Eh, you might be surprised. There's a lot of people who feel VERY vocal about the discomforts of flying. After all, the Passenger's Bill of Rights that put a bunch of previous restrictions passed easily. I suspect that issues like this are one of the ones that's nonpartisan enough for it to get lots of support, because congresscritters like doing popular stuff such as this which they can point to at election time (especially when it distracts people from the less visible crap that gets them bigger donations).
Furthermore, not all the airlines have seats that small, and the ones who don't aren't going to care if it hurts their competitors and not them.
It's about deliberate and demonstrable intent. Furthermore, it's about intent that can be proven in a court of law. In this case, the guy not only sent the image to someone known publicly to suffer seizures of this kind, he explicitly stated it was his intent to give the guy a seizure, and thereby do harm to him.
If I post up a flashing image on the FlashingObnoxiousGifs site, that's like my eating a peanut butter sandwich, or shooting my rifle at a firing range. It's not going to hurt anyone, unless they're being really really dumb.
If on the other hand, I deliberately try to serve cookies containing peanuts to you, knowing you're deathly allergic to peanuts, and tell someone that my intention is to do you harm, then yes, that's illegal and I should expect to be charged, much the same as if I'd laced them with a more generally toxic compound.
Likewise, if I turn around on the range and point the rifle at you, and pull the trigger, yelling 'eat lead motherf*cker', then uh, yeah, I'm kinda deliberately trying to harm you.
If I make a salad that happens to have nuts in it and serve it to you, not knowing you're allergic, that's an unfortunate accident, but innocuous.
If, however, I know you're deathly allergic to peanuts, and grind up peanut dust to put in it, and mention to a friend that I hope you choke on it, that's an entirely different matter.
"One trick is to tell 'em stories that don't go anywhere - like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. Give me five bees for a quarter, you'd say.
Now where were we? Oh yeah: the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones..."
It wasn't so much that we assumed they would be doing stuff like this, it's that this is what we expect they would be, should be doing.
To put it another way, what was shocking about the Snowden revelations wasn't that the NSA spied, it was the bulk and indiscriminate nature thereof. We have no problem when the CIA is hacking the phones or computers of some ISIS or Al Qaeda bad guy or some North Korean/etc general. What bothers us is when they start vacuuming up everyone's calls/emails/etc including ours.
If anything, the reports were actually fairly reassuring, because what it shows is that encryption works. They couldn't break it, and had to instead compromise the end device, because if your system is pwned then nothing you do on that system (phone, computer, etc) is secret from the guy who pwned it.
Yes, because the reasons for this are in part that the average employee isn't seeing the benefit of increased productivity. And while we could place a moral judgment on that, the result really should be obvious when you think about it.
Consider a business where the employees work 40 hours a week. A new widget comes out, that enables them to get twice as much done with the same amount of effort, in a single week. The basic question then is whether you think the business owner is going to tell everyone that they only have to work 20 hours, that he's going to keep them working 40 hours but pay them more, or if he's going to go "woo, more profits for me!" In the absence of any outside pressure to do the latter, why wouldn't a rational person do just that?
(Of course, this example also elides outside markets and assumes unchanging demand for all new production, which could lead to other outcomes such as firing half the workers in order to reduce labor costs, if there isn't sufficient demand for more production, etc)
Exactly. It's human nature to always want more, which is why billionaires don't stop trying to make money. It's also how we define ourselves (especially men) within society, by what we do. Communism failed in large part because it ignored this fundamental fact, and removed the incentive to work harder/better, or to invest anything, be it time, effort, or money.
Look at it this way - if you won a contest that gave you $1,000 a month from now on, tax-free, would you quit your job, or would you think to yourself "I have $1000 more per month to spend on fun stuff!" Now, maybe you'd quit your job to go back to college for a better degree, in order to get an even better job, but is that a bad thing either?
Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]
Croupier: Your winnings, sir.
Captain Renault: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much.
The real question is what they do with the information they're looking for. Do they conduct industrial espionage and give/sell it to companies who then can crush the competition? http://www.afr.com/technology/... (Note, not conclusively proven, but pretty scary potential example nonetheless, and a Canada-centric one at that)
Do they use it to try and influence democratic elections and destabilize peaceful political blocs, like Russia has been (and not just America - go look at France, or Germany, and their election troubles with the Russians).
