The guy who deliberately took a picture of stuff he knew was classified? That was deliberate violation, and such things are, as I said, prosecuted. I don't have information about the alleged order to remove classification markers, but I'm willing to allow Cabinet-level officers some leeway in their departments.
I didn't take Clinton's claims at face value. First, Comey said she wouldn't be prosecuted. Then, a hostile Congressman said that that was the case and it was too bad. Finally, I went looking for myself. If you find a case in which someone who had negligently mishandled classified material and was criminally prosecuted, I'd be interested in hearing about it.
Comey inserted a "mens rea" test that applies historically to prosecution, whether or not it's in the law. Historically, people who did what Clinton did have not been criminally prosecuted. Some have lost jobs or clearances, but the closest to facing criminal charges was one guy who thought he'd have to plead guilty to a misdemeanor.
It is also a fact that nobody is criminally prosecuted for being negligent with classified information - at least in no cases I could find. Deliberate mishandling is frequently criminally prosecuted, regardless of pretty much anything else. Negligence is not. (Okay, there was one guy who agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge, which is technically criminal, but he didn't have to in the end.)
Insurance companies have to make money, so on the average paying for the insurance is more expensive than paying for what goes wrong.
Unless you have some bad luck, in which case you're financially wiped out and likely unable to pay for health care you need.
So, there's a selection bias here for the grasshoppers. The unlucky ones have died at a higher rate, so we're comparing ants as a whole to lucky grasshoppers.
Where I work, in an urban area, the dangerous machinery is concentrated and people know how to use it. Also, if there is an accident, somebody will find out and the hospital is not that far away.
Manufacturers don't have to suggest a retail price. Retailers are perfectly capable of determining how much margin they want over the wholesale price, without reference to any standard price.
Are any businesses profitable from the start? It takes some longer than others to become profitable. Amazon ran at a loss for a long time. It's very expensive to build up the infrastructure and knowledge to charge enough for rocket launches to get into the black. So, if you're doing that, you set up a plan with contingencies, go to your proposed investors, and talk to them. If you've got a decent chance of a big business success, and Space-X definitely has, some investors will be happy with large risks and continued losses for a long time.
If that was the case, they shouldn't have released Swift as open source.
Why not? There are benefits to releasing something as Open Source, and there are disadvantages. Very few people outside the Apple ecosystem cared about Objective-C. My guess would be that Apple is being helpful towards serious Mac/iOS developers, who will have Macs and will be able to run the Apple version, and don't care about anyone else.
You seem to be confusing happiness and mental health. The complaint is that the job gave the employees PTSD, which is a recognized medical condition with standard diagnosis criteria. It's an occupational health hazard, and the law has dealt with those for a long time.
Vehicle inspections can be useful for safety. Adequate insurance is useful for when safety fails. If you're operating a dangerous machine, you're creating a danger for others, and should be in a position to deal with the consequences.
The difference between commercial and non-commercial auto insurance isn't in general government-mandated. Your insurance company will sell you a policy cheaper if you agree to no commercial use, because they expect the personal policy to cost them less. If commercial insurance was the same risk as personal, some insurance company would price them the same, and others would have to follow. This is how libertarianism is supposed to work: two parties in an open marketplace negotiating their best deal.
Laws do tend to be stricter for commercial as opposed to personal activities, for various reasons. If I do something to be paid, I'm likely to do it more than if I do it for fun, and I'm more likely to do it in unfavorable conditions. If I do something commercially, additional expenses are tax-deductible and part of the cost of doing business. If I'm doing it personally, the government often gives me something of a break by being less strict about it. (In some other countries, it's harder to get a license, and more insurance is required.)
Sanders would at least have been more interested in prosecuting high executives, and he came close to winning the Democratic nomination. Whether he could have won in November is an open question with lots of unknowns.
Because you seem to think that Apple should do what you want, and you don't seem to get the point of Open Source. You can reasonably ask questions like "Is there a Windows version?" or "When will there be a Windows version?" or "Why isn't there a Windows version?". You asked "Where's the Windows version?" and then acted like Apple had some sort of obligation to provide one.
The point of Open Source, here, is that you don't have to rely on Apple to come up with a port. Somebody else can. You can start a project to do it. It doesn't mean anybody has an obligation or made a commitment to do anything with the code.
What you seem to be completely missing is that nobody has the obligation to do the port you want done. You may think Apple would be better off if it did a port, but apparently the people running the project at Apple don't agree. Apple has the resources to do the port, but it isn't free for them either, and they can set their own priorities which do not have to agree with yours.
