Reminds me of what our COO said when discussing the ITAR crap we were going to do for a significant increase in sales volume. He said he didn't necessarily agree with all the regs, but he didn't want to be perp-walked out of the building. Things are not necessarily done directly for valid business reasons.
Dogfighting has been less relevant before. In WWII, Italy and Japan made the best dogfighters. The Japanese did fairly well with theirs for a while, since Allied air forces were often slow to change tactics appropriately, but it didn't help all that much in the long run.
Which benefits do illegal immigrants get? They aren't going to get Social Security without paying into the system. (This applies to everyone; your social security benefit is based on, IIRC, your average income over your best 35 years.) For other benefits, accepting benefits requires some sort of government registration, and the typical illegal immigrant wants to stay off the system.
This is assuming that their employers are illegally paying them cash under the table; if they're getting something like normal paychecks, they're paying in without receiving anything.
That's intent to set up an off-site server. That was perfectly legal (the law was changed about a year after Clinton left the State Department). We know that she had such intent, and it doesn't matter. She did not intend classified material to be on her servers, and that's the intent we're concerned about. (Intent doesn't mean intent to do wrong, or intent to break a law. It means intent to do something, and is important when that something is illegal. Petraeus deliberately gave classified material to someone without legal access. Clinton accidentally had classified material on her server. It's not necessary to show that Petraeus intended to do wrong or intended to break the law.)
There is DRM that hasn't been cracked yet, and there is DRM that's very hard to crack. I don't think there is uncrackable DRM. To use a Blu-Ray, I have to have the contents and keys in my possession somehow.
In other words, accounts with less than 75K pounds in them are safe in the UK. I have no doubt that, if I have some amount less than $100K in a US bank that I'll get it no matter what (it may be delayed).
In what way do I pay for credit card fraud? Some businesses make less than they would have, but if they could have recouped losses by raising prices they would have already raised prices to get extra profit.
Offsite is also important. If my house burns down, I still have my offsite assets. If I had an offline bitcoin wallet there, those bitcoin would be gone.
"Rigged" is a very strong word to use about the Democratic nomination process, as it implies that Sanders didn't have a chance. He actually came pretty close, and there was no way for the DNC to stop him if he got enough primary votes and caucus members. It was certainly an uneven playing field, and slanted. I can see reasons for that: Sanders wasn't in fact a Democrat, and had not built up general support. I supported him for his policies, and am happy that he influenced the party platform.
The Republican nomination wasn't rigged either, much as Republicans might wish it was so. They've been locked into rigid ideology at the party level for so long that they couldn't come up with a candidate that could beat Trump in the race.
How dishonest a life has HiIlary had, and if so why did so many years of bitter partisan attacks not find serious wrongdoing? The media eventually does realize that the accusations are either false or relatively unimportant. The Republicans spent millions of dollars and a lot of valuable time desperately searching for wrongdoing on her part in the Benghazi incident, and came up empty.
She's hardly perfect, but when I look at the evidence for most of the attacks I find them largely baseless.
What I saw that Khan wrote seemed to be a discussion of the form of Islamic law, which is an interesting topic in its own right. You got a cite on his alleged support of sharia law?
You want an analysis of the Sanders campaign and superdelegates? Easy. Take a look at the number of delegates for Clinton and Sanders, and subtract the superdelegates. Clinton still wins, although not as decisively. You can speculate on other things, but the superdelegates didn't give Clinton the victory. In other words, the claim indeed doesn't add up (or subtract up, your choice), and is false.
A positive claim that is backed up by no data is effectively false.
What the US got out of the Iran deal is non-proliferation. It may not work, but it's a considerable better bet to keep a non-nuclear Iran than any alternatives short of waging war on Iran. I consider that worth a considerable amount of money. You may disagree, but saying we got nothing out of it is false.
You think Wikipedia is a reliable source on hot political topics? And, given two versions of an article (before or after a particular edit), you magically know which one is correct?
