Facebook actually has no control over who gets what money, who posts what, etc. They will issue a 1099K to anyone who gets a "tip" from another Facebook user, not the 1099-MISC Uber drivers get.
OTOH Uber used to control which rides a driver could actually do through it's app, insist that they take them all via deactivation threat, etc.
Even things like banning drivers who turn down too many rides? That's not an independent contractor - an independent contractor has the right to determine which rides they will take without repercussion
Umm...I'm the last person who'd defend Uber, however I don't see what the problem is there? If my business relied on contractors, I'd also favour the ones who showed themselves to be more reliable to take the work when it was available. They also have a vested interest here, as it stops hobby drivers just creaming off the most profitable jobs and allows their dedicated drivers to more easily make a living. This is one of the reasons it's illegal for regulated taxis to turn down a fare (in the UK at least).
Ahh, a Brit. Divided by a common language in legal terms as usual.
In the US a contractor is supposed to be someone who a) has his own equipment, b) has his own business (ie: his own accountant, office, etc.), and c) takes jobs on a contract basis. If you've got a system where the contractor owns equipment (leased through Uber), uses Uber's statements for his financials, and thinks he has to take any work Uber offers that's by definition not a contractor. In fact if a driver HAS to take a job or he won;t get6 another job trhat triggers two of the three IRS Tests for skeezy-assholes trying to pass their employees as contractors to avoid labor laws. It violates the "Behavioral test" because it implies that the boss has a level of control over the driver then is typical in contractor relationships, and it violates the third "type of relationship" test because it codifies the idea that there is an on-going relationship. In theory a contractor is supposed to have a series of one-off contracts with completely different people, not a permanent gig.
In other words if Uber is contracting with drivers it has to treat them like independent businesses, and independent businesses are supposed to do shit to each-opther like cream off the most profitable routes.
The problem is that Uber has a lot of control over what it's drivers do because it deactivates (ie: fires) them for shit like refusing a fare or pissing management off. That makes it very tricky for them to get the IRS tests for employee or contractor to say contractor, which means that they are on the hook for a variety of things including the employer half of their driver's self-employment taxes. Since all 50 states have their own employee/contractor rules, with their own employee/contractor tests, and their own legal ramifications if you classify somebody wrongly it gets very complicated very quickly.
Under the settlement they pay current drivers off, and agree to a number of concessions that give Uber management significantly less control over how an individual Uber driver works. In particular they can't basically force a driver to accept a ride by including algorithms that fire him if he refuses to take a certain number of rides, they can't fire them for no reason, there's a whole Appeals Process, etc. There's also a lot more transparency regarding discipline, which is good because one of their problems was that when you asked them "are you doing thing x to your drivers that would insta-convert them to employees and fuck your business model?" Uber would have reams of paperwork saying "Hell no," and then you'd ask the drivers and they'd say "Hell yes." And if your contractors act like employees because they think you'll fire them if they don;t act like employees they are employees.
Very flawed understanding of Original Classification Authority: Yes she can declare anything classified by her dept as unclassified, but she has to document the declassification. Unless she can provide the declassification/downgrade records the information was not correctly declassified. She can't declassify without telling anyone because that leaves the information still classified. It must be documented so that someone else then caught with the info can then prove that the data was declassified. OCA isn't a license to do whatever you want, it still has strict procedures and requirements.
Spoken like a true Civil Service employee, with a bureaucrat's understanding of a) the architecture of the top of the Executive branch, and b) the behavior of the other branches. In this case we're talking about a criminal prosecution, so the the Judicial branch is pretty much the only one that matters.
All those classification procedures you mention are Executive Orders. To an employee of the Executive Branch they are the gospel. To everyone else, especially the Judiciary, they are simply instructions the President has given his people. Which means that, for the purposes of charging a non-Civil Service Presidential Appointee with a crime in said Judiciary you need a case that's a little stronger then "this is a violation of Executive Order X." The Courts enforce statutes (and, of course, the Constitution, but they spend a lot more time on statutes then the Constitution), and the statute does not include a requyirement that the head of an agency that classified material follow any procedure whatsoever when she declassifies the material. That particular law simply does not exist at the statute-level, and if we're talking about Court (as we are in the Clinton case) that means it does not exist at all.
In terms of statutes that exist you're gonna have trouble finding one she violated. The closest I've heard of is this one, and it's very tricky because one of the operative words is "unauthorized." As I've said, the Constitution indicates that anything Hillary Clinton does in the State Department that is not banned by statute, and is supported by the President, is by definition "authorized." Another is "knowingly." If Hillary didn't know info was classified, or she thought she was allowed to keep it on an email server secured in her basement, or both she did not break that law.
Which means to get that misdemeanor you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a) the info was actually classified when she mis-stored it, b) she should have known storing it on a private email server was mis-storing it despite the fact two previous Secretaries of State did the same damn thing, and c) at least one of those pieces of info was classified by somebody outside her department, etc.
"In this case all Classified information is Classified by the Executive Branch, which means the guy who runs the Executive Branch (Obama), and his closest advisers (like Clinton) by definition are the guys who decide whether something is Classified, and therefore they can declassify shit simply by talking about it. Legally speaking much of the case against Clinton will collapse in Court simply because most shit that was on her server, and was classified, was classified by the state department, using her authority as Secretary of State."
That's some fundamentally flawed understanding of classification authority. Let's go backwards first. A lot of the classified information was classified by other agencies, so the case collapsing because some or most of it is from the State department is spurious.
I don't believe you've disagreed with me.
There is not much real world difference between "much of the cases" collapsing and "a lot of it" not collapsing. It's a matter of emphasis.
Also how the Judge is likely to call the balls and strikes on the rest of the case. A prosecutor who tries to charge a major political candidate months before the election with a docket that includes any charges that are by definition not crimes is gonna not gonna get a lot of the close calls to go his way.
Next, not even the original classifying agency can declassify something without discussing it with other agencies.
True in terms of inter-agency DC politics.
But if you think a anybody would go to jail for releasing info the DoD had classified three years ago, changed it's mind about six months ago, neglected to get the paperwork from higher-ups you've clearly never met a Jury.
And since this is a criminal investigation, the only legal standard that matters is the "would a Jury think it was so damaging she should go to jail" standard.
