Just last month I finally gave up on Windows Phone/Mobile, having been on it since it was first available on my carrier at the time and am now carrying an Android device running 7.2.
I've been pleasantly surprised by the amount of access I now have to so many little nooks and crannys of the API set on my phone, as well as how well built apps can work together to keep me & my data safe.
One of my biggest laments on Windows Phone (aside from it being abandoned long ago) was that despite (eventually) having a good chunk of Win32 under the hood, as a developer I couldn't touch the fun stuff (even for my own side loaded app) without getting some magic pixie dust from Microsoft which they only give to very select partners, while on Android & iOS, there are many more options.
The disturbing thing to me is that such capabilities also exist through the official app store, where apps can (and do) ask for far more permissions than they need, and each time I hope I click the right side of the screen to not give away too much.
I would argue that of the three... none have it fully right... but each have pieces. Android gives you all of the power out of the box, but at great risk to the owner. Apple gives you no power without jailbreaking, and private 'trusted' deployment relies only on the Enterprise Developer Program... while Windows Phone has package compatibility with tablets & desktops (now), as well as a freaking camera button.
Like it or not, Windows RT was pretty damn secure (I know a couple folks who only use those devices (and nothing else) for online banking), the fact that only MS signed code code run eliminated the risk of entire classes of malware.
At the time, the only way to ensure 3rd party was limited with regards to what it could do was to run within the rather limited sandbox of WinRT, now though, out of a bit of desperation I expect of people not wanting to write full fledged native UWP apps for Windows, they pushed their 'bridges'. The Android one seems to have gone away, iOS -> UWP has worked for a while, and one of these months I'll get around to trying 'Project Centennial' which allows the packaging of regular Win32 apps into a form which can be distributed/updated through their store, but also has some of the same safety benefits of Windows RT.
Every year or two when I burn through another one, they are quick to give me the super router which does everything.. then I send them to the backroom to bring me one that lacks wifi.
-the democratic opposition, such as it was, under bush was neither unprecedented, nor much in the way of oppoisition. clinton faced far worse, for far longer, same as obama.
Nice bit of revisionist history you've got there, lacking any semblance of escalation or root causes.
-thomas? under reagan?
I'm sorry, you are right, it's sometimes hard to keep up with the brilliant minds which the Democrats have kept off the courts. Thomas was under Bush-41... Bork was under Reagan. Don't get me started on Estrada under 43.
-you must mean the sexual harasser who was nominated under bush the first.
We tend to use the term 'alleged' in such cases, baring a conviction. None the less, should he have run for President then? Seems to have worked out for Bill Clinton.
"-if elections had consequences, Hillary would be president."
They do, with certain rules. Odd how those decrying November don't demand Chicago share the world series title with the Indians... after all, the both scored the same number of runs IIRC. Right... rules.
"-the overton window has been moved, exclusively, by conservatives for the past 40 years."
Interesting glasses you've got on. Even hard core lefties I know will admit that the election of Obama with his rather thin resume played a major part in the idea of someone with an even thinner related political resume getting elected. While many were uncomfortable with the sense of dynasty of 2x (possibly 3) Bushes being President, they at least accomplished things on their own... the most you can say for Hillary is that she married well.
I didn't vote for Trump, nor did I support him, but do take a certain joy in the tears and anguish of people like you... to which I say: Enjoy the next 8 years.
Had it gone to a vote, the previous candidate would likely have gotten enough votes for confirmation,
Pure speculation.
hence the reason the leadership was not about to let it go to a vote, nor even go up for debate.
Except for the fact that the leadership serves at the pleasure of the body.
The Constitution says the consent of the Senate, not the consent of the Senate Majority Leader.
Except for the fact that the leadership serves at the pleasure of the body... which are duly elected and able to again, make their own rules under Article I, Section 5, Clause 2... which included the power to do this.
Within reason, certainly.
Which is exactly where they acted.
