Yet most merchants waited until the last second to install the readers. So who was at fault for the delays? I saw some proactive merchants install chip capable readers in 2014, but most stuck with swipe only readers until just before the deadline, then rushed to install all the new readers. Had they not all waited until the last second there would not have been such a back-up. Plenty of advanced notice was given. The tech was not new or novel it's been in use in Europe for years, the merchants just tried to delay until the last second and then surprise there were delays due to the sudden rush.
This suit has no merit. The retail industry was not willingly moving to the more secure tech as had been done in Europe, so the CC companies who bear the brunt of fraud costs forced the move. If they had not we'd still be years from full deployment and acceptance. We're still a ways from that as I see one of my CC's and my Debit card are still not chipped and they were both replaced after the Oct 2015 deadline.
The 22 million emails were deleted because they were campaign emails that were not legally permitted to be on the Government servers. As emails pertaining to and by his campaign there was no requirement to be retained and more importantly they had to be deleted from the servers.
In contrast Clinton's emails were required by law to not be deleted. but retained..
Wrong, as Sec State she set's the policies implementing the federal Laws pertaining to the protection of Classified information. But she is not able to just approve her own setup. She set's the policies, the IT and security depts. then implement them.
Stop trying to defend the indefensible. The moment classified information touched her unclassified system it became classified and property of the Government and the responsibility of the Security and IT depts. to clean and clear before returning to her. She broke the law. Her position did not exempt her from the law.
In that poor example Betamax was better (and came first) but VHS marketed better so it won out.
In this case the humble but very effective audio jack was here first, it's universally installed and it's better. Apple thinks they can out market it ala VHS, but unlike Betamax and VHS which both hit the market fairly close together, the audio jack is ubiquitous not fighting to establish a market, and unlike apple introducing the 3.5 inch floppy versus the 5.25 inch floppy (a far better analogue than VHS/Betamax), the new tech is not actually better than the universally used current tech.
Why should they have expanded outside their scope of operations? They are very good at what they do. They have massive infrastructure backing up what they do. Amazon has very little of what they have spent decades perfecting and continue to improve upon. Amazon is NOT a logistics company. Amazon does not have the fleet of vehicles, the Army of drivers with years of experience making these deliveries, the aircraft and flight crews, the high volume sort centers for moving packages quickly and efficiently across the country and around the world. They are a sales company with a decent logistics branch, but they are not a logistics company.
Logistics is all UPS and FedEx do, Amazon cannot hope to build the comprehensive global delivery networks and routes that these companies have, not overnight and not in a way that will undercut what UPS, FEDEX and the USPS charge. Drones are a pipe dream, no way any major city will allow their airspace to be as totally flooded as drone deliveries would require. And not feasible in more remote areas.
Anyone who thinks Amazon can just decide to get into the delivery business has no idea what the scope of such a project actually is.
You don't need to lecture me about the vetting process. I'm not concerned about it at all, or the refugees as long as they go through the standard process it is sufficiently strict to satisfy me, a staunch conservative. The UN knows not to recommend single working age males as refugees to the US, we primarily accept women, children and young families.
My point was and remains that violating a treaty is not by definition an act of war. If it were so the entire world would be constantly in a state of war with everybody else because everybody violates aspects of the various treaties they have signed.
Violating a treaty by failing to accept enough refugees is NOT an act of war. An act of war is a military attack on a country, not failing to meet the criteria of a treaty.
You have to realize that we have a president who simply does not understand how to negotiate. Thus the real cause of gridlock his entire administration. He couldn't even successfully negotiate when his own party owned both houses of congress. From day one he has tried to operate by mandate rather than negotiate with the usual give and take.
Is it any surprise his foreign policy is any different?
Based on that flawed logic, most of the rural US would still be lacking power and phone service. Rural communities using taxes to establish essential utilities is a long standing tradition in this nation and is a big part of what has made this country so strong.. Libertarians have some great ideas but usually take them too far.