Now I certainly won't claim the CIA, and US Government more generally, haven't done some f*cked up shit in the past (Iran/Persia, Central America, etc), but do try to keep some perspective on things.
Funny, you say that like it was the DNC who picked her, not the millions of people who voted for her in the primaries. I voted for Sanders too, but Clinton did actually legitimately win. The only thing that was going to beat her was another Obama-type candidate who could mobilize and win over enough people on both the left and to the center to outweigh her name recognition and connections.
Unfortunately, the Democratic party bench was so slim, and there were so few candidates interested in running this time, that Sanders was the only serious candidate to pick up the torch. I think someone like Elizabeth Warren could have made a lot more headway against Clinton, for instance, but she declined.
What I wish is that Clinton had gotten herself better general election advisors, that would have told her to do more to actively shore up the base, run ads that tell people about her programs, and not rely on the fact that her opponent was a complete troglodyte. Instead they seemed to think she could coast to victory solely on that, and could make a play for moderate Republicans (as if any still exist that haven't drunk the koolaid) and she wound up badly, badly mistaken.
It used to be that the Democrats wanted to solve everything by having the government regulate the everloving sh*t out of it, while the Republicans wanted to encourage/harness open-market capitalist forces to solve everything. It was a pick your poison sort of deal, but, most of the time the two were forced to cooperate and compromise between those two ideas to some degree, and the solution was often at least moderately less bad. Corporations would often be given sweeter deals than they should, but they also rarely if ever completely got their way.
The problem is that today, the Democrats are still trying to solve everything via regulations, but the Republicans have largely switched from trying to find ways to harness market forces to solve problems, to simply declaring that Regulation is Evil, and that allowing corporations to do whatever the f*ck they want will solve everything. Whether that is because they actually drank their own koolaid and really believe it, or they simply believe that what matters is all that money from their donors, tends to depend on the individual politician, but the result is still the same.
Put another way, the Democrats might waffle on how much lead the corporations could put in your water, and they might err and allow too much through, but the current Republicans proudly don't give a sh*t if the corporations are actively dumping toxic radioactive sludge in the water.
The ISPs want all the benefits and protections of common carrier status, without having to actually act like a common carrier (i.e., having to do anything that would benefit the customer rather than the ISP).
The current GOP is falling all over themselves trying to give them whatever they want.
That is another problem area, and partly why we've seen the push for more things that could potentially be abused. Back in the day (so to speak), if you were spying on a radio broadcast from within the USSR, it was pretty clear that's what it was. You'd have to put your listening post somewhere close(r) to Russia. It wouldn't be in the middle of Kansas. Geography would make for a pretty clear definition. If you tapped phone calls in the USSR, you were pretty likely to get Soviets and not Americans, because Americans' domestic calls or even international calls weren't being routed through the USSR unless they were calling someone there.
Fast forward to today, where the internet is global, and traffic from Country A to Country B probably runs through the USA at some point, using all the same protocols as purely domestic activity. If the CIA wants to be able to hack computers belonging to bad guys from the Evil League of Evil, those very same tools can just as easily be used to hack anyone in the USA, because they're all using the same hardware and software we do. It's not even a matter of geographic separation anymore, either, as a US government hacker sitting at CIA HQ can just as easily make a connection over the internet to anywhere in America as to the rest of the world.
Now, I've worked with people in the Intelligence Community before, and I have a good opinion of them, but there definitely needs to be stronger oversight on a number of these things, because the potential for abuse is just so much higher than it used to be. Safeguards dating from the 1970s badly need updating to take into account the new reality.
You are incorrect. The NSA does have an explicit Information Assurance mission, but it also has an intelligence collection mission. Also, while the CIA does not have an explicit IA mission, its ultimate goal is the defense of the nation, which does not preclude issuing warnings about uncovered vulnerabilities.
The problem is that they both have two conflicting goals when it comes to a discovered vulnerability, which can be used both by others to attack us, but also can be used by those agencies to gather intelligence. The term for it in the Intelligence Community is the "Equities Problem." This wasn't an issue in the past, because in the days of the Cold War for instance, the systems/codes/etc the Soviets were using were entirely different from American ones. Discovering a vulnerability in a Soviet cryptography system was only useful for intelligence gathering, whereas patching a vulnerability in an American cryptography system would not imperil our foreign intelligence collection activities.
