I guess you were one of the "witch hunters" back then, wasn't you? Did it work? Did any of those criminals get any jail time?
Depends what you mean. I hated Bush, thought his administration was completely lawless, and there were crimes for which people should have done jail time.
But screwing up the IT? That wasn't one of them.
I believe most people that heard about the issue (specially here) would say, even at the time, that they should be prosecuted. They should be prosecuted, just like Clinton.
That's an interesting idea... if only/. had some magical archive where we could look back 9 years and see...
Hmm, lets see. 59 comments with a score of +4 and +5. I see one comment speculating that congress is trying to get Gonzales to perjurer himself in front of congress so they can send him to jail and... that's about it.
So yeah, back when Gonzales used a private email server which actually did delete a huge portion of the potentially incriminating information, no one talked about jail.
FTA, "At this time, we have not confirmed that the documents are, in fact, responsive, or whether they are duplicates of materials already provided to the Department by former Secretary Clinton in December 2014.”
So yeah, gimmie a call when they find evidence that something was deleted because it contained incriminating info, and not because some dumbass lawyer a) thought it was a good idea, and b) sucked at it.
Or at least let me know when they know it's not a duplicate.
Did you actually read the Mother Jones analysis instead of looking at their rebuttal as evidence of media bias?
The whole "scandal" is around the fact that Bill Clinton still does stuff in his capacity as ex-President. This takes some money, not a lot of money, but because it's considered to be in the national interest the federal government gives him funds to do this, ~$100k.
It would be kinda stupid to bring in a whole different set of staff just because you spend a few hours doing ex-President stuff inbetween Clinton foundation stuff, so he just has the same staff work for the government instead of the foundation for that period.
I'm not clear what he should have done otherwise. A bigger scandal would have been if he paid the staff for an ex-Presidential event using Clinton Foundation funds!
No? You mean people generally don't even care about it??
Then why is Hillary different?
and sending and receiving classified information that isn't properly secured
Can you show someone who went to jail for similar actions?
No? You just realized those one or two instances of jail time are fundamentally different cases?
Then why should Hillary go to jail?
(and possibly involved in the murder of a scientist in Iran) actually IS illegal.
WTF? So an Iranian scientist publicly gives information to the US, then voluntarily returned to Iran (against the advice of anyone), and then gets predictably arrested and then executed.
And this is somehow Hillary's fault because there's an email where she made a vague reference to trying to convince him to not go back to Iran in an email?
She's lived in NYC, is she responsible for 9/11 too?
Basically BFD. Hillary isn't an absolutely perfect human being. She was careless with her communications, as countless public officials are. She was probably more likely to meet with people who contributed to her charitable foundation. Well welcome to politics!!
Yes these are real issues, but for anyone else it basically be a trivia question.
Hell, Trump gave a campaign donation to the Texas Attorney General right after they dropped the investigation into TrumpU. Why don't you want him investigated and arrested for bribery? That's a hell of a lot worse then Bill Clinton chatting with Loretta Lynch on a plane.
It's simple as that: If movies with women in lead roles attract audiences, they will be made. If not, well, then not.
A few might have heard about the Ghostbusters reboot. Well? How did it fare? Erh... yeah. It did mostly recover its production cost. Did it recover its total cost including advertising? Probably not. Will it ever? It looks doubtful.
In the end, what counts is the bottom line.
Was it bad because it was bad? Or was it bad because there's a lot of guys convinced that a movie with a female main cast must be terrible, and they made sure everyone knew how bad and unfunny it was.
Nothing kills humour like being told something isn't funny (no one wants to look dumb by laughing at an unfunny joke). Want to know what Marvel as been so reluctant to make a Black Widow or Wonder Woman film? It's not that they can't find a good actress, or write a good script. It's that audiences have already convinced themselves that a film with a female lead won't be good.
Put away your clipboard and stop running a tally on dicks vs vaginas, and what color they are.
If women want roles of substance, they will pay for those movies and capitalism will make it happen. To date they haven't, because it isn't what they actually want, so stop trying to force your fucking agenda down everyone's throats.
Don't watch movies you don't like. The end. Fuck off.
Well that's a wonderfully coherent philosophy.
If people wanted X they'd pay for X. HEY!! Don't you go trying to convince people that X has value!!
