I guess you could bully with only emotion and physical body position. I guess a bullet made of jello would cause physical change to your body. Now that I think about it, I'm not sure why bullying being less a physical thing than gun is relevant.
"when a punch in the nose usually ended the problem once and for all."
That worked for some bullies, some not. It also worked for some of those being bullied, some not.
---
Overall I think the problem of bullying falls on the adult's who use it to various degrees themselves, and I don't think cutting it out is censoring anymore than preventing physical violence is censoring.
"Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities."
and his answer as to whether crimes where committed or not:
"we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort."
"we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information"
"we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."
"we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case."
"Why has Clinton's email server gotten so much attention? She's running for president."
Yes, the attention is partly because she's running for president.
"lock her up alongside bush as far as I'm concerned"
The point was she hasn't done anything that warrants accusations or criminal charges.
"Drain the swamp"
Trump does what he feels will make him richer. One of the main differences between him and other politicians is that he's willing to lie much more to get what he wants for himself, and he wants a lot, and the more he takes for himself the less others have, and those others who end up with less aren't going to be the rich.
Wait, when you say "deleted" what you really mean is "stored on mis-filed backup tapes" - right?
No, at the time (2003) the Bush administration claimed they were 'deleted' and didn't have any backups, it took until 2009 and the Obama white house administration to 'find' them:
"Like Clinton, the Bush White House used a private email server—its was owned by the Republican National Committee. And the Bush administration failed to store its emails, as required by law, and then refused to comply with a congressional subpoena seeking some of those emails."
"researchers found a suspicious pattern in the White House email system blackouts, including periods when there were no emails available from the office of Vice President Dick Cheney."
"In 2003, a whistleblower told the National Security Archive [a private watchdog group] that the George W. Bush White House was no longer saving its emails. The Archive...refiled their original lawsuit. The plaintiffs soon discovered that Bush aides had simply shut down the Clinton automatic email archive, and they identified the start date of the lost emails as January 1, 2003."
"In court in May 2008, administration lawyers contended that the White House had lost three months’ worth of email backups from the initial days of the Iraq War. Bush aides thus evaded a court-ordered deadline to describe the contents of digital backup believed to contain emails deleted in 2003 between March—when the U.S. invaded Iraq—and September....Eventually, the Bush White House admitted it had lost 22 million emails, not 5 million. Then, in December 2009—well into Barack Obama’s administration—the White House said it found 22 million emails, dated between 2003 and 2005, that it claimed had been mislabeled."
They were handed over to the requesting legal bodies, no crimes were found, and the issue dropped
Same as for Clinton except for the Bush administration there was:
"clearer evidence here of deliberate stonewalling and lawbreaking than anything that even the fever swamps suggest about Hillary Clinton's emails"
"So why is it that Clinton's emails have gotten coverage of such titanic proportions? Partly because Republicans have pushed the story hard. Partly because the rolling disclosure of Clinton's emails have rekindled interest on a regular basis. And partly because it fits into the well-known narrative of Hillary Clinton as evasive and duplicitous. In the LA Times today, Mark Barabak describes this syndrome perfectly: In the end, there's very little to gripe about in either of these recent Clinton stories. She made a dumb mistake using a private server and a single email account while she was Secretary of State, but in the end there's little evidence of any actual wrongdoing. Likewise, she was dumb to withhold news of her pneumonia. But obviously there's no wrongdoing here at all, just a misplaced sense of privacy that simply doesn't exist for presidential candidates"
"Simply saying how much you will pay for a job does not make the person who accepts that rate an employee"
True. The law weights various criteria to determine if one is an employer, one of them being "saying how much you will pay for a job", and it might be enough in some circumstances or in certain contexts to legally imply you're an employer, but it might not in others or it might be considered somewhere in between, either way the other criteria will also be looked at and an overall decision will be made.
"No one is intermittently autistic, demented, or suffering from ADHD"
But people can exhibit the symptoms to various degrees, and on more than one
"Your getting stuck on words rather than meaning, which is a very common flaw among slashdot commenters"
Not in this case, and you also need to consider that IQ, alone or in concert with the issues like ShanghaiBill and I mentioned, can be a huge contributing factor.
I suspect Uber really only thinks it's a marketing gimmick that's good for their brand name. But I don't see how it isn't counter productive long term when people invariably realize the headlines were all hype.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess you could bully with only emotion and physical body position. I guess a bullet made of jello would cause physical change to your body. Now that I think about it, I'm not sure why bullying being less a physical thing than gun is relevant.
Yeah but that doesn't work for everyone, how many parents are bullies, to various degrees, themselves
" If you complain about it, they call your family and your employer and say that you are a white supremacist who is harassing women on the internet."
So are you saying that shouldn't be stopped?
But bullying *is* a form of censure
"They have no physical intrinsic power."
Bullying has physical consequences, and there is a wealth of neurological data to support that.
Totally agree, except for a bit like here:
"when a punch in the nose usually ended the problem once and for all."
That worked for some bullies, some not. It also worked for some of those being bullied, some not.
---
Overall I think the problem of bullying falls on the adult's who use it to various degrees themselves, and I don't think cutting it out is censoring anymore than preventing physical violence is censoring.
From your Comey link:
"Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities."
and his answer as to whether crimes where committed or not:
"we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort."
"we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information"
"we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."
