This is so simple that is brilliant. Just turn on the area you would want to vote for, it will light up and after you're done you get your receipt.
No way. You'd disenfranchise people whose home light switches were installed improperly so that you must flip them down to turn on the light. We should not stand for that!:P
Seriously though, no system is ever going to be perfect. I have to agree with a previous poster. I've voted on machines for a while now, and it's dead simple. I'm sure some are easier than others, but I've not seen an example of one that is difficult to understand. I don't really see how people can screw it up. Computer skills don't even matter with these systems. These people would screw up a pencil/paper ballot too.
If you're too dumb to figure out how to select your candidates, then you're probably also too dumb to understand the issues affecting the country too. Such mentally incapacitated people probably shouldn't be deciding the direction of the country. It's kind of like letting little kids decide. That sounds condescending, but there are plenty of adults out there with the mental capacities of children.
This is why I'm voting for McCain. He saw this problem coming, and tried to stop it. Prescience is a quality we need in a President.
McCain voted for the legislation that is at least as much responsible for these problems as any of the CRA legislation. But I guess his superior foresight didn't allow him to see that. And the blind spots in his hindsight won't allow him to own up to it either. When you realize that there was a lot more than one single cause for the problems we have now, you'll be going into the election with your eyes open. Voting for McCain because "he saw this problem coming, and tried to stop it" is just ignorant and ascribes motives to his actions that you can't back up. If he was so concerned about what was coming, why did he vote to deregulate credit default swaps, thus allowing the entire AIG debacle to occur, ensuring that many banks would fail?
The truth is there were many things converging to cause the disaster. The CRA, the CFMA, the problems with the securities rating models and stock trading software, the really bad assumptions made about home prices, the rampant speculation going on. There's probably a lot more we don't even know about yet.
If it makes you feel better to oversimplify things in the extreme and boil it down to "McCain good. Obama bad.", then fine. But at least admit that that's what you're doing. Don't buy into the belief that one candidate or the other would have or could have foreseen this and prevented it, or that either one of them has any way of fixing it. The economists don't seem to believe either candidate is going to have much impact on the problem either way. It's too late. What can be done is being done already. It's going to have to run its course.
Maybe instead of snide remarks you might want to pursue more constructive ways of enlightening people of any faith who engage in violence. Or does your religion tell you that snide remarks are the answer?
I doubt you bought your house in some random shop in a small box, or got it shipped by post.
Buying a house is a bit more sophisticated than buying a game... and the authorities (which will print you your new deed) know about it, which I doubt as far as your game is concerned.
Then again, getting a new copy of that deed isn't going to be free either - it'll probably cost more than the 9.99 USD you pay for a brand spanking new copy of UT2004...
np: Venetian Snares - Masodik Galamb (Rossz Csillag Allat Szuletett)
All they have to do is get me a new key. I'm not even asking for anything physical. I've even still got the box and manual for it, along with the original discs. But because I don't have whatever extra piece of paper they threw in with a cd key on it, I'm screwed.
10 bucks is fine when we're talking about over 100K for a house, and the fact that they have to create and send a new physical document. It seems ridiculous that I'd have to pay 20 percent of the original price (or the full, depreciated price if we look at it that way) just to play again.
Exactly what prevented you from making a backup of those "16 characters"? Definitely not Epic, but you act like it's their fault. And since it's their servers you connect to they have every right to have you authenticate with the CD key they supplied with the manual - is that too much to ask?
I could lose the deed to my fucking house and get another copy of it. Yet I can't get another cd key to play a 50 dollar game? Something is fucked up.
If the internet did not exist and you could not pirate any given game, would you
A.) Not buy a game you were fairly interested in but not positive about?
or
B.) Buy a game you were fairly interested in but not positive about?
If you're like most people, I'm guessing the answer is that sometimes you would do A, sometimes B.
If you're like me, you've been burned too many times in the past to ever trust most developers again. With only a couple of exceptions who I give the benefit of the doubt to, I have to try a game before I will decide whether to buy it or not. Even if I get home and it won't run at all, I can't return it.
Developers think that all they have to do is entice you with enough bullshit hype about how awesome their game is to get you to buy it, and then when you realize that they were bullshitting all along, they already have your money and you can't return it.
Even a demo can be made to seem awesome, and make you think that if you could just keep playing a bit further you'd get to experience the awesomeness that they've been telling you about for the last couple years. But you'll probably be wrong. Maybe I'm jaded now, but it's asshole developers (and really publishers more often than developers) that have made me that way.