And on a side note what ivory tower did you crawl out of that you think the profit motive makes people perfectly rational?
Could it not be possible that so many movies suck because they're reducing half the population to cardboard cutouts?
How about some male stereotype tests? Does this movie contain:
A male action hero who isn't good looking? A male nerd who is good at talking to girls? A fat guy who isn't the comic relief? A cop who is happily married? A gay action hero? An asian guy who is a stud and doesn't know martial arts?
You know something all those male stereotypes have in common?
They generally have names and get to have a conversation with another male character about something other than a woman.
Why do people think things like the Bechdel test are worth more than a fart in the breeze/
Because you think the Bechdel test is a poor measure of female portrayal in movies, or because you don't think having substantial female characters is important?
Irrelevant. I don't care about any of that stuff but I still hate people who don't have enough sense to block or log off.
Blocking doesn't work when you have someone like Milo Yiannopoulos who will send waves of individual followers to harass you. Hence the need for different approaches that can pre-emptively block those would-be harassers.
As for logging off... Well if someone is going to be driven off the service I'd prefer it be the people doing the harassment.
Indeed. But Occam's Razor only applies to a conclusion's relation to the information you have at hand. It is conceivable that if you collect enough information the same heuristic can lead you in a different direction.
It should be able to confirm his genetic relationship to his putative great-great-great grandchildren, and thus let a lower limit on his age. That and other documentary evidence of him and his descendants could make his age seem plausible. In a world with seven billion people, outliers can be very unusual indeed.
The thing is that age isn't the result of one thing. It's the confluence of multiple systems that only evolved to keep us going until 65 or so. With modern conditions that's closer to 85, but after that all our different systems start to fail, and fail hard. You need a lot of luck (and genetics) for each one of those systems to hold up.
Lots of people make it to 90, a few to 100, some exceptional ones to 110, if you make it to 113 you might be the oldest in your country, 115 and you might be the oldest on the planet, 120 and you're the second oldest person ever. And that's if you're a woman, if you're a man you can chop about 3 years off of each of those estimates. For a man to be 120 would required extraordinary scrutiny, 125 would be absurd, 145? You're looking at about 3 or 4 layers of exceptional outliers.
To make it to 145, you'd need a subgroup with unprecedented genetic differences. This isn't Usain Bolt running 9.58 when everyone else is 9.80, or East African's making 2:10 marathons look routine. This would be a sprinter running the 100 in 8.5, or someone else running a 1:50 marathon. It's just not something that happens.
The Unix Epoch is 01/01/1970, this guy is recorded as being born 31/12/1870.
Perhaps someone was born 31/12/1969 and some function was trying to translate timestamps from one system to another.
One day before the epoch is a bit of an edge case, and timestamp conversions can be funky. So instead of subtracting 1 from the 70 the function subtracted it from the 19 and now you have an official, but nonsensical, piece of identification in the system.
Of course it clearly doesn't match the guy born in 1969, but surely someone noticed and "fixed" the problem by associating the record with it's rightful recipient, the oldest guy in the village.
No one is stopping you from spewing whatever inane stupidy passes for incitement commentary among your crowd. You'll be just as free to make an idiot of yourself on Twitter once these changes are in effect.
Or you're missing context, when someone is currently the target of a harassment campaign they're given a little more leeway than someone who tweets something out of the blue.
And even if there was a double standard (which I don't concede) your comment is still wrong, the alt-right would still be free to say whatever it wants, it would just be that only one side would be able to harass.
Keep in mind that Milo never did that
Milo was clearly encouraging his followers to go after Jones and his other targets. Twitter isn't a court of law, "everybody knows" can be a sufficient standard for them to bad someone for persistent harassment.
Again context, Jones was trying to retaliate and protect herself from a campaign initiated by Milo.
So have several other people who were verified including a rapper,reporter, and a EiC of a magazine...all of whom sic'd their followers on other people for engaging in wrong think. There's also another case of a person threatening a reporter with rape...for weeks(wish I could remember her name but it escapes me atm). Those are just off the top of my head. You know what the difference between them and Milo is? Milo doesn't carry the same political ideology as them. That reporter? She's a conservative. But in both cases when there are actual threats against them? Twitter has done nothing.