Finally, under the law, the President delegates classification authority to the agencies. The President can not declassify something on a whim, they must ask the agency to declassify it. The agency head can decline to do so; but theoretically the President could just fire the head of the agency and keep doing so until someone agrees to.
You're gonna actually have to cite the law here. If it's a statute name the statute.
I suspect you're talking about an Executive Order, probably this one, and in this context an Executive Order is meaningless because of the way the government is designed. Why? Because an Executive Order is a statement saying what the President thinks should be done. If the President goes out and does something using a different procedure then he laid out in the Executive order he has not actually violated the law, because he has unilateral authority to change his Executive Orders anytime he likes.
And does that apply to Hillary Clinton to? Of course, if Obama says he trusts her.
It's really surprising to me how much Americans can say they care about how their government works, and then display absolutely no fucking knowledge of it despite the fact 100% of us can quote the Constitution verbatim for significant passages.
For example, it is by definition impossible to create a system where 100% of the rules that apply to most people apply to the guy who makes the rules, because one of the rules is "only that guy can change the rules." In this case all Classified information is Classified by the Executive Branch, which means the guy who runs the Executive Branch (Obama), and his closest advisers (like Clinton) by definition are the guys who decide whether something is Classified, and therefore they can declassify shit simply by talking about it. Legally speaking much of the case against Clinton will collapse in Court simply because most shit that was on her server, and was classified, was classified by the state department, using her authority as Secretary of State. The "yeah I declassified that shit without telling anyone" will work fine because the reason that shit was classified in the first place was her signature.
As for the other guys, they leaked to the media. Despite the fact the media has everyone brainwashed into thinking that a low-level government employee is not breaking the law if he leaks info to the media, this is not the case. It has never been the case. It has always been the case that the newsie gets a promotion, a Pulitzer, and a raise while his source gets jail-time unless President does some truly amazing unethical shit to rig his trial.
AppleTV's 2007. The G4 Cube was 15 years, 10 months ago in June 2000, and the Summary says "15 years or so."
As for the iPod, the kind of category-defining success you're talking about when you bring that up is quite rare even for them. Most of their product launches since then have been updates to existing product lines (ie: the MacBook Air is a new Mac laptop, not a totally new category of device). They're 2 for four in true-category-dxefining hardware. iPad and iPhone vs. Apple TV and Apple Watch. It's one of those things where people remember the hits, remember that when they update a hit it tends to go really well, and totally forget the failures
They've had quite a few products that were total market failures. I loved my Newton, especially the 130 with that cool backlight, I wanted a Pippin (console collaboration with Bandai), the original Apple TV (an all-in-one-Perfiorma with a black case and a TV Tuner card), etc. were complete failures in the market. Even in the Jobs era the new Apple TV was described by Cook as a "hobby" rather then a product. The G4 cube was incredibly cool-looking, but also more then a bit useless.
I'm sure they'd prefer to sell out of Watches in 10 minutes like they do new iPhone models, but they always take design/tech risks and those don't always pan out. In this case the tech seems to be fine, the problem is the tech is not terribly useful because nobody's figured out a way to design the tech in such a way you can actually take advantage of it.
It takes real talent to fail at being a rules lawyer when you're talking about the legal system.
There is no Constitutional principle that the designer of a product has to asked permission before law enforcement circumvents it's security features. If there was Kwikset would have to be consulted every time they broke down a door. In fact Apple's entire case against the FBI was all about it's absolute right to have absolutely nothing to do with hacking this particular phone.
"Lawfully authorized" clearly means that the Search is legal. If the Search was not lawfully authorized there's massive Constitutional issues, which are a wee bit more important then the DMCA.
There's an "Encryption Research" exception that allows to develop products to sell legally is perfectly legal under the DMCA. Since the FBI cannot be sued under the DMCA under any circumstances (there's a whole "Law Enforcement" clause that says so), they are allowed to buy the encryption-cracking product and use it on any device they have the Legal Power to search. So neither the company (which is, IIRC, actually in israel making prosecution for DMCA-violations rather tricky), nor the FBI can be penalized under the DMCA.
In general, there's absolutely no way for a scenario of this kind to ever happen. The whole architecture of the government is that their legal abilities (called "Powers") are completely different from that of a private citizen's (called "Rights"), so a law giving them the capital-P-Power to send your ass to jail for hacking is almost always gonna have jack-squat effect on the government's ability to do hacking.
The Feds/Army/etc. still can be restricted by Acts of Congress (to an extent -- if the Constitution grants the Executive or the Judicial a capital-P-Power Congress can't undo that by statute), but the Act that affects your Rights as a private citizen is not gonna be the one that affects their Powers as the government.
The way the law applies to the government is completely different then the way it applies to you because the government has Powers and you have Rights. In this case they are proceeding as part of a lawful investigation. That means they are using their capital-P-Power of "Search," and the only laws that restricts their use of that power are the ones governing that power. So Fourth Amendment, a bunch of case law, some statutes that explicitly deal with law enforcement, etc. unless there's some clause of the DMCA that says "and this means that search warrants can't circumvent encryption" you're barking up the wrong tree.
And if you read the actual law everybody's safe. It explicitly does not apply to law enforcement. It does not apply to reverse engineering, encryption research, or security testing.
That's why I only mentioned the 5c, altho judging from a) their very earnest pleadings in Court that any hack that would work on a 5c would work on damn-nigh-anything, and b) their clear annoyance that nobody will tell them how this 5c got hacked I would conclude c) there's is a fairly good chance (25% or more) that any hack that works on the Secure Enclave-less 5c will work on a more modern iPhone. Regardless, the technique the government actually used (pay a random hacker five-figures per phone) will work really on pretty much any phone Apple ever designs. There will always be hundreds of any model Apple puts out sitting in evidence rooms waiting to be cracked, so you can make million$ quite easily if you know a way around their security.
I'm not sure we really disagree. here. My point to the OP was that whether Apple hacks this phone has no effect on the odds that anyone-else's phone will get hacked. Somebody will always have the special bullets that shatter the Apple ecosystem's security
The six-digit passcode is all numbers, so even assuming the FBI hack tests numbers at the same rate with the six digit passcode it's a work-week sitting at a computer trying the codes.