No, what bothers me is that I intimately understand the direct connection between piracy of a PC title en masse and the ensuing lack of employment of people who worked on said title if it underperforms "as a result". I'm not saying I agree with that proposed causal relationship, and I certainly understand that not every stolen copy is a lost sale - actually, almost everyone I've talked to in the business agrees - but piracy does hurt real people who make games, and therefore also dampens the quality of PC titles and the enthusiasm for the platform across the board.
It's a real problem out there.
The counter-argument to that is that DRM hurts your customers in very real ways as well, while it has little to no impact on pirates. Hell, I can't even play my copy of UT2004 now because I lost my CD key last time I moved. What else do I own that I could permanently lose just because I can't find a little card with like 16 characters on it?
It would seem that killing MY apps on MY phone would give me nexus to hire MY lawyer and get MY settlement from the google fatcat overloards with their options swimming under water.
Good luck with that since you have to agree to their terms to use their service. If you're not using their service, then they can't delete your apps.
Sure. I'm sure that a single piece of legislation caused the whole thing. I notice that you conveniently forget that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was sponsored by republicans (Phil Gramm strikes again), and passed the senate on a party-line vote with only one democrat crossing over. But sure, you go right ahead and believe that the Republicans are in no way responsible for our situation.
Try again. The final version of the bill passed 90-8 (and was signed into law by Bill Clinton).
And since most people were forced into "repayment plans" that they couldn't afford, they just abandoned ship. They left behind empty houses and banks were left in dire straits.
Under the old bill, that would not have happened.
How would they have kept their homes under a Ch-7?
The changes to the CRA were more than just misguided: they were a contributing factor.
While I don't subscribe to the current right-wing talking point that the CRA was the triggering factor, it almost certainly added to the problem by forcing banks to relax their lending standards (under threat of being sued for "red-lining").
Add in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's willingness to fund or buy mortgages with practically no lending standards, and it created a perverse incentive for mortgage lenders: they could write a loan, pocket the fees, then sell the loan to someone else. With no risk of default before they sold the mortgage, they were willing loan money to anyone that could fog a mirror.
It did relax standards, but I don't think it was responsible for the insanely risky loans that were being made based on little information about the borrower. If it weren't for the fact that they were able to use credit default swaps to insure those risky securities, they wouldn't have been taking those risks in the first place. And if AIG actually had to disclose what they were insuring, or maintain a capital reserve to cover it, then things would not have played out the way they did.
Skip the partisanship. Give the blame where it is due--not with the party that differs with your own viewpoint (whichever party that may be), but the elected officials sitting in the Senate, the House, and Pennsylvania Avenue.
Let's be a little more reasonable here, OK?
That was really my point. The gp poster was trying to tie all of our problems around the necks of the dems, so I pointed out that the republicans had a hand in it as well. Both sides have caved to the financial industry in a lot of ways and let them run wild. Trying to point at one or the other is oversimplifying in the extreme.
If you look at the Wikipedia page you linked to for the Gramm Act, it even says that it passed 90-8 in the senate, and 362-67 in the house. Not exactly a 'party line vote'.
A little of your own revisionist history?
True. I should have said that as well. I was referring to the initial version, before they added the sweetener for democrats of strengthening the CRA (which I also consider to be misguided legislation).
I'm not trying to lay all the blame on republicans. I was just trying to explain to the gp poster that he was misguided in trying to lay it all on the dems.
CBS and FOX won't do it to Obama because they *like* Obama. They don't mind if Obama uses their videos to help him win the election.
>>>I hope they pursue this by addressing flaws in the DMCA.
Do you actually know that Obama's campaign hasn't had takedowns used against them, or are you assuming?
** (The real blame lies with the 1990s president who repealed the Glass-Steagall of 1933 which allowed banks to invest in risky stocks, and thereby created the current crisis. But the media is being hush-hush about that. Don't want to risk losing the Obama election.)
Sure. I'm sure that a single piece of legislation caused the whole thing. I notice that you conveniently forget that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was sponsored by republicans (Phil Gramm strikes again), and passed the senate on a party-line vote with only one democrat crossing over. But sure, you go right ahead and believe that the Republicans are in no way responsible for our situation.