I'm not familiar with all of those cases, certainly not the rape threats, and Twitter may have been inconsistent in the past. If so, they will hopefully fix that in the future. No one should be the target of harassment.
But you're also conflating harassment with with social campaigns, like trying to excerpt pressure against shady businesses, or outing people who have done something bad (these campaigns are very troubling, but different from harassment).
For instance I don't think I'd mind as much if Milo had encouraged his followers to call the producer or studio to complain about the movie. The problem is that he was making Twitter into a place where a black actress couldn't really stay.
Thank you for demonstrating exactly what we're all talking about. Thoughtcrime is "harassment", disagreement is "threatening".
No one is stopping you from spewing whatever inane stupidy passes for incitement commentary among your crowd. You'll be just as free to make an idiot of yourself on Twitter once these changes are in effect.
What they are trying to stop is harassment, douchebags like Milo Yiannopoulos sending hordes of his minions out to spew their drivel at whomever was so outrageous as to try and be black and/or female without knowing their place and drive them off of Twitter.
Disagree all you want, but when you cross into harassment then GTFO. No one is under any obligation to stand there while you abuse them.
I don't even use Twitter, but it sounds like they'll just end up making a clbuttic mistake.
On the contrary doing nothing would be a mistake.
The risk twitter faces isn't being taken over by "Feminists" and "SJWs", it's harassment driving ordinary people away until there's nothing left but the alt-right.
It's the same decision reddit made, there's some communities that are simply unable to co-exist in the same ecosystem.
YOU as the driver decide whether or not to pay attention to driving. Your phone doesn't force you to play with it. Your makeup doesn't force you to apply it. Your food doesn't force you to eat it , etc while you are driving. YOU the driver make the choice, it is all YOUR fault and responsibility.
People like you, looking to blame inanimate objects for this type of thing are the second most ridiculous part of the problem, right behind the drivers themselves...
The driver was negligent.
Pokemon Go gave that negligent driver an unusually tempting opportunity to be distracted.
Negligent drivers are not uncommon, and the arrival of Pokemon Go means that those negligent drivers will get distracted more often.
Yes, of course she is. If any of us worked for an employer who provided us with a company email system for use with company-related things and we just decided to conduct business via our personal Gmail accounts, or some home-brew Linux server? How long do you think we'd stay employed there once that was realized?
If that employee is a high level manager? Probably indefinitely.
In a case like hers, it's only magnified as a problem because we KNOW she was allowed to handle classified content in her mail. So the hunt is on to prove she actually possessed some of that on this unofficial server.
No it isn't, they've had those emails all along.
And if her lawyers did their jobs properly, there won't be much concrete proof that she did so, or at least that she ever accessed it once it was sent out. That doesn't make her less guilty though.... just smart enough to dodge some legal repercussions for her behavior.
Irrelevant. The question is whether she was intentionally disseminating classified emails, and even then it needs to be more than a handful or classified emails among thousands if they're actually going to pursue charges, it just doesn't happen.
Feel free to criticize her for being careless, she was. And the fact that no one realized or felt comfortable saying that the situation was amiss is pretty disturbing.
But criminal charges and jail time? The idea is, and always has been, absurd.
All indications are she wasn't very careful while actively using the server. However, once she started getting requests to produce data from it, then she suddenly got very careful. Even if she did do nothing wrong, that is a very stark change in behavior that just happened to coincide with legal requests to hand over data.
It also happens to correspond with the realization that she (and/or her IT person) had been acting carelessly before.
PokemonGo had nothing to do with this death. It was a DISTRACTED DRIVER!
The battery he was changing was not at fault, nor was the fact that he had been playing PokemonGo and drained his battery.
The only one at fault is the DRIVER! He made the choice to do something other than just drive while driving. Do NOT blame the game, or the phone manufacturer, or the phone battery....
Except that Pokemon Go was the cause of the distraction, and it's actually a serious issue. I remember when I started playing it I would be in the car at a stop light and I was tempted to turn on the app and see if there was a pokemon or pokestop within reach. I imagine a non-trivial number of people actually do carry through with that urge and there's probably been a lot of other accidents where the offending party was too embarrassed (or concerned about legal repercussions) to admit they were playing Pokemon.