Nothing in that clause permits the Senate to be derelict in its duty to uphold the Constitution,
Yet you have still failed to cite a demonstrable violation of the constitution during the process... not one. Many attempts were made by smarter legal minds than you... and they also all failed. Even 'constitutional professor' President Obama, who saw the recess appointment vastly curtailed due to his abuse of it (thanks Noel Canning) couldn't do so.
however. In fact, it says the exact opposite.
Which again, you cannot specifically cite. Again, if it is so clear, you'd think you could cite it as I have.
But keep believing your partisan spin.
I'm sorry that you believe that facts are a partisan thing. Your ideology (note the difference) does have a problem with such things.
If Democrats had pulled what the Republicans did, the Republicans would have come completely unhinged,
Possibly, but then that is part of politics.
and would have called for prosecution of the leadership.
Again, pure speculation, as again, neither you nor any advocate of #DoYourJob could cite a specific constitutional or legal requirement for them to do anything with any nomination.
Except it did.
Will you be providing specific evidence of that this time?
The Supreme Court of the U.S. dramatically reduced the number of cases it heard—from an average of about 75 cases in previous years (and 80 in 2015) to only 25 in 2016.
No, no you didn't.
You failed to:
A) Cite WHY they did so, and B) Cite HOW this prevented them from acting as an 'proper check and balance'... which again ignores all of the inferior courts, and
Remember: Like the House & Senate, the Court gets to pick and choose what it works on.
If you're seriously arguing that a factor of three reduction in court throughput isn't a severe breakage, you're kidding yourself.
If we accept what you say is true, which I do not, odd how a 11.1% reduction in justices automatically results in a reduction by a factor of three in case load... if anything, it sounds like you are arguing for Trump & the Republicans to expand the court, bigly so they can handle all of the thousands of appeals it receives every year which go without a high court ruling.
The simple fact is (and will continue to be) that the Senate acted fully within their authority, like it or not.
They did in just the same way a disinterested person in a bar does when they ignore your advances.
They withheld the opportunity to even talk about consent.
Half true... they made rather clear, through their inaction that they did not consent to that nominee at the time... having previously advised the President not to nominate and waste anyone time.
Or, does someone have to give an affirmative "no, I do not want to have sex with you" for you to not receive consent? If so, that would seem to fly in the face of what we keep hearing from anti-rape folks.
That's critically different from a constitutional perspective.
Really? Then you can cite the specific part of the Constitution which lays out the lengthy process for confirming of a SCOTUS nominee? No? Maybe in the federalist papers? Or the Articles of Confederation? Maybe in the writings of a founder or framer?
No? It's as if... the Senate has rather wide latitude... almost as if it's written into the Constitution itself (see Article I, Section 5, Clause 2)!
As for whether they are constitutionally required or not, I would argue that their one job is to vote on issues,
Except the Constitution... and the Senate say otherwise. Again, see Article I, Section 5, Clause 2.
and that refusing to discharge their duties for an entire year
Except they didn't, just as not taking up a bill introduced by a member or acting on whatever particular issue you care about doesn't mean they are refusing their duty's.
particularly in a way that breaks the ability of the highest court in our land to serve as a proper check and balance
Except it didn't... we have existing mechanisms & traditions for handling ties... which not only can happen due to a lengthy vacancy, but something as simple as a recusal.
constitutes a direct violation of their oath of office (Article VI, clause 3). So yes, they are constitutionally required to either provide or decline consent.
Which would be true... if anything you said earlier had any basis in reality, the constitution or the rules of the Senate... all you've got is your ideological opinion which has been shown to be wrong. Not by me, but by the process we've seen over the last couple of years.
they were able to blame the people at the top and avoid taking any responsibility for their failure to do their constitutionally mandated duty.
Except they are not constitutionally required to hold a vote, or a hearing, or even a meeting with a nominee. Their 'consent' is required... and they simply withheld it.
Every single Republican in Congress who did not have the courage to demand a vote last year is a pathetic coward, and deserves no respect whatsoever.
Even those in the House of Representatives, which plays no part in the confirmation of a SCOTUS justice?
Interesting guilt by association you've got there... almost as bad as the "you didn't say _____, so you are bad!"