In today's world however, everyone basically uses the same systems. This presents a quandary for the three-letter-agency folks. Do we patch everything and shut off our ability to gain information, possibly missing key information about a future attack? Do we keep the vulnerabilities secret to enable more collection, knowing that one of those vulnerabilities will someday be used to attack us and that we could have prevented it? Do we somehow try and muddle through, knowing that we may wind up with the worst of both?
I wanted to say that there was a movie where they did something like that, like one of the Highlander movie sequels, but then I remembered there aren't any sequels to Highlander.
Even if it's not cheaper than that, it still serves to reduce the net cost of the cleanup of spills, adding to the incentive to pay for the cleanup. It may also provide incentive to get on the cleanup sooner, as the sooner they get on it the more recoverable oil there is.
Nintendo really should pay more attention to these sorts of things, as this can be what makes or breaks a device. I was strongly considering getting one, but between these stories, the untransferable/unbackup-able save data, and all that on top of them repeating their inability to grasp how people use online play (Really, friend codes? AGAIN? You can't just let us use handles like everywhere else on the civilized internet?), I'm shifting more to the mindset of "maybe let's wait and see if the version 2.0 is any better."
Capitalism really isn't who/what you want to blame though. Capitalism just encourages taking the most profitable action/route. The underlying problem is that we, as humans, can't get enough of this clickbait bullshit.
My general answer is "I'm not surprised" by anyone of of a certain age, and at a certain level of power/responsibility, mixing up their email. Why? Because it's endemic, and not just for politicians. Try dealing with C-level executives that aren't themselves out of IT/IT security (and sometimes not even then). Good security practices do not arise naturally from the general population, especially for those that never grew up with it, and don't deal with it as a major part of their job. To be fair, those who did grow up with it can be pretty terrible too, though that tends to be more in the social media area (and also, they tend to not be in charge of major organizations yet due to their younger age).
So, no, I didn't think it was the massive scandal that so many people tried to make it out to be. Was it good? No, but it was hardly anything substantial compared to the plethora of other real scandals that other politicians (and non-politicians running for office) have had.
Is it a big deal that Pence did it? Nope, not really either, and easily forgotten were it not for the hypocrisy factor. The argument there is not that it was okay for Hillary to do it but bad that he did, but rather, that the conservatives/Republicans are doing the exact reverse - i.e., making a big deal of a Democrat doing something, and making excuses or diminishing a Republican doing the same.
Of all the complaints about her emails, this has to be the most mind-boggling to me. Allow me to explain why.
The claim is that the purpose of her use of a private server was to evade public records laws and scrutiny. This is directly in contrast to the chain of events that led to the discovery of her email server:
1) Congress sends State Dept. a subpoena for Clinton's emails.
2) State Dept. IT, aware that they don't have them, sends a request to Clinton's people for the emails.
Now, what would you expect someone that was trying to avoid scrutiny to do, at this point, when they received the first official request for those emails? I'm pretty sure the answer is anything but "promptly and immediately start handing them over." I guess you can quibble about the emails that were marked as personal and not handed over, but really, I've yet to hear anything solid about that other than "she's shady I don't trust her and she's probably got all kinds of dirt hidden in those 'personal' emails." Moreover, this is direct evidence of a massive double standard, when people give those like Pence the benefit of the doubt, but refuse to give any to Clinton.
It's human nature. There is no such thing as "enough" for the vast majority of us. Now, how hard we drive for that extra can vary, though I guarantee that if you asked someone if they'd be willing to work 1% harder for a 50% raise that they'd almost certainly take it.
As for the ultra-rich, there's already some self-selection at work in that anyone who has clawed their way into the ranks of the billionaires is very likely to have gotten there because they're one of the people with a burning desire for gaining more in the first place. In many ways it won't have anything to do with their 'needs' so much as pride, ego, envy, and so on (and their own version of 'keeping up with the Joneses' - "What, Gates bought X? I need to get an even bigger X! Or better yet, a Y!").
Slashdot Mirror
It might not be Schrodinger's time. Or it might not be. We won't know until Schrodinger checks his watch.