It doesn't mean Pokemon Go is bad, or the developers are negligent, it's a very hard problem to prevent but it's still a problem.
I don't care who's fault it is, I care that it's a problem, and playing semantics about the true cause doesn't solve the problem.
I'm sure it's passe to say that it's both sides, but it is. Consider that the United States no longer has an anti-war party. At the Democratic National Convention, they tried to drown out and laugh off chants of "No more war" from the delegates.
That's because the context didn't have anything to do with war, it had to do with signalling opposition to Hillary.
I could go on and on about how now neither major party opposes fracking, the liberals are now further right of George W. Bush on Israel, and so much more. Americans as a whole show even less empathy nowadays.
Ehhh, not really. On Israel and foreign intervention in general Clinton is to the right of her party, but far to the left of the Bush, even on Israel.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not clear what he should have done otherwise.
Acted with ethics and integrity?
Is it really too hard to use Government money for Government business and Foundation funds for Foundation work?
Did you read my post? That's exactly what he did.
He just had them share resources because do to otherwise would be stupid and would waste money.
I guess you were one of the "witch hunters" back then, wasn't you? Did it work? Did any of those criminals get any jail time?
Depends what you mean. I hated Bush, thought his administration was completely lawless, and there were crimes for which people should have done jail time.
But screwing up the IT? That wasn't one of them.
I believe most people that heard about the issue (specially here) would say, even at the time, that they should be prosecuted.
They should be prosecuted, just like Clinton.
That's an interesting idea... if only /. had some magical archive where we could look back 9 years and see...
Well golly I found it!!
Hmm, lets see. 59 comments with a score of +4 and +5. I see one comment speculating that congress is trying to get Gonzales to perjurer himself in front of congress so they can send him to jail and... that's about it.
So yeah, back when Gonzales used a private email server which actually did delete a huge portion of the potentially incriminating information, no one talked about jail.
It's 'kinda worse than that.
Hillary Clinton sent classified E-mails after leaving the state department
We already knew that Hillary was using her private email server for work, and that some of that information was classified.
So what is the shocking new scandal? That the previous secretary of state emailed information to an official at the state department?
, after the FBI concluded its investigation more deleted E-mails turned up that they should have been given, even more E-mails turned up that should have matched the FBI search terms Hillary was given.
FTA,
"At this time, we have not confirmed that the documents are, in fact, responsive, or whether they are duplicates of materials already provided to the Department by former Secretary Clinton in December 2014.”
So yeah, gimmie a call when they find evidence that something was deleted because it contained incriminating info, and not because some dumbass lawyer a) thought it was a good idea, and b) sucked at it.
Or at least let me know when they know it's not a duplicate.
(Also, Bill Clinton used tax dollars to subsidize the private E-mail server and pay for employees at the Clinton foundation.)
Looking at the media reports, things like Sigh. Yet Another Non-Scandal at the Clinton Foundation come up.
Yeah! The media is notoriously easy on Clinton!
Did you actually read the Mother Jones analysis instead of looking at their rebuttal as evidence of media bias?
The whole "scandal" is around the fact that Bill Clinton still does stuff in his capacity as ex-President. This takes some money, not a lot of money, but because it's considered to be in the national interest the federal government gives him funds to do this, ~$100k.
It would be kinda stupid to bring in a whole different set of staff just because you spend a few hours doing ex-President stuff inbetween Clinton foundation stuff, so he just has the same staff work for the government instead of the foundation for that period.
I'm not clear what he should have done otherwise. A bigger scandal would have been if he paid the staff for an ex-Presidential event using Clinton Foundation funds!
Failing to maintain Public Records
Do you know of people who went to jail for that?
No? You mean people generally don't even care about it??
Then why is Hillary different?
and sending and receiving classified information that isn't properly secured
Can you show someone who went to jail for similar actions?
No? You just realized those one or two instances of jail time are fundamentally different cases?
Then why should Hillary go to jail?
(and possibly involved in the murder of a scientist in Iran) actually IS illegal.
WTF? So an Iranian scientist publicly gives information to the US, then voluntarily returned to Iran (against the advice of anyone), and then gets predictably arrested and then executed.
And this is somehow Hillary's fault because there's an email where she made a vague reference to trying to convince him to not go back to Iran in an email?
