and by Microsoft including Ubuntu inside Windows desktop environments,
It allows Microsoft to control the Ubuntu "experience" and blame Ubuntu for any user dissatisfaction when it is really a Windows container problem. "Look, see, you can run Ubuntu and doesn't Windows actually run much better and faster?"
it allows hundreds of millions of users try Ubuntu without having to wipe their disk, re-partition it, install a hypervisor
Hundreds of millions of users can already run Ubuntu without having to do any of that. I have two USB sticks with Xubuntu on them that boot just fine on my Windows computers, and that's a 16.4 version, I think. Making that stick was absolutely trivial -- I used a bootable Xubuntu DVD and told it to install on/dev/sde.
Not two days ago I came across a bag full of old USB sticks and one of them has a label "Ubuntu" on it. It was much harder to make back in them good ole days, but it, too, is a Ubuntu system unencumbered by an underlying Windows OS.
how exactly does preventing large donors from donating "help" the Linux Foundation?
It doesn't. But preventing large donors who have a vested interest in the failure of Linux as FOSS does. Isn't/. the forum where we hear regular diatribes against large campaign donations because they "buy" the political system? Isn't there a parallel here?
As for the summary saying how great it is that it bring "SQL Server" to Linux, I say "why?" MySQL, Postgres, and a handful of other, better, databases already exist. What does SQL Server add?
Yes of course. Everyone should have to run their OS off a USB stick. What the hell. Integration is the path to success. Keeping them separate will continue down the path of 0 acceptance of Linux on the Desktop except for power users.
Does that mean a baker doesn't have to bake a cake for a gay couple? They are both private companies, yet one gets to decide who uses their service based on political ideology.
At least with Twitter it can be argued that it is a platform for speech and as such the law should reflect Twitters impact on political discourse and outcomes on elections. Just like a town-square you cannot be kicked out for racist speech and yes it doesn't mean you have to listen it (walk away or block people. the power is in the individual not the state). AT&T was determined critical and cannot limit its service on political ideology so there is legal precedent.
Are platforms of speech critical to political discourse in the country and should they be protected? If not, then why is it different for a baker exercising their constitutionally protected religious belief with their private company?
Freedom of speech is not covered by private entities. Nor is your speech protected once it becomes hate speech. You are then subject to local and federal law.
Bullshit.
At one point AT&T / 'Ma Bell' were private entity that could do what they like. Now they are regulated. Once society feels something is important enough / would hinder human interaction enough... it can indeed be regulated much like MOST non-gov entities in existance. Facebook and Twitter have already surpassed that standard. These companies make use of a publicly created and funded system: the internet. They can not have it both ways and claim to be private and still benefit from the public. Much like a taxi cab company can not use the public roads and discriminate against groups of people.
That or are you OK with the phone companies all not selling to black people, women, homosexuals, and other groups... as they are simply a 'private platform'?
One example is discrimination. The other is not pandering or supporting hate or terrorist speech. They are two completely different things. Freedom of speech is only protected when it is peaceful. Once it becomes hate speech you are subject to state and federal laws. Businesses are liable as well when supporting your platform of hate.
None of that has to do with refusing to sell services to a specific race. That is illegal.
I was talking to Don Mattrick one day and he was saying how the EA board doesn't understand gaming. They just want to make a game exactly like the last successful game on the market.
He was constantly fighting with them to not scrap products that were sure successes.
Thus it doesn't surprise me that the board has put in a CEO that is as clueless as them.
Not to mention EA knows nothing about making games work. They release some of the buggiest shit on the market today and then instead of fixing it they release an addon or DLC, then bring out 2.0 of their game.
So we'll have a buggy real time interactive game that after 2 years disappears because they end of life it. Suddenly you're torn out of your virtual reality and back into reality.
Looks like the FBI has disclosed that not only was Clinton's email server almost certainly hacked, but the hacking got so blatant that even Clinton's own part-time staff who did the incompetent setup of a Microsoft Exchange server were able to figure out that something was going on and shut it down temporarily while she was still using it.