Not corporations in the sense that we think of most large businesses with shares and stockholders, but incorporated entities established under the laws of the state to provide for authority to levy taxes and provide services. An unicorporated community has no ability to levy taxes or provide services because it's just a grouping of houses that someone has applied a name to, it has less legal authority than a HOA does.
You don't understand what you are ranting about. When the Constitution was established the government was seen as two key entities, the States which are under local control and the Federal Government. Municipalities are entities of the state and are subordinate to it. States rights are a legitimate check on Federal power. The States are supposed to have greater power to influence events and actions entirely internal to the state.
I don't agree with this ruling as broadband should be treated as a utility allowing local governments to aid the implementation of it as they have with rural electrification and telephone services before MA Bell took over everything.
I think overall this ruling is wrong in how it looks at internet service. If treated as a utility then the FCC should have say. Particularly if the was no effort by any broadband provider to push fiber into that town. On the states rights issue, NC does have some validity but in this case it is being used to maintain a bad law that only hurts the citizens of the state to the benefit of corporations.
Correct: Assange is not wanted by the US for any criminal activities. He did not violate any classified handling procedures or laws. He was not responsible for the release, that all falls 100% on Manning, who as you correctly noted had voluntarily signed the contract binding him to the UCMJ. A firing squad was a vialble outcome for him.
Assange is a pest and a thorn in the side of the US but they don't have anything they can legally go after him for. Nor have they every indicated any intention to prosecute or even conduct rendition on him. The US Government doesn't like him but he is not suspected of any violation of any law the US has that could be imposed on him.
The Rosenbergs were executed for Treason. We were not in a state of declared war with the Soviet Union whom they committed their act of treason on behalf of. Your argument has no basis in reality.
No he did not do the exact same thing with his server. He did not put classified information onto his private email, which was a commercial service and was allowed at the time he was Sec State. A couple emails were determined to contain information that was classified after they were sent but no data that was classified at the time he sent it was sent over his private email service.
In contrast 8 communication chains contained information that was classified as TOP SECRET at the time she sent the emails, over 100 contained SECRET information considered such at the time the emails were sent.
You are right that her crimes do not amount to Treason, but they are none the less felonies. Felonies that, contrary to Dir Comey's statement, do not require intent. If entrusted with classified information you are required by law to know when and how to protect it and mishandling is a felony, failure to protect is another felony. Neither of those require intent. However transferring TOPSECRET info from the physically separate network and computer systems to her unclassified system cannot in anyway be a negligent act. You don't do that. Air-gapping is always an intentional act which carries a greater penalty than the mishandling and failure to protect crimes. She needs to be indicted, not running for President.
You realize that the Supreme Court has ruled that law enforcement can legally lie to you. There was nothing criminal or fraudulent about the actions of the FBI. Contrary to your claims, undercover is not restricted to fake people or organizations, just precautions must be taken so that the claimed identity and organization is not blown by the actual person or organization.
It is not illegal for the authorities to lie to you to get you to admit to a crime. They can't or lead you into an incriminating statement but they can definitely claim a false identity and feed you false information that leads you to providing incriminating evidence.
Not senseless, just not well managed politically. (Militarily we did very well, we just didn't manage it on the political side well so the American populace began to think we were losing). Much of what our foreign policy back then was to stop the spread of communism. In that aspect there we did fail, but overall we were mostly successful in limiting the spread of that form of oppressive government.
As to the draft. No the draft was not a pleasant experience knowing that you had little choice or say but know that it is still there, although very unlikely to ever be used again. If you are a male over the age of 18 you must register and theoretically if things got really bad we could reinstate it. However our military isn't really structured to handle draftees anymore so it would almost cause more problems than it would solve, but if we needed bodies to fill ranks we have the option. That said it also had the benefit that the public(or at least the male half), in facing the universal risk of being drafted seemed to have a better sense of civic responsibility. Not saying absolutely that a==b but it certainly seems to be a key component.
