Much of the Bush White House used email addresses on Bush's private gwb43.com server. This was originally set up by Rove and Dubya to coordinate the perfectly legal (and thus, by definition, legitimate) firing of eight Prosecutors who went after corrupt Republicans, and was designed to be FOIA and Records request immune. It auto-deleted all emails after a period of time.
While it's hard to find direct evidence of the server Powell used, he has admitted that a) he used a private address and b) he has no copies of the emails. He claims he never used it to discuss classified info, but that's more then a wee bit unlikely as much info is considered classified by somebody, and it's impossible to verify because all of them are gone. Nonetheless nonetheless he did have some classified info sent to his email address. Many of the Hillary emails that were declared Classified after the fact would be impossible to find for Powell or Rice because they were discussions with people who did not have state.gov email addresses because at the time the whole state.gov email system was just being set up.
Let me first say that I do regard Sanders as the best candidate of the entire crowd, even including the entire clown car that started on the so-called Republican side. I even donated my poll tax to him, but in retrospect I am saddened to conclude that no matter how broken the system is, it is still incapable of electing a candidate who has any prominent philosophic streak. (No, Reagan had senility, NOT a philosophy.)
It's a coordination problem. If you're Bernie, and you spend all your time being true to a philosophy beloved by roughly 20% of the people, then winning a party that has roughly 50% of the people's mighty hard because you can't easily convince the rest you aren't totally in the tank for your 20%. ie: if Paul Ryan offered Bernie a deal where he got free college tuition in exchange for mass deportation, why would the Hispanics believe that you'd pick protecting their families over protecting the interests of the 20% you've spent your entire career advocating? And even if they're pretty sure you wouldn't do that, taking a 25% chance that victorious Bernie destroys the Latino family is not a smart move for Latinos.
Thus without some strategy for wining the House and Senate in addition to the White House (and Revolution is only a strategy if you're willing and able to rev up the Guillotines), you need bonds with groups of many different strands of philosophy. Which can be quite difficult because several (in particular African Americans) tend to switch between "of course I agree with you on everything of import, let's build the coalition" mode and "God-fucking-damnit these white people do not get me mode" without going into the tedious and racially awkward "what you have to understand about Black History, White Boy Sanders" mode.
I have yet to see a press report for Hillary that is pro-Hillary-biased.
This whole controversy, for example, is stupid because to be charged in Court she would have had to have violated a statute, and all the relevant statutes require that you have to know you're doing wrong. Good luck convincing a Jury that a sixty-something policy wonk whose entire technical experience is limited to using a blackberry her staff set up for her knew knew that a server in her basement was less secure then a government server. Moreover most of them only apply if you are doing shit that isn't authorized, and it's difficult to prove that an action wasn't authorized when a) the Secretary of State herself is doing it (and therefore by definition authorizing it), b) her boss the President is willing to testify it was fine, c) previous Secretaries of State (notably Colin Powell) also used private email servers without returning the records to the government, d) the next Secretary thought he had to explicitly ban using your own email server because it was allowed, etc.
So bgvasically if he;d tried top charge her no Judge would have let that shit get to trial.
When the Guccifer allegations came out they were actually interesting, because if her fuck-ups had led to the Russians getting her info you could have side-eyed your way to getting a Judge to not laugh your charges out of Court
The same list of "lacks" that Trump as too. It's really getting harder to figure out the less of the two evils these days.
Dude, this is the US.
Worst case scenario if we get Hillary is Bill II, and Bill I was pretty normal in US History. An absolute pain in the ass to live through, but hey this is the United Fucking States, it's supposed to be fucking work.
OTOH, you remember that time we imposed Jim Crow on the black majorities of SC and MS (and yes, immediately following the Civil War both states had to let their black majorities run things)? All that took was a President who was unwilling to enforce Civil Rights legislation, and a Supreme Court that didn't want to force him to do so. Dubya only investigated one Civil Rights issue in his entire term -- that time a crazy-ass old black guy stood outside a Philadelphia polling place with his gun -- and I doubt Trump would be better. In fact Trump has the white supremacists convinced he's their closet best friend, Trump'll have a Supreme Court appoint plus at least two other Justices obsessed with limiting Federal power.
A clear-case of hate-reading. Which always gets more complicated when you add in legal English.
