Sounds great, now how do I charge my iPhone 7 while it's plugged into the aux port of my car? There were a few options to do that with the old interface, not so today.
spending some money on something I'd be wearing pretty much 24/7 seems a good use of funds.
How long has it been since you've daily had something on your wrist 24/7? For me it was a couple of decades, in which time after I picked up a smartwatch I found it fine during the day when walking around, driving, shopping, etc... but anytime I was at a desk typing I'd have to take it off because it simply wasn't comfortable hitting the desk, or worse me when using a laptop.
This aside from it occasionally riding up on my arm a bit and needing re-adjustment during the night, or getting caught on things. Not to mention being a rather expensive item at the end of a long arm which tends to bump into things through a normal day.
Single purpose? Single intended purpose maybe, yet we've seen it also be usable for everything from credit card readers, IR blasters to 'ghost' detectors... and that aside from the eventual support for volume & track control.
I'm not privy to the specifics of the contract, are you?
All I see here and in TFA is that Intel said McAfee can't use his own name in a company name, not that he sold full rights to his name when he left the company.
For all we know he is going to court to get a declaratory ruling as to if he is able to do so or not, rather than change his new company name to what he wants and deal with a more expensive Intel suit.
Obmam actually took it easy on them for a long time before he realized the Republicans were do-nothing obstructionists who were loyal to party but not country.
False. While he did limit his number of 'executive orders', he issues more 'executive memorandum' than anyone else. What's the legal difference between the two? Not a thing, but parrots like you can keep saying he didn't do as much and blame the GOP despite the underlying facts not supporting your argument.
Uh, yeah, in the same way that a 16-year-old with citizenship or a green card is "qualified" to work as CEO of one of Trump's companies.
I'm guessing being 16 may prevent such a person from entering into contracts on behalf of the company... so no.
But to say Trump is more qualified than Hillary is just absurd. You really have to be drinking his Kool-aid to buy that.
Except most people have different definitions of what it means to be qualified.
To some, Clinton''s marrying who she did, her time in office because of said marriage, as well as her gender makes her qualified, to others, the fact Trump has no political experience makes him qualified.
To each their own, but to fail to recognize both sides is just lazy thinking.
I know you paid shills like to try to sway people to your side with a good bit of cherry picking, you really should pick your targets better.
And did that "extreme carelessness" result in confidential information being destroyed or delivered to people in violation of trust?
Interesting how you removed half a clause from your copy & paste from above, specifically:
through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody
Was Clinton's email server a proper place of custody? If not, then she violated that statute through gross negligence at minimum.
One, we don't know what/if anything was stolen, we just know that there was at least one successful login to the server via Tor on a user account where the owner claimed no knowledge of the software: http://www.politico.com/story/...
Two, Clinton did not do the reasonable thing in the setting up of the server, nor recognizing classified information, nor allowing her aids to re-handle the information in rather careless ways, so by your very own logic, she should be held criminally responsible for her actions.
tl;dr - she didn't have to know it was wrong, she simply had to be "extremely careless" (aka, "grossly negligent")
And despite the fact the FBI director used the phrase "extreme carelessness" wrt the handling of sensitive info, somehow the defenders of lawlessness still admit to the fact that she very clearly committed multiple crimes.
The FBI already stated that they see no evidence Hilary did anything wrong
If only the paid shills could get their facts straight.
The FBI has said just the opposite, repeatedly, they've simply hidden behind the "we didn't find any intent" smokescreen (intent is not required for several of the statutes she violated).
You're correct, that's why they used that server for non-governmental emails.
Thank you for conceding the underlying point, little you say beyond changes this basic fact.
So why did they use that server for governmental emails?
Dunno, I wasn't part of the administration.
And why, when they were being investigated,
Because at the time the Democrats were investigating everything under the sun in the administration.
did they announce that they "lost" 22 million of the emails on that server? (These facts were mentioned in the article that you claimed the GP didn't read. I recommend reading more than just the intro next time.)
Because as a non-government server, it isn't likely to have the same sort of retention mechanisms in place.
The Bush administration did the same thing as Clinton did.
False. Clinton setup the email server to skirt FOIA requests (ie break the law), the Bush administration did to avoid violating the Hatch Act.
It's just as terrible in either case.
How much classified information traversed the gwb43 server? We know know that at least one account on Clinton's server was breached: http://www.politico.com/story/...
Want to make up some more false equivalences?
The main difference is that the people who are convinced that this act makes Hillary evil are also convinced (like you) that Bush's actions were no big deal.
You again ignore the underlying intent of both operations, one was clearly criminal without mountains of evidence disproving every claim (never sent or received classified emails, etc), the other was not.
