Cool, now ISP's can be sued for copyright violations through their pipes!
Net neutrality has nothing to do with this issue, and FCC Commissioners can't change it anyway. But thanks for the red herring.
The law you're referring to is the Safe Harbor provision of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It's a law that was passed by Congress (with bipartisan support) and then signed into law by the President. Because Safe Harbor is part of a law, the only way for Trump to get rid of Safe Harbor is to get majorities in Congress to pass a second law repealing it. The FCC has nothing to do with this process.
Net Neutrality, on the other hand, was passed through the FCC's Open Internet Order. (It was passed 3-2, with the Democrats voting for it and the Republicans voting against it. Of note, nobody except the current chairman ACTUALLY READ the final order before voting on it because he distributed a "final draft" and then met with Google and had Google's changes inserted on the day of the vote.) Rescinding the Open Internet Order could be done with just the commissioners because that's what happens when you give up on trying to pass laws.
Just because the IRS takes money from you, doesn't make it a bad organization.
Right, but the IRS specifically (as presently constituted) is a law enforcement agency that targets its political opponents for extra-legal harassment. If we were to fire everyone that worked there and replace them with randomly selected citizens, the nation as a whole would be better off.
Obama does have a little to gain (in terms of his legacy) from pro-Obama fake news continuing to proliferate, even in his retirement. But obviously, Trump has more to gain from pro-Trump fake news because he's going to be the guy for the next four to eight years. That's the answer to the question you asked.
I just wanted to point out how convenient it is that fake news is an issue of the future now that Obama's gains from it are mostly in the past.
The guy descending from power has plenty to gain from this "fake news" misinformation campaign that's being waged to lump deliberate satire together with legitimate criticism as "unreliable."
CNN was claiming that JOURNALISTS have a special dispensation that they are allowed to see leaked classified information and report on it, but non-journalists have to take CNN's word for it. Which is horseshit.
Also, the DNC emails that leaked out weren't classified in the first place.
Yes. All of the EA Sports games with Ultimate Team modes offer the ability to purchase "coins" that can be used to buy in game "cards." The in game cards are also available for purchase directly with real money.
The full formal name of the game depicted in the FIFA games is "Association Football." This name is often shortened (depending on locale) to either "football" or "soccer." The name of the game comes from the fact that it's played "on foot" unlike polo, which is played "on horseback." (The implication was that soccer is a game for poor people, too poor to own their own horse.)
The NFL sanctions games in a sport called "Gridiron Football," which is also commonly shortened to football. The name comes from the fact that the oblong ball was historically 12 inches (one foot) long, when measured tip to tip. (The size of the ball was changed to the modern 11.5 inches in the 1930s to make the forward pass easier.)
You'll note that during the debate over Obamacare, when it actually mattered, PolitiFact and the other ostensibly neutral "fact check" sites were calling it true.
This problem with Facebook spreading false information has been going on for a long time. I remember a few years back, my acquaintances kept sharing news articles about some guy saying "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan," which turned out not to be true.
Comparing the number of domains owned by Trump personally with the number owned by Clinton's campaign isn't measuring what it's alleged to measure.
For one thing, the Clintons personally owned ClintonEmail.com, not the campaign. If that was a derogatory name, it wouldn't have shown up in the count.
For another thing, the article doesn't count derogatory names owned by supporters. The Democratic Party has been supporting the Clintons since at least 1992, right? Hillary personally has been running for President since 2000. I bet the Democrats own a bunch of anti-Clinton and anti-Hillary specifically domains that they bought defensively. Those domains aren't measured in the count either.
ABC and DomainIQ picked a dumb way to measure something that gave them an excuse to bitch about Trump, and Slashdot fell for it.
There's a subtle difference between "The 20 year average increase in X was higher than the 20 year average in Y" and "The increase in X was higher than the increase in Y every single year."
"Defacing property" is spray painting on the blades of bulldozers... not really any damage... more like freedom of speech
I'm not sure if you read the summary, but protestors lit a number of construction vehicles on fire, causing $2.5 million in damage.
Also, if you spray paint on something that isn't yours (like the blade of someone else's bulldozer), that's vandalism and a crime. It's only free speech if it's your bulldozer.
No. Pardons can't be used in civil lawsuits. That would lead to chaos, especially given how often the government itself is sued.
Take Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Obamacare Contraceptive Mandate case, where the relevant portion of Obamacare was overturned. If Obama had the power to pardon his HHS Secretary in a lawsuit, he'd be able to implement a law that was JUST RULED unconstitutional.
