explain why he had sex with a woman while she was asleep after she told him no."

Except she couldn't decide what really happened until she discussed it with her friend the police interrogator and the very next day she appeared at a press conference as Assanges press secretary.

Interrogator in the Assange case friend with woman accusing Wikileaks founder.

'Anna Ardin deletes a blog entry on how to get revenge on unfaithful lovers.'

'Swedish chief prosecutor Eva Finné dismisses all charges'

For a system like Facebook, we are all unique hex numbers, name rarely matters and trust me they know you as a number way more than your best friend or girlfriend. Your name hardly matters to them.

There was a story about how large companies predicted if one is pregnant with the behavioural, mathematical analysis back in 2012, just imagine the stuff Facebook can do.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012...

The link supplied goes to a page with barely more text than a slashdot summary. Skip the middleman and go to the actual source.

Indeed. The NY Times has a few articles about this and an Op-Ed titled Brexit and Europe’s Angry Old Men mentioning a poll over there indicating the older the person, the more likely they were inclined to leave the EU:

That's because the older ones can remember what Britain was like before EU compliance turned GB unto a financial and political armed camp. Unfortunately, now, the damage is done, and the younger ones understand the damage that leaving would do...

Due to the stock exchange crash after the vote UK has lost more money than it has paid into the EU budget for the past 20 years.

That's total BS: the volatility in both stock markets and currency exchange were minor even compared to changes withing a few months.
Pretty sad that FUD like your post gets modded up.

It's over millennials. Your parents know better than you and we're hoping you'll grow up and figure that out at some point.

I'm not sure where you're going with that. The demographics of the vote show clearly that millennials and under-50 voters were solidly in the "remain" camp.

Indeed. The NY Times has a few articles about this and an Op-Ed titled Brexit and Europe’s Angry Old Men mentioning a poll over there indicating the older the person, the more likely they were inclined to leave the EU:

Some 64 percent of the age group from 18 to 24 said they would vote for Remain; just 35 percent of those between 50 and 64 wanted to stay.

"American Exceptionalism" doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. It's not "American Betterism". Look it up some time if you're interested in knowing what the words you use mean.

In brief summary, it's the idea that the US has a special responsibility to act in accordance with the principles of freedom and democracy because it was founded not as an ethnic group, but based on those principles.

You mean the principles of selling billions in weapons to Saudi Arabia - the beheading capital of the world, executing people for sorcery - or allowing child rape on military bases? The principles of supporting coups of democracies - most recently Honduras and Ukraine?

Look it up some time if you're interested in knowing what the words you use mean.

If you're interested in not being a complete shit-for-brains, ray, you might want to do something about your willful ignorance before you prattle on about what others should know. Has Russia spent the last 30 years expanding the Warsaw Pact to Mexico, Canada and surrounding islands after promising not to? Is Russia murdering people with robot planes on the other side of the planet from them?

Has Russia run a worldwide kidnapping and torture program, that was so brutal it even shocked Bush? Is Russia trying to spy on the electronic communications of every person on the planet, the way the NSA has? Nope, nope and nope.

The election heat map would disagree with you...

Northern Ireland, Scotland, and London voted to remain, and that's about it. Everyone else voted to leave (in terms of districts).

Come again? It's actually a bit more diffuse than you realize.

What map did you look at?

It would be nice to find a population based one, sometimes that can be a good bit misleading.

This is a very similar case involving General Motors, an American car manufacturer, concerning a similar number of cars. The amount in the settlement was orders of magnitude lower and the US authorities kept the case out of the media, rather than invoking a massive smear campagin, like they did with VW.

Exactly. While the cheating should have never happened, there is no actual damage. Firstly, NOx is not actually a major contributor to air pollution. Secondly, the affected cars emit less NOx than the average car on the road today. It would not be fair to consider NOx emissions above the legal leval as environmental damage without deducting the effects of the other pollutants, of which emissions are far below the legal limits.

Let's just acknowledge the fact that the U.S. is waging an economic war here. There was an opportunity and they used it to the maximum extent to damage VWs reputation and to steal as much money as possible. When GM did the same thing with a similar number of cars and with an actual pollutant (carbon monoxide), the case was settled with $11 million in fines and $4 in compensation and the whole affair was held out of the press.