I notice also that you neglect to take any notice of other things that contributed quite a bit to our situation, such as the Commodity and Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (more of Phil Gramm's handiwork). This was also a republican bill, but it was supported by a few dems as well. You might want to look into how this relates to the AIG situation and how that affected the banks.
Modded funny, but seriously, as bad as IE6 was, the more Microsoft can do to move people away from it the better. At least they're trying to make IE8 more standards-compliant. It's not as far along as other browsers, but it's going in the right direction at least.
Actually I've tried firefox just yesterday on my exchange webmail account. It certainly works.
Of course my company probably hasn't got the newest version of exchange webmail (? what's it called ?), but it works.
The VPN is the problem, really.
Firefox doesn't seem to want to display the folder tree and some of the other features don't seem to work either. It's really not as functional as it is with IE. The basic stuff seems to work though.
As further development to my previous hypothetical example, if Sarah were sending an email to Todd about how X is an ass, I really don't think it is government business. That's the level of personal message I was thinking of. If you shift the target from todd to one of her friends at work, I don't think it changes the basic nature of it.
Which is why everything gets archived and then she can dispute the release of certain documents if she believes they fall under the exemptions. If the judge agrees, then they don't get released. Your example seems pretty clear-cut in that regard.
This is all about nothing. The emails the partisans are looking for would not be official, but the equivalent of a phone conversation (or disucssion) of politics, strategy, and such that would merely be used to embarass their political opponent. Does the State of Alaska require all State Phone conversations to be recorded? Do they record every meeting and every internal debate (beyond minutes)? Why not?
She doesn't get to decide what is public record and what isn't. That's up to a judge if she wants to dispute a request. Everything gets archived. That's how it works. Not even executive privilege or the other exemptions are absolute. They may or may not be applied based on the situation. Again, she doesn't get to make that call herself. She's an employee of the state, and must be accountable to the people. Her documented communications, be it meeting minutes, letters, memos, emails, etc., are public record. They must be treated as such.
Did you miss the Clinton years? That whole "swearing under oath" and "upholding the law" is so passe for people in executive office.
I miss them. I'm not a Clinton fan (either one of them), but the president getting impeached for lying about a blowjob is infinitely preferable to what we've gone through over the last 8 years.
Which email, in particular, clearly pertains to government business? Wikileaks doesn't have anything dammning. Although, maybe it depends on how you define 'pertains'. Subject lines can be very misleading. If there is a personal email about how some bill is progressing, and it's largely personal complaints about whoever is balking, is that government business or not?
Her aides sent all emails to one of her Yahoo accounts (not the account that got hacked) rather than her state account. That alone proves it was being used for official business.
And the difference between this and having a meeting at which you don't bother to keep minutes, or just talking about things over dinner or in the hallway is... what, exactly?
Sorry... this is a nonstory that partisan nutjobs are trying to drill into a story to deflect attention from the fact that they committed felony identity fraud in attacking her.
It's part of her job to make sure those emails are archived and secured. They are part of the public record. This was being investigated by Alaskans before the other account got hacked anyway, so you're wrong there too. Besides, who is "they"? One idiot kid hacked into her account, and even more retardedly, posted everything necessary to catch him online. But somehow that makes it a liberal conspiracy? Who's the nutjob again?
He should be prosecuted under relevant laws for what he did. However, he unwittingly uncovered other illegal activity.
For that reason he is a reluctant hero (which I agree that "hero" was probably not the best word to use).
He didn't uncover anything. Alaskans were already investigating her use of commercial accounts for official business. They already had boxes of emails from her aides sent to her Yahoo account. Not the one that got hacked, but another one. What he did was just stupid. Plain and simple.
Politicians have naive kids too. We've seen lots of examples in the past on both sides of the aisle. What the kid did was excruciatingly dumb and he'll be punished for it, probably pretty severely, just due to the high profile nature.
I have yet to see a single (not one) source that shows she was using this account for government business. If this is the case, why are there no links to copied of said email(s)? If this is all speculation, then for the love of god, shut the fuck up till there is proof.
Don't assume. Thank you.
If you're referring to her personal account, then this post lists the email headers. I haven't looked for a link to an article, but they look like the same ones that were in an earlier article, probably already linked here somewhere. It'll take a judge to release the full emails since she's already deleted her Yahoo accounts. The second Yahoo account was quite obviously being used for state business, and not even Palin is denying that.
Slashdot Mirror
This is so simple that is brilliant. Just turn on the area you would want to vote for, it will light up and after you're done you get your receipt.