Wikipedia is wonderful for lots of things. Verifying Politifact is not one of them.
As one in the upper decile in the US, it disgusts me that so many people think the poor are lazy and undeserving. I don't work anywhere near as hard as the guy I pay to do my lawn. I'm just a whole lot luckier in lots of ways, not more deserving.
The primaries were not rigged, unless you have some evidence that votes cast were not counted in primaries or there were serious procedural irregularities in the caucuses. The campaign was slanted. If Sanders had gotten some more votes in primaries, or support in caucuses, he would have won.
Really, I don't mind when people say I'm wrong (although they're wrong). I mind when they think I can't have good reasons for thinking the way I do, or say I'm evil for holding my opinions. That's when the problems come.
That's not how primaries are usually run. If they were to pick out a limited number of the most popular candidates, sure. However, a primary to select the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate isn't a general popularity contest. In general, Republicans should select the Republican candidate, Libertarians should select the Libertarian candidate, and so on. When Democrats pick the Republican candidate or vice versa, democracy suffers.
This is completely different from the problems with the two-party system.
Your concern is about someone using authorized access in unauthorized ways. There are laws against at least some applications. If your doctor's office reveals confidential information without permission, that's illegal under HIPAA, no matter whether a computer was even involved. There are doubtless other laws that apply in some circumstances.
Throwing CFAA at people who violated terms of service is really, really dangerous. Having general laws so you can make up a reason why someone committed a felony under them is bad.
The cases are not comparable. Nishimura deliberately put classified material on his personal systems. Clinton had insufficient safeguards against classified material being on her systems. There's a difference in intent here, which is why Nishimura was prosecuted and Clinton wasn't. I'm not saying what's legal or illegal here, just that nobody's found me a case like Clinton's where there was criminal prosecution.
(Intent, in US law, in general means intent to commit an act that is illegal. Nishimura had intent in putting classified material on his systems. Clinton did not.)
Slashdot Mirror
I can't help thinking that the "missile truck" is going to take over sometime, but this may not be then.
Reminds me of what our COO said when discussing the ITAR crap we were going to do for a significant increase in sales volume. He said he didn't necessarily agree with all the regs, but he didn't want to be perp-walked out of the building. Things are not necessarily done directly for valid business reasons.
Dogfighting has been less relevant before. In WWII, Italy and Japan made the best dogfighters. The Japanese did fairly well with theirs for a while, since Allied air forces were often slow to change tactics appropriately, but it didn't help all that much in the long run.
Which benefits do illegal immigrants get? They aren't going to get Social Security without paying into the system. (This applies to everyone; your social security benefit is based on, IIRC, your average income over your best 35 years.) For other benefits, accepting benefits requires some sort of government registration, and the typical illegal immigrant wants to stay off the system.
This is assuming that their employers are illegally paying them cash under the table; if they're getting something like normal paychecks, they're paying in without receiving anything.
That's intent to set up an off-site server. That was perfectly legal (the law was changed about a year after Clinton left the State Department). We know that she had such intent, and it doesn't matter. She did not intend classified material to be on her servers, and that's the intent we're concerned about. (Intent doesn't mean intent to do wrong, or intent to break a law. It means intent to do something, and is important when that something is illegal. Petraeus deliberately gave classified material to someone without legal access. Clinton accidentally had classified material on her server. It's not necessary to show that Petraeus intended to do wrong or intended to break the law.)
There is DRM that hasn't been cracked yet, and there is DRM that's very hard to crack. I don't think there is uncrackable DRM. To use a Blu-Ray, I have to have the contents and keys in my possession somehow.
In other words, accounts with less than 75K pounds in them are safe in the UK. I have no doubt that, if I have some amount less than $100K in a US bank that I'll get it no matter what (it may be delayed).