She's lived in NYC, is she responsible for 9/11 too?
Basically BFD. Hillary isn't an absolutely perfect human being. She was careless with her communications, as countless public officials are. She was probably more likely to meet with people who contributed to her charitable foundation. Well welcome to politics!!
Yes these are real issues, but for anyone else it basically be a trivia question.
Hell, Trump gave a campaign donation to the Texas Attorney General right after they dropped the investigation into TrumpU. Why don't you want him investigated and arrested for bribery? That's a hell of a lot worse then Bill Clinton chatting with Loretta Lynch on a plane.
It's simple as that: If movies with women in lead roles attract audiences, they will be made. If not, well, then not.
A few might have heard about the Ghostbusters reboot. Well? How did it fare? Erh... yeah. It did mostly recover its production cost. Did it recover its total cost including advertising? Probably not. Will it ever? It looks doubtful.
In the end, what counts is the bottom line.
Was it bad because it was bad? Or was it bad because there's a lot of guys convinced that a movie with a female main cast must be terrible, and they made sure everyone knew how bad and unfunny it was.
Nothing kills humour like being told something isn't funny (no one wants to look dumb by laughing at an unfunny joke). Want to know what Marvel as been so reluctant to make a Black Widow or Wonder Woman film? It's not that they can't find a good actress, or write a good script. It's that audiences have already convinced themselves that a film with a female lead won't be good.
Sure.
Put away your clipboard and stop running a tally on dicks vs vaginas, and what color they are.
If women want roles of substance, they will pay for those movies and capitalism will make it happen. To date they haven't, because it isn't what they actually want, so stop trying to force your fucking agenda down everyone's throats.
Don't watch movies you don't like. The end. Fuck off.
Well that's a wonderfully coherent philosophy.
If people wanted X they'd pay for X.
HEY!! Don't you go trying to convince people that X has value!!
And on a side note what ivory tower did you crawl out of that you think the profit motive makes people perfectly rational?
Could it not be possible that so many movies suck because they're reducing half the population to cardboard cutouts?
How about some male stereotype tests? Does this movie contain:
A male action hero who isn't good looking?
A male nerd who is good at talking to girls?
A fat guy who isn't the comic relief?
A cop who is happily married?
A gay action hero?
An asian guy who is a stud and doesn't know martial arts?
You know something all those male stereotypes have in common?
They generally have names and get to have a conversation with another male character about something other than a woman.
Lesbian porn passes the test. Gravity fails it. And give your definition of substantial.
No one claims the Bechdel test is flawless. But it's a good proxy and relatively unambiguous.
If it really is so terrible at rating female representation in movies then can anyone suggest an alternative?
Why do people think things like the Bechdel test are worth more than a fart in the breeze/
Because you think the Bechdel test is a poor measure of female portrayal in movies, or because you don't think having substantial female characters is important?
Irrelevant. I don't care about any of that stuff but I still hate people who don't have enough sense to block or log off.
Blocking doesn't work when you have someone like Milo Yiannopoulos who will send waves of individual followers to harass you. Hence the need for different approaches that can pre-emptively block those would-be harassers.
As for logging off... Well if someone is going to be driven off the service I'd prefer it be the people doing the harassment.
Indeed. But Occam's Razor only applies to a conclusion's relation to the information you have at hand. It is conceivable that if you collect enough information the same heuristic can lead you in a different direction.
It should be able to confirm his genetic relationship to his putative great-great-great grandchildren, and thus let a lower limit on his age. That and other documentary evidence of him and his descendants could make his age seem plausible. In a world with seven billion people, outliers can be very unusual indeed.
The thing is that age isn't the result of one thing. It's the confluence of multiple systems that only evolved to keep us going until 65 or so. With modern conditions that's closer to 85, but after that all our different systems start to fail, and fail hard. You need a lot of luck (and genetics) for each one of those systems to hold up.
Lots of people make it to 90, a few to 100, some exceptional ones to 110, if you make it to 113 you might be the oldest in your country, 115 and you might be the oldest on the planet, 120 and you're the second oldest person ever. And that's if you're a woman, if you're a man you can chop about 3 years off of each of those estimates. For a man to be 120 would required extraordinary scrutiny, 125 would be absurd, 145? You're looking at about 3 or 4 layers of exceptional outliers.