Especially since we're talking about a defendant in a criminal case, and there's this "Reasonable Doubt" thing that means you can get off even if the Jury is pretty sure you did it. To counter your specific points:
18 USC 793: "Gross negligence" is an extremely specific legal term. The definition starts with extreme carelessness, but specifies that the carelessness must "shows a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, and likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm." Note all that shit about what's going on in the defendants head ("conscious and voluntary")? That means she gets off if the Defense lawyer can convince the Jury it's reasonable to believe a sixty-something policy wonk had no fucking clue that a server in her basement was less secure then a government email account because she was not consciously choosing to be less secure.
18 USC 1924: Good luck proving that beyond a reasonable doubt. She swore up and down she had no classified info on the server. Which means to prove that interesting "knowingly" word you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was lying when she said that. Moreover there's an equally interesting "without authority" clause. She's an OCA, and if her President gets called to the stand and asked "do you think she did something wrong?" he will say no. Moreover the fact that previous Secretaries did it without being charged, and that John Kerry felt he had to explicitly ban the practice of keeping info on your own server, strongly implies that it was authorized at the time.
18 USC 798: Don't be ridiculous. You're seriously arguing that the Secretary of State, who serves at the pleasure of the person who defines the national interest of the United States, emailing some foreign leader or another is "using classified info to harm the United States?" Don't get me wrong I'm sure that in literal terms many cabinet officers have been fuck-ups who were hurting the country (looking at you Rummy), but that's not illegal.
18 USC 2071: You see that pronoun "same?" The antecedent is "any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States." The whole problem is that she failed to keep her emails in a governmental system, not that she went into some US Clerk's office, ransacked the files for her emails, and then ran away laughing evilly.
In the US District Court is the lowest level of the Federal system. The districts are state-based. Some states only have one district (Colorado, for example), but Florida has three. This is in the Southern District, so everything interesting is going to happen in Miami.
It's possible some state calls some level of Courts "District Court," but I don't know of any and it would be quite confusing if there were. But "confusing" didn't stop New York State from declaring the basic level of the Court system the Supreme Court. You appeal from there to the Appellate Division, and the actual supreme Court is the "New York Court of Appeals."
They'd do it for your house if they wanted to build a road, why would software be any different?
Granted in both cases the government would actually have to pay for the privilege of seizing your shit, but it's not like 10-year-old unsupported DOS apps have massive commercial value.
It would be trickier if Uber actually gave people a choice between Uber drivers, which is what Expedia, Travelocity, and travel agents do. They give you a range of options, and you choose the option. As is you click the button, and you don't get a list of drivers. Their algorithm finds a driver, and then the driver gets to figure out whether he wants to be put in touch with you.
It would also be trickier if they had other lines of business. But as is, 100% of their revenue comes from people requesting cab service, and all those people get the driver they got assigned. I sincerely doubt any Judge will look at that and see anything but a ride company trying to dodge it's legal obligations.
But the article raises an interesting question. Is he responsible for the pain which his robot inflicts?
Here's a boring answer. Yes. Why the fuck not?
I have to agree here.
Only a philosophy major or an idiot could think you could create a pain-causing robot and claim that it was the robot's fault when the damn thing caused people pain.
You seem to be being paid hourly. That's actually one of the big things the IRS looks for: hourly pay = increased likelihood of being declared an employee.
You remember that "at-risk amount" I mentioned that is necessary if you're gonna be declared a contractor? At-risk amount is much higher if you get a set amount for the job, with performance bonuses and performance penalties, rather then the ability to pad the bill by taking extra time.
Because if fixing the door takes weeks rather then a day you probably lost money on the job.
And yes, many, many of the "contractors" you know would actually have a fairly strong case to be reclassified as employees, particularly if their contract is "$150 an hour until we fire you," rather then "$5,000 to finish this program." The "$150 an hour until the program is finished" could be an edge case, particularly if they have emails/records indicating the company says they'll get hired on a new project pretty much immediately after their current one is finished.
Interestingly enough, if you talk to anyone who actually knows what they're talking about a work schedule set by the employer is actually a minuscule bit of the IRS's three tests. Tenured college profs, for example, only actually have a set schedule on when they have to teach classes. Their office hours, when they're doing research, etc. are their own damn business. Even the much abused Associate Prof is an employee, and they don't even have to be in the state except for class time (which is negotiated with the school, not set from on-high) or office hours (which is set by the prof). Just about any high-level employee can similarly re-negotiate his work schedule and get a paid half-day off to help out at his kid's field trip.