Clinton's private email server was never hacked. The government servers and FBI data as a result of the investigation on her was compromised. Her own server was far more secure than the classified information they are attacking her for potentially leaking.
"Now is where SJWs yell that % of criminal population is a 'racist statistic'."
What about the statistic that minorities are stopped, ticketes or incarcerated at much higher rates for the same non-violent offenses?
Is that racist? Against whom?
If the city, town or state is a majority of minorities you're going to be hard pressed to find statistics that show Caucasians being stopped more than minorities. When they did the Ferguson study that said the Police department was targeting AA's they forget to include that African Americans were 70% of the town's population.
In order to believe that those not filed would have been mostly frivolous, it would mean that the would-be complainers would be very aware of the body cameras. I'd wager that the only party that is very aware of the body camera most of the time is the officer.
Most people aren't aware that a good portion of cops don't have body and dashboard cameras. People are starting to assume everyone is equipped with one.
The police also know that they're participating in a study involving wearing these cameras and may have been on their best behavior because they knew that they were being observed. Maybe their superiors told them to be on their best behavior because the number of complaints against them was being closely investigated.
Maybe they were on their best behavior when not wearing the cameras because they wanted to spoil any correlation between their good behavior and wearing the cameras, but it was instead interpreted as the cameras having a more pervasive influence.
It's hard to properly blind the participants in this study, so it's hard to account for all of the unexpected influences.
Superiors? I'd say a notice went out to the entire country to stop being assholes or your name will be in the news. This study also occurred long before all these riots and BLM.
Why not? The officer on an "off" week is simply performing the habituated alternate behavior. Perhaps even the officers cognizant of things and simply applied what they learned, that is, when they're not being a douche they have a better day at work.
Or people see the body cam (and know the cars have front cameras) and know they can't file a bullshit complaint against an officer.
And now you've got to shell out for an SDN infrastructure, too.
That's a cute idea, but he's obviously never had to operate or troubleshoot issues on a production enterprise network. What happens when an machine changes IPs in mid-tcp conversation? I have stuff that maintains ssh sessions for days, the client isn't doing constant nslookups to see where the server has gone. Not to mention the fact that sshd is going to interpret the client IP changing as a session-hijacking attack.
That's just one example, the more I think about it leads me to downgrade my opinion to "dumbass".
J-.
Let's invest. I'll bet we can make millions off the stock before people see through this vaporware idea!!!
Good infosec doesn't cost a lot - the problem is no one gives a shit until after something happens. Then you shit can your CISO, who you ignored the entire time, because you need someone to take the blame.
I wonder if companies have discovered the cost of their reputation, especially after they're forced to hired a CISO due to massive security breaches. (cough, Target, Home Depot, cough).
Sadly, the consumer attention span already forgot about their favorite stores getting hacked not long ago, so the business will hardly view security as a necessary evil going forward, unless the insurance company says otherwise.
Starting to wonder if this needs to be a change in mentality where insurance companies are the ones who should be insisting on CISOs.
Target lost a shit ton of customer not to mention they closed stores due to people abandoning them during the holidays last year.
Actually the deletion of email was enough "evidence" of guilt because legally it can be assumed that doing so is evidence of guilt. Gowdy made that case when confronting the FBI director. In fact, Gowdy pretty much proved that the FBI was complicit in the coverup by not prosecuting Clinton on the grounds that the FBI director actually gave.
But there is more, Clinton's Lawyer AND personal Aide (convenient dual role) Mills said in sworn testimony that she didn't know about the server until after it was destroyed, but they just found an email in which she ASKS about that same server, years before. She perjured herself. But nothing will come of it, because she is both a Clinton Aide and her Lawyer. The convenience of having Aides that are also Lawyers will now be fully realized, they will be pretty much untouchable, because you cannot untangle when she was being a Lawyer, and when she was being an Aide.
That's 100% wrong.
Government retention policies are 30 days unless determined the data needs to be kept for more than 1 year. At that point it needs to be printed out and filed away. The loophole is that if it's on a private email server those retention policies don't apply.