As for the 8-digit one, it's classic security theatre. Yes, if massive numbers of the population decided to remember a password like FGpo5J:a that would be effective. But you and I both know that is not what's going to happen. What's going to happen is that when the FBI runs the "1,000 most common password" list from some blackhat on the darkweb they'll crack a huge proportion of phones, and if you up to a million (or the number you have to try to get that 6-digit) then you;ve got damn near everybody.
As for the $15k, remember how much they were offering Apple? $100k.
The government can hack your iPhone 5c at will. The nightmare scenario, where the NS-fucking-A can crack any passcode on any 5c it gets it's hands on in under half-an-hour, is real life. On an iPhone 5c your privacy is self-delusion. So if the kid had a 5c, then the only thing Apple protects by not hacking the phone is a) their budget (hacking ain't free), and b) your strong emotional need to continue the pretense.
OTOH, there's no indication of the model the kid used. And it's theoretically possible the FBI's San Bernardino hack/the hackers who told the FBI about it/etc. don't work on newer models.
I suspect Apple technically currently has no way to unlock the phone. They almost certainly could build the tool that would allow them to unlock the phone fairly quickly/cheaply, but you don't fight the FBI quote that hard over a terrorist's phone if your chief engineer could just fire up the ol' hacking program and do the deed.
The US Government clearly has a tool that will work on the iPhone 5c, but a) this guys is Italian not American, and b) there doesn't seem to be any info on what precise model his kid was using. a) is possible easy to get around (if the Italian security services asked for the tool they'd almost certainly get it, and then they could use it on the dead kid's phone), but with no data on either the phone;s model or how the FBI's tool does what it does...
The FBI hacked the San Bernardino phone already. That means the FBI/NSA/etc. have the ability to hack pretty much any 5c, themselves, with a rubber-stamp warrant (if they plan on using the evidence in Court), or no oversight whatsoever (if they're only planning on droning their poor victim) on any 5c (and from Apple's court filings, a hack that worked on the 5c was uncomfortably likely to work on more recent models as well).
What are the odds the guy who sold the hack to the FBI isn't in negotiations with the Chinese, the Russians, the Angolans, the Emiratis, etc.?
Apple won the battle they actually chose to fight (they weren't forced to hack their own tech), but they lost the battle for iPhone 5c privacy completely. By saying no to this guy they protect nothing because there is nothing left to protect.
Strictly speaking he didn't get convicted until 2012.
So the FBI couldn't find jack in the late 50s, then some local prosecutor (from the article, I'd guess a County Prosecutor) decided to close the case, this poor guy a) was fired from a job for a reported statutory rape (the crime he was convicted of seems to be attempting to seduce her, but not actually seducing her), b) did not actually have any of the paperwork he'd used to establish his alibi in 1957 because that was 55 fucking years ago, and c) gave off a really weird confused vibe when the cops demanded he start spilling the beans about a 55-year-old-murder.
It seems like they actually had these records at trial, but they were excluded by the trial judge, and that's both how he got convicted and how he won his appeal.
No, my original argument was that the implication of Runaway56's original argument was that every-damn-thing, including gun rights, are racist. To quote myself:
Moreover, by that standard gun rights are also racist
Note the "by that standard".
Since then my argument has been that the relationship between gun rights and liberty, and particularly African-American liberty, is extremely fucking complicated. Much more complicated then gun rights guys like to admit. On the one hand, they allow a righteous population to heroically resist an oppressive government. On the other, in these United States in reality that has not happened since the Revolution.
And what has happened is much more ambiguous. As far as I can tell, the only "heroically resisting population" gun guys haven't actively disowned is the population of a small, segregated, Tennessee County who rebelled because the local Sheriff was rigging the election. Conspicuously, they did not desegregate the County.
That said, if the Feds are likely to back a black guy up, then using a firearm on potential oppressors is a good idea. Problem is the last Republican president spent 8 years prosecuting no crimes of this nature, and the current leader for the Republican nod likes to a) not discourage political violence, while b) not telling white supremacists to fuck off.
Doesn't this indicate that the Fir Bolg weren't wiped out and that their descendants are alive and well in modern Ireland?
That's pretty much the only hypothesis that makes any damn sense.
Celtic languages are Indo-European languages. Starting in 4000 BCE or so the Indo-Europeans conquered a huge swathe of the world, including Bangladesh, Ireland, and Sweden. If the various conquering Indo-European tribes had a policy of extermination one would expect it to be a wee bit harder to tell those groups apart.
The summary is bullshit. It was quite clearly written by someone who does not know what Celtic means. The news is that somebody human butchered a bear in Ireland several thousand years before we thought there were people to butcher bears in Ireland.
It's highly doubtful that person had anything to do with the Celts as a) in this time period Celts did not actually exist, and b) their very distant ancestors would have been thousands of miles away in the Donbass or Turkey at this point in history.
I suspect that whomever it is was closely related to the groups that occupied Ireland prior to the Celtic arrival in Ireland, which was much more recent. The Romans actually have recorded history from when the Celts showed up in Ireland, albeit they were quite far from the Irish action so they didn't write down anything about the Celtic conquest of the island.
Ever heard of the a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_Urheimat_hypotheses">Indo-Europeans? Better known by the pseudoscientific Nazi version of their name Aryans?
Their language is the forebear of many many many languages spoken between Burma and the Atlantic. The Persians, Romantic languages, Germanic languages, Slavic Languages, many Indian languages, etc. are all descended from Proto-Indo-European. The Celtic languages are in this family. Apparently somewhere in the middleish of this huge area (depending on the scientist it could be Ukraine-ish, somewhere in Turkey, or the Balkans, the Proto-Indo-Europeans didn't figure out how to write shit down for a couple very important millennia so there's a lot of educated guessing involved), in the 4000s BCE or slightly earlier, the speakers of Proto-Indo-European invented a lot of horse, wagon, and chariot related gear and proceeded to conquer the aforementioned huge area. They apparently either didn't engage in mass genocide, or didn't succeed at mass genocide, because it's pretty obvious that the Swedes and Bangledeshis had different ancestors in 4000 BCE even tho their language was only spoken by a single small region at that time.
As the Celts are one of the off-shoots of the Indo-Europeans it is not anywhere near accurate to say this article claims there were Celts in Ireland in 12,500 BCE. There were no Celts at all in 12,5000 BCE, and the closest thing you'd find to them (the people that would become the people that would become the people etc. etc. that would become Indo-Europeans who would become Proto-Celts who would become Celts) were nowhere near Ireland.