It's also incredibly easy to find examples of contractors who have set schedules. You get hired as a contractor to fix an interior door in a building which is locked except during office hours, and the contract specifies you don't get paid unless you're done lickety–split, plus a nice juicy bonus if it's done tomorow, guess what you're doing from 9-5 tomorrow?
At-risk capital is much more important (Uber drivers own their vehicles, so they do have at--risk capital which indicates contractor), as is employer control (and since Uber drivers are damn near paranoid about pissing off the company, and act like Uber controls them, it does indicating employee), as is the nature of the business (if Uber's lawyers are right, and they aren't a transportation company this indicates contractor; if anyone sane is right and they sell cab rides it indicates employee).
You specifically made an argument that guns reduce crime. I refuted that line of argument. I said nothing about my position on the Second Amendment, my belief in what the Founders meant when they wrote about the Right to Bear Arms, or any-damn-thing-else you choose to bring in because you're wrong on the effects of firearms on crime.
We had plenty of criminals. Nobody cased a house for anything like days. The biggest problems were a) one gang of idiots whose entire "casing" strategy seemed to involve verifying the people inside the house were not black (on the apparent theory that non-blacks would be unable to tell black people apart, it failed miserably because yes we can do that, and hilariously one of their victims turned out to be a light-skinned black dude), and the super-genuis who robbed every house on the block except his mom's in a six month period.
In theory the rest of your argument makes perfect sense. In practice there's no evidence that increasing the number of firearms in the general population reduces crime, largely because the people who say that it does have banned all research into the practice; which strongly implies that gun rights advocates themselves think that actual research into the problem would result in their entire premise being disproven.
What there is quite good evidence for is that gun bans reduce supply, thus increasing the price of guns.
Moreover you're badly mistaken on self-defence in the UK. You can't walk around with a 1796, but keeping one at home where you can use it is fine, and more hard-core then any weapon a criminal is likely to transport on the streets; assuming you can convince the police that it's not a Samurai sword you'll even get the damn thing back.
Technically Schneider seems not to be RIAA. She left her label quite a few years ago, and is an independent at the moment.
She also seems to be spitting mad that she wasn't able to get into ContentID, and absolutely convinced the denial was primarily because she doesn't have aYoutube channel. The "spitting mad" makes it hard to tell how much serious her proposals are, because they could just be hyperbole. Frankly it's incoherent enough that I couldn't finish reading it.
I don't doubt the RIAA will try to take advantage of this somehow, particularly if she starts a grassroots musician's rebellion, but if there is one puppet they are not pulling strings on it's this woman.
Playing around with Java means you played around with Java, it does not mean you magically gain a strong opinion on the eternal Starship Enterprise vs. Star Destroyer debate. So it's hard to know how much background he got on the cultural stuff, particularly the FOSS community.
Moreover it's entirely possible he knows what's going on better then he lets on, and he's trying to get Google's guys to explain so that the dumbest possible Juror knows what's going on.
iTunes is a dumpster fire of astronomical proportions, but at some point the user has to take some responsibility for not entrusting valuable data to a flaky consumer-grade application. This sounds like a case where the wrong tool was used for the job.
I suspect he had iTunes to listen to shit he bought, and pro-grade software to deal with his own compositions, but a) as a composer the amount of songs he has to buy is probably several orders of magnitude greater then that of a sane person, and b) it's not unlikely iTunes found his work stash all by itself, and then when he clicked the wrong dialogue on the "cleaning space" screen it decided "why does he need 6 separate versions of this one song we have on the iTunes cloud" and deleted his originals.
Erm, do you develop software? Soirce code is hold in a source code management system/versioning system. Onviously for single apps all developers have access to all code. Everything else is not realy imaginable.
Given the complex frankenstein-style monstrosity that is iTunes, I would not be surprised to find out that there are a couple different teams and that the iTunes store guys simply do not spend time looking at the video playback code.
There'd definitely be an engineer who could bring it all together, and search the entire codebase, tho.
The content of Slate is some of my favorite on the internet, but every time I try to interact with anything technical it pisses the fuck out of me. Their comments system is horrible, and won't even load half the time. The commenters themselves seem to be pretty good, but participating in the conversation is a nightmare.
