If you paid for a PC game, and *DON'T* have a disc in your hand as a result, then you are just a plain old sucker
I worked at a famous AAA publisher for over 10 years. In the early days we joked that the only thing that had to work on the manufactured disc was the installer and patcher, not necessarily the game. Industry wide this joke eventually turned into reality to a large degree, day 1 patches are absolutely planned and necessary.
That said, I download the standalone patchers if available and back them up so that if in another 10 years I feel nostalgic about something I have a chance of installing and patching it to a stable version.
IF Clinton were successfully prosecuted and unable to serve then Kaine would be sworn in. More likely Obama will pardon her to prevent such chaos and enable her to serve.
Doesn't one need to be convicted before a pardon could be granted? Think the DOJ could get its conviction of HRC before Obama left office?
No. Nixon was neither convicted nor impeached when he was pardoned by Ford. Ford wanted to preempt any prosecution.
The first investigation found that she was grossly negligent and irresponsible in her handling of classified material - what they didn't find was 'intent'.
Will the recently arrested NSA "leaker" be let off like her? After all the FBI seems to be saying that so far there was no intent to distribute the classified materials he had at home. So he too is merely guilty of have classified material on a personal computer without permission.
I don't know about that. If they had gone further earlier, we might have a different Democratic nominee. If she were to drop out of the race now, Trump might be up against a write-in Democratic candidate.
No, Clinton / Kaine are the candidates being voted for. There is no other possibility at this point.
IF Clinton were successfully prosecuted and unable to serve then Kaine would be sworn in. More likely Obama will pardon her to prevent such chaos and enable her to serve.
Its the FBI not Trump, the very same FBI that said there was insufficient evidence to file charges not so long ago.
... don't like Hillary because she's a woman...
How delusional. Hillary is despised for many many reason unrelated to her gender. Plus her gender is an advantage, there are far more people voting for her because of her gender than voting against her because of her gender. How sad for feminism, for "equality".
I suppose your company totally gets it and there is never any of the mini-aggressions and put-downs that can erode a female technologist's confidence in her abilities or desire to work at your company, or in the industry in general?
And that never happens to men right? Both men and women are occasional recipients of the joke gone wrong. Both men and women have to deal with a-hole coworkers who try to elevate themselves by denigrating the skills of others. And by men I am including majority white straight men. Everyone gets their feeling hurt one day or another, and its something that should be avoided regardless of gender. But lets not try to manufacture a PC/SJW explanation for the problem of female underrepresentation, assuming that it is a problem and not a natural occurrence, more on that below.
The problem is simple. Many people do not imagine that programming can be something fun and interesting. Many software developers were actually a bit surprised at how much they liked it once they gave it a try, and sometimes these tries were not of their choosing, something school made them do for instance. The heart of the problem is more likely a lack opportunity to make such a personal discovery. In other words things go "wrong" long before someone enters the workplace, the flaw is not in the workplace.
Of course, maybe things aren't going as "wrong" as I just suggested. To do well and to be happy in software development a person needs a certain innate interest in it. As mentioned above we don't always know that this interest exists, it sometimes has to be discovered through experience. But perhaps there is a natural difference in the occurrence of this interest between males and females. I dated a girl for several years that was a software developer, embedded systems. She and her sister grew up in an environment with a dad that built things, who took his daughters to work occasionally, who had them help him make things out in the garage. One daughter discovered an interest, one did not. Is one of these daughters an anomaly, and if so which one? I have a niece and nephew that are fraternal twins. Both grew up being exposed to the outdoors. My niece is the one who wants to go on family camping trips, trips where we hike in and live out of our packs for two or three days, her brother has no interest. Scuba diving is a hobby of mine, while physical it is certainly within the abilities of "average" women. Yet in college where a very inexpensive and truly excellent training program was available through the PE department very few women took the class. Sometimes things require an inherent interest, and what factors into that interest may be biological and not necessarily socially induced. Its premature to say what the natural representation of women in a particular activity is.