When the new retention policy was passed during Bush's administration their entire cabinet, not just Bush, switched to a private server. Only in 2016 was the no private email server policy changed.
So regardless of what she did on her own server she's not guilty by definition of the law. Now if she continued to use it once the laws changed you'd have a case.
18 U.S. Code  2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term âoeofficeâ does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 795; Pub. L. 101â"510, div. A, title V, Ââ552(a), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1566; Pub. L. 103â"322, title XXXIII, Ââ330016(1)(I), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
I don't see the word electronic in that. Loophole.
I can answer #4. Because she fucking hid everything until a lawsuit from Judicial Watch forced the State Department to release some of the public documents generated by her term as SOS. Once the people had access to her public records, they started to notice that her email wasn't entirely on the government servers, but on her own. Then her lawyers and IT people started to panic (the infamous reddit post) because they knew that Congress would get involved soon, and it did.
The answer to #2 is that every agency seems to be in on the coverup to some extent. They have all been dragging their feet producing records, and several have "lost" drives, tapes, records, etc. IRS Commissioner Koskinen is facing impeachment for this same crap, but for a different scandal (not for Hillary's emails). Obama is probably going to need to pardon every single member of his cabinet and most of the senior management, or President Trump is going to need to build a brand new prison to house the "Most Transparent Administration in history (TM)".
#1 is crap. See Powell's email leaks. #3 is no, or at least not that I've heard of.
Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
As to your conclusion, there are guys in prison today for violations of the exact same laws, and several are now attempting to appeal their sentences. At the time they were convicted, those laws were seen as strict liability, so their trial records do not include proof of intent. If those same laws, which haven't changed, require mens rea now, at the very least they need a retrial to establish intent.
Gimme a freaking break. She's used this email server for over 8 years. If you didn't notice the emails weren't being sent from the proper address for 8 years then you don't deserve to use a computer.
None of this came to light until multiple attempts to prosecute Clinton for Benghazi didn't work.
What you didn't know is that the republicans and other agencies had private mail servers as well. It was only in 2016 where this practice was banned.
I'm going to be pedantic and just point out that I doubt non programmers or non technical people will know about Stack Overflow even if they know google. Last time I checked Stack Overflow didn't have any chicken recipes.
Goes and looks just to be sure
Damn, scratch that, it does!
I'll be damned!
A simple google search for any computer related topic will usually have at least 1 link to stack overflow.
I thought there were bigger issues than just souped-up screenshots/videos. I mean, I know that people bought this thinking that it is a vast, procedurally-generated "universe" that was persistent/simultaneous for all users so you could conceivably "meet" someone (and it was indicated that it was the only way you could "see" how you "look" in the game).
Which would have been an amazing feat of engineering, but it turned out they were lying and simply relying on the "vastness" that gave a low probability for two users to be close enough to discover it is impossible to meet (which is, of course, exactly what happened a week or so after it was released). Vast procedural universes that were not persistent/simultaneous for all users are a few magnitudes less impressive and have been done since the 80's (in fact they could fit in a floppy disk - see Elite/Elite II) and it is not how this was described.
Two people also were in the exact spot in the universe but couldn't see each other. They blamed it on the network load of the servers which it could've been but my guess is they didn't expect people to communicate outside the game to find each other. Once they did their bluff was called and not being able to find someone in the vast universe was actually not being able to see them.
Yeah, pretty much. These days it's "pre-order our game and get a portion of the stuff that would normally have been part of the full game, but is now DLC. Oh, and a fancy box/mini-figure/skin"
Here's the thing. You can pre-order anything, especially digital copies. But you don't have to pick it up. So if you find out 2 days later from reviews of the game that it isn't something you like you can still refund it.
Sorry but no. There's a shitload of videos and text which show without a shadow of doubt that promises were made and left unfulfilled. people bought the game based on the information at hand which was more than misleading. Misleading is when you hint something, which proves to be less that was was alluded to. Like "Big Trunk", which is misleading because it has no frame of reference (and even so, it's stretching things), But Sean Murray specifically said there will be some sort of multiplayer, that ships will handle differently based on their looks, that NPC factions are warring in space, that you can land on asteroids, that you can grief other players ("A little bit, yeah"), and so on. Those were ALL captured on video and available on Youtube and other channels.