So I am not surprised at all the back-end designed by whomever the English Majors hired requires some weird-ass obscure tracking software that's more then a wee skoch shady.
"You can't be charged with violating an Executive Order" is confusing? I thought it was pretty simple. If you are charged with a crime in Court, the piece of paper that announces the government thinks you fucked up, and should be put in jail, will not have an Executive Order on it. It will have a statute. There is probably some circumstance where Obama could drag somebody into Court for violating one of his orders without referring to a statute, but damned if I can think of any*.
Now depending on the precise situation; the statute they're talking about, which generally includes powers Congress has delegated to the President; etc.; the Court may end up talking about an Executive Order a lot. But "fuck that Executive Order, the actions the government is alleging don't violate the statute" is always a valid defense you can use.
Which is a huge reason I think Hillary is likely to get off. I looked into the actual statutes, and mis-storing classified info requires you did that shit "knowingly", which means that if you can argue you thought it was fine (perhaps because Colin Powell stored classified material the same way) you have by definition not violated the statute. You may have violated the fuck out of the Executive Order, but the Court's job does not involve enforcing Executive Orders.
*Altho he can fuck you up using non-Court-related Powers. Just ask all those poor mother-fuckers he droned. But that's all extra-Judicial.
Ignorantia juris non excusat - ignorance of the law is not an excuse. It's actually foundational to US law. You're a fucking idiot.
And your reading comprehension needs work.
"This was not willful," is not an "I didn't know that the offense I am charged with is illegal" defense, it's an "I didn't know I was doing the offense I am charged with" defense.
In this case Hillary's lawyers would be arguing that, as a baby boomer non-technical person, she figured if a private email server was secure enough for Colin Powell it would be secure enough for her too. So for the Prosecutor to win on that basis he'd need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a) somebody in her camp knew that using a private server would violate the statute, b) she was actually told this by that person, c) a rational Hillary Clinton would have believed that person and not the fact that the other Secretary of State who used email prior to her had used a private account with no legal grumbling, etc.
I would not describe a hack of an AOL email address as a stepping stone to hacking another system.
But the original has a much better description. He's claiming he saw clintonemail.com's IP while reading Blumenthal's emails, and then used a port scanner to identify vulnerabilities in her server.
If it's true, and can be verified from server logs, it could be important. Hillary Clinton cannot be charged in Court with violating an Executive order, so the law everyone says she broke is almost completely irrelevant to her fate in Court. The ones that are relevant to the Judicial branch are statutes, and they tend to only ban a) willful fuck-ups with information (ie: you not only had to do it wrong, you had to know you were doing it wrong), or b) only come into play if somebody actually sees the info.
a) is virtually impossible to prove beyond a Reasonable Doubt when your only predecessor who used email used a private server, but if there's proof of b)...
I mean technically Apple didn't lose in Court, but the government actually got more then it wanted in terms of access to your damn phone because the hack it's using today is not tied to a single iPhone 5c.
On the other hand it's also not usable on any Apple phone since the 5c so any recent iPhones are immune to this particular attack.
So you're saying that privacy won because instead of getting a hack that only worked on one phone, the FBI got a hack that works on millions?
Apple delayed the decision on whether the All Writs Act can be used to force a tech company to hack it's own products. Which is good in theory because it means that they can't use that technique indefinitely. Note the "delay," in real life a no-decision in Court is a no-decision in Court.
However it also established that as soon as you figure out a way to hack an iPhone model, you can get a seven-figure payment from the FBI. That is actually cheaper then the All Writs Act idea because under the All Writs Act they'd have to pay per phone and the price wasn't cheap (roughly $101k, so if they get 51 iPhone 5cs with this hack they've turned a profit even if they spent $5 mil on the hack), and will also work as long as gray hats like money. Yes it may take a few years for the private hackers to crack a really secure model, but it's pretty unlikely there will be an anarchist revolution in the next two years so they can wait.
Slashdot Mirror
Much of the Bush White House used email addresses on Bush's private gwb43.com server. This was originally set up by Rove and Dubya to coordinate the perfectly legal (and thus, by definition, legitimate) firing of eight Prosecutors who went after corrupt Republicans, and was designed to be FOIA and Records request immune. It auto-deleted all emails after a period of time.
