he cuts a deal and give the US government information about the Trump campaign or Wikileaks
To whom? Mueller is not a special prosecutor anymore; the Russia investigation is closed. There is no deal for Assange to give information.
the worse that might happen is that he sent back to Sweden for rape charges
Nope. Sweden close that book a few years back. Also, Sweden was only investigating him for sexual abuse charges; they never build a sufficiently strong case to keep a possible indictment alive.
if he stays in the US, he would be monitored or just keep from an internet connection and that would probably just break him.
Childishly melodramatic. Assange is going to be charged with a felony, basically aiding Manning in obtaining unauthorized access to a military computer system, and then collecting and releasing the contents of said military computer system. Even if they're not going to be able to pin Assange with the exact wording required to press those charges, he's going to get charged with conspiracy to commit Manning's crimes. It could be five years, it could be less. Doesn't matter; its a felony, and he will be placed in a federal prison. After his sentence is completed, he will be deported, probably to Australia, because Assange is not a US citizen. Afterwards, you're going to see a press clipping or mention on a bleeding heart liberal site for a year or two, and after that nothing.
Because Assange has shot his load, had his 15 minutes of fame. He has no special talent as a political leader or spokesperson, and is reputed by most people who worked with Assange, a difficult asshole. He's going to live the rest of his life pretty much a nobody.
The professor says this is no different than a journalist setting up a drop point for information.
Turley said he doubted that the charge based on Assange aiding Manning obtaining an unauthorized password would either stick or be used, (which I find a ridiculous notion from a legal scholar) and that the cloud aspect of Assange's crime was no different than setting up a drop point.
Assange may not be gitmo'ed or be spending time at a supermax, but rest assurred Assange will be convicted of a felony and spend multiple years for it.
I'd argue they didn't even give a fuck about Assange then. It was about the President of Ecuador (at the time) itching to flip the bird towards the US.
If he hadn't bail jumped then the Brits wouldn't have had any reason to bother him.
If Assange didn't jump bail, he would have most likely have been handed over to Swedish authorities, with the remote possibility of being handed over to the US first. I don't think violating his bail agreement was justified, but its pretty disingenuous to imply Assange faced no consequence for abiding by his bail agreement.
What makes you think he's going to be able to make public about anything concerning his prosecution? Yoo-nited States security court; that's where his case is headed.
Blame them for what? Following their law? Assange violated his bail agreement when the courts were in the process of handing him over (purportedly) to Sweden.
As long as Assange was in the Equadorian embassy in London, UK law (coupled with foreign treaties) dictated they were seize him the moment Assange was on British soil, and hand him over to the relevant authorities. There's no point in challenging US extradition (by UK 3rd parties) once Assange demonstrated he would violate bail agreements.
The US military would do well to remember that the next time they can't get decent Intel or stuff leaks.
The US military doesn't depend upon people who hate their guts for intel or suppression of leaks. But you keep tilting at your strawman windmills.
The US federal gov't prosecutes many murder charges. They're merely required to "have greater standing" over a state prosecution of murder. Trump would merely need to find a suitable assassin under federal murder charges to give the pitch. Of course, this line of thought is completely juvenile, bordering on idiotic.
If dipshit was so bright, he would have had a better plan to deal with the probability he'd be handed over to Sweden. Refuge in Equador was a prison of his own making.
the journalists have no charges against them because they were not involved in acquiring them:
As important, they didn't reveal anything that could be interpreted as jeopardizing US national security or damaging ongoing intelligence operations. They operated as journalists, picking out the items that were newsworthy, but not publicizing information that got US operatives killed or otherwise damage "legitimate" deep cover operations. They probably even gave advance notice to US security agencies before releasing their stories. This was also a part of Snowden's designed intention when he gave them the intelligence dump.
The thing about Wikileaks, its headed by a non-US citizen (Assange) who is an avowed anarchist and activist against Western policy initiatives. Revealing the contents of an entire intelligence database without vetting the contents it was revealing, was the height of irresponsibility, and not how legitimate journalists actually publish news. If Al-Queda or the Taleban had a savvier intelligence operation, they could have easily mined the release for the identities of US collaborators, and proceeded to have them assassinated. And that's only a tiny example of what could have been done with the information. The only problem I would have had with droning Assange's ass would be that it would have hit civilians in the Equadorian embassy.