Standing up in the Senate and telling people they should do something IS NOT THE SAME as actually keeping a seat open until after the election. The Republicans did the latter, and actually *did* it.
Strange, your anger is that the Republicans did what the Democrats threatened to do for years but either never had a chance to act on (in case of Reid's use of the nuclear option), or never got fed up enough to do.
None of this was unprecedented though, just ask Ruben H. Walworth, John M. Read & Edward A. Bradford... just some of nominees to SCOTUS who never got a vote.
Lemme guess... history for you starts in... 2013? With the 'unprecedented' Republican obstruction against Obama's nominees... which forced the hand of Senator Reid to do the not yet triggered Nuclear Option... leaving out SCOTUS nominees because there was not a vacancy.
Some of us remember the Bush era where the nuclear option was first threatened for SCOTUS nominees due to actually unprecedented Democrat obstruction against many court nominees.
Then again, some of us also remember the attempted hi-tech-lynching of Thomas by Democrats under Reagan.
Don't like what happened yesterday? Fine, to quote Obama, "elections have consequences". It's such a shame that the Democrats created the precedent (and even moving of the Overton window) to make it more likely. One can only imagine how Trump will use "I have a pen and a phone"... and I didn't even vote for the guy.
When/where did I say that insubordination is a crime? When did I mention any sort of crime?
More so, courts & law enforcement are involved in far more than just 'crimes'.
You breaking a personal contract with me isn't illegal, and I can go to court and ask the judge to order to you comply, if your refuse you can be subjected to being detained until you do. I could even use the police to seize enough of your property to compensate me for the order.
Having not read the specific complaint seeking the unmasking, I do not know the specific legal justification being cited, but I am pretty certain the Hatch Act would apply for a start.
Wait, they were only looking to be sent chain-mail spam? Boy, sure wish they would have said that, rather than leaving their request rather open to include just about anything which disagreed with the acceptable narrative of the administration... ala wrong-think.
trying to unearth anonymous accounts by private citizens.
Except those private citizens claim to be government employees, who are openly acting in direct opposition to standing and lawful instructions from their superiors with regards to their jobs and the acceptability of speaking on behalf of any part of the department.
Wanna post your personal thoughts during the evening about your employer? Go ahead, become actively insubordinate and/or do so during work hours? Don't be surprised if you suddenly find yourself able to be let go with cause.
Seems like a false equivalence to me.
Seems like you are starting from a pair of false premises to me.
Whether we like it or not, he is President, and as President he gets to set policy for the executive branch... which previously included an order for certain agencies not to provide updates via social media.
While I suspect some of the 'alt' department accounts are simply a fake PR attempt by the 'resistance', if the person running this particular account is an employee of the department in question, then they are very clearly violating the previously mentioned order... which at last check no one has claimed is unlawful.l a result, this person could be subject to penalties by their employer for the same thing which got then deputy-AG Sally Yates fired... insubordination.
Which is worse... going to court to ask for the unmasking of someone acting seemingly unlawfully/in violation of department policies? Or asking the public to snitch on their neighbors and report them for wrong think?
Jack Valenti? Is that you? Probably not... he's been dead for 10 years, but the argument is the same... though about VHS tapes in the home 30 years ago.
By solving the rampant alektorophobia that exists on the site.
Receive a reply which you disagree with? Is the users icon an egg? Rather than respond with "I disagree because ____!", simply dismiss them as an egg to tout your moral superiority.
Why not then employ stronger tactics against them... like a broadside?
Just this week I had such a redirect & popup (thanks to a compromised WordPress site I was visiting), noted the # and set it along with a screenshot. A couple of hours later the phone # was no longer picking up as clearly they realized they weren't going to get any more legit calls in through it.
Yup, VPNs limit the ability of the ISP to know where you are going... instead you instead give implicit permission to the VPN provider to know where you go.
I put the blame on the RNC nomination process — or lack thereof.
Specifically what part of the non-process did you find broken? What should the process/party have done to prevent Trump (or any other candidate)?
They had the responsibility to ensure that they fielded qualified candidates for the nomination.