While it's hard to find direct evidence of the server Powell used, he has admitted that a) he used a private address and b) he has no copies of the emails. He claims he never used it to discuss classified info, but that's more then a wee bit unlikely as much info is considered classified by somebody, and it's impossible to verify because all of them are gone. Nonetheless nonetheless he did have some classified info sent to his email address. Many of the Hillary emails that were declared Classified after the fact would be impossible to find for Powell or Rice because they were discussions with people who did not have state.gov email addresses because at the time the whole state.gov email system was just being set up.
Let me first say that I do regard Sanders as the best candidate of the entire crowd, even including the entire clown car that started on the so-called Republican side. I even donated my poll tax to him, but in retrospect I am saddened to conclude that no matter how broken the system is, it is still incapable of electing a candidate who has any prominent philosophic streak. (No, Reagan had senility, NOT a philosophy.)
It's a coordination problem. If you're Bernie, and you spend all your time being true to a philosophy beloved by roughly 20% of the people, then winning a party that has roughly 50% of the people's mighty hard because you can't easily convince the rest you aren't totally in the tank for your 20%. ie: if Paul Ryan offered Bernie a deal where he got free college tuition in exchange for mass deportation, why would the Hispanics believe that you'd pick protecting their families over protecting the interests of the 20% you've spent your entire career advocating? And even if they're pretty sure you wouldn't do that, taking a 25% chance that victorious Bernie destroys the Latino family is not a smart move for Latinos.
Thus without some strategy for wining the House and Senate in addition to the White House (and Revolution is only a strategy if you're willing and able to rev up the Guillotines), you need bonds with groups of many different strands of philosophy. Which can be quite difficult because several (in particular African Americans) tend to switch between "of course I agree with you on everything of import, let's build the coalition" mode and "God-fucking-damnit these white people do not get me mode" without going into the tedious and racially awkward "what you have to understand about Black History, White Boy Sanders" mode.
I have yet to see a press report for Hillary that is pro-Hillary-biased.
This whole controversy, for example, is stupid because to be charged in Court she would have had to have violated a statute, and all the relevant statutes require that you have to know you're doing wrong. Good luck convincing a Jury that a sixty-something policy wonk whose entire technical experience is limited to using a blackberry her staff set up for her knew knew that a server in her basement was less secure then a government server. Moreover most of them only apply if you are doing shit that isn't authorized, and it's difficult to prove that an action wasn't authorized when a) the Secretary of State herself is doing it (and therefore by definition authorizing it), b) her boss the President is willing to testify it was fine, c) previous Secretaries of State (notably Colin Powell) also used private email servers without returning the records to the government, d) the next Secretary thought he had to explicitly ban using your own email server because it was allowed, etc.
So bgvasically if he;d tried top charge her no Judge would have let that shit get to trial.
When the Guccifer allegations came out they were actually interesting, because if her fuck-ups had led to the Russians getting her info you could have side-eyed your way to getting a Judge to not laugh your charges out of Court
The same list of "lacks" that Trump as too. It's really getting harder to figure out the less of the two evils these days.
Dude, this is the US.
Worst case scenario if we get Hillary is Bill II, and Bill I was pretty normal in US History. An absolute pain in the ass to live through, but hey this is the United Fucking States, it's supposed to be fucking work.
OTOH, you remember that time we imposed Jim Crow on the black majorities of SC and MS (and yes, immediately following the Civil War both states had to let their black majorities run things)? All that took was a President who was unwilling to enforce Civil Rights legislation, and a Supreme Court that didn't want to force him to do so. Dubya only investigated one Civil Rights issue in his entire term -- that time a crazy-ass old black guy stood outside a Philadelphia polling place with his gun -- and I doubt Trump would be better. In fact Trump has the white supremacists convinced he's their closet best friend, Trump'll have a Supreme Court appoint plus at least two other Justices obsessed with limiting Federal power.
A clear-case of hate-reading. Which always gets more complicated when you add in legal English.
Especially since we're talking about a defendant in a criminal case, and there's this "Reasonable Doubt" thing that means you can get off even if the Jury is pretty sure you did it. To counter your specific points:
18 USC 793: "Gross negligence" is an extremely specific legal term. The definition starts with extreme carelessness, but specifies that the carelessness must "shows a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, and likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm." Note all that shit about what's going on in the defendants head ("conscious and voluntary")? That means she gets off if the Defense lawyer can convince the Jury it's reasonable to believe a sixty-something policy wonk had no fucking clue that a server in her basement was less secure then a government email account because she was not consciously choosing to be less secure.