No way. You'd disenfranchise people whose home light switches were installed improperly so that you must flip them down to turn on the light. We should not stand for that! :P
Seriously though, no system is ever going to be perfect. I have to agree with a previous poster. I've voted on machines for a while now, and it's dead simple. I'm sure some are easier than others, but I've not seen an example of one that is difficult to understand. I don't really see how people can screw it up. Computer skills don't even matter with these systems. These people would screw up a pencil/paper ballot too.
If you're too dumb to figure out how to select your candidates, then you're probably also too dumb to understand the issues affecting the country too. Such mentally incapacitated people probably shouldn't be deciding the direction of the country. It's kind of like letting little kids decide. That sounds condescending, but there are plenty of adults out there with the mental capacities of children.
This is why I'm voting for McCain. He saw this problem coming, and tried to stop it. Prescience is a quality we need in a President.
McCain voted for the legislation that is at least as much responsible for these problems as any of the CRA legislation. But I guess his superior foresight didn't allow him to see that. And the blind spots in his hindsight won't allow him to own up to it either. When you realize that there was a lot more than one single cause for the problems we have now, you'll be going into the election with your eyes open. Voting for McCain because "he saw this problem coming, and tried to stop it" is just ignorant and ascribes motives to his actions that you can't back up. If he was so concerned about what was coming, why did he vote to deregulate credit default swaps, thus allowing the entire AIG debacle to occur, ensuring that many banks would fail?
The truth is there were many things converging to cause the disaster. The CRA, the CFMA, the problems with the securities rating models and stock trading software, the really bad assumptions made about home prices, the rampant speculation going on. There's probably a lot more we don't even know about yet.
If it makes you feel better to oversimplify things in the extreme and boil it down to "McCain good. Obama bad.", then fine. But at least admit that that's what you're doing. Don't buy into the belief that one candidate or the other would have or could have foreseen this and prevented it, or that either one of them has any way of fixing it. The economists don't seem to believe either candidate is going to have much impact on the problem either way. It's too late. What can be done is being done already. It's going to have to run its course.
Maybe instead of snide remarks you might want to pursue more constructive ways of enlightening people of any faith who engage in violence. Or does your religion tell you that snide remarks are the answer?
I doubt you bought your house in some random shop in a small box, or got it shipped by post.
Buying a house is a bit more sophisticated than buying a game... and the authorities (which will print you your new deed) know about it, which I doubt as far as your game is concerned.
Then again, getting a new copy of that deed isn't going to be free either - it'll probably cost more than the 9.99 USD you pay for a brand spanking new copy of UT2004...
np: Venetian Snares - Masodik Galamb (Rossz Csillag Allat Szuletett)
All they have to do is get me a new key. I'm not even asking for anything physical. I've even still got the box and manual for it, along with the original discs. But because I don't have whatever extra piece of paper they threw in with a cd key on it, I'm screwed.
10 bucks is fine when we're talking about over 100K for a house, and the fact that they have to create and send a new physical document. It seems ridiculous that I'd have to pay 20 percent of the original price (or the full, depreciated price if we look at it that way) just to play again.
Exactly what prevented you from making a backup of those "16 characters"? Definitely not Epic, but you act like it's their fault. And since it's their servers you connect to they have every right to have you authenticate with the CD key they supplied with the manual - is that too much to ask?
I could lose the deed to my fucking house and get another copy of it. Yet I can't get another cd key to play a 50 dollar game? Something is fucked up.
Thought exercise:
If the internet did not exist and you could not pirate any given game, would you
A.) Not buy a game you were fairly interested in but not positive about?
or
B.) Buy a game you were fairly interested in but not positive about?
If you're like most people, I'm guessing the answer is that sometimes you would do A, sometimes B.
If you're like me, you've been burned too many times in the past to ever trust most developers again. With only a couple of exceptions who I give the benefit of the doubt to, I have to try a game before I will decide whether to buy it or not. Even if I get home and it won't run at all, I can't return it.
Developers think that all they have to do is entice you with enough bullshit hype about how awesome their game is to get you to buy it, and then when you realize that they were bullshitting all along, they already have your money and you can't return it.
Even a demo can be made to seem awesome, and make you think that if you could just keep playing a bit further you'd get to experience the awesomeness that they've been telling you about for the last couple years. But you'll probably be wrong. Maybe I'm jaded now, but it's asshole developers (and really publishers more often than developers) that have made me that way.