The CS side focuses primarily on the mathematics of computing, while IT focus more on the logical side of computing. Developing a great and simple API doesn't require much of a math background, but needs quite a bit of logical thinking.
The second job, the one you're calling "IT," is actually Software Engineering, which is a different discipline than either CS or IT. IT is running the computer infrastructure. Configuring routers, running email servers, and doing help desk support are all IT tasks.
I understand that YC is a group of venture capitalists. What the heck does Pao's group actually provide for their partners? Their website makes it sound like they're diversity consultants, but this is the kind of thing that Slashdot should have included in the summary. Is Pao's group actually helping startups, or is this just an activist group glomming on and getting some publicity?
If you want to revisit the Constitution based on the fact that "technology has changed", we can do that. But beware. Some of your most hallowed Amendments might go by the wayside.
Rat, this is a ridiculous false equivalence and you know it.
"A living Constitution" is shorthand for the idea that Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her liberal friends shouldn't be bound by the actual words in the Constitution, but by (her interpretation of) the intent of the Constitution, which coincidentally always lines up with liberal policy preferences.
"Living Constitution" advocates are making laws and rulings against the plain text of the Second Amendment NOW, with that amendment still in place.
Changing the Constitution through the amendment process is different than ignoring it when it gets in the way, which is what "Living Constitution" advocates are advocating for.
Once we're squarely in "we're talking about changing the text of the Constitution with an amendment territory," repealing the Electoral College and repealing the Second Amendment have nothing to do with each other. If one was a good idea (neither are), that wouldn't imply anything about the other.
I've already stated that there is no way to prove Powell's use, as he stated he has none of those emails, as referenced in the link above.
Hey, I'm not the one accusing someone of felonies without proof.
From your link, Powell did state: "I am not sure HRC even knew or understood what was going on in the basement" which I can only believe means that she herself wasn't 100% aware of the technical aspects of her email support, so you'll need to provide proof that she intentionally kept anything hidden on her private email server.
How about the fact that she specifically ordered someone to send classified material "nonsecure" and remove the classified headings?
But in one email exchange between Clinton and staffer Jake Sullivan from June 17, 2011, the then-secretary advised her aide on sending a set of talking points by email when he had trouble sending them through secure means.
Part of the exchange is redacted, so the context of the emails is unknown, but at one point, Sullivan tells Clinton that aides "say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it."
Clinton responds, "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.
We don't know that at all. We know that the State Department and the campaign were claiming that to the New York Times a year ago, (your article is from January), but "the truth" about Clinton's emails has changed several times since then.
At this point, I'd state that you'd need to prove that a single classified email with known classified information with the proper relationships in the document to actually make them classified was sent knowingly by Clinton from her private email server. Retro-active classification does not qualify.
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent...
For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In a
First off, you asked for a name and I gave you a name.
The dividing line between felony prosecution and no prosecution appears to be whether the act is intentional or a result of negligence, and not what classified material is involved. Clinton had no intention of leaking classified material... So another case of criminal intent vs. negligence.
So you're saying that the difference is that Saucier intended to break the law, and Clinton was negligent? Interesting, because the actual law says that negligent conduct is sufficient for it to be a violation of the law. (Let's leave aside just how possible it is to negligently set up a series of six Exchange servers.)
Saucier's phone, with the classified picture, was found in a dump (the article didn't say whether it was military or civilian), which suggests no particular care in making sure the picture didn't get into the wrong hands, and that's what kicked off the investigation.
It may well be that taking pictures in classified areas is common aboard submarines, and is handled administratively (although you'd think being demoted one rank would be something of a deterrent), and if the case had started before there was any possible dissemination, and Saucier had fessed up, it seems likely that he'd have been demoted or something.
I'd double check the article. The investigation kicked off when Saucier turned himself in.
The fact that he [Saucier] destroyed evidence can't have helped him either.
Dude, you're replying to a Slashdot article titled "FBI Agreed To Destroy Laptops of Clinton Aides With Immunity Deal, Sources Say." It really hurts your efforts to correct the record when you show so little self awareness.
“It is no secret that I used a [sic] unclassified personal email account in addition to my classified State computer,’” Powell wrote to the New York Times’s Amy Chozick.
Clinton kept Top Secret material on her hidden server. Powell did nothing of the sort. If you're accusing Powell of breaking classification laws, the burden of proof is on you to provide proof.
Slashdot Mirror
The alt-right's days of using mainstream social networking are done, and they'll be stuck with whatever venom filled sites, which is fine.
The alt-left, on the other hand, can feel free to continue using Twitter and Slashdot.
Cool, now ISP's can be sued for copyright violations through their pipes!