Except they are sort of limited to who throws their hat into the ring... and unlike the Democrats, worked to not play favorites and let the candidates & their supporters duke it out.
Trump is neither a conservative nor a Republican, and, until a few short years ago, a Clinton Democrat.:/
A Bill Clinton Democrat maybe, but thanks to the wonderful DNC nomination process, they ended up with the worst possible candidate. Of course, I contend that it was actually the election of Obama which moved the Overton window enough to make a Trump run & presidency possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't that called... side-loading and/or Cydia?
Just last month I finally gave up on Windows Phone/Mobile, having been on it since it was first available on my carrier at the time and am now carrying an Android device running 7.2.
I've been pleasantly surprised by the amount of access I now have to so many little nooks and crannys of the API set on my phone, as well as how well built apps can work together to keep me & my data safe.
One of my biggest laments on Windows Phone (aside from it being abandoned long ago) was that despite (eventually) having a good chunk of Win32 under the hood, as a developer I couldn't touch the fun stuff (even for my own side loaded app) without getting some magic pixie dust from Microsoft which they only give to very select partners, while on Android & iOS, there are many more options.
The disturbing thing to me is that such capabilities also exist through the official app store, where apps can (and do) ask for far more permissions than they need, and each time I hope I click the right side of the screen to not give away too much.
I would argue that of the three... none have it fully right... but each have pieces. Android gives you all of the power out of the box, but at great risk to the owner. Apple gives you no power without jailbreaking, and private 'trusted' deployment relies only on the Enterprise Developer Program... while Windows Phone has package compatibility with tablets & desktops (now), as well as a freaking camera button.
Did you ever wonder *why* this was?
Like it or not, Windows RT was pretty damn secure (I know a couple folks who only use those devices (and nothing else) for online banking), the fact that only MS signed code code run eliminated the risk of entire classes of malware.
At the time, the only way to ensure 3rd party was limited with regards to what it could do was to run within the rather limited sandbox of WinRT, now though, out of a bit of desperation I expect of people not wanting to write full fledged native UWP apps for Windows, they pushed their 'bridges'. The Android one seems to have gone away, iOS -> UWP has worked for a while, and one of these months I'll get around to trying 'Project Centennial' which allows the packaging of regular Win32 apps into a form which can be distributed/updated through their store, but also has some of the same safety benefits of Windows RT.
Why even get the Comcast router?
Every year or two when I burn through another one, they are quick to give me the super router which does everything.. then I send them to the backroom to bring me one that lacks wifi.
I'd argue that this discontinuation, like the lack of availability is going to contribute more to piracy.
Having tried multiple times to find one during the first couple of months it was out, I gave up and simply went the RetroPi route.
Shame Nintendo didn't want to take my money.
Nice bit of revisionist history you've got there, lacking any semblance of escalation or root causes.
I'm sorry, you are right, it's sometimes hard to keep up with the brilliant minds which the Democrats have kept off the courts. Thomas was under Bush-41... Bork was under Reagan. Don't get me started on Estrada under 43.
We tend to use the term 'alleged' in such cases, baring a conviction. None the less, should he have run for President then? Seems to have worked out for Bill Clinton.
"-if elections had consequences, Hillary would be president."
They do, with certain rules. Odd how those decrying November don't demand Chicago share the world series title with the Indians... after all, the both scored the same number of runs IIRC. Right... rules.
"-the overton window has been moved, exclusively, by conservatives for the past 40 years."
Interesting glasses you've got on. Even hard core lefties I know will admit that the election of Obama with his rather thin resume played a major part in the idea of someone with an even thinner related political resume getting elected. While many were uncomfortable with the sense of dynasty of 2x (possibly 3) Bushes being President, they at least accomplished things on their own... the most you can say for Hillary is that she married well.
I didn't vote for Trump, nor did I support him, but do take a certain joy in the tears and anguish of people like you... to which I say: Enjoy the next 8 years.
You mean you are bringing facts?
Pure speculation.
Except for the fact that the leadership serves at the pleasure of the body.