No, what bothers me is that I intimately understand the direct connection between piracy of a PC title en masse and the ensuing lack of employment of people who worked on said title if it underperforms "as a result". I'm not saying I agree with that proposed causal relationship, and I certainly understand that not every stolen copy is a lost sale - actually, almost everyone I've talked to in the business agrees - but piracy does hurt real people who make games, and therefore also dampens the quality of PC titles and the enthusiasm for the platform across the board.
It's a real problem out there.
The counter-argument to that is that DRM hurts your customers in very real ways as well, while it has little to no impact on pirates. Hell, I can't even play my copy of UT2004 now because I lost my CD key last time I moved. What else do I own that I could permanently lose just because I can't find a little card with like 16 characters on it?
âoeRemarkably, both galaxies contain super-massive black holes, each capable of powering a billion, billion, billion light bulbs."
Most people couldn't possibly conceive of such a number. Maybe they should tell us how many Libraries of Congress that number of bulbs could light.
Can we get a better frame of reference than that please?
It would seem that killing MY apps on MY phone would give me nexus to hire MY lawyer and get MY settlement from the google fatcat overloards with their options swimming under water.
Good luck with that since you have to agree to their terms to use their service. If you're not using their service, then they can't delete your apps.
Try again. The final version of the bill passed 90-8 (and was signed into law by Bill Clinton).
What he said...
And since most people were forced into "repayment plans" that they couldn't afford, they just abandoned ship. They left behind empty houses and banks were left in dire straits.
Under the old bill, that would not have happened.
How would they have kept their homes under a Ch-7?
The changes to the CRA were more than just misguided: they were a contributing factor.
While I don't subscribe to the current right-wing talking point that the CRA was the triggering factor, it almost certainly added to the problem by forcing banks to relax their lending standards (under threat of being sued for "red-lining").
Add in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's willingness to fund or buy mortgages with practically no lending standards, and it created a perverse incentive for mortgage lenders: they could write a loan, pocket the fees, then sell the loan to someone else. With no risk of default before they sold the mortgage, they were willing loan money to anyone that could fog a mirror.
It did relax standards, but I don't think it was responsible for the insanely risky loans that were being made based on little information about the borrower. If it weren't for the fact that they were able to use credit default swaps to insure those risky securities, they wouldn't have been taking those risks in the first place. And if AIG actually had to disclose what they were insuring, or maintain a capital reserve to cover it, then things would not have played out the way they did.
Skip the partisanship. Give the blame where it is due--not with the party that differs with your own viewpoint (whichever party that may be), but the elected officials sitting in the Senate, the House, and Pennsylvania Avenue.
Let's be a little more reasonable here, OK?
That was really my point. The gp poster was trying to tie all of our problems around the necks of the dems, so I pointed out that the republicans had a hand in it as well. Both sides have caved to the financial industry in a lot of ways and let them run wild. Trying to point at one or the other is oversimplifying in the extreme.
If you look at the Wikipedia page you linked to for the Gramm Act, it even says that it passed 90-8 in the senate, and 362-67 in the house. Not exactly a 'party line vote'.
A little of your own revisionist history?
True. I should have said that as well. I was referring to the initial version, before they added the sweetener for democrats of strengthening the CRA (which I also consider to be misguided legislation).
I'm not trying to lay all the blame on republicans. I was just trying to explain to the gp poster that he was misguided in trying to lay it all on the dems.
CBS and FOX won't do it to Obama because they *like* Obama. They don't mind if Obama uses their videos to help him win the election.
>>>I hope they pursue this by addressing flaws in the DMCA.
Do you actually know that Obama's campaign hasn't had takedowns used against them, or are you assuming?
** (The real blame lies with the 1990s president who repealed the Glass-Steagall of 1933 which allowed banks to invest in risky stocks, and thereby created the current crisis. But the media is being hush-hush about that. Don't want to risk losing the Obama election.)
Sure. I'm sure that a single piece of legislation caused the whole thing. I notice that you conveniently forget that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was sponsored by republicans (Phil Gramm strikes again), and passed the senate on a party-line vote with only one democrat crossing over. But sure, you go right ahead and believe that the Republicans are in no way responsible for our situation.
I notice also that you neglect to take any notice of other things that contributed quite a bit to our situation, such as the Commodity and Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (more of Phil Gramm's handiwork). This was also a republican bill, but it was supported by a few dems as well. You might want to look into how this relates to the AIG situation and how that affected the banks.