What they found was evidence a human was on the island in 12,500 BCE.
Dude, nobody in the South owned manufacturing. That's kind of one of the defining differences between the sides. Even today companies like Colt and Smith and Wesson have most of their facilities in New England, despite the fact their customer base is disproportionately southern, Appalachian, and Western.
So, to the extent anybody could have made weapons on a mass scale in the south during this period it probably would have been Northern carpet-baggers.
Now: The pro-civil-rights government, including an organized militia, were ineffective at stopping what was basically the vestiges of the previous regime from repressing people who were mostly unarmed. You conclude that this means private firearm ownership is bad. I conclude that this is more about the hazards of regime change, and leaving a liberated underclass without effective means of protecting their new (and vulnerable!) rights. Given how much of the situation depended on the oppressive, racist minority having a huge fraction of the property, and on the recently-liberated majority having little property and few guns, I think my viewpoint is a lot easier to support than yours. The same outcome just isn't likely to occur in a different situation, so I don't see how it argues against private firearm ownership in general.
That's a different argument from the one you started with, which was, to quote both my original statement and your response: Me: Moreover, by that standard gun rights are also racist. You remember that time the black Majorities of South Carolina and Mississippi somehow managed to lose elections with universal suffrage to pro-Jim Crow white minorities? Could not have happened if the Feds had seized all privately owned firearms in those states after the Civil War.
You: Government usually prefers to have a monopoly on effective tools of force. Gun rights mitigate that monopoly.
You clearly had no fucking clue that Jim Crow was established by non-governmental paramilitary forces, or that guys like Adelbert Ames had official offices under the State of Mississippi. You'd read a couple sources from gun-rights robots who manage to pontificate pretentiously on the nature of freedom without ever knowing what the fuck they're talking about.
For the black community, gun rights are complex as fuck. In theory they can potent blacks from white oppression. In practice they tend to fail miserably whenever a sufficiently high-ranking white person decides that backing up this particular black guy is politically disadvantageous. This is because a) blacks have less money to buy the really good guns, and b) there are less of them so a white militia will tend to run through them like a hot knife through butter unless the local Colonel is willing to back them up. In this case it's quite clear that it would have been virtually impossible for a gun-free Alabama (or a gun-only-at-official-militia HQ Alabama) to switch from Civil Rights to Jim Crow because there simply wouldn't have been a mechanism for the pre-Civil War power structure to use to restore itself.
You're really good at fake straw men. And by "fake," I mean so stupid that anyone with the IQ of cheese thinks you're crazy.
I have said jack-fucking squat about 2016's gun policy, you're bringing that up solely because you've been completely and utterly defeated on your repeated claims that the creation of Jim Crow laws was a result of some mythical white supremacist 1872 state governments.
As for what I think the Feds should have done back then, you're reading way too much into what I said. I didn't say the number one solution to the problem would have been mass confiscation of firearms, I said it's one solution that would have worked. I've also pointed out that your solution (private ownership of firearms) is what the one they actually tried, and Jim Crow was the result of it's complete and utter failure.
My actual solution could be anything. Sherman's policy of expropriating almost all Southern land, or stronger support for state militias, or the end of all state militias and a strong Federal military presence, a stronger Judicial system capable of preventing electoral shenanigans and aggressively pursuing charges against white supremacist paramilitaries, etc. Given that it's quite literally history, I feel no need to actually have a single preferred solution.
Didn't you just spend a considerable bit of time telling me about how things perceived by one person are not perceived by another? Just because you didn't hear about it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. This article describes research that claims enormous bias in social studies (social psychology here):
Dude, this is another Non sequitur
A non sequitur is something which is irrelevant to the current point. When we have social psychology faculty discriminating to an extraordinary degree against conservative beliefs at the faculty level (which I might add grossly violates one of the core principles of a college, encouraging the free exchange of ideas - this is not a walking on grass minor violation), it stretches credulity to claim that they similarly won't discriminate against their students on the same basis.
How would they do that?
These are 18-year-olds. They couldn't vote for either Romney nor Obama, and even if they were strongly one way or the other there's no place to put that on the application.
And let's mention your very last sentence:
Says the guy who insisted that evidence of political bias in hiring PhDs was evidence of political bias in admitting undergrads.
And you don't? Really?
Like I said, it's pretty much impossible to think of a mechanism for that, and even if you supply one you;re gonna have to come up with some evidence befvore I start taking you seriously.
So your response to my pointing out the implication of your argument is that racism is true (as is shown by lower admission rates), is to offer another proof that racism is true (as is shown by lower graduation rates).
And your solution to the problem is not "let's try to figure out what we can do to fix this," it's to say "well I guess racism is true."
Maybe if you read what I actually wrote? Because I didn't write that.
K-12 education is what needs to be fixed here (as well as a number of other things that tend to target young blacks like minimum wage laws and the war on drugs). Colleges can't do that much about things they don't control by definition.
It's interesting you bring those up in the conversation now because you never mentioned them before. Moving the goalposts is one thing, building your own damn field three counties over and declaring you'd actually been playing there the whole damn time is quite another.
As for "things that target young blacks," rich whites eager to pay sub-minimum-wage wages tend to be much more incensed about the impact of the minimum wage on the black community then actual blacks. They do tend to hate the War on Drugs (*or at least certain elements of it, like stop-and-frisk and sentencing disparities).
Allow me to be blunt:
That's how science works all the time. Everybody always thinks they know how the experiment will go, and they all have a plan to get maximum exposure so that their colleagues will hear their names and their careers will grow. By arguing otherwise you indicate that your uinderstanding of science is based entirely on what your fifth-grade teacher told you.
This is the second dumbest thing you've said to date. We have evidence, which I quoted, that Cook was already confident what the conclusion was going to be and already planning how to market that result to the public as naked propaganda. That's a huge amount of demonstrated bias before the research even started, not a "scientists have to self-promote too".
So has pretty much every experimenter, before pretty much every experiment ever. You don't go to Principe to wait for a 410-second eclipse with a specialized camera unless you have a damn strong opinion on what said camera will get
Slashdot Mirror
Nope.
Facebook actually has no control over who gets what money, who posts what, etc. They will issue a 1099K to anyone who gets a "tip" from another Facebook user, not the 1099-MISC Uber drivers get.