Alright, anecdotal evidence is always dodgy,... She was talking to one of the HR types and they felt the need to inform her that there were multiple generations of engineer there, and that some of the older engineers sometimes said things like, "Women don't belong in programming."...
I'm perfectly willing to accept isolated incidents. But the widespread existence of such a sentiment, I have to call BS. As you say, its just an anecdote
I am an old engineer and in 30+ years of software development at various employers, small, medium and large I never saw that sentiment. Were there occasional inappropriate jokes, well from a PC/SJW perspective yes, but the women I knew could give as well as take. And when in a female majority environment the non-PC jokes targeting men came from the women occasionally too, All these jokes whether from males or females, while admittedly not PC, were not offered with malicious intent and were more in the nature of friendly teammates joking around with each other. Everyone, male and female, had their day where they thought something was not funny. Even so, when a team transitioned away from an all male team as that first female member joined, there was either indifference or a supportive sentiment, not a hostile sentiment, when we males got together and talked when we got the news; even in the old days of the mid 1980s.
Were there excessive dating invitations, excessive as in "how many times do you need to hear no", yes. One time I had to have a serious talk with a peer from another team about taking "no for answer" when I found a team member in her cube obviously pissed off about something and she confided in what it was.
I have to admit that one day I made one of my female team members cry. I got her to follow me out of our cubicle farm and into an empty office and I closed the door for privacy. I then told her that of all the people I had worked with these last four years at the company she was the most reliable person I knew. That if it were possible to get something done she was the person I learned to trust more than any other. And the fact that she did this while having to juggle hours around occasionally to take care of things related to her two kids, school events, doctor's appointments, etc made her even more impressive. She cried, gave me a big hug, and then I went for my exit interview with HR since that was my last day. By the way, this was not my unique opinion, she was a highly respected engineer among her peers and management. As I was getting ready to leave I realized I had never shared my opinion with her.
I agree that women have faced challenges over the decades. For several years I dated a female engineer, she worked on embedded software, so I have her perspective to add to my own. And while these many challenges still exist to this day to one degree or another, the "women don't belong in programming" problem is not something I've seen myself or had 30+ years of coworkers mention that they had seen. I'm sure it happened somewhere but such a sentiment is an anomaly not a widespread problem like being asked out on a date too many times.
My opinion as to why the low representation of women exists, I think it is simply that fewer are exposed to it. I initially imagined programming boring, then I had to do a little in school and I discovered it to be a lot of fun, interesting and that I was also good at it. It was literally a life changing revelation. I expect that fewer females are given the chance to make such a personal discovery. So maybe there is a "women don't belong in programming" sentiment, but it would seem to be at home with their family, parents, aunts, uncles, etc than in industry. FWIW that girlfriend I had who did embedded software, her dad had a small manufacturing business and her and her sister grew up around people who made things. Both had the same opportunities to explore, but only she had the curiosity, her sister did not. Programming
Oh OK, it's your childish faith, complete with misanthropy and doomsday scenario. I wonder what you think a camera on wheels can do against your feared Death Asteroid?
In fifty years we went from flying airplanes that were little more than kites with engines attached to landing on the moon and returning safely. You don't think in one or two centuries we could have an effective detection and remediation program? Hint: The math is already worked out. Given sufficient warning (recall the detection capability from a sentence ago) we can place a mass behind the asteroid to slow it down through gravitational attraction (again, detection yielding time to deal with it) and turn a hit into a near miss.
Oh, please. Trump has been playing to the media since day one. Every time the media has finished one cycle Trump comes out with some new outrage and the spotlight is upon him once more.
And the media gleefully accepted the bait and focused on him to the detriment of other candidates. Are you seriously going to say the left leaning media was not gleeful at the mess on the Republican side?
That worked fine for the primaries where Trump's intentional outrageousness played to the Alt-Right and then the Republican base.
No, it did not work fine. The other candidates were quite starved of media coverage and that had an effect. The media were not innocent bystanders, they contributed to the circus.
Trump got more media coverage the all of the other Republican candidates combined. He wanted it that way.