Eh, you might be surprised. There's a lot of people who feel VERY vocal about the discomforts of flying. After all, the Passenger's Bill of Rights that put a bunch of previous restrictions passed easily. I suspect that issues like this are one of the ones that's nonpartisan enough for it to get lots of support, because congresscritters like doing popular stuff such as this which they can point to at election time (especially when it distracts people from the less visible crap that gets them bigger donations).
Furthermore, not all the airlines have seats that small, and the ones who don't aren't going to care if it hurts their competitors and not them.
It's about deliberate and demonstrable intent. Furthermore, it's about intent that can be proven in a court of law. In this case, the guy not only sent the image to someone known publicly to suffer seizures of this kind, he explicitly stated it was his intent to give the guy a seizure, and thereby do harm to him.
If I post up a flashing image on the FlashingObnoxiousGifs site, that's like my eating a peanut butter sandwich, or shooting my rifle at a firing range. It's not going to hurt anyone, unless they're being really really dumb.
If on the other hand, I deliberately try to serve cookies containing peanuts to you, knowing you're deathly allergic to peanuts, and tell someone that my intention is to do you harm, then yes, that's illegal and I should expect to be charged, much the same as if I'd laced them with a more generally toxic compound.
Likewise, if I turn around on the range and point the rifle at you, and pull the trigger, yelling 'eat lead motherf*cker', then uh, yeah, I'm kinda deliberately trying to harm you.
Yes, the intent matters.
If I make a salad that happens to have nuts in it and serve it to you, not knowing you're allergic, that's an unfortunate accident, but innocuous.
If, however, I know you're deathly allergic to peanuts, and grind up peanut dust to put in it, and mention to a friend that I hope you choke on it, that's an entirely different matter.
"One trick is to tell 'em stories that don't go anywhere - like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. Give me five bees for a quarter, you'd say. Now where were we? Oh yeah: the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones..."
It wasn't so much that we assumed they would be doing stuff like this, it's that this is what we expect they would be, should be doing.
To put it another way, what was shocking about the Snowden revelations wasn't that the NSA spied, it was the bulk and indiscriminate nature thereof. We have no problem when the CIA is hacking the phones or computers of some ISIS or Al Qaeda bad guy or some North Korean/etc general. What bothers us is when they start vacuuming up everyone's calls/emails/etc including ours.
If anything, the reports were actually fairly reassuring, because what it shows is that encryption works. They couldn't break it, and had to instead compromise the end device, because if your system is pwned then nothing you do on that system (phone, computer, etc) is secret from the guy who pwned it.
Only at the CEO level is failure so richly showered in money.
Yes, because the reasons for this are in part that the average employee isn't seeing the benefit of increased productivity. And while we could place a moral judgment on that, the result really should be obvious when you think about it.
Consider a business where the employees work 40 hours a week. A new widget comes out, that enables them to get twice as much done with the same amount of effort, in a single week. The basic question then is whether you think the business owner is going to tell everyone that they only have to work 20 hours, that he's going to keep them working 40 hours but pay them more, or if he's going to go "woo, more profits for me!" In the absence of any outside pressure to do the latter, why wouldn't a rational person do just that?
(Of course, this example also elides outside markets and assumes unchanging demand for all new production, which could lead to other outcomes such as firing half the workers in order to reduce labor costs, if there isn't sufficient demand for more production, etc)
Exactly. It's human nature to always want more, which is why billionaires don't stop trying to make money. It's also how we define ourselves (especially men) within society, by what we do. Communism failed in large part because it ignored this fundamental fact, and removed the incentive to work harder/better, or to invest anything, be it time, effort, or money.
Look at it this way - if you won a contest that gave you $1,000 a month from now on, tax-free, would you quit your job, or would you think to yourself "I have $1000 more per month to spend on fun stuff!" Now, maybe you'd quit your job to go back to college for a better degree, in order to get an even better job, but is that a bad thing either?
Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]
Croupier: Your winnings, sir.
Captain Renault: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much.
Every major country spies - even Canada (ever hear of CSIS? https://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/in... ).
The real question is what they do with the information they're looking for. Do they conduct industrial espionage and give/sell it to companies who then can crush the competition? http://www.afr.com/technology/... (Note, not conclusively proven, but pretty scary potential example nonetheless, and a Canada-centric one at that)
Do they use it to try and influence democratic elections and destabilize peaceful political blocs, like Russia has been (and not just America - go look at France, or Germany, and their election troubles with the Russians).
