In some ways it is worse than that. Many IT professionals are aware that they do not know exactly how to meet the government regulations (and criteria for certain quality certifications). In addition, they know that they can be held accountable for doing so (even though they are not even aware of all of the regulations they are accountable for). However, most of those regulations (and certification standards) offer them an out if they have purchased a service from someone else who promises to make them compliant. Theoretically, that someone else will be held accountable if they are discovered to not be compliant. In practice that does not happen. AND the IT professional who fobbed the responsibility off on them is no longer responsible (as long as they have done their due diligence by hiring a company that is big enough to not be held accountable).
The only problem is that certain companies are working to introduce the cable TV model to the Internet. For example, ESPN has a website which is free to the end user, as long as their ISP pays a fee to ESPN for each and every subscriber to that ISP (something like $0.50 per subscriber per month).
Actually, ESPN costs something like $2 a month PER SUBSCRIBER to the cable company. In other words, in order for ANY of a cable company's subscribers to be able to watch ESPN, the cable company must pay ESPN for ALL of their subscribers. ESPN does the same thing with their premium website..it's "Free", but only if your ISP pays ESPN some amount for each and everyone of their subscribers.
Or to put it another way, if you have cable TV, you are paying for ESPN, whether you have any interest in sports or not.
You apparently did not bother to review Comey's oath sworn testimony to Congress where he said that she did indeed have thousands of classified emails, that she did NOT turn over anywhere near all of the work-related emails, and lied about the whole situation from the beginning.
No, the lesson that everyone should be learned is never make a deal with a U.S. president who has said that he is not going to submit the deal to the Senate for ratification. Or, don't make a deal with a U.S. president who does not have the support of the U.S. Senate.
The fact that Obama chose to sign a treaty that is worded so as to imply that the U.S. is bound by it solely on his signature is a violation of his oath of office.
The article says that the U.S. has joined the agreement, but that is not actually true. Obama has not even submitted this agreement to the Senate to START the process of the U.S. joining it. Until the Senate ratifies it, this agreement is not legally binding upon the U.S.. If other countries want to bind themselves to an agreement based on the assumption that all future Presidents and Congresses will honor Obama's word on this treaty, that is up to them. But if they do so, they are being foolish because the reason Obama has not submitted it to the Senate is because he knows the Senate will reject it (just like a previous Senate rejected the Kyoto accords...even without them being submitted that Senate voted 99-0 on a statement opposing the Kyoto Accords).
The Espionage Act does not require deliberately passing U.S. secrets. All it requires is handling U.S. secrets negligently (BTW, another way of saying "negligent" is "extremely careless"). Obama was aware that Hillary was using a private email server, which makes him an accomplice to her crime (of handling U.S. secrets negligently).
No, the FBI did NOT decide that they could not convict Hillary. The FBI decided that they could NOT prosecute Hillary. The latter might have something to do with their boss meeting with her husband on a runway (where there would be no chance of their being a record of what was said) just a day or two earlier. Or with the fact that their boss' boss was campaigning for Hillary. Follow that up with the fact that just a few days AFTER the head of the FBI said that "no reasonable prosecutor" would prosecute her, Hillary said that she might keep his boss in on her job if she wins the election.
The difference between MS and Salesforce when it comes to LinkedIn is that I can see Salesforce's existing platform as possibly adding value to current LinkedIn users and I can see LinkedIn adding value for existing Salesforce users. I do not see any value for existing LinkedIn users from MS purchasing LinkedIn (and I see a significant possibility for degradation of service). In addition, while I see value to MS from buying LinkedIn, I do not see any value to their users.
No, Comey let Clinton off the hook because Obama was also implicated. President Obama, who claimed he learned about Hillary's private email account, exchanged emails with that account...BTW Comey held jobs which had connections to the Clinton Foundation and his brother works for the firm which conducted the "independent audit" of the Clinton Foundation (independent audit is in quotation marks because every "independent" investigation in the last 6 years concerning anyone connected to the current Administration, where I have looked at the people doing the investigation, has proved to be run by people with ties to those being investigated).
http://www.politico.com/blogs/...
Where in his press conference did Comey say that what Hillary did was not uncommon?
Did the head of the FBI really say that it was not uncommon for people in our government to handle classified information "extremely carelessly" (which, BTW, is another way of saying "with extreme negligence", which is what the law specifies as the violation)? If so, that is scary.
The problem with your explanation is that there ARE numerous cases of people who were thrown in jail for LESSER violations of the same law.
However, the law in question is one of those that do NOT require intent...does not even require being aware that the classified material was classified.