"we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case."
http://quotefail.com/quote/bar... ?
"Why has Clinton's email server gotten so much attention? She's running for president."
Yes, the attention is partly because she's running for president.
"lock her up alongside bush as far as I'm concerned"
The point was she hasn't done anything that warrants accusations or criminal charges.
"Drain the swamp"
Trump does what he feels will make him richer. One of the main differences between him and other politicians is that he's willing to lie much more to get what he wants for himself, and he wants a lot, and the more he takes for himself the less others have, and those others who end up with less aren't going to be the rich.
No, at the time (2003) the Bush administration claimed they were 'deleted' and didn't have any backups, it took until 2009 and the Obama white house administration to 'find' them:
"Like Clinton, the Bush White House used a private email server—its was owned by the Republican National Committee. And the Bush administration failed to store its emails, as required by law, and then refused to comply with a congressional subpoena seeking some of those emails."
"researchers found a suspicious pattern in the White House email system blackouts, including periods when there were no emails available from the office of Vice President Dick Cheney."
"In 2003, a whistleblower told the National Security Archive [a private watchdog group] that the George W. Bush White House was no longer saving its emails. The Archive...refiled their original lawsuit. The plaintiffs soon discovered that Bush aides had simply shut down the Clinton automatic email archive, and they identified the start date of the lost emails as January 1, 2003."
"In court in May 2008, administration lawyers contended that the White House had lost three months’ worth of email backups from the initial days of the Iraq War. Bush aides thus evaded a court-ordered deadline to describe the contents of digital backup believed to contain emails deleted in 2003 between March—when the U.S. invaded Iraq—and September....Eventually, the Bush White House admitted it had lost 22 million emails, not 5 million. Then, in December 2009—well into Barack Obama’s administration—the White House said it found 22 million emails, dated between 2003 and 2005, that it claimed had been mislabeled."
Same as for Clinton except for the Bush administration there was:
"clearer evidence here of deliberate stonewalling and lawbreaking than anything that even the fever swamps suggest about Hillary Clinton's emails"
"So why is it that Clinton's emails have gotten coverage of such titanic proportions? Partly because Republicans have pushed the story hard. Partly because the rolling disclosure of Clinton's emails have rekindled interest on a regular basis. And partly because it fits into the well-known narrative of Hillary Clinton as evasive and duplicitous. In the LA Times today, Mark Barabak describes this syndrome perfectly: In the end, there's very little to gripe about in either of these recent Clinton stories. She made a dumb mistake using a private server and a single email account while she was Secretary of State, but in the end there's little evidence of any actual wrongdoing. Likewise, she was dumb to withhold news of her pneumonia. But obviously there's no wrongdoing here at all, just a misplaced sense of privacy that simply doesn't exist for presidential candidates"
http://www.motherjones.com/kev...
"well the fact that the FBI didnt recommend charges to begin with show a clear partisain BS slant at the DOJ"
Partisan which way?
Bush White House email controversy : 22 million emails deleted, those recovered not made public
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Simply saying how much you will pay for a job does not make the person who accepts that rate an employee"
True. The law weights various criteria to determine if one is an employer, one of them being "saying how much you will pay for a job", and it might be enough in some circumstances or in certain contexts to legally imply you're an employer, but it might not in others or it might be considered somewhere in between, either way the other criteria will also be looked at and an overall decision will be made.
" ... Uber is actually the driver's client ... The passenger is Uber's client."
Yes, the court will decide between what you said, or, the passenger is a Uber client and the driver works for Uber.
"An independent contractor is similarly constrained to only accept whatever rates that the people who hire them are willing to pay."
So only the independent contractor and client negotiate price.
"Would-be ride share drivers would technically be entirely free to set their own rates, but that doesn't mean that Uber is willing to pay that amount"
Therefore Uber has a say in price setting, and therefore the driver and the client are not free to negotiate price.
"if an independent contractor wants more money than what the person paying them wants to pay, well... then they don't get the job at all."
Contradicts itself. If the contractor is being payed then he already got the job.
"No one is intermittently autistic, demented, or suffering from ADHD"
But people can exhibit the symptoms to various degrees, and on more than one
"Your getting stuck on words rather than meaning, which is a very common flaw among slashdot commenters"
Not in this case, and you also need to consider that IQ, alone or in concert with the issues like ShanghaiBill and I mentioned, can be a huge contributing factor.
"neckbeard"
Amish?
I suspect Uber really only thinks it's a marketing gimmick that's good for their brand name. But I don't see how it isn't counter productive long term when people invariably realize the headlines were all hype.
"If it can be calculated it's a fact"
Yes, it's a calculated fact, but what I'm referring to are cultural level beliefs, like what is appropriate for various news outlets to cover or not.
"It is inappropriate for media concern to be significantly higher than the risk of an event"
For you, maybe. My point is that you can't decide what is appropriate for others to believe.
"Sometimes there is only one answer. Those times are the times when one can be calculated mathematically."
Right, sometimes, but for calculating 'appropriate' in the context of media concern, no.
"You can calculate what is appropriate mathematically"
I guess so, but you can't go from what you consider mathematically appropriate to what is appropriate.
Exactly
"This shows the the level of media attention does not correlate to the appropriate levels of concern."
No, you can't go from what you consider appropriate to what is appropriate.
Ok, but why wrong, you're not contradicting what I wrote