Yes, the point is so did the media.
As far as the lewd remarks on that one video tape, he could have honestly apologized and let it go. We'd have mostly forgotten it already.
Or it could have been revealed during the primary season and we may have had a different republican candidate.
Thank to all the media blunders, Trump is more powerful now than he ever was as a simple business man.
The media made candidate Trump to f*ck with the Republican primary. Then the media destroys Trump in October to ensure Hillary wins. Much of the stuff they are using to destroy him has been around for a long time, the media could have made it public during the early days of the Republican primary but then Hillary might have had a viable opponent.
...what? Ca you substantiate this with facts or is it just your faith?
There used to be some guys who didn't care about a space program. They just wanted to chase chicks and eat. Then one day, a rock came out of the sky and obliterated them and everybody related to them. That was 65 million years ago.
About 50 thousand years ago a rock fell from the sky in Arizona and immediately killed everything for a radius of 20km. Beyond that there were massive fires that caused further death.
The current estimate is that a city killer falls from the sky about every ten thousand years.
How much did all of this mission cost? Does anyone realize how much food that money could have provided to those in need ON THIS PLANET?! We have no business looking off-planet until we learn to live in harmony with THIS planet.. and with each other.
Cleanup and harmony on this planet is furthered by our activity in space. It greatly furthered the development of solar power generation, it provides a lot of data regarding climate change, it provides some of the greatest examples of international cooperation. Space exploration has paid back its costs many times over, creating the economic activity that helps pay for so many earthbound efforts.
And anybody who has done something wrong should know better than to use a fingerprint for unlocking anyway.
That is so severely misinformed. Prisons are full of people who made simple mistakes, who should have "known better" than to leave some particular bit of evidence.
What was this supposed to prove other than that they have a judge who will rubber-stamp any order no matter how appalling?
Actually its probably far more complicated than you suggest. Obtaining a fingerprint from a *suspect* is something that is well established in law. The fact that fingerprints can now be used to unlock certain information does not somehow undo the long established precedent of fingerprint collection and use. While it may be a novel interpretation of "use" its a bit hysterical to characterize it as rubber stamping. Its more a mundane example of the law not keeping up with technology and needing to be updated: that fingerprint use with respect to identification is not self incriminating, but fingerprint use with respect to unlocking is self incriminating. The current law may simply not address the difference and simply refer to use with characterizing the use. If so the failure is in the legislature not necessarily the judiciary.
Re droning him, I'm curious, what the rules of engagement are? He's a fugitive on the run, and arguably a national security threat. Suppose he was droned down . ..
Not going to happen. The only people the US deliberately attacks and kills with drones are members or affiliates of terrorist groups like al Qaida and ISIS. For all of his faults, Assange isn't a terrorist or affiliated with terrorists.
Actually he provided material support by releasing classified US military information in support of terrorists. So a weak affiliated argument could be made. Seriously, other people have been droned for doing nothing more than making videos and speeches supporting terrorists.
It was OK for a while, but once Wikileaks got into the pants of the DNC, Obama decided to either play hard ball, or offer them something.
Obama? I'm sure he'll be glad to be rid of the Clintons and get out of DC. I don't see why he'd lift a finger to protect her reputation. Please he's a lame duck and of no consequence at this point. The only ones to fear at this point are the Clintons. It Ecuador is trying to appease anyone its the Clintons.
Clinton's sleeze goes way back before Lewinsky. That is just where he got caught because evidence was left behind. There are numerous women who claimed to have been *physically* abused and harassed when he was Governor of Arkansas. He settled out of court paying $850K to one former state worker.
So you want some guy who is wrong, maybe doing cocaine, rapes women, and has 0 EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER and is clueless and narcastic.
Some of those qualities did not impede Bill Clinton. That said, I've never endorsed Trump. However I don't fear him, he will be the most ineffective President every IF elected. Presidents who are able to move their agenda forward must have broad support. Trump will not even have support from his own party. We will have the most obstructionist do-nothing Congress ever. However the Supreme Court may be busier than usual quashing executive orders. Well, those that are implemented. The usually course of action will probably be that the military and law enforcement will need to explain that executive orders need to be legal and constitution.