To you and to me it is not. But it is a naked child. An underpaid overworked moderator has a queue of reported violations to examine, they have at most seconds per picture. If they don't happen to recognize the historical picture at that first glance, they see a naked girl. Prohibited, remove it. Who is clueless? In this case it's the AC that thinks mistakes are not permitted.
They are forbidden (with rather strict penalties) from hosting child pornography. In their situation it's better to block such a picture than to let it through and risk the penalties.
Where I live no because I live in a state that respects the 2nd Amendment. But in states on both coasts gun rights are being restricted. CA just banned a very broad range of weapons turning thousands of law abiding citizens into felons. NY has done the same as has CT and MASS. The Democratic candidate for President has called for more gun control laws, banning certain weapons (based on cosmetic features) and even banning and confiscating of guns like Australia did in 1996.
And you are going to claim that there is no attack on gun rights? Yes you are either blind or stupid.
They are the entire purpose, goal and mission of the NSA. They benefit the average US Citizen by developing the intelligence our diplomatic and military agencies need to conduct international affairs and military operations needed to protect the US and Our Economic interests.
That was not an execution. It was an improper hold in an attempt to subdue him as he resisted arrest. He had every option to stop resisting and remain alive today. Claiming murder or execution for what at most was a very unfortunate accident and one that could have been avoided by the victim not resisting a lawful arrest, is being dishonest and only serves to make honest debate impossible.
Then you are blind. Every call for more and stricter gun control laws is an attack on gun rights. Every call to confiscate or restrict the classes of weapons we can own is an attack on rights. "Nobody needs an Assault Weapon" is an attack on gun rights, "Common Sense Gun laws" that will do nothing to stop criminals from using guns are an attack on gun rights.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet most merchants waited until the last second to install the readers. So who was at fault for the delays? I saw some proactive merchants install chip capable readers in 2014, but most stuck with swipe only readers until just before the deadline, then rushed to install all the new readers. Had they not all waited until the last second there would not have been such a back-up. Plenty of advanced notice was given. The tech was not new or novel it's been in use in Europe for years, the merchants just tried to delay until the last second and then surprise there were delays due to the sudden rush.
This suit has no merit. The retail industry was not willingly moving to the more secure tech as had been done in Europe, so the CC companies who bear the brunt of fraud costs forced the move. If they had not we'd still be years from full deployment and acceptance. We're still a ways from that as I see one of my CC's and my Debit card are still not chipped and they were both replaced after the Oct 2015 deadline.
The 22 million emails were deleted because they were campaign emails that were not legally permitted to be on the Government servers. As emails pertaining to and by his campaign there was no requirement to be retained and more importantly they had to be deleted from the servers.
In contrast Clinton's emails were required by law to not be deleted. but retained..
Wrong, as Sec State she set's the policies implementing the federal Laws pertaining to the protection of Classified information. But she is not able to just approve her own setup. She set's the policies, the IT and security depts. then implement them.
Stop trying to defend the indefensible. The moment classified information touched her unclassified system it became classified and property of the Government and the responsibility of the Security and IT depts. to clean and clear before returning to her. She broke the law. Her position did not exempt her from the law.
In that poor example Betamax was better (and came first) but VHS marketed better so it won out.
In this case the humble but very effective audio jack was here first, it's universally installed and it's better. Apple thinks they can out market it ala VHS, but unlike Betamax and VHS which both hit the market fairly close together, the audio jack is ubiquitous not fighting to establish a market, and unlike apple introducing the 3.5 inch floppy versus the 5.25 inch floppy (a far better analogue than VHS/Betamax), the new tech is not actually better than the universally used current tech.
Why should they have expanded outside their scope of operations? They are very good at what they do. They have massive infrastructure backing up what they do. Amazon has very little of what they have spent decades perfecting and continue to improve upon. Amazon is NOT a logistics company. Amazon does not have the fleet of vehicles, the Army of drivers with years of experience making these deliveries, the aircraft and flight crews, the high volume sort centers for moving packages quickly and efficiently across the country and around the world. They are a sales company with a decent logistics branch, but they are not a logistics company.