Oh and Prime _is_ a great deal, if you're a frequent customer.
However, some of the things which make Prime a great deal were things which Amazon used to give to every customer as part of their basic customer service.
I have a friend who works for Amazon complaining about having to sign for a (very low cost) shipment he got through UPS from Amazon. Then he said he couldn't wait for Amazon to have their own delivery service so he wouldn't have to do such ridiculous things anymore. He clearly did not realize that the reason the UPS driver needed his signature was because AMAZON chose the "signature required" option when they shipped it.
Amazon is going to do the same thing in many ways, request that UPS or Fedex do something which is inconvenient for their customer and then use it to make the customer prefer the Amazon shipping service (similar to the sorts of things they did to make people think Prime was a great deal).
In other words, you think that in times of crisis scarce resources will miraculously materialize to meet the increased demand. The only problem with Uber's surge pricing algorithm is that they do not have a sufficiently robust competitor to make sure that it is not pure profiteering (that is, that the price increase reflects the actual demand increase).
Of course, someone has to REPORT that they said it. For that matter, how would they even know he was making the claim? This reporter did not even ask them about it. Yeah, now that it has been reported they are likely to find out, but all anybody will remember is this initial story, not what they may say now. Even now, what makes you think someone would report it if they said anything?
If Cummings has the backing of the entire committee it would be the first time. Of course, why would you think this was a stupid thing to lie about. When he, and his staff, probably knew that the reporter was not going to ask anyone else on the committee (or the committee's staff) about his claims...and low and behold, the reporter did not.
Not even a simple email saying, "Representative Cummings' office is making these claims(see attached). Do you have any comments?"
The reporter attempted to cover for his lack of follow up by telling us that the two men being attacked by Representative Cummings refused to comment. Well, of course they did. Anything they said could only cause them greater problems. The key problem with the article is that the reporter takes Cummings word (or his staffers') for it that the Democratic members of the FCC have been forthcoming in releasing documents.
The article appears to be a press release written by the Congressman Elijah Cummings' staff (with some editing by the reporter whose name appears on the byline). It contains NO information from ANY other source.
Slashdot Mirror
In some ways it is worse than that. Many IT professionals are aware that they do not know exactly how to meet the government regulations (and criteria for certain quality certifications). In addition, they know that they can be held accountable for doing so (even though they are not even aware of all of the regulations they are accountable for). However, most of those regulations (and certification standards) offer them an out if they have purchased a service from someone else who promises to make them compliant. Theoretically, that someone else will be held accountable if they are discovered to not be compliant. In practice that does not happen. AND the IT professional who fobbed the responsibility off on them is no longer responsible (as long as they have done their due diligence by hiring a company that is big enough to not be held accountable).
The only problem is that certain companies are working to introduce the cable TV model to the Internet. For example, ESPN has a website which is free to the end user, as long as their ISP pays a fee to ESPN for each and every subscriber to that ISP (something like $0.50 per subscriber per month).
I don't care, but the fact of the matter is that they do NOT offer what I want at a price I am willing to pay. That is why I no longer have cable TV.
Actually, ESPN costs something like $2 a month PER SUBSCRIBER to the cable company. In other words, in order for ANY of a cable company's subscribers to be able to watch ESPN, the cable company must pay ESPN for ALL of their subscribers. ESPN does the same thing with their premium website..it's "Free", but only if your ISP pays ESPN some amount for each and everyone of their subscribers.
Or to put it another way, if you have cable TV, you are paying for ESPN, whether you have any interest in sports or not.
Ummm, Robin Hood stole from the tax collector and gave the money back to the people the tax collector had taken it from in the first place.
s.petry answered your post more than adequately.
You apparently did not bother to review Comey's oath sworn testimony to Congress where he said that she did indeed have thousands of classified emails, that she did NOT turn over anywhere near all of the work-related emails, and lied about the whole situation from the beginning.
No, the lesson that everyone should be learned is never make a deal with a U.S. president who has said that he is not going to submit the deal to the Senate for ratification. Or, don't make a deal with a U.S. president who does not have the support of the U.S. Senate.
The fact that Obama chose to sign a treaty that is worded so as to imply that the U.S. is bound by it solely on his signature is a violation of his oath of office.
The article says that the U.S. has joined the agreement, but that is not actually true. Obama has not even submitted this agreement to the Senate to START the process of the U.S. joining it. Until the Senate ratifies it, this agreement is not legally binding upon the U.S.. If other countries want to bind themselves to an agreement based on the assumption that all future Presidents and Congresses will honor Obama's word on this treaty, that is up to them. But if they do so, they are being foolish because the reason Obama has not submitted it to the Senate is because he knows the Senate will reject it (just like a previous Senate rejected the Kyoto accords...even without them being submitted that Senate voted 99-0 on a statement opposing the Kyoto Accords).