The overreaction of the American authorities caused the value of affected cars in the U.S. to drop significantly, something that did not happen in other countries, where the official response was much more sane. Of course they are also making VW pay for what the American authorities caused.

"Most bike accidents happen to inexperienced riders and/or idiots."

There is absolutely no evidence to support this incredibly victim-blaming comment. There is plenty of evidence to refute it, if you simply google the phrase "cyclist driver fault study"

Examples: http://www.executivestyle.com....

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/05...

http://www.theguardian.com/lif...

You're a classic victim-blamer. See, it's those other, stupid, slower, more inexperienced cyclists who get hit. Not you. You're experienced. Dressed like a dayglo traffic cone clown. Covered in lights.

That is old History. Your statement has been wrong since 1983. Even before then those laws only dealt with analog broadcasts on limited spectrum licensed for station usage.

Using the no-fly list to keep bad guys from guns is a terrible idea, here is why:

• 1. The government can place anyone on the no-fly list for any reason at any time. They could easily just place everyone on the no-fly list banning everyone from buying/owning guns. Only the bad guys will have guns.
• 2. You say that won't happen? Innocent people are placed on that list all the time, and you cannot be removed:
  1. Woman on no-fly list.
  2. 8 year old American on no-fly list.
  3. 6 year old Canadian on no-fly list.
  4. Others including Cat Stevens and Senator Kennedy.
• 3. I could be placed on the no-fly list for writting this, chilling free speech. You could be placed on it for having read it. Don't believe me?
  1. Reporter writing a story about Homeland Security has home raided by the Coast Guard, seizing guns and her research/work at 4:30AM in body armor, weapons drawn.
  2. CIA uses 3 degrees of separation when spying on terror suspects.
• 4. What exactly is the no-fly list for? To keep foreign bad guys out of the country, or to keep bad guys from blowing up planes? What does either of those things have anything to do with gun control? It is already against the law for non-resident aliens to possess firearms and ammunition. What does blowing up a plane have anything to do with guns? So the only reason to use the no-fly list as a means for gun control would be to keep American citizens from possessing.

  None of the shooters in any of the mass shootings were on the no-fly list.

It's just a bad idea that can and will be abused to keep law abiding citizens from possessing guns, which the federal government has no legal power to do.

If you actually want to solve the mass shooting problem, and not just use fear to remove freedoms from individuals with thunderous applause, this is what I propose:

Let guns be in schools. As part of P.E. or even on its own, students will be in a firearm safety course. They will be target practicing. They will be tearing their guns down. They will be cleaning their firearms. They will be using hand guns, and rifles, and shotguns, etc. They will be taught that they are tools just like the circular saw or the welder in shop class, or knives and scissors in art class and home economics. They will take this class every year they are old enough to hold a weapon safely.

Just like at 16, when they are given a license to operate a tool that "kills" on average 3,287 people per day, at 18 they will take a test and if passed they will get a concealed carry license issued by their state of residence. The CCL will be valid in every state and territory of this nation. All of our children will be taught to not fear guns, and if they so chose they will be armed. That way the next time someone decides to bring a semi auto rifle to a night club to kill innocent people, that person would potentially be staring down a hundred barrels of trained good guys.

There will be no fear for the government to use to tighten gun control. People will not fear guns and will know how to use them. There will not be a gun control problem. Who knows, if everyone is armed, perhaps people may be more respectful to each other.

Back in 2012, Epstein's website got blocked by Google because it was hosting malware. He's hated Google ever since.

google plant

Back in 2012, Epstein's website got blocked by Google because it was hosting malware. He's hated Google ever since.

However, just for curiosity I read "Steve Jobs" by Walter Isaacson and was blown away. I hadn't enjoyed a book that much in a long time, and I mainly read non-fiction.

So you read "Steve Jobs" by Walter Isaacson, which is quite flawed, and thus fiction. http://daringfireball.net/2012/02/walter_isaacson_steve_jobs

There is much that is wrong with Walter Isaacson’s biography of Jobs, but its treatment of software is the most profound of the book’s flaws. Isaacson doesn’t merely neglect or underemphasize Jobs’s passion for software and design, but he flat-out paints the opposite picture.