Now I certainly won't claim the CIA, and US Government more generally, haven't done some f*cked up shit in the past (Iran/Persia, Central America, etc), but do try to keep some perspective on things.
Funny, you say that like it was the DNC who picked her, not the millions of people who voted for her in the primaries. I voted for Sanders too, but Clinton did actually legitimately win. The only thing that was going to beat her was another Obama-type candidate who could mobilize and win over enough people on both the left and to the center to outweigh her name recognition and connections.
Unfortunately, the Democratic party bench was so slim, and there were so few candidates interested in running this time, that Sanders was the only serious candidate to pick up the torch. I think someone like Elizabeth Warren could have made a lot more headway against Clinton, for instance, but she declined.
What I wish is that Clinton had gotten herself better general election advisors, that would have told her to do more to actively shore up the base, run ads that tell people about her programs, and not rely on the fact that her opponent was a complete troglodyte. Instead they seemed to think she could coast to victory solely on that, and could make a play for moderate Republicans (as if any still exist that haven't drunk the koolaid) and she wound up badly, badly mistaken.
This is not true. Allow me to explain why.
It used to be that the Democrats wanted to solve everything by having the government regulate the everloving sh*t out of it, while the Republicans wanted to encourage/harness open-market capitalist forces to solve everything. It was a pick your poison sort of deal, but, most of the time the two were forced to cooperate and compromise between those two ideas to some degree, and the solution was often at least moderately less bad. Corporations would often be given sweeter deals than they should, but they also rarely if ever completely got their way.
The problem is that today, the Democrats are still trying to solve everything via regulations, but the Republicans have largely switched from trying to find ways to harness market forces to solve problems, to simply declaring that Regulation is Evil, and that allowing corporations to do whatever the f*ck they want will solve everything. Whether that is because they actually drank their own koolaid and really believe it, or they simply believe that what matters is all that money from their donors, tends to depend on the individual politician, but the result is still the same.
Put another way, the Democrats might waffle on how much lead the corporations could put in your water, and they might err and allow too much through, but the current Republicans proudly don't give a sh*t if the corporations are actively dumping toxic radioactive sludge in the water.
The ISPs want all the benefits and protections of common carrier status, without having to actually act like a common carrier (i.e., having to do anything that would benefit the customer rather than the ISP).
The current GOP is falling all over themselves trying to give them whatever they want.
That is another problem area, and partly why we've seen the push for more things that could potentially be abused. Back in the day (so to speak), if you were spying on a radio broadcast from within the USSR, it was pretty clear that's what it was. You'd have to put your listening post somewhere close(r) to Russia. It wouldn't be in the middle of Kansas. Geography would make for a pretty clear definition. If you tapped phone calls in the USSR, you were pretty likely to get Soviets and not Americans, because Americans' domestic calls or even international calls weren't being routed through the USSR unless they were calling someone there.
Fast forward to today, where the internet is global, and traffic from Country A to Country B probably runs through the USA at some point, using all the same protocols as purely domestic activity. If the CIA wants to be able to hack computers belonging to bad guys from the Evil League of Evil, those very same tools can just as easily be used to hack anyone in the USA, because they're all using the same hardware and software we do. It's not even a matter of geographic separation anymore, either, as a US government hacker sitting at CIA HQ can just as easily make a connection over the internet to anywhere in America as to the rest of the world.
Now, I've worked with people in the Intelligence Community before, and I have a good opinion of them, but there definitely needs to be stronger oversight on a number of these things, because the potential for abuse is just so much higher than it used to be. Safeguards dating from the 1970s badly need updating to take into account the new reality.
You are incorrect. The NSA does have an explicit Information Assurance mission, but it also has an intelligence collection mission. Also, while the CIA does not have an explicit IA mission, its ultimate goal is the defense of the nation, which does not preclude issuing warnings about uncovered vulnerabilities.
The problem is that they both have two conflicting goals when it comes to a discovered vulnerability, which can be used both by others to attack us, but also can be used by those agencies to gather intelligence. The term for it in the Intelligence Community is the "Equities Problem." This wasn't an issue in the past, because in the days of the Cold War for instance, the systems/codes/etc the Soviets were using were entirely different from American ones. Discovering a vulnerability in a Soviet cryptography system was only useful for intelligence gathering, whereas patching a vulnerability in an American cryptography system would not imperil our foreign intelligence collection activities.