Except for the fact that the leadership serves at the pleasure of the body... which are duly elected and able to again, make their own rules under Article I, Section 5, Clause 2... which included the power to do this.
Which is exactly where they acted.
Yet you have still failed to cite a demonstrable violation of the constitution during the process... not one. Many attempts were made by smarter legal minds than you... and they also all failed. Even 'constitutional professor' President Obama, who saw the recess appointment vastly curtailed due to his abuse of it (thanks Noel Canning) couldn't do so.
Which again, you cannot specifically cite. Again, if it is so clear, you'd think you could cite it as I have.
I'm sorry that you believe that facts are a partisan thing. Your ideology (note the difference) does have a problem with such things.
Possibly, but then that is part of politics.
Again, pure speculation, as again, neither you nor any advocate of #DoYourJob could cite a specific constitutional or legal requirement for them to do anything with any nomination.
Will you be providing specific evidence of that this time?
No, no you didn't.
You failed to:
A) Cite WHY they did so, and
B) Cite HOW this prevented them from acting as an 'proper check and balance'... which again ignores all of the inferior courts, and
Remember: Like the House & Senate, the Court gets to pick and choose what it works on.
If we accept what you say is true, which I do not, odd how a 11.1% reduction in justices automatically results in a reduction by a factor of three in case load... if anything, it sounds like you are arguing for Trump & the Republicans to expand the court, bigly so they can handle all of the thousands of appeals it receives every year which go without a high court ruling.
The simple fact is (and will continue to be) that the Senate acted fully within their authority, like it or not.
QED.
They did in just the same way a disinterested person in a bar does when they ignore your advances.
Half true... they made rather clear, through their inaction that they did not consent to that nominee at the time... having previously advised the President not to nominate and waste anyone time.
Or, does someone have to give an affirmative "no, I do not want to have sex with you" for you to not receive consent? If so, that would seem to fly in the face of what we keep hearing from anti-rape folks.
Really? Then you can cite the specific part of the Constitution which lays out the lengthy process for confirming of a SCOTUS nominee? No? Maybe in the federalist papers? Or the Articles of Confederation? Maybe in the writings of a founder or framer?
No? It's as if... the Senate has rather wide latitude... almost as if it's written into the Constitution itself (see Article I, Section 5, Clause 2)!
Except the Constitution... and the Senate say otherwise. Again, see Article I, Section 5, Clause 2.
Except they didn't, just as not taking up a bill introduced by a member or acting on whatever particular issue you care about doesn't mean they are refusing their duty's.
Except it didn't... we have existing mechanisms & traditions for handling ties... which not only can happen due to a lengthy vacancy, but something as simple as a recusal.
Which would be true... if anything you said earlier had any basis in reality, the constitution or the rules of the Senate... all you've got is your ideological opinion which has been shown to be wrong. Not by me, but by the process we've seen over the last couple of years.
I'm sorry that your understanding of history only starts in 2013.
You really should look up the way the Democrats threatened it repeatedly back during the Bush-43 era... but then that would ruin your narrative.
No, he was elected by a majority of voters who cast ballots.
I know... lets use Obama's logic from... 2014 was it?
He *only* won 69,498,516 votes... out of a population of of ~300,000,000... which isn't even 25%.
Not exactly a majority of Americans, am I right?
Except they are not constitutionally required to hold a vote, or a hearing, or even a meeting with a nominee. Their 'consent' is required... and they simply withheld it.
Even those in the House of Representatives, which plays no part in the confirmation of a SCOTUS justice?
Interesting guilt by association you've got there... almost as bad as the "you didn't say _____, so you are bad!"
Strange, your anger is that the Republicans did what the Democrats threatened to do for years but either never had a chance to act on (in case of Reid's use of the nuclear option), or never got fed up enough to do.
None of this was unprecedented though, just ask Ruben H. Walworth, John M. Read & Edward A. Bradford... just some of nominees to SCOTUS who never got a vote.
I for one am still rooting for/pushing for the repeal of the 17th Amendment via the Article V process.