18 USC 1924: Good luck proving that beyond a reasonable doubt. She swore up and down she had no classified info on the server. Which means to prove that interesting "knowingly" word you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was lying when she said that. Moreover there's an equally interesting "without authority" clause. She's an OCA, and if her President gets called to the stand and asked "do you think she did something wrong?" he will say no. Moreover the fact that previous Secretaries did it without being charged, and that John Kerry felt he had to explicitly ban the practice of keeping info on your own server, strongly implies that it was authorized at the time.
18 USC 798: Don't be ridiculous. You're seriously arguing that the Secretary of State, who serves at the pleasure of the person who defines the national interest of the United States, emailing some foreign leader or another is "using classified info to harm the United States?" Don't get me wrong I'm sure that in literal terms many cabinet officers have been fuck-ups who were hurting the country (looking at you Rummy), but that's not illegal.
18 USC 2071: You see that pronoun "same?" The antecedent is "any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States." The whole problem is that she failed to keep her emails in a governmental system, not that she went into some US Clerk's office, ransacked the files for her emails, and then ran away laughing evilly.
In the US District Court is the lowest level of the Federal system. The districts are state-based. Some states only have one district (Colorado, for example), but Florida has three. This is in the Southern District, so everything interesting is going to happen in Miami.
It's possible some state calls some level of Courts "District Court," but I don't know of any and it would be quite confusing if there were. But "confusing" didn't stop New York State from declaring the basic level of the Court system the Supreme Court. You appeal from there to the Appellate Division, and the actual supreme Court is the "New York Court of Appeals."
Why not?
They'd do it for your house if they wanted to build a road, why would software be any different?
Granted in both cases the government would actually have to pay for the privilege of seizing your shit, but it's not like 10-year-old unsupported DOS apps have massive commercial value.
Is it bad that Slashdot is giving us Stockholm Syndrome?
It would be trickier if Uber actually gave people a choice between Uber drivers, which is what Expedia, Travelocity, and travel agents do. They give you a range of options, and you choose the option. As is you click the button, and you don't get a list of drivers. Their algorithm finds a driver, and then the driver gets to figure out whether he wants to be put in touch with you.
It would also be trickier if they had other lines of business. But as is, 100% of their revenue comes from people requesting cab service, and all those people get the driver they got assigned. I sincerely doubt any Judge will look at that and see anything but a ride company trying to dodge it's legal obligations.
Here's a boring answer. Yes. Why the fuck not?
I have to agree here.
Only a philosophy major or an idiot could think you could create a pain-causing robot and claim that it was the robot's fault when the damn thing caused people pain.
You seem to be being paid hourly. That's actually one of the big things the IRS looks for: hourly pay = increased likelihood of being declared an employee.
You remember that "at-risk amount" I mentioned that is necessary if you're gonna be declared a contractor? At-risk amount is much higher if you get a set amount for the job, with performance bonuses and performance penalties, rather then the ability to pad the bill by taking extra time.
Because if fixing the door takes weeks rather then a day you probably lost money on the job.
And yes, many, many of the "contractors" you know would actually have a fairly strong case to be reclassified as employees, particularly if their contract is "$150 an hour until we fire you," rather then "$5,000 to finish this program." The "$150 an hour until the program is finished" could be an edge case, particularly if they have emails/records indicating the company says they'll get hired on a new project pretty much immediately after their current one is finished.
Interestingly enough, if you talk to anyone who actually knows what they're talking about a work schedule set by the employer is actually a minuscule bit of the IRS's three tests. Tenured college profs, for example, only actually have a set schedule on when they have to teach classes. Their office hours, when they're doing research, etc. are their own damn business. Even the much abused Associate Prof is an employee, and they don't even have to be in the state except for class time (which is negotiated with the school, not set from on-high) or office hours (which is set by the prof). Just about any high-level employee can similarly re-negotiate his work schedule and get a paid half-day off to help out at his kid's field trip.
It's also incredibly easy to find examples of contractors who have set schedules. You get hired as a contractor to fix an interior door in a building which is locked except during office hours, and the contract specifies you don't get paid unless you're done lickety–split, plus a nice juicy bonus if it's done tomorow, guess what you're doing from 9-5 tomorrow?
