Every place I have ever known that employs a significant number of customer service reps was always looking for employees. If she was making that much less than the average wage for a customer service rep in the area, why didn't she get another job?
No, you are not paying attention. The court is ordering Apple to write a software update which can be loaded onto this phone which disables the limit on the number of times someone can enter a bad password before the phone wipes the data. Of course, once it is written, the government intends that the software can be loaded onto ANY iphone to allow the same thing.
The court is ordering Apple to write a new OS for the iphone which does not contain the feature which wipes the encrypted data after a certain number of attempts to brute force the password. Apple has never said that was impossible, just that they do not currently have such an OS.
You do not see the problem with the government co-opting your labor?
The court has ordered Apple to create a new OS for the iphone that can be placed on this phone (and any other iphone) to bypass the security features. Would you be OK with the court ordering a local mechanic to repair a totaled car so that the police could recreate what happened in a car crash?
This is not just a matter of ordering Apple to turn over something they have in their possession. It is an order requiring Apple to devote however many man hours are necessary to develop something they have never considered creating and which has no value in the legitimate market.
You missed the point. If Australia does not think that the UN ruling concerning one of its citizens is legally binding, and the UK and Sweden have already taken this stance, then the UN ruling is not legally binding.
Basically it comes down to this, the UN does not have the ability to force countries to do things they do not wish to do. It has no authority which its member states are not willing to go to war to enforce.
George W. Bush tried that with John Roberts, but then Justice Rehnquist died and Bush nominated Roberts to take his place. Following that Bush intended to nominate Harriet Myers to replace O'Connor. However, Harriet Myers was on record in several issues with positions which were completely unacceptable to conservatives (I am not sure she was a liberal, but she took a liberal position on several issues). Bush spent so much political capital trying to get Myers through that he had no choice but to nominate someone who was consistently conservative when the Myers nomination finally collapsed. By the time Bush gave up on Myers, he did not have enough support to get anyone not consistently conservative through the Senate.
So, when you get together with a group of like minded people, the government can tell the group you are now part of that you all of to keep quiet because now you are a group expressing an opinion and not a natural born person doing so?
Except that a recess appointment would only be until the end of the next session of Congress. So,if Obama did what you suggest, you can be pretty sure that he would have no chance of being appointed to a lifetime position on the Court (if he wants one).
I had an issue with GPS about five years back where there were three streets with the same name in the SAME town. Not only that, but the street number I wanted was on two of them. Fortunately, one of them was "in town" and the other was not. I picked the wrong one first. When I got there I realized that the building described as "next door" was not there, so I re-entered the address in the GPS and chose the other one.
You do realize that Republicans gained control of the legislatures which allowed them to do this when the districts had been gerrymandered by the DEMOCRATS to maximize their representation in the legislatures, right? The Democrats did the same thing when they controlled the legislatures. They even gamed the system in states with "non-partisan" committees to lay out the districts so that those committees were overwhelmingly Democratic Party.
NO, because a Disney employee would have intervened before that happened. I have heard enough stories to know that Disney is the master of customer service.
It's not just the Democrats going through this now. The Republican Party wants its chosen candidates and they get Trump and Cruz instead. Both parties are having to fight popular sentiment to get their candidates in the general election.
Except that the Republican "chosen candidate" (Jeb Bush)* is already out of the running, while it seems likely that the Democrat's "chosen candidate" will win the nomination, even if she loses the primaries.
*It looks like the Republican establishment has chosen Rubio as its fallback candidate.
Except that when Hillary Clinton gave them to her lawyer, she was no longer Secretary of State. As such, she was no longer legally in possession of those emails. Further, considering that the Intelligence Community Inspector General had to get special clearance in order to read some of her emails it seems improbable that her private lawyer had sufficient security clearances to do so.
I'm sorry, but very few, if any, of Hillary's supporters were not already Hillary supporters when Trump entered the race. Which means, they thought Hillary was a GOOD choice to be President before there were any other candidates.
I take it you are expecting Obama to be assassinated before the election? The only reason Goldwater lost to Johnson was because of people's reaction to JFK's assassination. If JFK had not been assassinated, he would have been running for re-election and I have no idea who the Republican nominee would have been. How JFK's re-election would have gone is anybody's guess (unlike today, in 1963 the Presidential campaign had not yet begun in any way when JFK was assassinated).
