"Copyright is for dullards who add a few more man-hours to a few million man-hours of cultural development then mix in an egomaniacal sense of entitlement."
If you can help shrink this idea down to fit on a t-shirt, I'll send you the first t-shirt I sell with it.
I don't have time to read entire sections of government statutes. Luckily, though, the army of conservative reporters and activists do have that time! And yet, none of them have pointed to any broken laws. Huh.
And in fact I did go read one statue quoted to me by my super-conservative lawyer friend. It was his best effort and yet he himself agreed it was a stretch to apply that statute to this situation.
When Fox News quotes the broken law, including the text of the law which clearly applies to this situation, then I'll stop being skeptical of the claim that Clinton broke a law by using a personal email server. Until then this is just another Benghazi Death Panel Government Takeover.
I've had long conversations with my lawyer friends about the exact statutes you claim she violated. The text of the law doesn't support that claim.
Think about it, if she violated a specific statute, then why hasn't Fox News quoted that statute? Because they're too lazy? Because they can't read? or is it because the statute doesn't actually apply?
The underling was fired for using Gmail, a commercial system not under the user's control. That was the problem (a minor problem, on top of the long list of major problems with that underling).
The charge of hypocrisy is fair (or, it could be). If Hillary threw a spitball at Bush for doing this same thing, I wouldn't be surprised. I also wouldn't be surprised if there were important differences in the two situations. Either way, if your best charge is hypocrisy, then okay that's below my threshold for giving half a shit.
President Nixon wasn't fired, he resigned, and it was for way way more than sending emails.
Thank you for the article. The headline totally supports what you are saying! Luckily, the headline -- like so many headlines -- says exactly the opposite of what the article says.
Headline: Clinton private email violated 'clear-cut' State Dept. rules
Article: "Spokespeople for the State Department and Clinton stressed earlier this week that the agency had 'no prohibition' on the use of private email for work purposes."
Other key phrases: "general rule", "warn", "fuzzy guidelines", "should be", "except in certain circumstances".
That article supports my position. If it supported yours, it would say
"Spokespeople for the State Department stressed earlier this week that the agency had 'clear-cut prohibitions' on the use of private email for work purposes."
We know 100% positively for certain that State Department email systems are cracked, therefore Clinton's personal email server cannot possibly be less secure than State Dept email servers. Maybe the security cert was generic, or whatever, but it is literally impossible for her email to be less secure than the alternative.
Probably because they didn't make the Mac icons, so they don't deserve credit. But, hey, this is a free country so you are allowed to misattribute credit to anyone you want to.
Me neither but that's because today's icons are high-res. Kare was working with 32x32 squares -- or even smaller! -- and 256 colors -- or even fewer! Remember the 8x8 small icons? That would be ridiculous today.
Still, old pixelated icons scream "computer" to me. The high-res ones we have today don't have the same panache.
I really, really liked the Fat Trash icon. I like it better than any of the trash icons since. I liked that it was not a realistic metaphor yet it perfectly expressed the trash status.
The circular black-and-white precursor to today's colorized Beach Ball cursor wasn't animated? In my memory it was but gosh maybe my memory is wrong. The watch definitely had spinning hands, though.
How far back does your Mac use go? I got my first Mac when I was 13 (an LC III) in 1993. I saw the sad Mac icon more than zero times but not a heck of a lot of times. The spinning black-and-white icon, though, I saw all the freaking time. As far as I know, it wasn't called a Beach Ball until it was colorized with Mac OS X.
Racists have the same legal rights to say their racist bits that they've always had. What changed is that society now frowns on racism, so the racists are embarrassed -- rightly so.
Society progressed with no loss of freedom. That is all good and no bad.
...none of the good? Dude, we no longer have governors of states saying "Segregation forever". We have had tons and tons of good. Oh, the racists are scared in public and decide to hide under their covers when they spout their racism? Good, good, good.
Democracy is hard. It's much easier to have infantile pretend-democracies such as the UK, which is a Theocratic Monarchy, seeing as how it has an official state religion and a monarch which rules both the state and the church. But yeah, in real big-boy democracies like the USA, the sausage-making sometimes is gross.
You are jesting, but I just replaced an old toilet with a new one specifically because the old one got dirty quickly and was hard to clean. The replacement has brilliant gleaming smooth porcelain which is very easy to clean. As a bonus it is dual-flush low-flow throne-height. A new toilet might significantly cut down your toilet cleaning. It took me 45 minutes all by myself to do the chore. Half of the job was removing the old toilet.
It's a machine not a robot. Like most things, there is no clear boundary, but it is clear that the two ends of the spectrum are very different. Likewise it is clear that simple contraptions are not robots.
How are any rules of war enforced? And yet we have them and they are largely, if not universally, obeyed. The article even gives two examples in the first paragraph.
Slashdot Mirror
"Copyright is for dullards who add a few more man-hours to a few million man-hours of cultural development then mix in an egomaniacal sense of entitlement."
If you can help shrink this idea down to fit on a t-shirt, I'll send you the first t-shirt I sell with it.
I don't have time to read entire sections of government statutes. Luckily, though, the army of conservative reporters and activists do have that time! And yet, none of them have pointed to any broken laws. Huh.