It was a big fat web of lies and deception and it was only a matter of time until shit hit the fan.
Was it said during the beta development process or was it printed on the box, or listed as a feature in advertising such as the Steam Page, Feature list on a video?
Because stating what things they want to put in the game during development isn't false advertising, a promise or anything of the sort. It's your job as a consumer to find out what is in the final release either by reviews, word of mouth or a direct feature list.
I think CloudFlare's comments are accurate, but I'm no expert.
I'll play an expert. CloudFlare are lying. Though it is correct, that "a simple DNS reconfiguration" would allow the pirates to continue to exist, their bandwidth requirements will go much higher and they would not be able to do as much damage to the intellectual property owners.
Think, for example, of banks blocking money-laundering — it does not stop whatever activity generates the criminals' profits. But it makes the criminals' lives (much) harder.
The reaction and attitudes of Slashdot and other crowds will, once again, boil down to those towards the original activity. People frowning on copyright infringement will denounce CloudFlare. Others will celebrate the pirates getting off for a while longer.
But technically CloudFlare's arguments are bullshit — and they know it.
Except ALS Scan wants to DDOS them off the internet which is *illegal* so they can go to hell.
I don't know about the USA, but in Brazil it *is* illegal, and as soon as enough such printers are "caught in the act" to be used as evidence, HP will be sued by PROTESTE (a consumer rights action group mostly made out of lawyers:p).
Except you void your warranty using non-HP ink so good luck with that.
This is probably actually illegal. Sony had to pay a settlement for disabling Linux on the PS3; HP is doing the same, so has at least a civil suit. Uniquely, however, HP has proven that their product is compatible with third-party ink, and has taken action to specifically to lock-out competition. That's probably an instance of Tying, and HP has sufficient market power to show that Tying is anti-competitive.
Apple does it every day and they get away with it. Try replacing a part with a after market item and see how long it takes your phone to brick itself. If you put 3rd party parts in your product you can't expect them to work. There's so many horror stories about refilling cartridges damaging printers HP shouldn't have to deal with it at all.
This is where we are now. Everything you buy today is sold with Darth Vader terms "I've altered the deal, pray i dont alter it further" with no recourse other than to not buy or stop using it. IN the past you could work around these things, but DMCA kills most of that.. Unless you are running open solutions, you are at their mercy. We are here, we have arrived. Its not some dystopian future, its here, now, today.
Well if 3rd parties didn't create absolute substandard ink cartridges HP wouldn't be forced to do this.
Instead you buy a 3rd party cartridge. It leaks or breaks in your printer. You call HP because your product is broken and they find out you didn't use a HP cartridge. Now it becomes a huge problem for their support department when trying to determine fault. Do you refuse support and send them to the 3rd party to fix their printer? That makes HP look bad...
So it only makes sense to ban 3rd party cartridges.
If they haven't fixed this within the week, I'm going to consider this malicious intent. If they do, I'll consider it sloppy QA.
In either case Lenovo have lost considerable reputation in my eyes...and this isn't the first time they've walked the edge between malice and incompetence, so they were already sliding down. I doubt that I'll recommend them to anyone for any purpose after this, but new stories are always popping up, and this isn't yet egregious enough that I'm sure I'll remember them as "always avoid".
The reason for "within the week", is that by then my opinions will have set, and I'll have my attention off this story. It gets pretty hard to change my mind after that, and currently I'm leaning towards malicious.
P.S.: While I'm only talking for myself, I don't delude myself that my thoughts and opinions are unique. So for Lenovo time *is* of the essence. If I don't become convinced that they weren't malicious this story will tack on the addendum "and then they lie about it".
It's been with the developers since last July. So I guess you're late to the party.