At-risk capital is much more important (Uber drivers own their vehicles, so they do have at--risk capital which indicates contractor), as is employer control (and since Uber drivers are damn near paranoid about pissing off the company, and act like Uber controls them, it does indicating employee), as is the nature of the business (if Uber's lawyers are right, and they aren't a transportation company this indicates contractor; if anyone sane is right and they sell cab rides it indicates employee).
What you mean turned around?
You specifically made an argument that guns reduce crime. I refuted that line of argument. I said nothing about my position on the Second Amendment, my belief in what the Founders meant when they wrote about the Right to Bear Arms, or any-damn-thing-else you choose to bring in because you're wrong on the effects of firearms on crime.
You're moving the goal-posts.
Dude, I grew up in Detroit.
We had plenty of criminals. Nobody cased a house for anything like days. The biggest problems were a) one gang of idiots whose entire "casing" strategy seemed to involve verifying the people inside the house were not black (on the apparent theory that non-blacks would be unable to tell black people apart, it failed miserably because yes we can do that, and hilariously one of their victims turned out to be a light-skinned black dude), and the super-genuis who robbed every house on the block except his mom's in a six month period.
In theory the rest of your argument makes perfect sense. In practice there's no evidence that increasing the number of firearms in the general population reduces crime, largely because the people who say that it does have banned all research into the practice; which strongly implies that gun rights advocates themselves think that actual research into the problem would result in their entire premise being disproven.
What there is quite good evidence for is that gun bans reduce supply, thus increasing the price of guns.
Moreover you're badly mistaken on self-defence in the UK. You can't walk around with a 1796, but keeping one at home where you can use it is fine, and more hard-core then any weapon a criminal is likely to transport on the streets; assuming you can convince the police that it's not a Samurai sword you'll even get the damn thing back.
Technically Schneider seems not to be RIAA. She left her label quite a few years ago, and is an independent at the moment.
She also seems to be spitting mad that she wasn't able to get into ContentID, and absolutely convinced the denial was primarily because she doesn't have aYoutube channel. The "spitting mad" makes it hard to tell how much serious her proposals are, because they could just be hyperbole. Frankly it's incoherent enough that I couldn't finish reading it.
I don't doubt the RIAA will try to take advantage of this somehow, particularly if she starts a grassroots musician's rebellion, but if there is one puppet they are not pulling strings on it's this woman.
Playing around with Java means you played around with Java, it does not mean you magically gain a strong opinion on the eternal Starship Enterprise vs. Star Destroyer debate. So it's hard to know how much background he got on the cultural stuff, particularly the FOSS community.
Moreover it's entirely possible he knows what's going on better then he lets on, and he's trying to get Google's guys to explain so that the dumbest possible Juror knows what's going on.
iTunes is a dumpster fire of astronomical proportions, but at some point the user has to take some responsibility for not entrusting valuable data to a flaky consumer-grade application. This sounds like a case where the wrong tool was used for the job.
I suspect he had iTunes to listen to shit he bought, and pro-grade software to deal with his own compositions, but a) as a composer the amount of songs he has to buy is probably several orders of magnitude greater then that of a sane person, and b) it's not unlikely iTunes found his work stash all by itself, and then when he clicked the wrong dialogue on the "cleaning space" screen it decided "why does he need 6 separate versions of this one song we have on the iTunes cloud" and deleted his originals.
Erm, do you develop software?
Soirce code is hold in a source code management system/versioning system.
Onviously for single apps all developers have access to all code. Everything else is not realy imaginable.
Given the complex frankenstein-style monstrosity that is iTunes, I would not be surprised to find out that there are a couple different teams and that the iTunes store guys simply do not spend time looking at the video playback code.
There'd definitely be an engineer who could bring it all together, and search the entire codebase, tho.
The content of Slate is some of my favorite on the internet, but every time I try to interact with anything technical it pisses the fuck out of me. Their comments system is horrible, and won't even load half the time. The commenters themselves seem to be pretty good, but participating in the conversation is a nightmare.
So I am not surprised at all the back-end designed by whomever the English Majors hired requires some weird-ass obscure tracking software that's more then a wee skoch shady.