Hence why Milo is again seeking data related to his account, which when provided will almost certainly demonstrate that his account was suspended for political reasons and not for actual 'harassment'
Sure a good thing for ISIS they didn't call Leslie Jones a 'black dude' or write a negative review of Ghostbusters (current year), otherwise they too would be on the receiving end of wrath of @Jack.
There a very good reason for that:have a look at this link
So because Democrats aren't getting the sort of money Republicans are from the NRA... that justifies their rather anti-second amendment views?
If you look at the numbers, the NRA spend almost nothing with Democrats, but nearly $600,000 with Republicans.
In that case... if we look at this link... does that mean that Republicans are perfectly justified in seeking to de-fund Planned parenthood (who unlike the NRA, receives federal dollars) as they didn't get most of the 600k+ which was spent in the current cycle?
If they want support from Democrats, they need to pay for it like everyone else. Don't go pretending it has anything to do with ethics or beliefs.
Or... some people/groups have beliefs which are not so easily swayed by campaign contributions... so the $$$ spenders notice this and end up giving money both to those who can be swayed, but also in support of those who already share their view.
You are suggesting then that not enough buyers of Samsung (the #1 smartphone maker at present), Google (the #1 search & email provider) & Microsoft (the #1 desktop & corporate OS provider) aren't socially conscious/vocal enough to care where their devices come from... but that the socially conscious/vocal ones are buying Apple... and rather than saying "screw these profit hungry scum-bags! I'm going to buy a certified 100% free-trade, locally sourced organic smartphone!"
I really don't think it's that complicated... I can't help but think that Apple hasn't done as good of a job of greasing the right palms the way their competitors seem to have to largely avoid similar stories.
Stop pretending you know anything about actual elections procedures.
Unlike you, I'm limiting my assumptions as to what I think you know.
Unlike you, I do know what research I've done into the WA system, how it can be exploited and even tested multiple parts in legal ways, all that remains is getting some permission and a full end to end demonstration of say... 10,000 ballots being cast to prove the problem.
I've been doing this
This? What is 'this'? You've not said anything specific as to what you've done as far as I can tell here.
since before you were in diapers and I was coding IBM System 360 using punch cards.
And? You were born in 1960... so what? Simply being older does not mean one is more knowledgeable about specific things, only that they've been around for longer, it all depends on how/what they've spent their time & attention.
Would you like to compare notes as to the vulnerabilities in the WA system? Tell you what, when I finally publish my research, I'll drop you a copy via the post to your the condo you've owned since 1999, sound good?
Note, I'm not saying what I am above in an attempt to intimidate, only to hint (I could say much more, but don't want to leave too much of your PII here) at the degree of what I have found to be wrong in the system here, which is part of the problem in this state.
Correct, though Pegatron is by no means the only contract manufacturer used over there, nor by the companies mentioned.. yet it's only Apple built products we hear about. Why?
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds great, now how do I charge my iPhone 7 while it's plugged into the aux port of my car? There were a few options to do that with the old interface, not so today.
Because unlike Apple Music, Spotify, Pandora and other online streaming services... FM is free with adds?
Courage brave citizen, have courage, our Apple overlords know better than us.
How long has it been since you've daily had something on your wrist 24/7? For me it was a couple of decades, in which time after I picked up a smartwatch I found it fine during the day when walking around, driving, shopping, etc... but anytime I was at a desk typing I'd have to take it off because it simply wasn't comfortable hitting the desk, or worse me when using a laptop.
This aside from it occasionally riding up on my arm a bit and needing re-adjustment during the night, or getting caught on things. Not to mention being a rather expensive item at the end of a long arm which tends to bump into things through a normal day.
How is this any different from any other Apple event where they announce the new device to be the fastest, thinnest, stylish, etc they've ever built?
Single purpose? Single intended purpose maybe, yet we've seen it also be usable for everything from credit card readers, IR blasters to 'ghost' detectors... and that aside from the eventual support for volume & track control.
I'm not privy to the specifics of the contract, are you?
All I see here and in TFA is that Intel said McAfee can't use his own name in a company name, not that he sold full rights to his name when he left the company.
For all we know he is going to court to get a declaratory ruling as to if he is able to do so or not, rather than change his new company name to what he wants and deal with a more expensive Intel suit.
False. While he did limit his number of 'executive orders', he issues more 'executive memorandum' than anyone else. What's the legal difference between the two? Not a thing, but parrots like you can keep saying he didn't do as much and blame the GOP despite the underlying facts not supporting your argument.
I'm sure you don't know what you are talking about, despite a sincere belief... so I won't assist in your delusions anymore.
I'm guessing being 16 may prevent such a person from entering into contracts on behalf of the company... so no.
Except most people have different definitions of what it means to be qualified.