Lemme guess... history for you starts in... 2013? With the 'unprecedented' Republican obstruction against Obama's nominees... which forced the hand of Senator Reid to do the not yet triggered Nuclear Option... leaving out SCOTUS nominees because there was not a vacancy.
Some of us remember the Bush era where the nuclear option was first threatened for SCOTUS nominees due to actually unprecedented Democrat obstruction against many court nominees.
Then again, some of us also remember the attempted hi-tech-lynching of Thomas by Democrats under Reagan.
Don't like what happened yesterday? Fine, to quote Obama, "elections have consequences". It's such a shame that the Democrats created the precedent (and even moving of the Overton window) to make it more likely. One can only imagine how Trump will use "I have a pen and a phone"... and I didn't even vote for the guy.
When/where did I say that insubordination is a crime? When did I mention any sort of crime?
More so, courts & law enforcement are involved in far more than just 'crimes'.
You breaking a personal contract with me isn't illegal, and I can go to court and ask the judge to order to you comply, if your refuse you can be subjected to being detained until you do. I could even use the police to seize enough of your property to compensate me for the order.
Having not read the specific complaint seeking the unmasking, I do not know the specific legal justification being cited, but I am pretty certain the Hatch Act would apply for a start.
Wait, they were only looking to be sent chain-mail spam? Boy, sure wish they would have said that, rather than leaving their request rather open to include just about anything which disagreed with the acceptable narrative of the administration... ala wrong-think.
Except those private citizens claim to be government employees, who are openly acting in direct opposition to standing and lawful instructions from their superiors with regards to their jobs and the acceptability of speaking on behalf of any part of the department.
Wanna post your personal thoughts during the evening about your employer? Go ahead, become actively insubordinate and/or do so during work hours? Don't be surprised if you suddenly find yourself able to be let go with cause.
Seems like you are starting from a pair of false premises to me.
Whether we like it or not, he is President, and as President he gets to set policy for the executive branch... which previously included an order for certain agencies not to provide updates via social media.
While I suspect some of the 'alt' department accounts are simply a fake PR attempt by the 'resistance', if the person running this particular account is an employee of the department in question, then they are very clearly violating the previously mentioned order... which at last check no one has claimed is unlawful.l a result, this person could be subject to penalties by their employer for the same thing which got then deputy-AG Sally Yates fired... insubordination.
Except... he/they did.
Member when the administration asked the public to email them with tips about 'fishy' things they find about the healthcare bill?
I member.
Which is worse... going to court to ask for the unmasking of someone acting seemingly unlawfully/in violation of department policies? Or asking the public to snitch on their neighbors and report them for wrong think?
They didn't disable the phones outright... just their ability to charge... which has the same end result.
Jack Valenti? Is that you? Probably not... he's been dead for 10 years, but the argument is the same... though about VHS tapes in the home 30 years ago.
None, it is not an uncommon term to use on the twitter.
By solving the rampant alektorophobia that exists on the site.
Receive a reply which you disagree with? Is the users icon an egg? Rather than respond with "I disagree because ____!", simply dismiss them as an egg to tout your moral superiority.
I think I read a book about this when I was a kid.
Isn't that the point of modal dialogs/windows?
Why not then employ stronger tactics against them... like a broadside?
Just this week I had such a redirect & popup (thanks to a compromised WordPress site I was visiting), noted the # and set it along with a screenshot. A couple of hours later the phone # was no longer picking up as clearly they realized they weren't going to get any more legit calls in through it.
Yup, VPNs limit the ability of the ISP to know where you are going... instead you instead give implicit permission to the VPN provider to know where you go.
How does that improve things any?
That sounds like a shibboleth...
Specifically what part of the non-process did you find broken? What should the process/party have done to prevent Trump (or any other candidate)?
Except they are sort of limited to who throws their hat into the ring... and unlike the Democrats, worked to not play favorites and let the candidates & their supporters duke it out.
A Bill Clinton Democrat maybe, but thanks to the wonderful DNC nomination process, they ended up with the worst possible candidate. Of course, I contend that it was actually the election of Obama which moved the Overton window enough to make a Trump run & presidency possible.