I disagree. The problem is that parents don't raise their kids to be financially independent at the age of 18, to the point where they would be concerned about taking on the loans. It doesn't matter if you wise up by the age of 22, you're pretty much a slave at that point. The other problem is that a college degree has been mythologized as a road to financial success, to the point that colleges (and public schools) sell the myth, and parents (affecting mostly the poor) enable their kids to become debt slaves.
The Congress and the banks have basically made student loans a predatory industry, along with "payday" style cash loans.
When I look at the "value" of a college degree, I look at teachers as a canary test. They have to be highly educated to take on such a career (in NY), and what's their financial status? They're living paycheck to paycheck, can barely afford to live in the region, and are worried they won't have enough money to help put their kids through "state college" *and* their retirement (and keep property, for those who have it).
Its especially crazy to think this status quo can be maintained when AI will eventually cut into much of the entry level jobs on the professional level. Forget the truck drivers (although they're screwed if they were counting on a career), computer systems are already reducing head counts in paralegal and lawyers at large firms, and shocker, medicine is basically a pattern matching machine to determine diagnosis, and follows a protocol to address the diagnosis. You don't need a doctor's education, who is able to piece together exceptional situations that require going "off book", for 90% of people's ailments. Computers are going to wipe out professional entry level jobs the way that it wiped out the bookkeeping industry before the 1980s.
No, missile defenses don't work on a strategic level opponent. If China/Russia wanted to nuke us, and wasn't sure how capable the missile defense was, they'd merely lob over 5X more missiles than they originally intended, and have them MIRVed (Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicles). In other words, they would merely overwhelm the missile defense system. Also realize its much, much cheaper to build more missiles than a missile defense can effectively respond to. Finally, no nation has MIRVs with glide controls to randomize their entry trajectories. That would be a relatively trivial improvement that would make current missile defense systems near useless; they would have to hit the incoming missile before they were at a trajectory point to release their MIRVed warheads.
No, if anything, those missile defenses makes the situation more destabilizing. Opposing parties will proliferate their nuclear weapons, and the nations with an effective missile defense will have greater motivation to launch a pre-emptive first strike, to limit the number of missiles coming their way. Which means the missiles will operate on a hair trigger to avoid losing the entire missile force in a first strike, which means the greater likelihood of a miscalculation triggering an unintended nuclear attack.
No, current missile defense systems are more about deterring poverty stricken 3rd world nations like North Korea or Pakistan from considering a nuclear strike at US allies; they're too poor to build enough ICBMs to overwhelm a US missile defense system. And if the US had money to piss away, like on lunar lander missions, it wouldn't be the worst idea in the world. Alas, we want to provide health care for all our citizens, and pay out social security, even though we won't have enough workers to pay the checks.
That never stopped a CEO from anticipating a recessionary trend that directly affects his industry. Corporations stock up employees to anticipate industry growth. If you "know" that growth is unlikely, there's no reason to be "flush" with infrastructure employees.
Everytime it happens the middle class takes a permanent pay cut and a hit to their assets and the 1% scoops those pay,
Its only been that way in "our" lifetime, or the workplace post Ronald Reagan.
What bothers me is the banking crash in 2007-2008. In previous eras, when banks screwed up (savings & loans crash in the 1980's), somebody went to prison. The 2007 crash was caused by the deregulation from the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act, and the Fed Reserve/Treasury/Congress permitting the use of derivatives to get around loan regulations. Leave it to the investment banks to bitch about reckless "subprime" loan lending. No one was "forcing" them to make the loans; they just thought they would be untouched by its consequences from their use of derivatives. In any case, all the top assholes got away.
Instead, we had the Fed breaking unspoken rules with its 0% interest lending window, QE & QE2. These programs may have "saved" the banking industry, but it only benefited the investment class, which is why there is a magnitude more wealth disparity in the US today.
And now this financial chicanery has leaked throughout the legal system. You have pharmaceutical companies pushing synthetic heroin with almost zero consequences. Jackholes like Shkreli who should never have been in their CEO positions as long as they have. Basically, if you have a degree from an Ivy School and rich, somehow you can't be a criminal and suffer legal consequences. (I'm really peeved that I can't remember at this moment more examples of this systemic criminality.) Finally, you have that legal/ethical joke that is Donald J. Trump. I can also point out where the courts have reenabled political corruption with the Citizens United ruling, and the Bob MacDonnell conviction reversal, which has allowed weasels like Menendez to keep his Senate seat.