" Lets consider the housing crisis culminating in a broad financial crisis. This crisis was not purely a creation of Wall Street, it was also a creation of government...
Hillary did create the housing crises. In fact the republican led congress did with deregulation before she was a senator
Bill Clinton was responsible for signing that deregulation. Years later as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were seen in financially risky conditions Hillary was one of the great defenders of Bill's actions (deregulation, mandate for low quality loans, etc.) and claimed the institutions were financially sound and healthy. Coincidentally they had donated millions to her. And not so surprisingly they were a major part of the crisis and needed a federal bailout. The financial crisis was not purely a Wall Street creation, Congress had its role, both Bill and Hillary have their fingerprints on it. Again, bad judgement with mandates for low quality loans, bad judgement as to the risk of financial problem at the institutions... she acted entirely politically. Defending allies and supporters and Democratic policies.
" She repeatedly makes decision based on good intentions but fails to anticipate where things might go wrong. That's where people with good instincts differ, not in the good intentions but by seeing where the plan can go astray
Which are?
Well one example might be telling banks to issue low quality loans, and then having a government sponsored entity buy them from the banks so that the banks carry no risk, a person with good judgement might think some sort or unintended consequences might arise, that maybe the wrong thing is being incentivized.
No one is claiming anyone can fix all things, but we do hope that a Secretary of State does not make a bad situation worse. But she has repeatedly demonstrated an ability to do so. That is the problem. Not being dealt a bad hand, but playing that hand badly.
The Russian government has been deliberately and intentionally provoking and antagonizing the west for years now...
Due to our demonstrated weakness and ineptitude, some of that Hillary's.
In what way would war with Russia be a good thing?
War is not the only option, there are other ways to deter Russia.
Iranian nuclear deal - you mean, the multilateral deal Iran reached with Russia, China, Germany, France, the UK, and the US, which dramatically limited Iran's ability to produce weapons-grade nuclear material,...
Russia, China, Gernany, France,... you mean the countries selling equipment and helping to build Iran's nuclear facilities?
The president needs to be one of the smartest people in that roomful of expert advisers - he or she does not need to be a deep expert on every topic, but he or she needs to be capable of listening to expert advisers, asking the right questions and gathering the right information, then making a rational, well-informed decision based on those facts.
And quiz show gotcha-questions neither confirm nor rule out any other the above traits.
Sorry buddy. Would you want a surgeon who doesn't know everything and rely on experts?
Absolutely. I want my surgeon to rely on an anesthesiologist.
The presidency requires someone who can make instant decisions that can have a profound impact at any time. Sounds insane and unrealistic? It is! Look at George W Bush as an example of a president with an above average IQ but not top end?
Hillary made that same decision to go to war. Lets consider the housing crisis culminating in a broad financial crisis. This crisis was not purely a creation of Wall Street, it was also a creation of government. A government that encouraged and bought up low quality home loans. Prior to the crisis when questions were raised about the stability of the system and the various government sponsored entities involved, many Democrats in Congress came to the defense of the agencies and proclaimed that they were strong and healthy. Hillary was one of these. Hillary's quick decision to go to war was wrong. Hillary's quick decision that there was no looming home loan crisis was wrong. Hillary's quick decision to support the idea of government backed low quality loans was also wrong. She repeatedly makes decision based on good intentions but fails to anticipate where things might go wrong. That's where people with good instincts differ, not in the good intentions but by seeing where the plan can go astray. By you own questionable metric she is a failure.
Slashdot Mirror
If you paid for a PC game, and *DON'T* have a disc in your hand as a result, then you are just a plain old sucker
I worked at a famous AAA publisher for over 10 years. In the early days we joked that the only thing that had to work on the manufactured disc was the installer and patcher, not necessarily the game. Industry wide this joke eventually turned into reality to a large degree, day 1 patches are absolutely planned and necessary.