Logistics is all UPS and FedEx do, Amazon cannot hope to build the comprehensive global delivery networks and routes that these companies have, not overnight and not in a way that will undercut what UPS, FEDEX and the USPS charge. Drones are a pipe dream, no way any major city will allow their airspace to be as totally flooded as drone deliveries would require. And not feasible in more remote areas.
Anyone who thinks Amazon can just decide to get into the delivery business has no idea what the scope of such a project actually is.
First they have to use visual basic to build a gui, then they can track and EMP the hacker's screen.
You don't need to lecture me about the vetting process. I'm not concerned about it at all, or the refugees as long as they go through the standard process it is sufficiently strict to satisfy me, a staunch conservative. The UN knows not to recommend single working age males as refugees to the US, we primarily accept women, children and young families.
My point was and remains that violating a treaty is not by definition an act of war. If it were so the entire world would be constantly in a state of war with everybody else because everybody violates aspects of the various treaties they have signed.
Violating a treaty by failing to accept enough refugees is NOT an act of war. An act of war is a military attack on a country, not failing to meet the criteria of a treaty.
You have to realize that we have a president who simply does not understand how to negotiate. Thus the real cause of gridlock his entire administration. He couldn't even successfully negotiate when his own party owned both houses of congress. From day one he has tried to operate by mandate rather than negotiate with the usual give and take.
Is it any surprise his foreign policy is any different?
Based on that flawed logic, most of the rural US would still be lacking power and phone service. Rural communities using taxes to establish essential utilities is a long standing tradition in this nation and is a big part of what has made this country so strong.. Libertarians have some great ideas but usually take them too far.
Not corporations in the sense that we think of most large businesses with shares and stockholders, but incorporated entities established under the laws of the state to provide for authority to levy taxes and provide services. An unicorporated community has no ability to levy taxes or provide services because it's just a grouping of houses that someone has applied a name to, it has less legal authority than a HOA does.
You don't understand what you are ranting about. When the Constitution was established the government was seen as two key entities, the States which are under local control and the Federal Government. Municipalities are entities of the state and are subordinate to it. States rights are a legitimate check on Federal power. The States are supposed to have greater power to influence events and actions entirely internal to the state.
I don't agree with this ruling as broadband should be treated as a utility allowing local governments to aid the implementation of it as they have with rural electrification and telephone services before MA Bell took over everything.
I think overall this ruling is wrong in how it looks at internet service. If treated as a utility then the FCC should have say. Particularly if the was no effort by any broadband provider to push fiber into that town. On the states rights issue, NC does have some validity but in this case it is being used to maintain a bad law that only hurts the citizens of the state to the benefit of corporations.
Welcome our Blanket wearing (or not if its' nice and warm) equine overlords!
Correct: Assange is not wanted by the US for any criminal activities. He did not violate any classified handling procedures or laws. He was not responsible for the release, that all falls 100% on Manning, who as you correctly noted had voluntarily signed the contract binding him to the UCMJ. A firing squad was a vialble outcome for him.
Assange is a pest and a thorn in the side of the US but they don't have anything they can legally go after him for. Nor have they every indicated any intention to prosecute or even conduct rendition on him. The US Government doesn't like him but he is not suspected of any violation of any law the US has that could be imposed on him.
The Rosenbergs were executed for Treason. We were not in a state of declared war with the Soviet Union whom they committed their act of treason on behalf of. Your argument has no basis in reality.
Posting AC to preserve Moderations.
No he did not do the exact same thing with his server. He did not put classified information onto his private email, which was a commercial service and was allowed at the time he was Sec State. A couple emails were determined to contain information that was classified after they were sent but no data that was classified at the time he sent it was sent over his private email service.