In today's world however, everyone basically uses the same systems. This presents a quandary for the three-letter-agency folks. Do we patch everything and shut off our ability to gain information, possibly missing key information about a future attack? Do we keep the vulnerabilities secret to enable more collection, knowing that one of those vulnerabilities will someday be used to attack us and that we could have prevented it? Do we somehow try and muddle through, knowing that we may wind up with the worst of both?
That sounds like a positively capital idea to me.
I wanted to say that there was a movie where they did something like that, like one of the Highlander movie sequels, but then I remembered there aren't any sequels to Highlander.
Even if it's not cheaper than that, it still serves to reduce the net cost of the cleanup of spills, adding to the incentive to pay for the cleanup. It may also provide incentive to get on the cleanup sooner, as the sooner they get on it the more recoverable oil there is.
Nintendo really should pay more attention to these sorts of things, as this can be what makes or breaks a device. I was strongly considering getting one, but between these stories, the untransferable/unbackup-able save data, and all that on top of them repeating their inability to grasp how people use online play (Really, friend codes? AGAIN? You can't just let us use handles like everywhere else on the civilized internet?), I'm shifting more to the mindset of "maybe let's wait and see if the version 2.0 is any better."
Capitalism really isn't who/what you want to blame though. Capitalism just encourages taking the most profitable action/route. The underlying problem is that we, as humans, can't get enough of this clickbait bullshit.
Slashdotters stop commenting irrationally? That's crazy talk. Next you'll want people to do things like RTFA. :)
My general answer is "I'm not surprised" by anyone of of a certain age, and at a certain level of power/responsibility, mixing up their email. Why? Because it's endemic, and not just for politicians. Try dealing with C-level executives that aren't themselves out of IT/IT security (and sometimes not even then). Good security practices do not arise naturally from the general population, especially for those that never grew up with it, and don't deal with it as a major part of their job. To be fair, those who did grow up with it can be pretty terrible too, though that tends to be more in the social media area (and also, they tend to not be in charge of major organizations yet due to their younger age).
So, no, I didn't think it was the massive scandal that so many people tried to make it out to be. Was it good? No, but it was hardly anything substantial compared to the plethora of other real scandals that other politicians (and non-politicians running for office) have had.
Is it a big deal that Pence did it? Nope, not really either, and easily forgotten were it not for the hypocrisy factor. The argument there is not that it was okay for Hillary to do it but bad that he did, but rather, that the conservatives/Republicans are doing the exact reverse - i.e., making a big deal of a Democrat doing something, and making excuses or diminishing a Republican doing the same.
Of all the complaints about her emails, this has to be the most mind-boggling to me. Allow me to explain why.
The claim is that the purpose of her use of a private server was to evade public records laws and scrutiny. This is directly in contrast to the chain of events that led to the discovery of her email server:
1) Congress sends State Dept. a subpoena for Clinton's emails.
2) State Dept. IT, aware that they don't have them, sends a request to Clinton's people for the emails.
Now, what would you expect someone that was trying to avoid scrutiny to do, at this point, when they received the first official request for those emails? I'm pretty sure the answer is anything but "promptly and immediately start handing them over." I guess you can quibble about the emails that were marked as personal and not handed over, but really, I've yet to hear anything solid about that other than "she's shady I don't trust her and she's probably got all kinds of dirt hidden in those 'personal' emails." Moreover, this is direct evidence of a massive double standard, when people give those like Pence the benefit of the doubt, but refuse to give any to Clinton.
It's human nature. There is no such thing as "enough" for the vast majority of us. Now, how hard we drive for that extra can vary, though I guarantee that if you asked someone if they'd be willing to work 1% harder for a 50% raise that they'd almost certainly take it.
As for the ultra-rich, there's already some self-selection at work in that anyone who has clawed their way into the ranks of the billionaires is very likely to have gotten there because they're one of the people with a burning desire for gaining more in the first place. In many ways it won't have anything to do with their 'needs' so much as pride, ego, envy, and so on (and their own version of 'keeping up with the Joneses' - "What, Gates bought X? I need to get an even bigger X! Or better yet, a Y!").