That said, I download the standalone patchers if available and back them up so that if in another 10 years I feel nostalgic about something I have a chance of installing and patching it to a stable version.
IF Clinton were successfully prosecuted and unable to serve then Kaine would be sworn in. More likely Obama will pardon her to prevent such chaos and enable her to serve.
Doesn't one need to be convicted before a pardon could be granted? Think the DOJ could get its conviction of HRC before Obama left office?
No. Nixon was neither convicted nor impeached when he was pardoned by Ford. Ford wanted to preempt any prosecution.
There is no restriction on a President pardoning themselves. So we need to move fast or have there be an impeachment right after she get's in.
IF she wins Obama will pardon her if charged and prevent a prosecution from occurring. Will of the people ... blah blah.
The first investigation found that she was grossly negligent and irresponsible in her handling of classified material - what they didn't find was 'intent'.
Will the recently arrested NSA "leaker" be let off like her? After all the FBI seems to be saying that so far there was no intent to distribute the classified materials he had at home. So he too is merely guilty of have classified material on a personal computer without permission.
I don't know about that. If they had gone further earlier, we might have a different Democratic nominee. If she were to drop out of the race now, Trump might be up against a write-in Democratic candidate.
No, Clinton / Kaine are the candidates being voted for. There is no other possibility at this point.
IF Clinton were successfully prosecuted and unable to serve then Kaine would be sworn in. More likely Obama will pardon her to prevent such chaos and enable her to serve.
Trump and his supporters ...
Its the FBI not Trump, the very same FBI that said there was insufficient evidence to file charges not so long ago.
... don't like Hillary because she's a woman ...
How delusional. Hillary is despised for many many reason unrelated to her gender. Plus her gender is an advantage, there are far more people voting for her because of her gender than voting against her because of her gender. How sad for feminism, for "equality".
I think you replied to the wrong post
I suppose your company totally gets it and there is never any of the mini-aggressions and put-downs that can erode a female technologist's confidence in her abilities or desire to work at your company, or in the industry in general?
And that never happens to men right? Both men and women are occasional recipients of the joke gone wrong. Both men and women have to deal with a-hole coworkers who try to elevate themselves by denigrating the skills of others. And by men I am including majority white straight men. Everyone gets their feeling hurt one day or another, and its something that should be avoided regardless of gender. But lets not try to manufacture a PC/SJW explanation for the problem of female underrepresentation, assuming that it is a problem and not a natural occurrence, more on that below.
The problem is simple. Many people do not imagine that programming can be something fun and interesting. Many software developers were actually a bit surprised at how much they liked it once they gave it a try, and sometimes these tries were not of their choosing, something school made them do for instance. The heart of the problem is more likely a lack opportunity to make such a personal discovery. In other words things go "wrong" long before someone enters the workplace, the flaw is not in the workplace.
Of course, maybe things aren't going as "wrong" as I just suggested. To do well and to be happy in software development a person needs a certain innate interest in it. As mentioned above we don't always know that this interest exists, it sometimes has to be discovered through experience. But perhaps there is a natural difference in the occurrence of this interest between males and females. I dated a girl for several years that was a software developer, embedded systems. She and her sister grew up in an environment with a dad that built things, who took his daughters to work occasionally, who had them help him make things out in the garage. One daughter discovered an interest, one did not. Is one of these daughters an anomaly, and if so which one? I have a niece and nephew that are fraternal twins. Both grew up being exposed to the outdoors. My niece is the one who wants to go on family camping trips, trips where we hike in and live out of our packs for two or three days, her brother has no interest. Scuba diving is a hobby of mine, while physical it is certainly within the abilities of "average" women. Yet in college where a very inexpensive and truly excellent training program was available through the PE department very few women took the class. Sometimes things require an inherent interest, and what factors into that interest may be biological and not necessarily socially induced. Its premature to say what the natural representation of women in a particular activity is.