To make it to 145, you'd need a subgroup with unprecedented genetic differences. This isn't Usain Bolt running 9.58 when everyone else is 9.80, or East African's making 2:10 marathons look routine. This would be a sprinter running the 100 in 8.5, or someone else running a 1:50 marathon. It's just not something that happens.
The Unix Epoch is 01/01/1970, this guy is recorded as being born 31/12/1870.
Perhaps someone was born 31/12/1969 and some function was trying to translate timestamps from one system to another.
One day before the epoch is a bit of an edge case, and timestamp conversions can be funky. So instead of subtracting 1 from the 70 the function subtracted it from the 19 and now you have an official, but nonsensical, piece of identification in the system.
Of course it clearly doesn't match the guy born in 1969, but surely someone noticed and "fixed" the problem by associating the record with it's rightful recipient, the oldest guy in the village.
... extraordinary evidence.
An identity card whose date has only recently been confirmed isn't enough.
Don't worry, I heard that a UFO took dental records when it abducted him in 1923.
Still doesn't make her actions right.
No, it explains why her actions weren't punished.
No one is stopping you from spewing whatever inane stupidy passes for incitement commentary among your crowd. You'll be just as free to make an idiot of yourself on Twitter once these changes are in effect.
Really? You should pay more attention, because that's exactly what's happening. This is just one case of many, where there is one set of rules for one group of people and another for the "right kind of people."
Or you're missing context, when someone is currently the target of a harassment campaign they're given a little more leeway than someone who tweets something out of the blue.
And even if there was a double standard (which I don't concede) your comment is still wrong, the alt-right would still be free to say whatever it wants, it would just be that only one side would be able to harass.
Keep in mind that Milo never did that
Milo was clearly encouraging his followers to go after Jones and his other targets. Twitter isn't a court of law, "everybody knows" can be a sufficient standard for them to bad someone for persistent harassment.
but Leslie Jones sure did.
Again context, Jones was trying to retaliate and protect herself from a campaign initiated by Milo.
So have several other people who were verified including a rapper, reporter, and a EiC of a magazine ...all of whom sic'd their followers on other people for engaging in wrong think. There's also another case of a person threatening a reporter with rape...for weeks(wish I could remember her name but it escapes me atm). Those are just off the top of my head. You know what the difference between them and Milo is? Milo doesn't carry the same political ideology as them. That reporter? She's a conservative. But in both cases when there are actual threats against them? Twitter has done nothing.
I'm not familiar with all of those cases, certainly not the rape threats, and Twitter may have been inconsistent in the past. If so, they will hopefully fix that in the future. No one should be the target of harassment.
But you're also conflating harassment with with social campaigns, like trying to excerpt pressure against shady businesses, or outing people who have done something bad (these campaigns are very troubling, but different from harassment).
For instance I don't think I'd mind as much if Milo had encouraged his followers to call the producer or studio to complain about the movie. The problem is that he was making Twitter into a place where a black actress couldn't really stay.
Thank you for demonstrating exactly what we're all talking about. Thoughtcrime is "harassment", disagreement is "threatening".
No one is stopping you from spewing whatever inane stupidy passes for incitement commentary among your crowd. You'll be just as free to make an idiot of yourself on Twitter once these changes are in effect.
What they are trying to stop is harassment, douchebags like Milo Yiannopoulos sending hordes of his minions out to spew their drivel at whomever was so outrageous as to try and be black and/or female without knowing their place and drive them off of Twitter.
Disagree all you want, but when you cross into harassment then GTFO. No one is under any obligation to stand there while you abuse them.
The problem for Twitter is there just aren't enough Feminists/SJWs out there to keep a dying social media platform alive.
So is the only draw of Twitter the opportunity to harass Feminists/SJWs?
Because that's the only piece of functionality you'll actually lose with these changes.
As it is impossible to have an Intelligent discussion, andy any disagreement == harassment, yes.
Intelligent discussion?
We're apparently thinking of entirely different things because I don't know how anybody could classify these as examples of an intelligent discussion.
I don't even use Twitter, but it sounds like they'll just end up making a clbuttic mistake.
On the contrary doing nothing would be a mistake.