OTOH Uber used to control which rides a driver could actually do through it's app, insist that they take them all via deactivation threat, etc.
Even things like banning drivers who turn down too many rides? That's not an independent contractor - an independent contractor has the right to determine which rides they will take without repercussion
Umm...I'm the last person who'd defend Uber, however I don't see what the problem is there? If my business relied on contractors, I'd also favour the ones who showed themselves to be more reliable to take the work when it was available.
They also have a vested interest here, as it stops hobby drivers just creaming off the most profitable jobs and allows their dedicated drivers to more easily make a living. This is one of the reasons it's illegal for regulated taxis to turn down a fare (in the UK at least).
Ahh, a Brit. Divided by a common language in legal terms as usual.
In the US a contractor is supposed to be someone who a) has his own equipment, b) has his own business (ie: his own accountant, office, etc.), and c) takes jobs on a contract basis. If you've got a system where the contractor owns equipment (leased through Uber), uses Uber's statements for his financials, and thinks he has to take any work Uber offers that's by definition not a contractor. In fact if a driver HAS to take a job or he won;t get6 another job trhat triggers two of the three IRS Tests for skeezy-assholes trying to pass their employees as contractors to avoid labor laws. It violates the "Behavioral test" because it implies that the boss has a level of control over the driver then is typical in contractor relationships, and it violates the third "type of relationship" test because it codifies the idea that there is an on-going relationship. In theory a contractor is supposed to have a series of one-off contracts with completely different people, not a permanent gig.
In other words if Uber is contracting with drivers it has to treat them like independent businesses, and independent businesses are supposed to do shit to each-opther like cream off the most profitable routes.
That would be tricky.
The problem is that Uber has a lot of control over what it's drivers do because it deactivates (ie: fires) them for shit like refusing a fare or pissing management off. That makes it very tricky for them to get the IRS tests for employee or contractor to say contractor, which means that they are on the hook for a variety of things including the employer half of their driver's self-employment taxes. Since all 50 states have their own employee/contractor rules, with their own employee/contractor tests, and their own legal ramifications if you classify somebody wrongly it gets very complicated very quickly.
Under the settlement they pay current drivers off, and agree to a number of concessions that give Uber management significantly less control over how an individual Uber driver works. In particular they can't basically force a driver to accept a ride by including algorithms that fire him if he refuses to take a certain number of rides, they can't fire them for no reason, there's a whole Appeals Process, etc. There's also a lot more transparency regarding discipline, which is good because one of their problems was that when you asked them "are you doing thing x to your drivers that would insta-convert them to employees and fuck your business model?" Uber would have reams of paperwork saying "Hell no," and then you'd ask the drivers and they'd say "Hell yes." And if your contractors act like employees because they think you'll fire them if they don;t act like employees they are employees.
Very flawed understanding of Original Classification Authority: Yes she can declare anything classified by her dept as unclassified, but she has to document the declassification. Unless she can provide the declassification/downgrade records the information was not correctly declassified. She can't declassify without telling anyone because that leaves the information still classified. It must be documented so that someone else then caught with the info can then prove that the data was declassified. OCA isn't a license to do whatever you want, it still has strict procedures and requirements.
Spoken like a true Civil Service employee, with a bureaucrat's understanding of a) the architecture of the top of the Executive branch, and b) the behavior of the other branches. In this case we're talking about a criminal prosecution, so the the Judicial branch is pretty much the only one that matters.
All those classification procedures you mention are Executive Orders. To an employee of the Executive Branch they are the gospel. To everyone else, especially the Judiciary, they are simply instructions the President has given his people. Which means that, for the purposes of charging a non-Civil Service Presidential Appointee with a crime in said Judiciary you need a case that's a little stronger then "this is a violation of Executive Order X." The Courts enforce statutes (and, of course, the Constitution, but they spend a lot more time on statutes then the Constitution), and the statute does not include a requyirement that the head of an agency that classified material follow any procedure whatsoever when she declassifies the material. That particular law simply does not exist at the statute-level, and if we're talking about Court (as we are in the Clinton case) that means it does not exist at all.
In terms of statutes that exist you're gonna have trouble finding one she violated. The closest I've heard of is this one, and it's very tricky because one of the operative words is "unauthorized." As I've said, the Constitution indicates that anything Hillary Clinton does in the State Department that is not banned by statute, and is supported by the President, is by definition "authorized." Another is "knowingly." If Hillary didn't know info was classified, or she thought she was allowed to keep it on an email server secured in her basement, or both she did not break that law.
Which means to get that misdemeanor you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a) the info was actually classified when she mis-stored it, b) she should have known storing it on a private email server was mis-storing it despite the fact two previous Secretaries of State did the same damn thing, and c) at least one of those pieces of info was classified by somebody outside her department, etc.
"In this case all Classified information is Classified by the Executive Branch, which means the guy who runs the Executive Branch (Obama), and his closest advisers (like Clinton) by definition are the guys who decide whether something is Classified, and therefore they can declassify shit simply by talking about it. Legally speaking much of the case against Clinton will collapse in Court simply because most shit that was on her server, and was classified, was classified by the state department, using her authority as Secretary of State."
That's some fundamentally flawed understanding of classification authority. Let's go backwards first. A lot of the classified information was classified by other agencies, so the case collapsing because some or most of it is from the State department is spurious.
I don't believe you've disagreed with me.
There is not much real world difference between "much of the cases" collapsing and "a lot of it" not collapsing. It's a matter of emphasis.
Also how the Judge is likely to call the balls and strikes on the rest of the case. A prosecutor who tries to charge a major political candidate months before the election with a docket that includes any charges that are by definition not crimes is gonna not gonna get a lot of the close calls to go his way.
Next, not even the original classifying agency can declassify something without discussing it with other agencies.
True in terms of inter-agency DC politics.
But if you think a anybody would go to jail for releasing info the DoD had classified three years ago, changed it's mind about six months ago, neglected to get the paperwork from higher-ups you've clearly never met a Jury.
And since this is a criminal investigation, the only legal standard that matters is the "would a Jury think it was so damaging she should go to jail" standard.
Finally, under the law, the President delegates classification authority to the agencies. The President can not declassify something on a whim, they must ask the agency to declassify it. The agency head can decline to do so; but theoretically the President could just fire the head of the agency and keep doing so until someone agrees to.