"You can't be charged with violating an Executive Order" is confusing? I thought it was pretty simple. If you are charged with a crime in Court, the piece of paper that announces the government thinks you fucked up, and should be put in jail, will not have an Executive Order on it. It will have a statute. There is probably some circumstance where Obama could drag somebody into Court for violating one of his orders without referring to a statute, but damned if I can think of any*.
Now depending on the precise situation; the statute they're talking about, which generally includes powers Congress has delegated to the President; etc.; the Court may end up talking about an Executive Order a lot. But "fuck that Executive Order, the actions the government is alleging don't violate the statute" is always a valid defense you can use.
Which is a huge reason I think Hillary is likely to get off. I looked into the actual statutes, and mis-storing classified info requires you did that shit "knowingly", which means that if you can argue you thought it was fine (perhaps because Colin Powell stored classified material the same way) you have by definition not violated the statute. You may have violated the fuck out of the Executive Order, but the Court's job does not involve enforcing Executive Orders.
*Altho he can fuck you up using non-Court-related Powers. Just ask all those poor mother-fuckers he droned. But that's all extra-Judicial.
Ignorantia juris non excusat - ignorance of the law is not an excuse. It's actually foundational to US law. You're a fucking idiot.
And your reading comprehension needs work.
"This was not willful," is not an "I didn't know that the offense I am charged with is illegal" defense, it's an "I didn't know I was doing the offense I am charged with" defense.
In this case Hillary's lawyers would be arguing that, as a baby boomer non-technical person, she figured if a private email server was secure enough for Colin Powell it would be secure enough for her too. So for the Prosecutor to win on that basis he'd need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a) somebody in her camp knew that using a private server would violate the statute, b) she was actually told this by that person, c) a rational Hillary Clinton would have believed that person and not the fact that the other Secretary of State who used email prior to her had used a private account with no legal grumbling, etc.
I would not describe a hack of an AOL email address as a stepping stone to hacking another system.
But the original has a much better description. He's claiming he saw clintonemail.com's IP while reading Blumenthal's emails, and then used a port scanner to identify vulnerabilities in her server.
If it's true, and can be verified from server logs, it could be important. Hillary Clinton cannot be charged in Court with violating an Executive order, so the law everyone says she broke is almost completely irrelevant to her fate in Court. The ones that are relevant to the Judicial branch are statutes, and they tend to only ban a) willful fuck-ups with information (ie: you not only had to do it wrong, you had to know you were doing it wrong), or b) only come into play if somebody actually sees the info.
a) is virtually impossible to prove beyond a Reasonable Doubt when your only predecessor who used email used a private server, but if there's proof of b)...
Unlikely, or he would not have the lead he has.
I.e., around half of all Republicans motivated enough to participate in caucuses/primaries. Doesn't sound promising for the general election.
(Except for the fact that Clinton may have a substantial popularity problem on the Democratic/independent side.)
Obama won twice without "independents." Bernie's best wins have all been in states that let independents vote in their primaries.
So methinks that any problems she'll have are over-rated.
I've gotten plenty of mod-points lately. A couple 15-pointers in the past 2-3 weeks. First time that's happened in months.
But they only give me three days to spend them, when I could have sworn in the past it was a full week.
I mean technically Apple didn't lose in Court, but the government actually got more then it wanted in terms of access to your damn phone because the hack it's using today is not tied to a single iPhone 5c.
On the other hand it's also not usable on any Apple phone since the 5c so any recent iPhones are immune to this particular attack.
So you're saying that privacy won because instead of getting a hack that only worked on one phone, the FBI got a hack that works on millions?
Apple delayed the decision on whether the All Writs Act can be used to force a tech company to hack it's own products. Which is good in theory because it means that they can't use that technique indefinitely. Note the "delay," in real life a no-decision in Court is a no-decision in Court.
However it also established that as soon as you figure out a way to hack an iPhone model, you can get a seven-figure payment from the FBI. That is actually cheaper then the All Writs Act idea because under the All Writs Act they'd have to pay per phone and the price wasn't cheap (roughly $101k, so if they get 51 iPhone 5cs with this hack they've turned a profit even if they spent $5 mil on the hack), and will also work as long as gray hats like money. Yes it may take a few years for the private hackers to crack a really secure model, but it's pretty unlikely there will be an anarchist revolution in the next two years so they can wait.