The economic tsunami which is Social Security in the 2030's is coming up, and the solution that Democrats propose is to expand medicaid coverage to cover everyone. The real solution is for the US to move to a health care funding system that works, (which is partly expanding medical coverage to everyone) but driving down health care cost inflation caused by our current system. This means there will be a lot of unhappy doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and insurers getting their revenues slashed to meet European standards. And a lot of unhappy voters that may not get their health care issue subsidized, because its either hellishly expensive, or everyone is better off if you croak. 85-90 year olds are not entitled to free hip replacement surgery if a case can be made that they're going to die or stay an invalid in 5 years anyway. Pregnant women are not entitled to free fetal surgery. Just because science can save or immeasurably benefit a life at extreme financial expense, doesn't mean society should be obliged to subsidize it. Long term, financial disaster is looming for the US, but the Republican solution is to increase the budget deficit by another 5.5 trillion in the next 10 years.
American capitalism is functional. Its just riddled with corruption because the foxes are guarding the henhouse, between the DOJ, SEC, and laws passed by Congress. The fault lies on the voters, because they have the power to remove politicians that are too brazenly deferential towards Wall Street.
And his family litigated the matter in the US, and the Courts upheld his status as a combatant.
As did the Courts in Korematsu vs the US. Its not "okay" because the Courts made bad rulings.
Did you think it was unconstitutional for the Union soldiers during the Civil War to fire their weapons?
Southern insurrectionists sure did. But just because we can declare ourselves "winners" doesn't mean violating recognized law is irrelevant. I believe its apparent that the Bush administration violated international law by invading Iraq in 2003. Just because none of the actors will suffer legal reprecussions for it, doesn't mean it was an acceptable act of government.
That's not how war works. The Constitution doesn't ban war.
But the CotUS requires an act of Congress to conduct war. The US has not been in an active war for the past 50 years. The US, by definition, cannot even be in a war with non-state insurgents. The standards of war are not applicable to drone execution of an American national, even if he is considered a criminal/rogue agent of a terrorist organization. The Bush administration created the extralegal State Security nightmare we are currently living in, and the Obama administration has enthusiastically extended its existence.
A military trial for a civilian American citizen would be totally unconstitutional. There is absolutely no way this would happen.
You're right, but the reality is more nuanced than that.
If Snowden was handed over or kidnapped to the US today, he would be tried in a closed FISA court. It would allegedly work like a standard criminal court, but there is no telling what information he would be denied access to, on state secrets grounds, or how he would be denied motions relevant to demonstrating he is not guilty, because the whole proceeding is secret. It may as well be a kangaroo military court.
What *should* be done, and was attempted, was for Snowden and the US agree to a plea bargain arrangement. Contrary to national security propaganda, Snowden probably did not reveal devastating information that destroyed intelligence gathering programs or got assets killed. For the type of "crime" he committed, it would be analogous 4 years of prison time. From Snowden's point of view, it would be preferable to spending the rest of life in exile, and he could more constructively spend his the rest of his life reminding the public of the illegal actions of the US national security apparatus. From a national security PoV, they learn more about what Snowden revealed to the Russians, and they can finally bury the ugly chapter of the US intel agencies illegally gathering transactional activity and information on US citizens. But there's no way to tell whether Snowden or the US was being unreasonable negotiating the conditions of the plea bargain.
I don't own an Xbox One, so I have a problem conceiving it.
Has there ever been an instance when playing a game on one's computer, and thinking, "damn, if only my Xbox One had that Steamlink feature so I could play off my TV..."
Did Xbox users clamor for this feature? Is this really a significant Xbox deficiency that needed to be addressed? There weren't more pressing issues to fix for Xbox? Should I expect other console makers to add that option to their consoles? Is it time for DOJ to open up an antitrust investigation on Xbox?
Slashdot Mirror
he cuts a deal and give the US government information about the Trump campaign or Wikileaks
To whom? Mueller is not a special prosecutor anymore; the Russia investigation is closed. There is no deal for Assange to give information.
the worse that might happen is that he sent back to Sweden for rape charges
Nope. Sweden close that book a few years back. Also, Sweden was only investigating him for sexual abuse charges; they never build a sufficiently strong case to keep a possible indictment alive.
if he stays in the US, he would be monitored or just keep from an internet connection and that would probably just break him.