Alright, anecdotal evidence is always dodgy, ... She was talking to one of the HR types and they felt the need to inform her that there were multiple generations of engineer there, and that some of the older engineers sometimes said things like, "Women don't belong in programming." ...
I'm perfectly willing to accept isolated incidents. But the widespread existence of such a sentiment, I have to call BS. As you say, its just an anecdote
I am an old engineer and in 30+ years of software development at various employers, small, medium and large I never saw that sentiment. Were there occasional inappropriate jokes, well from a PC/SJW perspective yes, but the women I knew could give as well as take. And when in a female majority environment the non-PC jokes targeting men came from the women occasionally too, All these jokes whether from males or females, while admittedly not PC, were not offered with malicious intent and were more in the nature of friendly teammates joking around with each other. Everyone, male and female, had their day where they thought something was not funny. Even so, when a team transitioned away from an all male team as that first female member joined, there was either indifference or a supportive sentiment, not a hostile sentiment, when we males got together and talked when we got the news; even in the old days of the mid 1980s.
Were there excessive dating invitations, excessive as in "how many times do you need to hear no", yes. One time I had to have a serious talk with a peer from another team about taking "no for answer" when I found a team member in her cube obviously pissed off about something and she confided in what it was.
I have to admit that one day I made one of my female team members cry. I got her to follow me out of our cubicle farm and into an empty office and I closed the door for privacy. I then told her that of all the people I had worked with these last four years at the company she was the most reliable person I knew. That if it were possible to get something done she was the person I learned to trust more than any other. And the fact that she did this while having to juggle hours around occasionally to take care of things related to her two kids, school events, doctor's appointments, etc made her even more impressive. She cried, gave me a big hug, and then I went for my exit interview with HR since that was my last day. By the way, this was not my unique opinion, she was a highly respected engineer among her peers and management. As I was getting ready to leave I realized I had never shared my opinion with her.
I agree that women have faced challenges over the decades. For several years I dated a female engineer, she worked on embedded software, so I have her perspective to add to my own. And while these many challenges still exist to this day to one degree or another, the "women don't belong in programming" problem is not something I've seen myself or had 30+ years of coworkers mention that they had seen. I'm sure it happened somewhere but such a sentiment is an anomaly not a widespread problem like being asked out on a date too many times.
My opinion as to why the low representation of women exists, I think it is simply that fewer are exposed to it. I initially imagined programming boring, then I had to do a little in school and I discovered it to be a lot of fun, interesting and that I was also good at it. It was literally a life changing revelation. I expect that fewer females are given the chance to make such a personal discovery. So maybe there is a "women don't belong in programming" sentiment, but it would seem to be at home with their family, parents, aunts, uncles, etc than in industry. FWIW that girlfriend I had who did embedded software, her dad had a small manufacturing business and her and her sister grew up around people who made things. Both had the same opportunities to explore, but only she had the curiosity, her sister did not. Programming
Don't blame the wooden horse, it wasn't self-propelled. Ask who dragged it in through the gate.
The oracles who said it was safe and that it would offend the gods if left outside share the blame. :-)
Oh OK, it's your childish faith, complete with misanthropy and doomsday scenario. I wonder what you think a camera on wheels can do against your feared Death Asteroid?
In fifty years we went from flying airplanes that were little more than kites with engines attached to landing on the moon and returning safely. You don't think in one or two centuries we could have an effective detection and remediation program? Hint: The math is already worked out. Given sufficient warning (recall the detection capability from a sentence ago) we can place a mass behind the asteroid to slow it down through gravitational attraction (again, detection yielding time to deal with it) and turn a hit into a near miss.
Sounds like maybe perhaps their estimating is off.
City killers are smaller than the Arizona meteor.
Oh, please. Trump has been playing to the media since day one. Every time the media has finished one cycle Trump comes out with some new outrage and the spotlight is upon him once more.
And the media gleefully accepted the bait and focused on him to the detriment of other candidates. Are you seriously going to say the left leaning media was not gleeful at the mess on the Republican side?