There's two common uses I've seen for ++ and --. One is to serve as a complete statement or equivalent (for (int i = 0; i 10; ++i)), and one is inside an expression. For a complete statement, it's not much of a problem to use += 1 or -= 1. Inside an expression, it makes the expression have side effects, and I don't think that's a good idea in general, particularly when it's not just in one thread.
Laws vary. Some laws specify that CP has to involve an identifiable victim known to be under 18 at the time. Some laws are far more encompassing, and ban stuff that never did involve a real child.
What GP means is that, after you've been arrested, publicly accused of having CP, and gone through an expensive and stressful trial, you'll probably be found not guilty, after which at least half the people who know about it will think you were really guilty and got off on a technicality. But you are legally not guilty.
I can also accuse strncpy() of polluting the namespace and taking up a name that would ideally be for a length-limited string copy As it is, it's a special case a programmer has to remember.
We made sure to get the 1080p for future-proofing. Since then, my wife has decided she likes using the TV as a monitor for her computer, and it works well. She tends to help relatives out on web issues, and having a big monitor works well for that.
If I'm checking messages / emails / whatnots while watching a movie or tv program, the movie or program has failed.
If you're watching the movie because you want to watch the movie, yes.
If you're watching it because someone else wants to watch it, and either you've seen it sufficiently many times or you aren't all that interested, no. You may want to watch particular scenes and turn your attention to something else, it's nice to not have to switch glasses.
Alternatively, the CO2 could be separated into carbon and oxygen through electrolysis
The main source of human-released CO2 involves burning fossil fuels for energy. It takes at least as much energy to electrolyze CO2 as is released by burning the carbon. If we have enough power to electrolyze the CO2, we have enough that we can just turn off that power plant and use the clean energy in its stead.
You know what happened in Fukushima? A tsunami that killed over a thousand people in Fukushima prefecture and caused immense damage. Oh, and two reactors had containment failures that didn't kill anyone.
In both cases, five people will die if I do nothing, while I can kill one to save the five. In either case, I have to take positive action to kill the one guy, if I'm going to save the five. I don't understand how the agency differs.
There are differences of course. Consider Kant's first formulation of the Categorical Imperative: always act as if your action could become a rule. It really doesn't apply to the trolley situation, but in the transplant situation nobody who might be an organ donor would ever walk near a transplant hospital, so the action can't become a rule. We're all better off if we assume that walking on a trolley line with trolleys that can get loose and run over people is dangerous, while living organ donors aren't fair game.
Slashdot Mirror
The guy who deliberately took a picture of stuff he knew was classified? That was deliberate violation, and such things are, as I said, prosecuted. I don't have information about the alleged order to remove classification markers, but I'm willing to allow Cabinet-level officers some leeway in their departments.
I didn't take Clinton's claims at face value. First, Comey said she wouldn't be prosecuted. Then, a hostile Congressman said that that was the case and it was too bad. Finally, I went looking for myself. If you find a case in which someone who had negligently mishandled classified material and was criminally prosecuted, I'd be interested in hearing about it.
Comey inserted a "mens rea" test that applies historically to prosecution, whether or not it's in the law. Historically, people who did what Clinton did have not been criminally prosecuted. Some have lost jobs or clearances, but the closest to facing criminal charges was one guy who thought he'd have to plead guilty to a misdemeanor.
It is also a fact that nobody is criminally prosecuted for being negligent with classified information - at least in no cases I could find. Deliberate mishandling is frequently criminally prosecuted, regardless of pretty much anything else. Negligence is not. (Okay, there was one guy who agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge, which is technically criminal, but he didn't have to in the end.)
Insurance companies have to make money, so on the average paying for the insurance is more expensive than paying for what goes wrong.
Unless you have some bad luck, in which case you're financially wiped out and likely unable to pay for health care you need.
So, there's a selection bias here for the grasshoppers. The unlucky ones have died at a higher rate, so we're comparing ants as a whole to lucky grasshoppers.
Where I work, in an urban area, the dangerous machinery is concentrated and people know how to use it. Also, if there is an accident, somebody will find out and the hospital is not that far away.
Manufacturers don't have to suggest a retail price. Retailers are perfectly capable of determining how much margin they want over the wholesale price, without reference to any standard price.
Are any businesses profitable from the start? It takes some longer than others to become profitable. Amazon ran at a loss for a long time. It's very expensive to build up the infrastructure and knowledge to charge enough for rocket launches to get into the black. So, if you're doing that, you set up a plan with contingencies, go to your proposed investors, and talk to them. If you've got a decent chance of a big business success, and Space-X definitely has, some investors will be happy with large risks and continued losses for a long time.
Why not? There are benefits to releasing something as Open Source, and there are disadvantages. Very few people outside the Apple ecosystem cared about Objective-C. My guess would be that Apple is being helpful towards serious Mac/iOS developers, who will have Macs and will be able to run the Apple version, and don't care about anyone else.