The Espionage Act does not require deliberately passing U.S. secrets. All it requires is handling U.S. secrets negligently (BTW, another way of saying "negligent" is "extremely careless"). Obama was aware that Hillary was using a private email server, which makes him an accomplice to her crime (of handling U.S. secrets negligently).
No, the FBI did NOT decide that they could not convict Hillary. The FBI decided that they could NOT prosecute Hillary. The latter might have something to do with their boss meeting with her husband on a runway (where there would be no chance of their being a record of what was said) just a day or two earlier. Or with the fact that their boss' boss was campaigning for Hillary. Follow that up with the fact that just a few days AFTER the head of the FBI said that "no reasonable prosecutor" would prosecute her, Hillary said that she might keep his boss in on her job if she wins the election.
Yeah, nothing to see here, just move along.
The Espionage Act of 1917
No, it was not perfectly legal, but keep drinking the KoolAid
The difference between MS and Salesforce when it comes to LinkedIn is that I can see Salesforce's existing platform as possibly adding value to current LinkedIn users and I can see LinkedIn adding value for existing Salesforce users. I do not see any value for existing LinkedIn users from MS purchasing LinkedIn (and I see a significant possibility for degradation of service). In addition, while I see value to MS from buying LinkedIn, I do not see any value to their users.
No, Comey let Clinton off the hook because Obama was also implicated. President Obama, who claimed he learned about Hillary's private email account, exchanged emails with that account...BTW Comey held jobs which had connections to the Clinton Foundation and his brother works for the firm which conducted the "independent audit" of the Clinton Foundation (independent audit is in quotation marks because every "independent" investigation in the last 6 years concerning anyone connected to the current Administration, where I have looked at the people doing the investigation, has proved to be run by people with ties to those being investigated). http://www.politico.com/blogs/...
Where in his press conference did Comey say that what Hillary did was not uncommon?
Did the head of the FBI really say that it was not uncommon for people in our government to handle classified information "extremely carelessly" (which, BTW, is another way of saying "with extreme negligence", which is what the law specifies as the violation)? If so, that is scary.
The problem with your explanation is that there ARE numerous cases of people who were thrown in jail for LESSER violations of the same law.
However, the law in question is one of those that do NOT require intent...does not even require being aware that the classified material was classified.
Oh and Prime _is_ a great deal, if you're a frequent customer.
However, some of the things which make Prime a great deal were things which Amazon used to give to every customer as part of their basic customer service.
I have a friend who works for Amazon complaining about having to sign for a (very low cost) shipment he got through UPS from Amazon. Then he said he couldn't wait for Amazon to have their own delivery service so he wouldn't have to do such ridiculous things anymore. He clearly did not realize that the reason the UPS driver needed his signature was because AMAZON chose the "signature required" option when they shipped it.
Amazon is going to do the same thing in many ways, request that UPS or Fedex do something which is inconvenient for their customer and then use it to make the customer prefer the Amazon shipping service (similar to the sorts of things they did to make people think Prime was a great deal).
Please define "war-profiteering".
In other words, you think that in times of crisis scarce resources will miraculously materialize to meet the increased demand. The only problem with Uber's surge pricing algorithm is that they do not have a sufficiently robust competitor to make sure that it is not pure profiteering (that is, that the price increase reflects the actual demand increase).
Of course, someone has to REPORT that they said it. For that matter, how would they even know he was making the claim? This reporter did not even ask them about it. Yeah, now that it has been reported they are likely to find out, but all anybody will remember is this initial story, not what they may say now. Even now, what makes you think someone would report it if they said anything?
If Cummings has the backing of the entire committee it would be the first time. Of course, why would you think this was a stupid thing to lie about. When he, and his staff, probably knew that the reporter was not going to ask anyone else on the committee (or the committee's staff) about his claims...and low and behold, the reporter did not.
Not even a simple email saying, "Representative Cummings' office is making these claims(see attached). Do you have any comments?"
The reporter attempted to cover for his lack of follow up by telling us that the two men being attacked by Representative Cummings refused to comment. Well, of course they did. Anything they said could only cause them greater problems. The key problem with the article is that the reporter takes Cummings word (or his staffers') for it that the Democratic members of the FCC have been forthcoming in releasing documents.
The article appears to be a press release written by the Congressman Elijah Cummings' staff (with some editing by the reporter whose name appears on the byline). It contains NO information from ANY other source.