Not always. You can't pick IE6 AND Vista.
Thank God.
Modded funny, but seriously, as bad as IE6 was, the more Microsoft can do to move people away from it the better. At least they're trying to make IE8 more standards-compliant. It's not as far along as other browsers, but it's going in the right direction at least.
Actually I've tried firefox just yesterday on my exchange webmail account. It certainly works.
Of course my company probably hasn't got the newest version of exchange webmail (? what's it called ?), but it works.
The VPN is the problem, really.
Firefox doesn't seem to want to display the folder tree and some of the other features don't seem to work either. It's really not as functional as it is with IE. The basic stuff seems to work though.
As further development to my previous hypothetical example, if Sarah were sending an email to Todd about how X is an ass, I really don't think it is government business. That's the level of personal message I was thinking of. If you shift the target from todd to one of her friends at work, I don't think it changes the basic nature of it.
Which is why everything gets archived and then she can dispute the release of certain documents if she believes they fall under the exemptions. If the judge agrees, then they don't get released. Your example seems pretty clear-cut in that regard.
This is all about nothing. The emails the partisans are looking for would not be official, but the equivalent of a phone conversation (or disucssion) of politics, strategy, and such that would merely be used to embarass their political opponent. Does the State of Alaska require all State Phone conversations to be recorded? Do they record every meeting and every internal debate (beyond minutes)? Why not?
She doesn't get to decide what is public record and what isn't. That's up to a judge if she wants to dispute a request. Everything gets archived. That's how it works. Not even executive privilege or the other exemptions are absolute. They may or may not be applied based on the situation. Again, she doesn't get to make that call herself. She's an employee of the state, and must be accountable to the people. Her documented communications, be it meeting minutes, letters, memos, emails, etc., are public record. They must be treated as such.
Did you miss the Clinton years? That whole "swearing under oath" and "upholding the law" is so passe for people in executive office.
I miss them. I'm not a Clinton fan (either one of them), but the president getting impeached for lying about a blowjob is infinitely preferable to what we've gone through over the last 8 years.
Which email, in particular, clearly pertains to government business? Wikileaks doesn't have anything dammning. Although, maybe it depends on how you define 'pertains'. Subject lines can be very misleading. If there is a personal email about how some bill is progressing, and it's largely personal complaints about whoever is balking, is that government business or not?
Her aides sent all emails to one of her Yahoo accounts (not the account that got hacked) rather than her state account. That alone proves it was being used for official business.
And the difference between this and having a meeting at which you don't bother to keep minutes, or just talking about things over dinner or in the hallway is... what, exactly?
Sorry... this is a nonstory that partisan nutjobs are trying to drill into a story to deflect attention from the fact that they committed felony identity fraud in attacking her.
It's part of her job to make sure those emails are archived and secured. They are part of the public record. This was being investigated by Alaskans before the other account got hacked anyway, so you're wrong there too. Besides, who is "they"? One idiot kid hacked into her account, and even more retardedly, posted everything necessary to catch him online. But somehow that makes it a liberal conspiracy? Who's the nutjob again?
He should be prosecuted under relevant laws for what he did. However, he unwittingly uncovered other illegal activity.
For that reason he is a reluctant hero (which I agree that "hero" was probably not the best word to use).
He didn't uncover anything. Alaskans were already investigating her use of commercial accounts for official business. They already had boxes of emails from her aides sent to her Yahoo account. Not the one that got hacked, but another one. What he did was just stupid. Plain and simple.
This wasn't some naive kid, his dad's a Tennessee state representative (Democrat):
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Oct09/0,4670,PalinHacked,00.html
Politicians have naive kids too. We've seen lots of examples in the past on both sides of the aisle. What the kid did was excruciatingly dumb and he'll be punished for it, probably pretty severely, just due to the high profile nature.
Just one simple link will do. Any takers?
I have yet to see a single (not one) source that shows she was using this account for government business. If this is the case, why are there no links to copied of said email(s)? If this is all speculation, then for the love of god, shut the fuck up till there is proof.
Don't assume. Thank you.
If you're referring to her personal account, then this post lists the email headers. I haven't looked for a link to an article, but they look like the same ones that were in an earlier article, probably already linked here somewhere. It'll take a judge to release the full emails since she's already deleted her Yahoo accounts. The second Yahoo account was quite obviously being used for state business, and not even Palin is denying that.