You seem to be confusing happiness and mental health. The complaint is that the job gave the employees PTSD, which is a recognized medical condition with standard diagnosis criteria. It's an occupational health hazard, and the law has dealt with those for a long time.
Vehicle inspections can be useful for safety. Adequate insurance is useful for when safety fails. If you're operating a dangerous machine, you're creating a danger for others, and should be in a position to deal with the consequences.
The difference between commercial and non-commercial auto insurance isn't in general government-mandated. Your insurance company will sell you a policy cheaper if you agree to no commercial use, because they expect the personal policy to cost them less. If commercial insurance was the same risk as personal, some insurance company would price them the same, and others would have to follow. This is how libertarianism is supposed to work: two parties in an open marketplace negotiating their best deal.
Laws do tend to be stricter for commercial as opposed to personal activities, for various reasons. If I do something to be paid, I'm likely to do it more than if I do it for fun, and I'm more likely to do it in unfavorable conditions. If I do something commercially, additional expenses are tax-deductible and part of the cost of doing business. If I'm doing it personally, the government often gives me something of a break by being less strict about it. (In some other countries, it's harder to get a license, and more insurance is required.)
Sanders would at least have been more interested in prosecuting high executives, and he came close to winning the Democratic nomination. Whether he could have won in November is an open question with lots of unknowns.
Because you seem to think that Apple should do what you want, and you don't seem to get the point of Open Source. You can reasonably ask questions like "Is there a Windows version?" or "When will there be a Windows version?" or "Why isn't there a Windows version?". You asked "Where's the Windows version?" and then acted like Apple had some sort of obligation to provide one.
The point of Open Source, here, is that you don't have to rely on Apple to come up with a port. Somebody else can. You can start a project to do it. It doesn't mean anybody has an obligation or made a commitment to do anything with the code.
What you seem to be completely missing is that nobody has the obligation to do the port you want done. You may think Apple would be better off if it did a port, but apparently the people running the project at Apple don't agree. Apple has the resources to do the port, but it isn't free for them either, and they can set their own priorities which do not have to agree with yours.
There's two common uses I've seen for ++ and --. One is to serve as a complete statement or equivalent (for (int i = 0; i 10; ++i)), and one is inside an expression. For a complete statement, it's not much of a problem to use += 1 or -= 1. Inside an expression, it makes the expression have side effects, and I don't think that's a good idea in general, particularly when it's not just in one thread.
Laws vary. Some laws specify that CP has to involve an identifiable victim known to be under 18 at the time. Some laws are far more encompassing, and ban stuff that never did involve a real child.
It doesn't matter how easy it is to get a warrant if the searching party doesn't bother.
What GP means is that, after you've been arrested, publicly accused of having CP, and gone through an expensive and stressful trial, you'll probably be found not guilty, after which at least half the people who know about it will think you were really guilty and got off on a technicality. But you are legally not guilty.
A roulette wheel spin is unpredictable over the short term, but this doesn't stop casinos from taking a very predictable share of the bets.
I can also accuse strncpy() of polluting the namespace and taking up a name that would ideally be for a length-limited string copy As it is, it's a special case a programmer has to remember.
We made sure to get the 1080p for future-proofing. Since then, my wife has decided she likes using the TV as a monitor for her computer, and it works well. She tends to help relatives out on web issues, and having a big monitor works well for that.
If you're watching the movie because you want to watch the movie, yes.
If you're watching it because someone else wants to watch it, and either you've seen it sufficiently many times or you aren't all that interested, no. You may want to watch particular scenes and turn your attention to something else, it's nice to not have to switch glasses.
I turned off the 3D on my 3DS because holding my head and handheld in just the right way wasn't natural.
The main source of human-released CO2 involves burning fossil fuels for energy. It takes at least as much energy to electrolyze CO2 as is released by burning the carbon. If we have enough power to electrolyze the CO2, we have enough that we can just turn off that power plant and use the clean energy in its stead.
You know what happened in Fukushima? A tsunami that killed over a thousand people in Fukushima prefecture and caused immense damage. Oh, and two reactors had containment failures that didn't kill anyone.
In both cases, five people will die if I do nothing, while I can kill one to save the five. In either case, I have to take positive action to kill the one guy, if I'm going to save the five. I don't understand how the agency differs.
There are differences of course. Consider Kant's first formulation of the Categorical Imperative: always act as if your action could become a rule. It really doesn't apply to the trolley situation, but in the transplant situation nobody who might be an organ donor would ever walk near a transplant hospital, so the action can't become a rule. We're all better off if we assume that walking on a trolley line with trolleys that can get loose and run over people is dangerous, while living organ donors aren't fair game.