Childishly melodramatic. Assange is going to be charged with a felony, basically aiding Manning in obtaining unauthorized access to a military computer system, and then collecting and releasing the contents of said military computer system. Even if they're not going to be able to pin Assange with the exact wording required to press those charges, he's going to get charged with conspiracy to commit Manning's crimes. It could be five years, it could be less. Doesn't matter; its a felony, and he will be placed in a federal prison. After his sentence is completed, he will be deported, probably to Australia, because Assange is not a US citizen. Afterwards, you're going to see a press clipping or mention on a bleeding heart liberal site for a year or two, and after that nothing.
Because Assange has shot his load, had his 15 minutes of fame. He has no special talent as a political leader or spokesperson, and is reputed by most people who worked with Assange, a difficult asshole. He's going to live the rest of his life pretty much a nobody.
The professor says this is no different than a journalist setting up a drop point for information.
Turley said he doubted that the charge based on Assange aiding Manning obtaining an unauthorized password would either stick or be used, (which I find a ridiculous notion from a legal scholar) and that the cloud aspect of Assange's crime was no different than setting up a drop point.
Assange may not be gitmo'ed or be spending time at a supermax, but rest assurred Assange will be convicted of a felony and spend multiple years for it.
Assange doesn't get diplomat quarters. He gets servant room closet quarters. Still marginally nicer than a jail cell.
I'd argue they didn't even give a fuck about Assange then. It was about the President of Ecuador (at the time) itching to flip the bird towards the US.
If he hadn't bail jumped then the Brits wouldn't have had any reason to bother him.
If Assange didn't jump bail, he would have most likely have been handed over to Swedish authorities, with the remote possibility of being handed over to the US first. I don't think violating his bail agreement was justified, but its pretty disingenuous to imply Assange faced no consequence for abiding by his bail agreement.
As for Snowden, the people who praise him tend to have little understanding of what exactly he did,
And you do??? Keep wavying your "deep state" treason flag.
I'd argue no "legitimate", competent journalist would release classified information without first curating them.
This is why a lot of people hate Assange but praise Snowden.
Amen.
What makes you think he's going to be able to make public about anything concerning his prosecution? Yoo-nited States security court; that's where his case is headed.
You can blame the Brits for that.
Blame them for what? Following their law? Assange violated his bail agreement when the courts were in the process of handing him over (purportedly) to Sweden.
As long as Assange was in the Equadorian embassy in London, UK law (coupled with foreign treaties) dictated they were seize him the moment Assange was on British soil, and hand him over to the relevant authorities. There's no point in challenging US extradition (by UK 3rd parties) once Assange demonstrated he would violate bail agreements.
The US military would do well to remember that the next time they can't get decent Intel or stuff leaks.
The US military doesn't depend upon people who hate their guts for intel or suppression of leaks. But you keep tilting at your strawman windmills.
The US federal gov't prosecutes many murder charges. They're merely required to "have greater standing" over a state prosecution of murder. Trump would merely need to find a suitable assassin under federal murder charges to give the pitch. Of course, this line of thought is completely juvenile, bordering on idiotic.
They may be working the same scam, but they're not all in it together.
War is hell. If the attack was as flagrant as (non-informed) activists claimed it was, the operators could still be tried in a military court.
If dipshit was so bright, he would have had a better plan to deal with the probability he'd be handed over to Sweden. Refuge in Equador was a prison of his own making.
the journalists have no charges against them because they were not involved in acquiring them:
As important, they didn't reveal anything that could be interpreted as jeopardizing US national security or damaging ongoing intelligence operations. They operated as journalists, picking out the items that were newsworthy, but not publicizing information that got US operatives killed or otherwise damage "legitimate" deep cover operations. They probably even gave advance notice to US security agencies before releasing their stories. This was also a part of Snowden's designed intention when he gave them the intelligence dump.
The thing about Wikileaks, its headed by a non-US citizen (Assange) who is an avowed anarchist and activist against Western policy initiatives. Revealing the contents of an entire intelligence database without vetting the contents it was revealing, was the height of irresponsibility, and not how legitimate journalists actually publish news. If Al-Queda or the Taleban had a savvier intelligence operation, they could have easily mined the release for the identities of US collaborators, and proceeded to have them assassinated. And that's only a tiny example of what could have been done with the information. The only problem I would have had with droning Assange's ass would be that it would have hit civilians in the Equadorian embassy.