That worked fine for the primaries where Trump's intentional outrageousness played to the Alt-Right and then the Republican base.
No, it did not work fine. The other candidates were quite starved of media coverage and that had an effect. The media were not innocent bystanders, they contributed to the circus.
Trump got more media coverage the all of the other Republican candidates combined. He wanted it that way.
Yes, the point is so did the media.
As far as the lewd remarks on that one video tape, he could have honestly apologized and let it go. We'd have mostly forgotten it already.
Or it could have been revealed during the primary season and we may have had a different republican candidate.
Thank to all the media blunders, Trump is more powerful now than he ever was as a simple business man.
The media made candidate Trump to f*ck with the Republican primary. Then the media destroys Trump in October to ensure Hillary wins. Much of the stuff they are using to destroy him has been around for a long time, the media could have made it public during the early days of the Republican primary but then Hillary might have had a viable opponent.
There used to be some guys who didn't care about a space program. They just wanted to chase chicks and eat. Then one day, a rock came out of the sky and obliterated them and everybody related to them. That was 65 million years ago.
About 50 thousand years ago a rock fell from the sky in Arizona and immediately killed everything for a radius of 20km. Beyond that there were massive fires that caused further death.
The current estimate is that a city killer falls from the sky about every ten thousand years.
How much did all of this mission cost? Does anyone realize how much food that money could have provided to those in need ON THIS PLANET?! We have no business looking off-planet until we learn to live in harmony with THIS planet.. and with each other.
Cleanup and harmony on this planet is furthered by our activity in space. It greatly furthered the development of solar power generation, it provides a lot of data regarding climate change, it provides some of the greatest examples of international cooperation. Space exploration has paid back its costs many times over, creating the economic activity that helps pay for so many earthbound efforts.
And anybody who has done something wrong should know better than to use a fingerprint for unlocking anyway.
That is so severely misinformed. Prisons are full of people who made simple mistakes, who should have "known better" than to leave some particular bit of evidence.
What was this supposed to prove other than that they have a judge who will rubber-stamp any order no matter how appalling?
Actually its probably far more complicated than you suggest. Obtaining a fingerprint from a *suspect* is something that is well established in law. The fact that fingerprints can now be used to unlock certain information does not somehow undo the long established precedent of fingerprint collection and use. While it may be a novel interpretation of "use" its a bit hysterical to characterize it as rubber stamping. Its more a mundane example of the law not keeping up with technology and needing to be updated: that fingerprint use with respect to identification is not self incriminating, but fingerprint use with respect to unlocking is self incriminating. The current law may simply not address the difference and simply refer to use with characterizing the use. If so the failure is in the legislature not necessarily the judiciary.
Remember, it's going to be viewed as strange in a courtroom if your phone was off when the police arrived.
I "held it wrong" when the police asked for it, it was accidental.
Re droning him, I'm curious, what the rules of engagement are? He's a fugitive on the run, and arguably a national security threat. Suppose he was droned down . . .
Not going to happen. The only people the US deliberately attacks and kills with drones are members or affiliates of terrorist groups like al Qaida and ISIS. For all of his faults, Assange isn't a terrorist or affiliated with terrorists.
Actually he provided material support by releasing classified US military information in support of terrorists. So a weak affiliated argument could be made. Seriously, other people have been droned for doing nothing more than making videos and speeches supporting terrorists.
It was OK for a while, but once Wikileaks got into the pants of the DNC, Obama decided to either play hard ball, or offer them something.
Obama? I'm sure he'll be glad to be rid of the Clintons and get out of DC. I don't see why he'd lift a finger to protect her reputation. Please he's a lame duck and of no consequence at this point. The only ones to fear at this point are the Clintons. It Ecuador is trying to appease anyone its the Clintons.
Clinton's sleeze goes way back before Lewinsky. That is just where he got caught because evidence was left behind. There are numerous women who claimed to have been *physically* abused and harassed when he was Governor of Arkansas. He settled out of court paying $850K to one former state worker.