Net neutrality has nothing to do with this issue, and FCC Commissioners can't change it anyway. But thanks for the red herring.
The law you're referring to is the Safe Harbor provision of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It's a law that was passed by Congress (with bipartisan support) and then signed into law by the President. Because Safe Harbor is part of a law, the only way for Trump to get rid of Safe Harbor is to get majorities in Congress to pass a second law repealing it. The FCC has nothing to do with this process.
Net Neutrality, on the other hand, was passed through the FCC's Open Internet Order. (It was passed 3-2, with the Democrats voting for it and the Republicans voting against it. Of note, nobody except the current chairman ACTUALLY READ the final order before voting on it because he distributed a "final draft" and then met with Google and had Google's changes inserted on the day of the vote.) Rescinding the Open Internet Order could be done with just the commissioners because that's what happens when you give up on trying to pass laws.
Just because the IRS takes money from you, doesn't make it a bad organization.
Right, but the IRS specifically (as presently constituted) is a law enforcement agency that targets its political opponents for extra-legal harassment. If we were to fire everyone that worked there and replace them with randomly selected citizens, the nation as a whole would be better off.
Obama does have a little to gain (in terms of his legacy) from pro-Obama fake news continuing to proliferate, even in his retirement. But obviously, Trump has more to gain from pro-Trump fake news because he's going to be the guy for the next four to eight years. That's the answer to the question you asked.
I just wanted to point out how convenient it is that fake news is an issue of the future now that Obama's gains from it are mostly in the past.
This is nothing more than one company deciding not to engage in a commercial transaction with another company.
Good thing Milo isn't getting married, or we (and more importantly, the government) would have to chase AppNexus out of business.
The guy descending from power has plenty to gain from this "fake news" misinformation campaign that's being waged to lump deliberate satire together with legitimate criticism as "unreliable."
Also, the DNC emails that leaked out weren't classified in the first place.
Right: Barack Obama was born in Kenya Left: Barack Obama was born in Hawaii
The whole Birther thing was started by Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign.
Yes. All of the EA Sports games with Ultimate Team modes offer the ability to purchase "coins" that can be used to buy in game "cards." The in game cards are also available for purchase directly with real money.
The NFL sanctions games in a sport called "Gridiron Football," which is also commonly shortened to football. The name comes from the fact that the oblong ball was historically 12 inches (one foot) long, when measured tip to tip. (The size of the ball was changed to the modern 11.5 inches in the 1930s to make the forward pass easier.)
You'll note that during the debate over Obamacare, when it actually mattered, PolitiFact and the other ostensibly neutral "fact check" sites were calling it true.
This problem with Facebook spreading false information has been going on for a long time. I remember a few years back, my acquaintances kept sharing news articles about some guy saying "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan," which turned out not to be true.
The organization you're referring to is called "Correct The Record."
For one thing, the Clintons personally owned ClintonEmail.com, not the campaign. If that was a derogatory name, it wouldn't have shown up in the count.
For another thing, the article doesn't count derogatory names owned by supporters. The Democratic Party has been supporting the Clintons since at least 1992, right? Hillary personally has been running for President since 2000. I bet the Democrats own a bunch of anti-Clinton and anti-Hillary specifically domains that they bought defensively. Those domains aren't measured in the count either.
ABC and DomainIQ picked a dumb way to measure something that gave them an excuse to bitch about Trump, and Slashdot fell for it.
There's a subtle difference between "The 20 year average increase in X was higher than the 20 year average in Y" and "The increase in X was higher than the increase in Y every single year."
"Defacing property" is spray painting on the blades of bulldozers... not really any damage... more like freedom of speech
I'm not sure if you read the summary, but protestors lit a number of construction vehicles on fire, causing $2.5 million in damage.
Also, if you spray paint on something that isn't yours (like the blade of someone else's bulldozer), that's vandalism and a crime. It's only free speech if it's your bulldozer.
Take Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Obamacare Contraceptive Mandate case, where the relevant portion of Obamacare was overturned. If Obama had the power to pardon his HHS Secretary in a lawsuit, he'd be able to implement a law that was JUST RULED unconstitutional.
I think this is a different group.
The CS side focuses primarily on the mathematics of computing, while IT focus more on the logical side of computing. Developing a great and simple API doesn't require much of a math background, but needs quite a bit of logical thinking.
The second job, the one you're calling "IT," is actually Software Engineering, which is a different discipline than either CS or IT. IT is running the computer infrastructure. Configuring routers, running email servers, and doing help desk support are all IT tasks.