I'm still trying to grasp the notion that H1-B's & L1's make less than $15/hr. I could believe that in 2000, but in 2019???
Shit, there really is a glut of talent programmers in India.... /s
...you always have a Right to be Forgotten when you own the company that has a lifetime of your public Internet communications.
I disagree. The problem is that parents don't raise their kids to be financially independent at the age of 18, to the point where they would be concerned about taking on the loans. It doesn't matter if you wise up by the age of 22, you're pretty much a slave at that point. The other problem is that a college degree has been mythologized as a road to financial success, to the point that colleges (and public schools) sell the myth, and parents (affecting mostly the poor) enable their kids to become debt slaves.
The Congress and the banks have basically made student loans a predatory industry, along with "payday" style cash loans.
When I look at the "value" of a college degree, I look at teachers as a canary test. They have to be highly educated to take on such a career (in NY), and what's their financial status? They're living paycheck to paycheck, can barely afford to live in the region, and are worried they won't have enough money to help put their kids through "state college" *and* their retirement (and keep property, for those who have it).
Its especially crazy to think this status quo can be maintained when AI will eventually cut into much of the entry level jobs on the professional level. Forget the truck drivers (although they're screwed if they were counting on a career), computer systems are already reducing head counts in paralegal and lawyers at large firms, and shocker, medicine is basically a pattern matching machine to determine diagnosis, and follows a protocol to address the diagnosis. You don't need a doctor's education, who is able to piece together exceptional situations that require going "off book", for 90% of people's ailments. Computers are going to wipe out professional entry level jobs the way that it wiped out the bookkeeping industry before the 1980s.
No, missile defenses don't work on a strategic level opponent. If China/Russia wanted to nuke us, and wasn't sure how capable the missile defense was, they'd merely lob over 5X more missiles than they originally intended, and have them MIRVed (Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicles). In other words, they would merely overwhelm the missile defense system. Also realize its much, much cheaper to build more missiles than a missile defense can effectively respond to. Finally, no nation has MIRVs with glide controls to randomize their entry trajectories. That would be a relatively trivial improvement that would make current missile defense systems near useless; they would have to hit the incoming missile before they were at a trajectory point to release their MIRVed warheads.
No, if anything, those missile defenses makes the situation more destabilizing. Opposing parties will proliferate their nuclear weapons, and the nations with an effective missile defense will have greater motivation to launch a pre-emptive first strike, to limit the number of missiles coming their way. Which means the missiles will operate on a hair trigger to avoid losing the entire missile force in a first strike, which means the greater likelihood of a miscalculation triggering an unintended nuclear attack.
No, current missile defense systems are more about deterring poverty stricken 3rd world nations like North Korea or Pakistan from considering a nuclear strike at US allies; they're too poor to build enough ICBMs to overwhelm a US missile defense system. And if the US had money to piss away, like on lunar lander missions, it wouldn't be the worst idea in the world. Alas, we want to provide health care for all our citizens, and pay out social security, even though we won't have enough workers to pay the checks.
That never stopped a CEO from anticipating a recessionary trend that directly affects his industry. Corporations stock up employees to anticipate industry growth. If you "know" that growth is unlikely, there's no reason to be "flush" with infrastructure employees.
Everytime it happens the middle class takes a permanent pay cut and a hit to their assets and the 1% scoops those pay,
Its only been that way in "our" lifetime, or the workplace post Ronald Reagan.
What bothers me is the banking crash in 2007-2008. In previous eras, when banks screwed up (savings & loans crash in the 1980's), somebody went to prison. The 2007 crash was caused by the deregulation from the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act, and the Fed Reserve/Treasury/Congress permitting the use of derivatives to get around loan regulations. Leave it to the investment banks to bitch about reckless "subprime" loan lending. No one was "forcing" them to make the loans; they just thought they would be untouched by its consequences from their use of derivatives. In any case, all the top assholes got away.
Instead, we had the Fed breaking unspoken rules with its 0% interest lending window, QE & QE2. These programs may have "saved" the banking industry, but it only benefited the investment class, which is why there is a magnitude more wealth disparity in the US today.