Slashdot Mirror
and by Microsoft including Ubuntu inside Windows desktop environments,
It allows Microsoft to control the Ubuntu "experience" and blame Ubuntu for any user dissatisfaction when it is really a Windows container problem. "Look, see, you can run Ubuntu and doesn't Windows actually run much better and faster?"
it allows hundreds of millions of users try Ubuntu without having to wipe their disk, re-partition it, install a hypervisor
Hundreds of millions of users can already run Ubuntu without having to do any of that. I have two USB sticks with Xubuntu on them that boot just fine on my Windows computers, and that's a 16.4 version, I think. Making that stick was absolutely trivial -- I used a bootable Xubuntu DVD and told it to install on /dev/sde.
Not two days ago I came across a bag full of old USB sticks and one of them has a label "Ubuntu" on it. It was much harder to make back in them good ole days, but it, too, is a Ubuntu system unencumbered by an underlying Windows OS.
how exactly does preventing large donors from donating "help" the Linux Foundation?
It doesn't. But preventing large donors who have a vested interest in the failure of Linux as FOSS does. Isn't /. the forum where we hear regular diatribes against large campaign donations because they "buy" the political system? Isn't there a parallel here?
As for the summary saying how great it is that it bring "SQL Server" to Linux, I say "why?" MySQL, Postgres, and a handful of other, better, databases already exist. What does SQL Server add?
Yes of course. Everyone should have to run their OS off a USB stick. What the hell. Integration is the path to success. Keeping them separate will continue down the path of 0 acceptance of Linux on the Desktop except for power users.
Does that mean a baker doesn't have to bake a cake for a gay couple? They are both private companies, yet one gets to decide who uses their service based on political ideology.
At least with Twitter it can be argued that it is a platform for speech and as such the law should reflect Twitters impact on political discourse and outcomes on elections. Just like a town-square you cannot be kicked out for racist speech and yes it doesn't mean you have to listen it (walk away or block people. the power is in the individual not the state). AT&T was determined critical and cannot limit its service on political ideology so there is legal precedent.
Are platforms of speech critical to political discourse in the country and should they be protected? If not, then why is it different for a baker exercising their constitutionally protected religious belief with their private company?
Freedom of speech is not covered by private entities. Nor is your speech protected once it becomes hate speech. You are then subject to local and federal law.
Bullshit. At one point AT&T / 'Ma Bell' were private entity that could do what they like. Now they are regulated. Once society feels something is important enough / would hinder human interaction enough... it can indeed be regulated much like MOST non-gov entities in existance. Facebook and Twitter have already surpassed that standard. These companies make use of a publicly created and funded system: the internet. They can not have it both ways and claim to be private and still benefit from the public. Much like a taxi cab company can not use the public roads and discriminate against groups of people. That or are you OK with the phone companies all not selling to black people, women, homosexuals, and other groups... as they are simply a 'private platform'?
One example is discrimination. The other is not pandering or supporting hate or terrorist speech. They are two completely different things. Freedom of speech is only protected when it is peaceful. Once it becomes hate speech you are subject to state and federal laws. Businesses are liable as well when supporting your platform of hate. None of that has to do with refusing to sell services to a specific race. That is illegal.
I was talking to Don Mattrick one day and he was saying how the EA board doesn't understand gaming. They just want to make a game exactly like the last successful game on the market. He was constantly fighting with them to not scrap products that were sure successes. Thus it doesn't surprise me that the board has put in a CEO that is as clueless as them.
Not to mention EA knows nothing about making games work. They release some of the buggiest shit on the market today and then instead of fixing it they release an addon or DLC, then bring out 2.0 of their game. So we'll have a buggy real time interactive game that after 2 years disappears because they end of life it. Suddenly you're torn out of your virtual reality and back into reality.
Looks like the FBI has disclosed that not only was Clinton's email server almost certainly hacked, but the hacking got so blatant that even Clinton's own part-time staff who did the incompetent setup of a Microsoft Exchange server were able to figure out that something was going on and shut it down temporarily while she was still using it.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/g...
Clinton's private email server was never hacked. The government servers and FBI data as a result of the investigation on her was compromised. Her own server was far more secure than the classified information they are attacking her for potentially leaking.
"Now is where SJWs yell that % of criminal population is a 'racist statistic'."