Oh come on, that's not fair. Everything I have read suggests that it was she who championed overthrowing the stable government in Libya, which was run by a dictator who, while not friendly to the U.S., had become cooperative with U.S. initiatives in order to avoid suffering the fate of Saddam Hussein. By doing this she was able to send the message to would be dictators that cooperating with the U.S. was no way to ensure a long and healthy life AND sow chaos and turmoil in North Africa. How is that not a success?
You miss one important point. At the time Hillary handed those emails over to her lawyer, she was no longer Secretary of State. At that point she no longer had lawful possession of an awful lot of those emails (when someone steps down from a position like Secretary of State they are legally obligated to turn over any top secret documents which they possess by virtue of holding that position).
Except that the Intelligence Community Inspector General has already affirmatively declared that some of the emails WERE classified when they were sent because they contained information that was classified by the fact of where that information came from. It was information that did NOT require anyone to decide it was classified and mark it as classified. It came from a source which made it classified by the nature of that source (and the emails apparently contained references to that source).
Further, the State Department has just declared that some of Hillary's emails contain information so sensitive that they cannot be released even now (I am not exactly sure how that happens, since the enemies of the U.S. already have them).
According to the Intelligence Community Inspector General, an Obama appointee who was confirmed while the Democrats controlled the Senate and is a lifelong Democrat, some of the emails contained information that is classified above top secret just because it was obtained by the government through Special Access Programs. That is, the email contained information that was classified as above top secret from the moment the government obtained it.
As to why an email about an NYT article would be classified. If that article was about a program which the White House, and the rest of the Administration, was still officially denying (and my understanding is that such was the case here) including it in an email is an admission of its truth (unless the email specifically called it out as false, which, again, my understanding is that the email did the opposite). Hillary Clinton did NOT have the authority to decide that something declared classified elsewhere was not actually classified.
The Republicans do not control any organization with the authority to arrest anyone for a crime of this nature.
In addition, the Intelligence Community Inspector General, who was appointed by Obama and is a lifelong Democrat, has stated that some of Hillary's emails contained classified material.
Have you looked at what politicians implement? What makes you think they are CAPABLE of implementing a decent health care system? I really do not want to get my health care from the VA (or from an organization designed by the same people who designed the VA).
As for the Flint water problem, it is being paid for now by people who did not get a vote in the government that screwed it up.
Slashdot Mirror
Every place I have ever known that employs a significant number of customer service reps was always looking for employees. If she was making that much less than the average wage for a customer service rep in the area, why didn't she get another job?
No, you are not paying attention. The court is ordering Apple to write a software update which can be loaded onto this phone which disables the limit on the number of times someone can enter a bad password before the phone wipes the data. Of course, once it is written, the government intends that the software can be loaded onto ANY iphone to allow the same thing.
Answer: the court order is for Apple to write such a backdoor program.
The court is ordering Apple to write a new OS for the iphone which does not contain the feature which wipes the encrypted data after a certain number of attempts to brute force the password. Apple has never said that was impossible, just that they do not currently have such an OS.
You do not see the problem with the government co-opting your labor?
The court has ordered Apple to create a new OS for the iphone that can be placed on this phone (and any other iphone) to bypass the security features. Would you be OK with the court ordering a local mechanic to repair a totaled car so that the police could recreate what happened in a car crash?
This is not just a matter of ordering Apple to turn over something they have in their possession. It is an order requiring Apple to devote however many man hours are necessary to develop something they have never considered creating and which has no value in the legitimate market.
You missed the point. If Australia does not think that the UN ruling concerning one of its citizens is legally binding, and the UK and Sweden have already taken this stance, then the UN ruling is not legally binding.
Basically it comes down to this, the UN does not have the ability to force countries to do things they do not wish to do. It has no authority which its member states are not willing to go to war to enforce.
George W. Bush tried that with John Roberts, but then Justice Rehnquist died and Bush nominated Roberts to take his place. Following that Bush intended to nominate Harriet Myers to replace O'Connor. However, Harriet Myers was on record in several issues with positions which were completely unacceptable to conservatives (I am not sure she was a liberal, but she took a liberal position on several issues). Bush spent so much political capital trying to get Myers through that he had no choice but to nominate someone who was consistently conservative when the Myers nomination finally collapsed. By the time Bush gave up on Myers, he did not have enough support to get anyone not consistently conservative through the Senate.
So, when you get together with a group of like minded people, the government can tell the group you are now part of that you all of to keep quiet because now you are a group expressing an opinion and not a natural born person doing so?
Except that a recess appointment would only be until the end of the next session of Congress. So,if Obama did what you suggest, you can be pretty sure that he would have no chance of being appointed to a lifetime position on the Court (if he wants one).