And now this financial chicanery has leaked throughout the legal system. You have pharmaceutical companies pushing synthetic heroin with almost zero consequences. Jackholes like Shkreli who should never have been in their CEO positions as long as they have. Basically, if you have a degree from an Ivy School and rich, somehow you can't be a criminal and suffer legal consequences. (I'm really peeved that I can't remember at this moment more examples of this systemic criminality.) Finally, you have that legal/ethical joke that is Donald J. Trump. I can also point out where the courts have reenabled political corruption with the Citizens United ruling, and the Bob MacDonnell conviction reversal, which has allowed weasels like Menendez to keep his Senate seat.
The economic tsunami which is Social Security in the 2030's is coming up, and the solution that Democrats propose is to expand medicaid coverage to cover everyone. The real solution is for the US to move to a health care funding system that works, (which is partly expanding medical coverage to everyone) but driving down health care cost inflation caused by our current system. This means there will be a lot of unhappy doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and insurers getting their revenues slashed to meet European standards. And a lot of unhappy voters that may not get their health care issue subsidized, because its either hellishly expensive, or everyone is better off if you croak. 85-90 year olds are not entitled to free hip replacement surgery if a case can be made that they're going to die or stay an invalid in 5 years anyway. Pregnant women are not entitled to free fetal surgery. Just because science can save or immeasurably benefit a life at extreme financial expense, doesn't mean society should be obliged to subsidize it. Long term, financial disaster is looming for the US, but the Republican solution is to increase the budget deficit by another 5.5 trillion in the next 10 years.
American capitalism is functional. Its just riddled with corruption because the foxes are guarding the henhouse, between the DOJ, SEC, and laws passed by Congress. The fault lies on the voters, because they have the power to remove politicians that are too brazenly deferential towards Wall Street.
And his family litigated the matter in the US, and the Courts upheld his status as a combatant.
As did the Courts in Korematsu vs the US. Its not "okay" because the Courts made bad rulings.
Did you think it was unconstitutional for the Union soldiers during the Civil War to fire their weapons?
Southern insurrectionists sure did. But just because we can declare ourselves "winners" doesn't mean violating recognized law is irrelevant. I believe its apparent that the Bush administration violated international law by invading Iraq in 2003. Just because none of the actors will suffer legal reprecussions for it, doesn't mean it was an acceptable act of government.
That's not how war works. The Constitution doesn't ban war.
But the CotUS requires an act of Congress to conduct war. The US has not been in an active war for the past 50 years. The US, by definition, cannot even be in a war with non-state insurgents. The standards of war are not applicable to drone execution of an American national, even if he is considered a criminal/rogue agent of a terrorist organization. The Bush administration created the extralegal State Security nightmare we are currently living in, and the Obama administration has enthusiastically extended its existence.
A military trial for a civilian American citizen would be totally unconstitutional. There is absolutely no way this would happen.
You're right, but the reality is more nuanced than that.
If Snowden was handed over or kidnapped to the US today, he would be tried in a closed FISA court. It would allegedly work like a standard criminal court, but there is no telling what information he would be denied access to, on state secrets grounds, or how he would be denied motions relevant to demonstrating he is not guilty, because the whole proceeding is secret. It may as well be a kangaroo military court.
What *should* be done, and was attempted, was for Snowden and the US agree to a plea bargain arrangement. Contrary to national security propaganda, Snowden probably did not reveal devastating information that destroyed intelligence gathering programs or got assets killed. For the type of "crime" he committed, it would be analogous 4 years of prison time. From Snowden's point of view, it would be preferable to spending the rest of life in exile, and he could more constructively spend his the rest of his life reminding the public of the illegal actions of the US national security apparatus. From a national security PoV, they learn more about what Snowden revealed to the Russians, and they can finally bury the ugly chapter of the US intel agencies illegally gathering transactional activity and information on US citizens. But there's no way to tell whether Snowden or the US was being unreasonable negotiating the conditions of the plea bargain.
I don't own an Xbox One, so I have a problem conceiving it.
Has there ever been an instance when playing a game on one's computer, and thinking, "damn, if only my Xbox One had that Steamlink feature so I could play off my TV..."
Did Xbox users clamor for this feature? Is this really a significant Xbox deficiency that needed to be addressed? There weren't more pressing issues to fix for Xbox? Should I expect other console makers to add that option to their consoles? Is it time for DOJ to open up an antitrust investigation on Xbox?