Isaacson makes it seem as though Jobs was almost solely interested in hardware, and even there, only in what the hardware looked like. Superficial aesthetics.

[How Isaacson doesn't understand what "Antennagate" was about, and gets the technical details completely wrong because of his "looks above everything else" theory]

Isaacson, it seems clear, mistrusted Jobs. That’s good. But rather than using that mistrust to push back, to ask insightful questions, he instead simply turned to others. ...

Again, skepticism is good. But rather than do the research to verify Jobs’s version of events, to learn the facts so as to be able to dispute Jobs himself, he simply turned to sources he did trust, like Hertzfeld and Gates. But Gates is an odd choice to trust, because he clearly has a conflict of interest. His company competed against Jobs’s, and at a personal level, he is Jobs’s only rival in terms of historical stature in the industry.

...

You could learn more about Steve Jobs’s work by reading Rob Walker’s 2003 New York Times Magazine piece than by reading Isaacson’s book, but even then we’re left wanting for the stories behind any of Apple’s products after the iPod. Isaacson’s book may well be the defining resource for Jobs’s personal life — his childhood, youth, eccentricities, cruelty, temper, and emotional outbursts. But as regards Jobs’s work, Isaacson leaves the reader profoundly and tragically misinformed.

Isaacson gives us the story of an asshole. But the world is full of assholes. What we need is the story of the one man who spearheaded so many remarkable products and who built an amazing and unique company.

Would you please make a robot in the image and stupidity of Donald Trump: U.S.A. Demogogue ?

Thanks in advance,

K. Trout,
San Francisco, CA

Is "run from a country with a track record of flagrant disregard of international copyright law

By that logic, pointing out, that welcoming refugees from countries with a comparably flagrant disregard for women's rights may not be smart, is Ok too.

And yet, Donald Trump, who suggested a freeze of such immigrations, was widely denounced as just that — a racist everywhere, Slashdot included... But bashing the entire China is Ok?

Because all of the hyperbole and accusations of government over reach has not resulted in the government actually violating a person constitutional rights

Liar.

Thiel helped fund the lawsuits, obviously that part is fact. However, Gawker and other sites / people spin it like his intention was to bankrupt Gawker, whereas Thiel's own words say something different (from the NY Times article):

“It’s less about revenge and more about specific deterrence,” he said on Wednesday in his first interview since his identity was revealed. “I saw Gawker pioneer a unique and incredibly damaging way of getting attention by bullying people even when there was no connection with the public interest.”

Mr. Thiel said that Gawker published articles that were “very painful and paralyzing for people who were targeted.” He said, “I thought it was worth fighting back.”

Mr. Thiel added: “I can defend myself. Most of the people they attack are not people in my category. They usually attack less prominent, far less wealthy people that simply can’t defend themselves.” He said that “even someone like Terry Bollea who is a millionaire and famous and a successful person didn’t quite have the resources to do this alone.”

Oh, and didn't the FBI investigate the Orlando shooter TWICE, and found nothing to justify further interest? So, how would passing this amendment have prevented Orlando?

No the regulations were so severe in investigating people of interest that they were effectively dissuaded from further investigating even though the shooter was on the terrorist watchlist. And the FBI had a very strong suspicion that he was a ticking bomb So when you read between the lines you basically see that they discovered he was a protected class aka muslim and either looked the other way or were persuaded to look the other way because the optics wouldn't be good.. On top of that his wife is now being investigated as a link to this.

OK. There's something wrong when the FBI can't investigate someone Muslim, who wants to buy bulk ammo and body armor, is acting all squirrely, and has domestic violence issues. I'm all for political correctness, but this seems to be taking things a bit too far the wrong way. Someone in FBI management needs to step back and man up a bit.

ESPECIALLY...when (old white guy) I have to take my belt and shoes off every time I fly.

When you implement rent controls, there's very little incentive to build more housing. It's the type of policy that most economists agree is a bad idea and it's little surprise that it distorts the market and causes all manner of ill adverse side effects.

You honestly can't expect anyone sane to build new housing when laws mandate that it be a poor investment. At that point you end up with the only solution being government funded public housing projects, but those have a lot of stigma attached to them.

SF's Rent control only applies to buildings built after 1979 - 37 years ago.