What about the statistic that minorities are stopped, ticketes or incarcerated at much higher rates for the same non-violent offenses? Is that racist? Against whom?
If the city, town or state is a majority of minorities you're going to be hard pressed to find statistics that show Caucasians being stopped more than minorities. When they did the Ferguson study that said the Police department was targeting AA's they forget to include that African Americans were 70% of the town's population.
In fact, that would be the simplest way.
In order to believe that those not filed would have been mostly frivolous, it would mean that the would-be complainers would be very aware of the body cameras. I'd wager that the only party that is very aware of the body camera most of the time is the officer.
Most people aren't aware that a good portion of cops don't have body and dashboard cameras. People are starting to assume everyone is equipped with one.
The police also know that they're participating in a study involving wearing these cameras and may have been on their best behavior because they knew that they were being observed. Maybe their superiors told them to be on their best behavior because the number of complaints against them was being closely investigated.
Maybe they were on their best behavior when not wearing the cameras because they wanted to spoil any correlation between their good behavior and wearing the cameras, but it was instead interpreted as the cameras having a more pervasive influence.
It's hard to properly blind the participants in this study, so it's hard to account for all of the unexpected influences.
Superiors? I'd say a notice went out to the entire country to stop being assholes or your name will be in the news. This study also occurred long before all these riots and BLM.
Why not? The officer on an "off" week is simply performing the habituated alternate behavior. Perhaps even the officers cognizant of things and simply applied what they learned, that is, when they're not being a douche they have a better day at work.
Or people see the body cam (and know the cars have front cameras) and know they can't file a bullshit complaint against an officer.
And now you've got to shell out for an SDN infrastructure, too.
That's a cute idea, but he's obviously never had to operate or troubleshoot issues on a production enterprise network. What happens when an machine changes IPs in mid-tcp conversation? I have stuff that maintains ssh sessions for days, the client isn't doing constant nslookups to see where the server has gone. Not to mention the fact that sshd is going to interpret the client IP changing as a session-hijacking attack.
That's just one example, the more I think about it leads me to downgrade my opinion to "dumbass".
J-.
Let's invest. I'll bet we can make millions off the stock before people see through this vaporware idea!!!
Good infosec doesn't cost a lot - the problem is no one gives a shit until after something happens. Then you shit can your CISO, who you ignored the entire time, because you need someone to take the blame.
I wonder if companies have discovered the cost of their reputation, especially after they're forced to hired a CISO due to massive security breaches. (cough, Target, Home Depot, cough).
Sadly, the consumer attention span already forgot about their favorite stores getting hacked not long ago, so the business will hardly view security as a necessary evil going forward, unless the insurance company says otherwise.
Starting to wonder if this needs to be a change in mentality where insurance companies are the ones who should be insisting on CISOs.
Target lost a shit ton of customer not to mention they closed stores due to people abandoning them during the holidays last year.
Germany already took action over the Facebook-WhatsApp data sharing, and probably won't be the last EU member state to do so.
Good luck blocking it in their country when Whatsapp gives them the middle finger.
Actually the deletion of email was enough "evidence" of guilt because legally it can be assumed that doing so is evidence of guilt. Gowdy made that case when confronting the FBI director. In fact, Gowdy pretty much proved that the FBI was complicit in the coverup by not prosecuting Clinton on the grounds that the FBI director actually gave.
But there is more, Clinton's Lawyer AND personal Aide (convenient dual role) Mills said in sworn testimony that she didn't know about the server until after it was destroyed, but they just found an email in which she ASKS about that same server, years before. She perjured herself. But nothing will come of it, because she is both a Clinton Aide and her Lawyer. The convenience of having Aides that are also Lawyers will now be fully realized, they will be pretty much untouchable, because you cannot untangle when she was being a Lawyer, and when she was being an Aide.
That's 100% wrong. Government retention policies are 30 days unless determined the data needs to be kept for more than 1 year. At that point it needs to be printed out and filed away. The loophole is that if it's on a private email server those retention policies don't apply. When the new retention policy was passed during Bush's administration their entire cabinet, not just Bush, switched to a private server. Only in 2016 was the no private email server policy changed. So regardless of what she did on her own server she's not guilty by definition of the law. Now if she continued to use it once the laws changed you'd have a case.