You're gonna actually have to cite the law here. If it's a statute name the statute.
I suspect you're talking about an Executive Order, probably this one, and in this context an Executive Order is meaningless because of the way the government is designed. Why? Because an Executive Order is a statement saying what the President thinks should be done. If the President goes out and does something using a different procedure then he laid out in the Executive order he has not actually violated the law, because he has unilateral authority to change his Executive Orders anytime he likes.
And does that apply to Hillary Clinton to? Of course, if Obama says he trusts her.
It's really surprising to me how much Americans can say they care about how their government works, and then display absolutely no fucking knowledge of it despite the fact 100% of us can quote the Constitution verbatim for significant passages.
For example, it is by definition impossible to create a system where 100% of the rules that apply to most people apply to the guy who makes the rules, because one of the rules is "only that guy can change the rules." In this case all Classified information is Classified by the Executive Branch, which means the guy who runs the Executive Branch (Obama), and his closest advisers (like Clinton) by definition are the guys who decide whether something is Classified, and therefore they can declassify shit simply by talking about it. Legally speaking much of the case against Clinton will collapse in Court simply because most shit that was on her server, and was classified, was classified by the state department, using her authority as Secretary of State. The "yeah I declassified that shit without telling anyone" will work fine because the reason that shit was classified in the first place was her signature.
As for the other guys, they leaked to the media. Despite the fact the media has everyone brainwashed into thinking that a low-level government employee is not breaking the law if he leaks info to the media, this is not the case. It has never been the case. It has always been the case that the newsie gets a promotion, a Pulitzer, and a raise while his source gets jail-time unless President does some truly amazing unethical shit to rig his trial.
AppleTV's 2007. The G4 Cube was 15 years, 10 months ago in June 2000, and the Summary says "15 years or so."
As for the iPod, the kind of category-defining success you're talking about when you bring that up is quite rare even for them. Most of their product launches since then have been updates to existing product lines (ie: the MacBook Air is a new Mac laptop, not a totally new category of device). They're 2 for four in true-category-dxefining hardware. iPad and iPhone vs. Apple TV and Apple Watch. It's one of those things where people remember the hits, remember that when they update a hit it tends to go really well, and totally forget the failures
They've had quite a few products that were total market failures. I loved my Newton, especially the 130 with that cool backlight, I wanted a Pippin (console collaboration with Bandai), the original Apple TV (an all-in-one-Perfiorma with a black case and a TV Tuner card), etc. were complete failures in the market. Even in the Jobs era the new Apple TV was described by Cook as a "hobby" rather then a product. The G4 cube was incredibly cool-looking, but also more then a bit useless.
I'm sure they'd prefer to sell out of Watches in 10 minutes like they do new iPhone models, but they always take design/tech risks and those don't always pan out. In this case the tech seems to be fine, the problem is the tech is not terribly useful because nobody's figured out a way to design the tech in such a way you can actually take advantage of it.
It takes real talent to fail at being a rules lawyer when you're talking about the legal system.
There is no Constitutional principle that the designer of a product has to asked permission before law enforcement circumvents it's security features. If there was Kwikset would have to be consulted every time they broke down a door. In fact Apple's entire case against the FBI was all about it's absolute right to have absolutely nothing to do with hacking this particular phone.
"Lawfully authorized" clearly means that the Search is legal. If the Search was not lawfully authorized there's massive Constitutional issues, which are a wee bit more important then the DMCA.
There's an "Encryption Research" exception that allows to develop products to sell legally is perfectly legal under the DMCA. Since the FBI cannot be sued under the DMCA under any circumstances (there's a whole "Law Enforcement" clause that says so), they are allowed to buy the encryption-cracking product and use it on any device they have the Legal Power to search. So neither the company (which is, IIRC, actually in israel making prosecution for DMCA-violations rather tricky), nor the FBI can be penalized under the DMCA.
In general, there's absolutely no way for a scenario of this kind to ever happen. The whole architecture of the government is that their legal abilities (called "Powers") are completely different from that of a private citizen's (called "Rights"), so a law giving them the capital-P-Power to send your ass to jail for hacking is almost always gonna have jack-squat effect on the government's ability to do hacking.
The Feds/Army/etc. still can be restricted by Acts of Congress (to an extent -- if the Constitution grants the Executive or the Judicial a capital-P-Power Congress can't undo that by statute), but the Act that affects your Rights as a private citizen is not gonna be the one that affects their Powers as the government.
The way the law applies to the government is completely different then the way it applies to you because the government has Powers and you have Rights. In this case they are proceeding as part of a lawful investigation. That means they are using their capital-P-Power of "Search," and the only laws that restricts their use of that power are the ones governing that power. So Fourth Amendment, a bunch of case law, some statutes that explicitly deal with law enforcement, etc. unless there's some clause of the DMCA that says "and this means that search warrants can't circumvent encryption" you're barking up the wrong tree.
And if you read the actual law everybody's safe. It explicitly does not apply to law enforcement. It does not apply to reverse engineering, encryption research, or security testing.
That's why I only mentioned the 5c, altho judging from a) their very earnest pleadings in Court that any hack that would work on a 5c would work on damn-nigh-anything, and b) their clear annoyance that nobody will tell them how this 5c got hacked I would conclude c) there's is a fairly good chance (25% or more) that any hack that works on the Secure Enclave-less 5c will work on a more modern iPhone. Regardless, the technique the government actually used (pay a random hacker five-figures per phone) will work really on pretty much any phone Apple ever designs. There will always be hundreds of any model Apple puts out sitting in evidence rooms waiting to be cracked, so you can make million$ quite easily if you know a way around their security.
I'm not sure we really disagree. here. My point to the OP was that whether Apple hacks this phone has no effect on the odds that anyone-else's phone will get hacked. Somebody will always have the special bullets that shatter the Apple ecosystem's security
The six-digit passcode is all numbers, so even assuming the FBI hack tests numbers at the same rate with the six digit passcode it's a work-week sitting at a computer trying the codes.
As for the 8-digit one, it's classic security theatre. Yes, if massive numbers of the population decided to remember a password like FGpo5J:a that would be effective. But you and I both know that is not what's going to happen. What's going to happen is that when the FBI runs the "1,000 most common password" list from some blackhat on the darkweb they'll crack a huge proportion of phones, and if you up to a million (or the number you have to try to get that 6-digit) then you;ve got damn near everybody.