And in fact I did go read one statue quoted to me by my super-conservative lawyer friend. It was his best effort and yet he himself agreed it was a stretch to apply that statute to this situation.
When Fox News quotes the broken law, including the text of the law which clearly applies to this situation, then I'll stop being skeptical of the claim that Clinton broke a law by using a personal email server. Until then this is just another Benghazi Death Panel Government Takeover.
I've had long conversations with my lawyer friends about the exact statutes you claim she violated. The text of the law doesn't support that claim.
Think about it, if she violated a specific statute, then why hasn't Fox News quoted that statute? Because they're too lazy? Because they can't read? or is it because the statute doesn't actually apply?
The underling was fired for using Gmail, a commercial system not under the user's control. That was the problem (a minor problem, on top of the long list of major problems with that underling).
The charge of hypocrisy is fair (or, it could be). If Hillary threw a spitball at Bush for doing this same thing, I wouldn't be surprised. I also wouldn't be surprised if there were important differences in the two situations. Either way, if your best charge is hypocrisy, then okay that's below my threshold for giving half a shit.
President Nixon wasn't fired, he resigned, and it was for way way more than sending emails.
Thank you for the article. The headline totally supports what you are saying! Luckily, the headline -- like so many headlines -- says exactly the opposite of what the article says.
Headline: Clinton private email violated 'clear-cut' State Dept. rules
Article: "Spokespeople for the State Department and Clinton stressed earlier this week that the agency had 'no prohibition' on the use of private email for work purposes."
Other key phrases: "general rule", "warn", "fuzzy guidelines", "should be", "except in certain circumstances".
That article supports my position. If it supported yours, it would say
"Spokespeople for the State Department stressed earlier this week that the agency had 'clear-cut prohibitions' on the use of private email for work purposes."
Here's the logic
We know 100% positively for certain that State Department email systems are cracked, therefore Clinton's personal email server cannot possibly be less secure than State Dept email servers. Maybe the security cert was generic, or whatever, but it is literally impossible for her email to be less secure than the alternative.
"It specifically is illegal actually."
If that were true, her enemies would quote the law.
Her enemies have not quoted the law.
Therefore it is not illegal, actually.
Probably because they didn't make the Mac icons, so they don't deserve credit. But, hey, this is a free country so you are allowed to misattribute credit to anyone you want to.
Me neither but that's because today's icons are high-res. Kare was working with 32x32 squares -- or even smaller! -- and 256 colors -- or even fewer! Remember the 8x8 small icons? That would be ridiculous today.
Still, old pixelated icons scream "computer" to me. The high-res ones we have today don't have the same panache.
I really, really liked the Fat Trash icon. I like it better than any of the trash icons since. I liked that it was not a realistic metaphor yet it perfectly expressed the trash status.
The circular black-and-white precursor to today's colorized Beach Ball cursor wasn't animated? In my memory it was but gosh maybe my memory is wrong. The watch definitely had spinning hands, though.
Yeah. I think I saw the Sad Mac after one too many adventures with ResEdit.
How far back does your Mac use go? I got my first Mac when I was 13 (an LC III) in 1993. I saw the sad Mac icon more than zero times but not a heck of a lot of times. The spinning black-and-white icon, though, I saw all the freaking time. As far as I know, it wasn't called a Beach Ball until it was colorized with Mac OS X.
"When people learn to respect the racist and the crackpot"
That seems odd to me. What is the argument for respecting racists and crackpots?
Racists have the same legal rights to say their racist bits that they've always had. What changed is that society now frowns on racism, so the racists are embarrassed -- rightly so.
Society progressed with no loss of freedom. That is all good and no bad.
Yes. Sort of like the way laboring in factories all day long is now For Adults Only.
...none of the good? Dude, we no longer have governors of states saying "Segregation forever". We have had tons and tons of good. Oh, the racists are scared in public and decide to hide under their covers when they spout their racism? Good, good, good.
Democracy is hard. It's much easier to have infantile pretend-democracies such as the UK, which is a Theocratic Monarchy, seeing as how it has an official state religion and a monarch which rules both the state and the church. But yeah, in real big-boy democracies like the USA, the sausage-making sometimes is gross.
You are jesting, but I just replaced an old toilet with a new one specifically because the old one got dirty quickly and was hard to clean. The replacement has brilliant gleaming smooth porcelain which is very easy to clean. As a bonus it is dual-flush low-flow throne-height. A new toilet might significantly cut down your toilet cleaning. It took me 45 minutes all by myself to do the chore. Half of the job was removing the old toilet.
It's a machine not a robot. Like most things, there is no clear boundary, but it is clear that the two ends of the spectrum are very different. Likewise it is clear that simple contraptions are not robots.
The determination of attackers and defenders is usually difficult to agree on. Everybody thinks they are defending something.
No, land mines aren't robots by the common understanding. But it still might be a good idea to do away with them.
"WHY?"
I don't believe that you are really so naive.
How are any rules of war enforced? And yet we have them and they are largely, if not universally, obeyed. The article even gives two examples in the first paragraph.