I had an issue with GPS about five years back where there were three streets with the same name in the SAME town. Not only that, but the street number I wanted was on two of them. Fortunately, one of them was "in town" and the other was not. I picked the wrong one first. When I got there I realized that the building described as "next door" was not there, so I re-entered the address in the GPS and chose the other one.
You do realize that Republicans gained control of the legislatures which allowed them to do this when the districts had been gerrymandered by the DEMOCRATS to maximize their representation in the legislatures, right? The Democrats did the same thing when they controlled the legislatures. They even gamed the system in states with "non-partisan" committees to lay out the districts so that those committees were overwhelmingly Democratic Party.
NO, because a Disney employee would have intervened before that happened. I have heard enough stories to know that Disney is the master of customer service.
It's not just the Democrats going through this now. The Republican Party wants its chosen candidates and they get Trump and Cruz instead. Both parties are having to fight popular sentiment to get their candidates in the general election.
Except that the Republican "chosen candidate" (Jeb Bush)* is already out of the running, while it seems likely that the Democrat's "chosen candidate" will win the nomination, even if she loses the primaries.
*It looks like the Republican establishment has chosen Rubio as its fallback candidate.
Except that, by law, Hillary was supposed to turn the classified information in when she stepped down as Secretary of State.
Except that when Hillary Clinton gave them to her lawyer, she was no longer Secretary of State. As such, she was no longer legally in possession of those emails. Further, considering that the Intelligence Community Inspector General had to get special clearance in order to read some of her emails it seems improbable that her private lawyer had sufficient security clearances to do so.
So, basically, your argument is that Hillary is not a criminal. She is just incompetent.
I'm sorry, but very few, if any, of Hillary's supporters were not already Hillary supporters when Trump entered the race. Which means, they thought Hillary was a GOOD choice to be President before there were any other candidates.
I take it you are expecting Obama to be assassinated before the election? The only reason Goldwater lost to Johnson was because of people's reaction to JFK's assassination. If JFK had not been assassinated, he would have been running for re-election and I have no idea who the Republican nominee would have been. How JFK's re-election would have gone is anybody's guess (unlike today, in 1963 the Presidential campaign had not yet begun in any way when JFK was assassinated).
Oh come on, that's not fair. Everything I have read suggests that it was she who championed overthrowing the stable government in Libya, which was run by a dictator who, while not friendly to the U.S., had become cooperative with U.S. initiatives in order to avoid suffering the fate of Saddam Hussein. By doing this she was able to send the message to would be dictators that cooperating with the U.S. was no way to ensure a long and healthy life AND sow chaos and turmoil in North Africa. How is that not a success?
You miss one important point. At the time Hillary handed those emails over to her lawyer, she was no longer Secretary of State. At that point she no longer had lawful possession of an awful lot of those emails (when someone steps down from a position like Secretary of State they are legally obligated to turn over any top secret documents which they possess by virtue of holding that position).
Except that the Intelligence Community Inspector General has already affirmatively declared that some of the emails WERE classified when they were sent because they contained information that was classified by the fact of where that information came from. It was information that did NOT require anyone to decide it was classified and mark it as classified. It came from a source which made it classified by the nature of that source (and the emails apparently contained references to that source).
Further, the State Department has just declared that some of Hillary's emails contain information so sensitive that they cannot be released even now (I am not exactly sure how that happens, since the enemies of the U.S. already have them).
According to the Intelligence Community Inspector General, an Obama appointee who was confirmed while the Democrats controlled the Senate and is a lifelong Democrat, some of the emails contained information that is classified above top secret just because it was obtained by the government through Special Access Programs. That is, the email contained information that was classified as above top secret from the moment the government obtained it.
As to why an email about an NYT article would be classified. If that article was about a program which the White House, and the rest of the Administration, was still officially denying (and my understanding is that such was the case here) including it in an email is an admission of its truth (unless the email specifically called it out as false, which, again, my understanding is that the email did the opposite). Hillary Clinton did NOT have the authority to decide that something declared classified elsewhere was not actually classified.
The Republicans do not control any organization with the authority to arrest anyone for a crime of this nature.
In addition, the Intelligence Community Inspector General, who was appointed by Obama and is a lifelong Democrat, has stated that some of Hillary's emails contained classified material.
So, in other words, they make a profit.
Have you looked at what politicians implement? What makes you think they are CAPABLE of implementing a decent health care system? I really do not want to get my health care from the VA (or from an organization designed by the same people who designed the VA).
As for the Flint water problem, it is being paid for now by people who did not get a vote in the government that screwed it up.