So you want some guy who is wrong, maybe doing cocaine, rapes women, and has 0 EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER and is clueless and narcastic.
Some of those qualities did not impede Bill Clinton. That said, I've never endorsed Trump. However I don't fear him, he will be the most ineffective President every IF elected. Presidents who are able to move their agenda forward must have broad support. Trump will not even have support from his own party. We will have the most obstructionist do-nothing Congress ever. However the Supreme Court may be busier than usual quashing executive orders. Well, those that are implemented. The usually course of action will probably be that the military and law enforcement will need to explain that executive orders need to be legal and constitution.
" Lets consider the housing crisis culminating in a broad financial crisis. This crisis was not purely a creation of Wall Street, it was also a creation of government. ..
Hillary did create the housing crises. In fact the republican led congress did with deregulation before she was a senator
Bill Clinton was responsible for signing that deregulation. Years later as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were seen in financially risky conditions Hillary was one of the great defenders of Bill's actions (deregulation, mandate for low quality loans, etc.) and claimed the institutions were financially sound and healthy. Coincidentally they had donated millions to her. And not so surprisingly they were a major part of the crisis and needed a federal bailout. The financial crisis was not purely a Wall Street creation, Congress had its role, both Bill and Hillary have their fingerprints on it. Again, bad judgement with mandates for low quality loans, bad judgement as to the risk of financial problem at the institutions ... she acted entirely politically. Defending allies and supporters and Democratic policies.
" She repeatedly makes decision based on good intentions but fails to anticipate where things might go wrong. That's where people with good instincts differ, not in the good intentions but by seeing where the plan can go astray Which are?
Well one example might be telling banks to issue low quality loans, and then having a government sponsored entity buy them from the banks so that the banks carry no risk, a person with good judgement might think some sort or unintended consequences might arise, that maybe the wrong thing is being incentivized.
No one is claiming anyone can fix all things, but we do hope that a Secretary of State does not make a bad situation worse. But she has repeatedly demonstrated an ability to do so. That is the problem. Not being dealt a bad hand, but playing that hand badly.
The Russian government has been deliberately and intentionally provoking and antagonizing the west for years now...
Due to our demonstrated weakness and ineptitude, some of that Hillary's.
In what way would war with Russia be a good thing?
War is not the only option, there are other ways to deter Russia.
Iranian nuclear deal - you mean, the multilateral deal Iran reached with Russia, China, Germany, France, the UK, and the US, which dramatically limited Iran's ability to produce weapons-grade nuclear material, ...
Russia, China, Gernany, France, ... you mean the countries selling equipment and helping to build Iran's nuclear facilities?
The president needs to be one of the smartest people in that roomful of expert advisers - he or she does not need to be a deep expert on every topic, but he or she needs to be capable of listening to expert advisers, asking the right questions and gathering the right information, then making a rational, well-informed decision based on those facts.
And quiz show gotcha-questions neither confirm nor rule out any other the above traits.
Sorry buddy. Would you want a surgeon who doesn't know everything and rely on experts?
Absolutely. I want my surgeon to rely on an anesthesiologist.
The presidency requires someone who can make instant decisions that can have a profound impact at any time. Sounds insane and unrealistic? It is! Look at George W Bush as an example of a president with an above average IQ but not top end?
Hillary made that same decision to go to war. Lets consider the housing crisis culminating in a broad financial crisis. This crisis was not purely a creation of Wall Street, it was also a creation of government. A government that encouraged and bought up low quality home loans. Prior to the crisis when questions were raised about the stability of the system and the various government sponsored entities involved, many Democrats in Congress came to the defense of the agencies and proclaimed that they were strong and healthy. Hillary was one of these. Hillary's quick decision to go to war was wrong. Hillary's quick decision that there was no looming home loan crisis was wrong. Hillary's quick decision to support the idea of government backed low quality loans was also wrong. She repeatedly makes decision based on good intentions but fails to anticipate where things might go wrong. That's where people with good instincts differ, not in the good intentions but by seeing where the plan can go astray. By you own questionable metric she is a failure.