To some, Clinton''s marrying who she did, her time in office because of said marriage, as well as her gender makes her qualified, to others, the fact Trump has no political experience makes him qualified.
To each their own, but to fail to recognize both sides is just lazy thinking.
I know you paid shills like to try to sway people to your side with a good bit of cherry picking, you really should pick your targets better.
Interesting how you removed half a clause from your copy & paste from above, specifically:
Was Clinton's email server a proper place of custody? If not, then she violated that statute through gross negligence at minimum.
Over age 35, natural born US citizen, resident of the US for 14+ years? Yup, I think he's qualified... at least according to the constitution.
And despite the fact the FBI director used the phrase "extreme carelessness" wrt the handling of sensitive info, somehow the defenders of lawlessness still admit to the fact that she very clearly committed multiple crimes.
If only the paid shills could get their facts straight.
The FBI has said just the opposite, repeatedly, they've simply hidden behind the "we didn't find any intent" smokescreen (intent is not required for several of the statutes she violated).
So the lack of evidence of criminal wrong doing by one group... excuses the criminal wrong doing by another person when clear evidence exists?
Not sure about that.
Thank you for conceding the underlying point, little you say beyond changes this basic fact.
Dunno, I wasn't part of the administration.
Because at the time the Democrats were investigating everything under the sun in the administration.
Because as a non-government server, it isn't likely to have the same sort of retention mechanisms in place.
False. Clinton setup the email server to skirt FOIA requests (ie break the law), the Bush administration did to avoid violating the Hatch Act.
How much classified information traversed the gwb43 server? We know know that at least one account on Clinton's server was breached: http://www.politico.com/story/...
Want to make up some more false equivalences?
You again ignore the underlying intent of both operations, one was clearly criminal without mountains of evidence disproving every claim (never sent or received classified emails, etc), the other was not.
I know you like linking to that article, but apparently you've never read even the full intro.
The answer is quite simple: The Hatch Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Hence why Milo is again seeking data related to his account, which when provided will almost certainly demonstrate that his account was suspended for political reasons and not for actual 'harassment'
Sure a good thing for ISIS they didn't call Leslie Jones a 'black dude' or write a negative review of Ghostbusters (current year), otherwise they too would be on the receiving end of wrath of @Jack.
So because Democrats aren't getting the sort of money Republicans are from the NRA... that justifies their rather anti-second amendment views?
In that case... if we look at this link... does that mean that Republicans are perfectly justified in seeking to de-fund Planned parenthood (who unlike the NRA, receives federal dollars) as they didn't get most of the 600k+ which was spent in the current cycle?
Or... some people/groups have beliefs which are not so easily swayed by campaign contributions... so the $$$ spenders notice this and end up giving money both to those who can be swayed, but also in support of those who already share their view.
You are suggesting then that not enough buyers of Samsung (the #1 smartphone maker at present), Google (the #1 search & email provider) & Microsoft (the #1 desktop & corporate OS provider) aren't socially conscious/vocal enough to care where their devices come from... but that the socially conscious/vocal ones are buying Apple... and rather than saying "screw these profit hungry scum-bags! I'm going to buy a certified 100% free-trade, locally sourced organic smartphone!"
I really don't think it's that complicated... I can't help but think that Apple hasn't done as good of a job of greasing the right palms the way their competitors seem to have to largely avoid similar stories.
Don't want to... or can't?
Unlike you, I'm limiting my assumptions as to what I think you know.
Unlike you, I do know what research I've done into the WA system, how it can be exploited and even tested multiple parts in legal ways, all that remains is getting some permission and a full end to end demonstration of say... 10,000 ballots being cast to prove the problem.
This? What is 'this'? You've not said anything specific as to what you've done as far as I can tell here.
And? You were born in 1960... so what? Simply being older does not mean one is more knowledgeable about specific things, only that they've been around for longer, it all depends on how/what they've spent their time & attention.
Would you like to compare notes as to the vulnerabilities in the WA system? Tell you what, when I finally publish my research, I'll drop you a copy via the post to your the condo you've owned since 1999, sound good?
Note, I'm not saying what I am above in an attempt to intimidate, only to hint (I could say much more, but don't want to leave too much of your PII here) at the degree of what I have found to be wrong in the system here, which is part of the problem in this state.
I never said she was a liberal, historically liberals believe in personal liberty... she does not. She's very much a illiberal progressive.
Care to re frame your statement to be something related to what I said?
Correct, though Pegatron is by no means the only contract manufacturer used over there, nor by the companies mentioned.. yet it's only Apple built products we hear about. Why?
Bingo. And something being 'obnoxious' doesn't magically give the annoyed the legal right to damage/destroy other peoples property.
Your sarcasm detector seems to be broken, you may want to have it checked.