You missed the most important one...
18 U.S. Code  2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term âoeofficeâ does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 795; Pub. L. 101â"510, div. A, title V, Ââ552(a), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1566; Pub. L. 103â"322, title XXXIII, Ââ330016(1)(I), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
I don't see the word electronic in that. Loophole.
I can answer #4. Because she fucking hid everything until a lawsuit from Judicial Watch forced the State Department to release some of the public documents generated by her term as SOS. Once the people had access to her public records, they started to notice that her email wasn't entirely on the government servers, but on her own. Then her lawyers and IT people started to panic (the infamous reddit post) because they knew that Congress would get involved soon, and it did.
The answer to #2 is that every agency seems to be in on the coverup to some extent. They have all been dragging their feet producing records, and several have "lost" drives, tapes, records, etc. IRS Commissioner Koskinen is facing impeachment for this same crap, but for a different scandal (not for Hillary's emails). Obama is probably going to need to pardon every single member of his cabinet and most of the senior management, or President Trump is going to need to build a brand new prison to house the "Most Transparent Administration in history (TM)".
#1 is crap. See Powell's email leaks. #3 is no, or at least not that I've heard of.
Here are at least three of the laws that she apparently broke: 18 US Code 793 18 US Code 798 18 US Code 1924
As to your conclusion, there are guys in prison today for violations of the exact same laws, and several are now attempting to appeal their sentences. At the time they were convicted, those laws were seen as strict liability, so their trial records do not include proof of intent. If those same laws, which haven't changed, require mens rea now, at the very least they need a retrial to establish intent.
Gimme a freaking break. She's used this email server for over 8 years. If you didn't notice the emails weren't being sent from the proper address for 8 years then you don't deserve to use a computer. None of this came to light until multiple attempts to prosecute Clinton for Benghazi didn't work. What you didn't know is that the republicans and other agencies had private mail servers as well. It was only in 2016 where this practice was banned.
I'm going to be pedantic and just point out that I doubt non programmers or non technical people will know about Stack Overflow even if they know google. Last time I checked Stack Overflow didn't have any chicken recipes. Goes and looks just to be sure Damn, scratch that, it does! I'll be damned!
A simple google search for any computer related topic will usually have at least 1 link to stack overflow.
I thought there were bigger issues than just souped-up screenshots/videos. I mean, I know that people bought this thinking that it is a vast, procedurally-generated "universe" that was persistent/simultaneous for all users so you could conceivably "meet" someone (and it was indicated that it was the only way you could "see" how you "look" in the game). Which would have been an amazing feat of engineering, but it turned out they were lying and simply relying on the "vastness" that gave a low probability for two users to be close enough to discover it is impossible to meet (which is, of course, exactly what happened a week or so after it was released). Vast procedural universes that were not persistent/simultaneous for all users are a few magnitudes less impressive and have been done since the 80's (in fact they could fit in a floppy disk - see Elite/Elite II) and it is not how this was described.
Two people also were in the exact spot in the universe but couldn't see each other. They blamed it on the network load of the servers which it could've been but my guess is they didn't expect people to communicate outside the game to find each other. Once they did their bluff was called and not being able to find someone in the vast universe was actually not being able to see them.
Yeah, pretty much. These days it's "pre-order our game and get a portion of the stuff that would normally have been part of the full game, but is now DLC. Oh, and a fancy box/mini-figure/skin"
Here's the thing. You can pre-order anything, especially digital copies. But you don't have to pick it up. So if you find out 2 days later from reviews of the game that it isn't something you like you can still refund it.
In marketing you're not allowed to advertise non-existing features of a product. Or if you are, you get fined at least.
Was it marketing or just a sneak peek in the development process like so many other companies do today? They are very different things.