As for the $15k, remember how much they were offering Apple? $100k.
I really don't get this attitude.
The government can hack your iPhone 5c at will. The nightmare scenario, where the NS-fucking-A can crack any passcode on any 5c it gets it's hands on in under half-an-hour, is real life. On an iPhone 5c your privacy is self-delusion. So if the kid had a 5c, then the only thing Apple protects by not hacking the phone is a) their budget (hacking ain't free), and b) your strong emotional need to continue the pretense.
OTOH, there's no indication of the model the kid used. And it's theoretically possible the FBI's San Bernardino hack/the hackers who told the FBI about it/etc. don't work on newer models.
I suspect Apple technically currently has no way to unlock the phone. They almost certainly could build the tool that would allow them to unlock the phone fairly quickly/cheaply, but you don't fight the FBI quote that hard over a terrorist's phone if your chief engineer could just fire up the ol' hacking program and do the deed.
The US Government clearly has a tool that will work on the iPhone 5c, but a) this guys is Italian not American, and b) there doesn't seem to be any info on what precise model his kid was using. a) is possible easy to get around (if the Italian security services asked for the tool they'd almost certainly get it, and then they could use it on the dead kid's phone), but with no data on either the phone;s model or how the FBI's tool does what it does...
Apparently they did.
They had it set so either his handprint or the kid's could open up the phone.
But the battery died, so it actually turned off, and to get through the booting-after-turning-on process they apparently need a passcode.
The FBI hacked the San Bernardino phone already. That means the FBI/NSA/etc. have the ability to hack pretty much any 5c, themselves, with a rubber-stamp warrant (if they plan on using the evidence in Court), or no oversight whatsoever (if they're only planning on droning their poor victim) on any 5c (and from Apple's court filings, a hack that worked on the 5c was uncomfortably likely to work on more recent models as well).
What are the odds the guy who sold the hack to the FBI isn't in negotiations with the Chinese, the Russians, the Angolans, the Emiratis, etc.?
Apple won the battle they actually chose to fight (they weren't forced to hack their own tech), but they lost the battle for iPhone 5c privacy completely. By saying no to this guy they protect nothing because there is nothing left to protect.
Strictly speaking he didn't get convicted until 2012.
So the FBI couldn't find jack in the late 50s, then some local prosecutor (from the article, I'd guess a County Prosecutor) decided to close the case, this poor guy a) was fired from a job for a reported statutory rape (the crime he was convicted of seems to be attempting to seduce her, but not actually seducing her), b) did not actually have any of the paperwork he'd used to establish his alibi in 1957 because that was 55 fucking years ago, and c) gave off a really weird confused vibe when the cops demanded he start spilling the beans about a 55-year-old-murder.
It seems like they actually had these records at trial, but they were excluded by the trial judge, and that's both how he got convicted and how he won his appeal.
No, my original argument was that the implication of Runaway56's original argument was that every-damn-thing, including gun rights, are racist. To quote myself:
Moreover, by that standard gun rights are also racist
Note the "by that standard".
Since then my argument has been that the relationship between gun rights and liberty, and particularly African-American liberty, is extremely fucking complicated. Much more complicated then gun rights guys like to admit. On the one hand, they allow a righteous population to heroically resist an oppressive government. On the other, in these United States in reality that has not happened since the Revolution.
And what has happened is much more ambiguous. As far as I can tell, the only "heroically resisting population" gun guys haven't actively disowned is the population of a small, segregated, Tennessee County who rebelled because the local Sheriff was rigging the election. Conspicuously, they did not desegregate the County.
That said, if the Feds are likely to back a black guy up, then using a firearm on potential oppressors is a good idea. Problem is the last Republican president spent 8 years prosecuting no crimes of this nature, and the current leader for the Republican nod likes to a) not discourage political violence, while b) not telling white supremacists to fuck off.
Doesn't this indicate that the Fir Bolg weren't wiped out and that their descendants are alive and well in modern Ireland?
That's pretty much the only hypothesis that makes any damn sense.
Celtic languages are Indo-European languages. Starting in 4000 BCE or so the Indo-Europeans conquered a huge swathe of the world, including Bangladesh, Ireland, and Sweden. If the various conquering Indo-European tribes had a policy of extermination one would expect it to be a wee bit harder to tell those groups apart.
The summary is bullshit. It was quite clearly written by someone who does not know what Celtic means. The news is that somebody human butchered a bear in Ireland several thousand years before we thought there were people to butcher bears in Ireland.
It's highly doubtful that person had anything to do with the Celts as a) in this time period Celts did not actually exist, and b) their very distant ancestors would have been thousands of miles away in the Donbass or Turkey at this point in history.
I suspect that whomever it is was closely related to the groups that occupied Ireland prior to the Celtic arrival in Ireland, which was much more recent. The Romans actually have recorded history from when the Celts showed up in Ireland, albeit they were quite far from the Irish action so they didn't write down anything about the Celtic conquest of the island.
Ever heard of the a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_Urheimat_hypotheses">Indo-Europeans? Better known by the pseudoscientific Nazi version of their name Aryans?
Their language is the forebear of many many many languages spoken between Burma and the Atlantic. The Persians, Romantic languages, Germanic languages, Slavic Languages, many Indian languages, etc. are all descended from Proto-Indo-European. The Celtic languages are in this family. Apparently somewhere in the middleish of this huge area (depending on the scientist it could be Ukraine-ish, somewhere in Turkey, or the Balkans, the Proto-Indo-Europeans didn't figure out how to write shit down for a couple very important millennia so there's a lot of educated guessing involved), in the 4000s BCE or slightly earlier, the speakers of Proto-Indo-European invented a lot of horse, wagon, and chariot related gear and proceeded to conquer the aforementioned huge area. They apparently either didn't engage in mass genocide, or didn't succeed at mass genocide, because it's pretty obvious that the Swedes and Bangledeshis had different ancestors in 4000 BCE even tho their language was only spoken by a single small region at that time.