In another article on Slashdot, we have people boycotting a Silicon Valley business associated with a CEO who has dared to donate to Trump.
That's freedom of association and it's at least as fundamental a right as free speech.
Good thing the startups aren't making wedding cakes.
I understand that YC is a group of venture capitalists. What the heck does Pao's group actually provide for their partners? Their website makes it sound like they're diversity consultants, but this is the kind of thing that Slashdot should have included in the summary. Is Pao's group actually helping startups, or is this just an activist group glomming on and getting some publicity?
If you want to revisit the Constitution based on the fact that "technology has changed", we can do that. But beware. Some of your most hallowed Amendments might go by the wayside.
Rat, this is a ridiculous false equivalence and you know it.
"A living Constitution" is shorthand for the idea that Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her liberal friends shouldn't be bound by the actual words in the Constitution, but by (her interpretation of) the intent of the Constitution, which coincidentally always lines up with liberal policy preferences.
"Living Constitution" advocates are making laws and rulings against the plain text of the Second Amendment NOW, with that amendment still in place.
Changing the Constitution through the amendment process is different than ignoring it when it gets in the way, which is what "Living Constitution" advocates are advocating for.
Once we're squarely in "we're talking about changing the text of the Constitution with an amendment territory," repealing the Electoral College and repealing the Second Amendment have nothing to do with each other. If one was a good idea (neither are), that wouldn't imply anything about the other.
I've already stated that there is no way to prove Powell's use, as he stated he has none of those emails, as referenced in the link above.
Hey, I'm not the one accusing someone of felonies without proof.
From your link, Powell did state: "I am not sure HRC even knew or understood what was going on in the basement" which I can only believe means that she herself wasn't 100% aware of the technical aspects of her email support, so you'll need to provide proof that she intentionally kept anything hidden on her private email server.
How about the fact that she specifically ordered someone to send classified material "nonsecure" and remove the classified headings?
But in one email exchange between Clinton and staffer Jake Sullivan from June 17, 2011, the then-secretary advised her aide on sending a set of talking points by email when he had trouble sending them through secure means.
Part of the exchange is redacted, so the context of the emails is unknown, but at one point, Sullivan tells Clinton that aides "say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it."
Clinton responds, "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.
- CBS News
Also, we do know that of the 30+K emails Clinton sent, only 22 were later classified as secret after the fact. 104 were considered classified, yet all of those came from an unclassified state dept system. Guess what's not allowed on unclassified systems?
We don't know that at all. We know that the State Department and the campaign were claiming that to the New York Times a year ago, (your article is from January), but "the truth" about Clinton's emails has changed several times since then.
At this point, I'd state that you'd need to prove that a single classified email with known classified information with the proper relationships in the document to actually make them classified was sent knowingly by Clinton from her private email server. Retro-active classification does not qualify.
Do I have to prove it? Can the FBI prove it instead? Let's ask FBI Director James Comey what he found on the server.
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent...
For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In a
The dividing line between felony prosecution and no prosecution appears to be whether the act is intentional or a result of negligence, and not what classified material is involved. Clinton had no intention of leaking classified material... So another case of criminal intent vs. negligence.
So you're saying that the difference is that Saucier intended to break the law, and Clinton was negligent? Interesting, because the actual law says that negligent conduct is sufficient for it to be a violation of the law. (Let's leave aside just how possible it is to negligently set up a series of six Exchange servers.)
Saucier's phone, with the classified picture, was found in a dump (the article didn't say whether it was military or civilian), which suggests no particular care in making sure the picture didn't get into the wrong hands, and that's what kicked off the investigation.
It may well be that taking pictures in classified areas is common aboard submarines, and is handled administratively (although you'd think being demoted one rank would be something of a deterrent), and if the case had started before there was any possible dissemination, and Saucier had fessed up, it seems likely that he'd have been demoted or something.
I'd double check the article. The investigation kicked off when Saucier turned himself in.
The fact that he [Saucier] destroyed evidence can't have helped him either.
Dude, you're replying to a Slashdot article titled "FBI Agreed To Destroy Laptops of Clinton Aides With Immunity Deal, Sources Say." It really hurts your efforts to correct the record when you show so little self awareness.
“It is no secret that I used a [sic] unclassified personal email account in addition to my classified State computer,’” Powell wrote to the New York Times’s Amy Chozick.
Colin Powell Urged Hillary Clinton’s Team Not to Scapegoat Him for Her Private Server, Leaked Emails Reveal
Clinton kept Top Secret material on her hidden server. Powell did nothing of the sort. If you're accusing Powell of breaking classification laws, the burden of proof is on you to provide proof.