Sorry but no. There's a shitload of videos and text which show without a shadow of doubt that promises were made and left unfulfilled. people bought the game based on the information at hand which was more than misleading. Misleading is when you hint something, which proves to be less that was was alluded to. Like "Big Trunk", which is misleading because it has no frame of reference (and even so, it's stretching things), But Sean Murray specifically said there will be some sort of multiplayer, that ships will handle differently based on their looks, that NPC factions are warring in space, that you can land on asteroids, that you can grief other players ("A little bit, yeah"), and so on. Those were ALL captured on video and available on Youtube and other channels.
It was a big fat web of lies and deception and it was only a matter of time until shit hit the fan.
Was it said during the beta development process or was it printed on the box, or listed as a feature in advertising such as the Steam Page, Feature list on a video? Because stating what things they want to put in the game during development isn't false advertising, a promise or anything of the sort. It's your job as a consumer to find out what is in the final release either by reviews, word of mouth or a direct feature list.
I'll play an expert. CloudFlare are lying. Though it is correct, that "a simple DNS reconfiguration" would allow the pirates to continue to exist, their bandwidth requirements will go much higher and they would not be able to do as much damage to the intellectual property owners.
Think, for example, of banks blocking money-laundering — it does not stop whatever activity generates the criminals' profits. But it makes the criminals' lives (much) harder.
The reaction and attitudes of Slashdot and other crowds will, once again, boil down to those towards the original activity. People frowning on copyright infringement will denounce CloudFlare. Others will celebrate the pirates getting off for a while longer.
But technically CloudFlare's arguments are bullshit — and they know it.
Except ALS Scan wants to DDOS them off the internet which is *illegal* so they can go to hell.
I don't know about the USA, but in Brazil it *is* illegal, and as soon as enough such printers are "caught in the act" to be used as evidence, HP will be sued by PROTESTE (a consumer rights action group mostly made out of lawyers :p).
Except you void your warranty using non-HP ink so good luck with that.
This is probably actually illegal. Sony had to pay a settlement for disabling Linux on the PS3; HP is doing the same, so has at least a civil suit. Uniquely, however, HP has proven that their product is compatible with third-party ink, and has taken action to specifically to lock-out competition. That's probably an instance of Tying, and HP has sufficient market power to show that Tying is anti-competitive.
Apple does it every day and they get away with it. Try replacing a part with a after market item and see how long it takes your phone to brick itself. If you put 3rd party parts in your product you can't expect them to work. There's so many horror stories about refilling cartridges damaging printers HP shouldn't have to deal with it at all.
This is where we are now. Everything you buy today is sold with Darth Vader terms "I've altered the deal, pray i dont alter it further" with no recourse other than to not buy or stop using it. IN the past you could work around these things, but DMCA kills most of that.. Unless you are running open solutions, you are at their mercy. We are here, we have arrived. Its not some dystopian future, its here, now, today.
Well if 3rd parties didn't create absolute substandard ink cartridges HP wouldn't be forced to do this. Instead you buy a 3rd party cartridge. It leaks or breaks in your printer. You call HP because your product is broken and they find out you didn't use a HP cartridge. Now it becomes a huge problem for their support department when trying to determine fault. Do you refuse support and send them to the 3rd party to fix their printer? That makes HP look bad... So it only makes sense to ban 3rd party cartridges.
If they haven't fixed this within the week, I'm going to consider this malicious intent. If they do, I'll consider it sloppy QA.
In either case Lenovo have lost considerable reputation in my eyes...and this isn't the first time they've walked the edge between malice and incompetence, so they were already sliding down. I doubt that I'll recommend them to anyone for any purpose after this, but new stories are always popping up, and this isn't yet egregious enough that I'm sure I'll remember them as "always avoid".
The reason for "within the week", is that by then my opinions will have set, and I'll have my attention off this story. It gets pretty hard to change my mind after that, and currently I'm leaning towards malicious.
P.S.: While I'm only talking for myself, I don't delude myself that my thoughts and opinions are unique. So for Lenovo time *is* of the essence. If I don't become convinced that they weren't malicious this story will tack on the addendum "and then they lie about it".
It's been with the developers since last July. So I guess you're late to the party.