As the Celts are one of the off-shoots of the Indo-Europeans it is not anywhere near accurate to say this article claims there were Celts in Ireland in 12,500 BCE. There were no Celts at all in 12,5000 BCE, and the closest thing you'd find to them (the people that would become the people that would become the people etc. etc. that would become Indo-Europeans who would become Proto-Celts who would become Celts) were nowhere near Ireland.
What they found was evidence a human was on the island in 12,500 BCE.
Dude, nobody in the South owned manufacturing. That's kind of one of the defining differences between the sides. Even today companies like Colt and Smith and Wesson have most of their facilities in New England, despite the fact their customer base is disproportionately southern, Appalachian, and Western.
So, to the extent anybody could have made weapons on a mass scale in the south during this period it probably would have been Northern carpet-baggers.
Now: The pro-civil-rights government, including an organized militia, were ineffective at stopping what was basically the vestiges of the previous regime from repressing people who were mostly unarmed. You conclude that this means private firearm ownership is bad. I conclude that this is more about the hazards of regime change, and leaving a liberated underclass without effective means of protecting their new (and vulnerable!) rights. Given how much of the situation depended on the oppressive, racist minority having a huge fraction of the property, and on the recently-liberated majority having little property and few guns, I think my viewpoint is a lot easier to support than yours. The same outcome just isn't likely to occur in a different situation, so I don't see how it argues against private firearm ownership in general.
That's a different argument from the one you started with, which was, to quote both my original statement and your response:
Me:
Moreover, by that standard gun rights are also racist. You remember that time the black Majorities of South Carolina and Mississippi somehow managed to lose elections with universal suffrage to pro-Jim Crow white minorities? Could not have happened if the Feds had seized all privately owned firearms in those states after the Civil War.
You:
Government usually prefers to have a monopoly on effective tools of force. Gun rights mitigate that monopoly.
You clearly had no fucking clue that Jim Crow was established by non-governmental paramilitary forces, or that guys like Adelbert Ames had official offices under the State of Mississippi. You'd read a couple sources from gun-rights robots who manage to pontificate pretentiously on the nature of freedom without ever knowing what the fuck they're talking about.
For the black community, gun rights are complex as fuck. In theory they can potent blacks from white oppression. In practice they tend to fail miserably whenever a sufficiently high-ranking white person decides that backing up this particular black guy is politically disadvantageous. This is because a) blacks have less money to buy the really good guns, and b) there are less of them so a white militia will tend to run through them like a hot knife through butter unless the local Colonel is willing to back them up. In this case it's quite clear that it would have been virtually impossible for a gun-free Alabama (or a gun-only-at-official-militia HQ Alabama) to switch from Civil Rights to Jim Crow because there simply wouldn't have been a mechanism for the pre-Civil War power structure to use to restore itself.
You're really good at fake straw men. And by "fake," I mean so stupid that anyone with the IQ of cheese thinks you're crazy.
I have said jack-fucking squat about 2016's gun policy, you're bringing that up solely because you've been completely and utterly defeated on your repeated claims that the creation of Jim Crow laws was a result of some mythical white supremacist 1872 state governments.
As for what I think the Feds should have done back then, you're reading way too much into what I said. I didn't say the number one solution to the problem would have been mass confiscation of firearms, I said it's one solution that would have worked. I've also pointed out that your solution (private ownership of firearms) is what the one they actually tried, and Jim Crow was the result of it's complete and utter failure.
My actual solution could be anything. Sherman's policy of expropriating almost all Southern land, or stronger support for state militias, or the end of all state militias and a strong Federal military presence, a stronger Judicial system capable of preventing electoral shenanigans and aggressively pursuing charges against white supremacist paramilitaries, etc. Given that it's quite literally history, I feel no need to actually have a single preferred solution.
Didn't you just spend a considerable bit of time telling me about how things perceived by one person are not perceived by another? Just because you didn't hear about it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. This article describes research that claims enormous bias in social studies (social psychology here):
Dude, this is another Non sequitur
A non sequitur is something which is irrelevant to the current point. When we have social psychology faculty discriminating to an extraordinary degree against conservative beliefs at the faculty level (which I might add grossly violates one of the core principles of a college, encouraging the free exchange of ideas - this is not a walking on grass minor violation), it stretches credulity to claim that they similarly won't discriminate against their students on the same basis.
How would they do that?
These are 18-year-olds. They couldn't vote for either Romney nor Obama, and even if they were strongly one way or the other there's no place to put that on the application.
And let's mention your very last sentence:
Says the guy who insisted that evidence of political bias in hiring PhDs was evidence of political bias in admitting undergrads.
And you don't? Really?
Like I said, it's pretty much impossible to think of a mechanism for that, and even if you supply one you;re gonna have to come up with some evidence befvore I start taking you seriously.
So your response to my pointing out the implication of your argument is that racism is true (as is shown by lower admission rates), is to offer another proof that racism is true (as is shown by lower graduation rates).
And your solution to the problem is not "let's try to figure out what we can do to fix this," it's to say "well I guess racism is true."
Maybe if you read what I actually wrote? Because I didn't write that.
K-12 education is what needs to be fixed here (as well as a number of other things that tend to target young blacks like minimum wage laws and the war on drugs). Colleges can't do that much about things they don't control by definition.
It's interesting you bring those up in the conversation now because you never mentioned them before. Moving the goalposts is one thing, building your own damn field three counties over and declaring you'd actually been playing there the whole damn time is quite another.
As for "things that target young blacks," rich whites eager to pay sub-minimum-wage wages tend to be much more incensed about the impact of the minimum wage on the black community then actual blacks. They do tend to hate the War on Drugs (*or at least certain elements of it, like stop-and-frisk and sentencing disparities).
Allow me to be blunt:
That's how science works all the time. Everybody always thinks they know how the experiment will go, and they all have a plan to get maximum exposure so that their colleagues will hear their names and their careers will grow. By arguing otherwise you indicate that your uinderstanding of science is based entirely on what your fifth-grade teacher told you.
This is the second dumbest thing you've said to date. We have evidence, which I quoted, that Cook was already confident what the conclusion was going to be and already planning how to market that result to the public as naked propaganda. That's a huge amount of demonstrated bias before the research even started, not a "scientists have to self-promote too".
So has pretty much every experimenter, before pretty much every experiment ever. You don't go to Principe to wait for a 410-second eclipse with a specialized camera unless you have a damn strong opinion on what said camera will get