I'm pretty sure that if i build a building in SF now that it will have been built AFTER 1979 and will, therefore, be subject to rent control.

Ah I see that you later stated you had the dates backward. Ignore my snark, then, please.

When you implement rent controls, there's very little incentive to build more housing. It's the type of policy that most economists agree is a bad idea and it's little surprise that it distorts the market and causes all manner of ill adverse side effects.

You honestly can't expect anyone sane to build new housing when laws mandate that it be a poor investment. At that point you end up with the only solution being government funded public housing projects, but those have a lot of stigma attached to them.

SF's Rent control only applies to buildings built after 1979 - 37 years ago.

I'm pretty sure that if i build a building in SF now that it will have been built AFTER 1979 and will, therefore, be subject to rent control.

Oh, and didn't the FBI investigate the Orlando shooter TWICE, and found nothing to justify further interest? So, how would passing this amendment have prevented Orlando?

No the regulations were so severe in investigating people of interest that they were effectively dissuaded from further investigating even though the shooter was on the terrorist watchlist. And the FBI had a very strong suspicion that he was a ticking bomb So when you read between the lines you basically see that they discovered he was a protected class aka muslim and either looked the other way or were persuaded to look the other way because the optics wouldn't be good.. On top of that his wife is now being investigated as a link to this.

Supreme Court Says Police May Use Evidence Found After Illegal Stops

Now, while the outrage at the politicians may make one feel better, the truth of the matter is that they have been elected by the people again and again. The Supreme Court justices were put in place by those same elected officials.

But when people do want change, do they get a rational statesmen? No. They support people like Trump who have nothing but feel good unrealistic "solutions". Or they fall back on a name they recognize because of "electability" or some nonsense.

If anyone thinks that Trump is going to bring change, you are just as stupid as the masses who are behind Clinton.

It's unfortunate that folks who are true leaders and statement don't make it very far in US politics. The assholes usually make it to the top these days.

No more Eisenhowers or Trumans or Fords coming our way.

When you implement rent controls, there's very little incentive to build more housing. It's the type of policy that most economists agree is a bad idea and it's little surprise that it distorts the market and causes all manner of ill adverse side effects.

You honestly can't expect anyone sane to build new housing when laws mandate that it be a poor investment. At that point you end up with the only solution being government funded public housing projects, but those have a lot of stigma attached to them.

SF's Rent control only applies to buildings built after 1979 - 37 years ago.

Which emphasizes the point that rent control is detrimental to building more housing space.

Whoops sorry, had that backwards -- I meant it applies only to building built *before* 1979 -- any building built in the past 37 years is not subject to rent control.

hoarding property from the people who live in the city and need that property ... "Investors" are locking up the housing supply to drive up the property prices.

The ignorance of economics and the effects of big city housing regulations is strong with this one...

Even a totally partisan left-wing economist like Krugman understands that it's regulations like this one which keep housing unaffordable.

Let me lay it out for you... If you make it more expensive to build housing of various types, and if you make housing worth less by adding lots of restrictions on what you can do with it, and if you restrict people's ability to make money with the housing they build, it turns out that over time, people build much less housing, because they don't see the point in going through all that hassle for less reward than they can get elsewhere with their money.

The solution to that is pretty obvious, but it's not to further restrict what people are "allowed" to do in order to make housing more valuable/profitable.

When you implement rent controls, there's very little incentive to build more housing. It's the type of policy that most economists agree is a bad idea and it's little surprise that it distorts the market and causes all manner of ill adverse side effects.

You honestly can't expect anyone sane to build new housing when laws mandate that it be a poor investment. At that point you end up with the only solution being government funded public housing projects, but those have a lot of stigma attached to them.

SF's Rent control only applies to buildings built after 1979 - 37 years ago.

Which emphasizes the point that rent control is detrimental to building more housing space.

When you implement rent controls, there's very little incentive to build more housing. It's the type of policy that most economists agree is a bad idea and it's little surprise that it distorts the market and causes all manner of ill adverse side effects.

You honestly can't expect anyone sane to build new housing when laws mandate that it be a poor investment. At that point you end up with the only solution being government funded public housing projects, but those have a lot of stigma attached to them.

SF's Rent control only applies to buildings built after 1979 - 37 years ago.