In contrast 8 communication chains contained information that was classified as TOP SECRET at the time she sent the emails, over 100 contained SECRET information considered such at the time the emails were sent.
You are right that her crimes do not amount to Treason, but they are none the less felonies. Felonies that, contrary to Dir Comey's statement, do not require intent. If entrusted with classified information you are required by law to know when and how to protect it and mishandling is a felony, failure to protect is another felony. Neither of those require intent. However transferring TOPSECRET info from the physically separate network and computer systems to her unclassified system cannot in anyway be a negligent act. You don't do that. Air-gapping is always an intentional act which carries a greater penalty than the mishandling and failure to protect crimes. She needs to be indicted, not running for President.
You realize that the Supreme Court has ruled that law enforcement can legally lie to you. There was nothing criminal or fraudulent about the actions of the FBI. Contrary to your claims, undercover is not restricted to fake people or organizations, just precautions must be taken so that the claimed identity and organization is not blown by the actual person or organization.
It is not illegal for the authorities to lie to you to get you to admit to a crime. They can't or lead you into an incriminating statement but they can definitely claim a false identity and feed you false information that leads you to providing incriminating evidence.
But the engines of the Red Dwarf would give such great lens flares! ;)
Not senseless, just not well managed politically. (Militarily we did very well, we just didn't manage it on the political side well so the American populace began to think we were losing). Much of what our foreign policy back then was to stop the spread of communism. In that aspect there we did fail, but overall we were mostly successful in limiting the spread of that form of oppressive government.
As to the draft. No the draft was not a pleasant experience knowing that you had little choice or say but know that it is still there, although very unlikely to ever be used again. If you are a male over the age of 18 you must register and theoretically if things got really bad we could reinstate it. However our military isn't really structured to handle draftees anymore so it would almost cause more problems than it would solve, but if we needed bodies to fill ranks we have the option. That said it also had the benefit that the public(or at least the male half), in facing the universal risk of being drafted seemed to have a better sense of civic responsibility. Not saying absolutely that a==b but it certainly seems to be a key component.
To you and to me it is not. But it is a naked child. An underpaid overworked moderator has a queue of reported violations to examine, they have at most seconds per picture. If they don't happen to recognize the historical picture at that first glance, they see a naked girl. Prohibited, remove it. Who is clueless? In this case it's the AC that thinks mistakes are not permitted.
They are forbidden (with rather strict penalties) from hosting child pornography. In their situation it's better to block such a picture than to let it through and risk the penalties.
Where I live no because I live in a state that respects the 2nd Amendment. But in states on both coasts gun rights are being restricted. CA just banned a very broad range of weapons turning thousands of law abiding citizens into felons. NY has done the same as has CT and MASS. The Democratic candidate for President has called for more gun control laws, banning certain weapons (based on cosmetic features) and even banning and confiscating of guns like Australia did in 1996.
And you are going to claim that there is no attack on gun rights? Yes you are either blind or stupid.
They are the entire purpose, goal and mission of the NSA. They benefit the average US Citizen by developing the intelligence our diplomatic and military agencies need to conduct international affairs and military operations needed to protect the US and Our Economic interests.
Citation needed. The Espionage Act does not supersede the Constitution and Bill of Rights which guarantee the right to defend yourself in court.
That was not an execution. It was an improper hold in an attempt to subdue him as he resisted arrest. He had every option to stop resisting and remain alive today. Claiming murder or execution for what at most was a very unfortunate accident and one that could have been avoided by the victim not resisting a lawful arrest, is being dishonest and only serves to make honest debate impossible.
Then you are blind. Every call for more and stricter gun control laws is an attack on gun rights. Every call to confiscate or restrict the classes of weapons we can own is an attack on rights. "Nobody needs an Assault Weapon" is an attack on gun rights, "Common Sense Gun laws" that will do nothing to stop criminals from using guns are an attack on gun rights.
If you saw nothing then you didn't actually look.