The risk twitter faces isn't being taken over by "Feminists" and "SJWs", it's harassment driving ordinary people away until there's nothing left but the alt-right.
It's the same decision reddit made, there's some communities that are simply unable to co-exist in the same ecosystem.
The problem for Twitter is there just aren't enough Feminists/SJWs out there to keep a dying social media platform alive.
So is the only draw of Twitter the opportunity to harass Feminists/SJWs?
Because that's the only piece of functionality you'll actually lose with these changes.
If you're harassing someone and they don't want to hear you anymore that's not "Feminist/SJW" talk, that's just common sense.
Semantics my ass!
YOU as the driver decide whether or not to pay attention to driving. Your phone doesn't force you to play with it. Your makeup doesn't force you to apply it. Your food doesn't force you to eat it , etc while you are driving. YOU the driver make the choice, it is all YOUR fault and responsibility.
People like you, looking to blame inanimate objects for this type of thing are the second most ridiculous part of the problem, right behind the drivers themselves...
The driver was negligent.
Pokemon Go gave that negligent driver an unusually tempting opportunity to be distracted.
Negligent drivers are not uncommon, and the arrival of Pokemon Go means that those negligent drivers will get distracted more often.
What ever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me?" If someone offends you, ignore them.
Yet somehow those MRAs and the alt-right just can't stop being offended by women and minorities.
Yes, of course she is. If any of us worked for an employer who provided us with a company email system for use with company-related things and we just decided to conduct business via our personal Gmail accounts, or some home-brew Linux server? How long do you think we'd stay employed there once that was realized?
If that employee is a high level manager? Probably indefinitely.
In a case like hers, it's only magnified as a problem because we KNOW she was allowed to handle classified content in her mail. So the hunt is on to prove she actually possessed some of that on this unofficial server.
No it isn't, they've had those emails all along.
And if her lawyers did their jobs properly, there won't be much concrete proof that she did so, or at least that she ever accessed it once it was sent out. That doesn't make her less guilty though .... just smart enough to dodge some legal repercussions for her behavior.
Irrelevant. The question is whether she was intentionally disseminating classified emails, and even then it needs to be more than a handful or classified emails among thousands if they're actually going to pursue charges, it just doesn't happen.
Feel free to criticize her for being careless, she was. And the fact that no one realized or felt comfortable saying that the situation was amiss is pretty disturbing.
But criminal charges and jail time? The idea is, and always has been, absurd.
All indications are she wasn't very careful while actively using the server. However, once she started getting requests to produce data from it, then she suddenly got very careful. Even if she did do nothing wrong, that is a very stark change in behavior that just happened to coincide with legal requests to hand over data.
It also happens to correspond with the realization that she (and/or her IT person) had been acting carelessly before.
Another misleading headline
PokemonGo had nothing to do with this death. It was a DISTRACTED DRIVER!
The battery he was changing was not at fault, nor was the fact that he had been playing PokemonGo and drained his battery.
The only one at fault is the DRIVER! He made the choice to do something other than just drive while driving. Do NOT blame the game, or the phone manufacturer, or the phone battery....
Except that Pokemon Go was the cause of the distraction, and it's actually a serious issue. I remember when I started playing it I would be in the car at a stop light and I was tempted to turn on the app and see if there was a pokemon or pokestop within reach. I imagine a non-trivial number of people actually do carry through with that urge and there's probably been a lot of other accidents where the offending party was too embarrassed (or concerned about legal repercussions) to admit they were playing Pokemon.
It doesn't mean Pokemon Go is bad, or the developers are negligent, it's a very hard problem to prevent but it's still a problem.
I don't care who's fault it is, I care that it's a problem, and playing semantics about the true cause doesn't solve the problem.
I'm sure it's passe to say that it's both sides, but it is. Consider that the United States no longer has an anti-war party. At the Democratic National Convention, they tried to drown out and laugh off chants of "No more war" from the delegates.
That's because the context didn't have anything to do with war, it had to do with signalling opposition to Hillary.
I could go on and on about how now neither major party opposes fracking, the liberals are now further right of George W. Bush on Israel, and so much more. Americans as a whole show even less empathy nowadays.
Ehhh, not really. On Israel and foreign intervention in general Clinton is to the right of her party, but far to the left of the Bush, even on Israel.