In what way do I pay for credit card fraud? Some businesses make less than they would have, but if they could have recouped losses by raising prices they would have already raised prices to get extra profit.
Offsite is also important. If my house burns down, I still have my offsite assets. If I had an offline bitcoin wallet there, those bitcoin would be gone.
The Fourth covers government actions. If a government wants to restrict private spying, it needs to pass specific laws against it.
"Rigged" is a very strong word to use about the Democratic nomination process, as it implies that Sanders didn't have a chance. He actually came pretty close, and there was no way for the DNC to stop him if he got enough primary votes and caucus members. It was certainly an uneven playing field, and slanted. I can see reasons for that: Sanders wasn't in fact a Democrat, and had not built up general support. I supported him for his policies, and am happy that he influenced the party platform.
The Republican nomination wasn't rigged either, much as Republicans might wish it was so. They've been locked into rigid ideology at the party level for so long that they couldn't come up with a candidate that could beat Trump in the race.
How dishonest a life has HiIlary had, and if so why did so many years of bitter partisan attacks not find serious wrongdoing? The media eventually does realize that the accusations are either false or relatively unimportant. The Republicans spent millions of dollars and a lot of valuable time desperately searching for wrongdoing on her part in the Benghazi incident, and came up empty.
She's hardly perfect, but when I look at the evidence for most of the attacks I find them largely baseless.
You know, cites would add credibility to what you said.
What I saw that Khan wrote seemed to be a discussion of the form of Islamic law, which is an interesting topic in its own right. You got a cite on his alleged support of sharia law?
You want an analysis of the Sanders campaign and superdelegates? Easy. Take a look at the number of delegates for Clinton and Sanders, and subtract the superdelegates. Clinton still wins, although not as decisively. You can speculate on other things, but the superdelegates didn't give Clinton the victory. In other words, the claim indeed doesn't add up (or subtract up, your choice), and is false.
A positive claim that is backed up by no data is effectively false.
What the US got out of the Iran deal is non-proliferation. It may not work, but it's a considerable better bet to keep a non-nuclear Iran than any alternatives short of waging war on Iran. I consider that worth a considerable amount of money. You may disagree, but saying we got nothing out of it is false.
You think Wikipedia is a reliable source on hot political topics? And, given two versions of an article (before or after a particular edit), you magically know which one is correct?
Wikipedia is wonderful for lots of things. Verifying Politifact is not one of them.
As one in the upper decile in the US, it disgusts me that so many people think the poor are lazy and undeserving. I don't work anywhere near as hard as the guy I pay to do my lawn. I'm just a whole lot luckier in lots of ways, not more deserving.
The primaries were not rigged, unless you have some evidence that votes cast were not counted in primaries or there were serious procedural irregularities in the caucuses. The campaign was slanted. If Sanders had gotten some more votes in primaries, or support in caucuses, he would have won.
Really, I don't mind when people say I'm wrong (although they're wrong). I mind when they think I can't have good reasons for thinking the way I do, or say I'm evil for holding my opinions. That's when the problems come.
That's not how primaries are usually run. If they were to pick out a limited number of the most popular candidates, sure. However, a primary to select the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate isn't a general popularity contest. In general, Republicans should select the Republican candidate, Libertarians should select the Libertarian candidate, and so on. When Democrats pick the Republican candidate or vice versa, democracy suffers.
This is completely different from the problems with the two-party system.
Newsflash: Some people are assholes. Assholes often say asshole things when they think they're private. It happens everywhere.
Your concern is about someone using authorized access in unauthorized ways. There are laws against at least some applications. If your doctor's office reveals confidential information without permission, that's illegal under HIPAA, no matter whether a computer was even involved. There are doubtless other laws that apply in some circumstances.
Throwing CFAA at people who violated terms of service is really, really dangerous. Having general laws so you can make up a reason why someone committed a felony under them is bad.
I don't have any authorization to use that system. It would count as unauthorized use for purposes of the CFAA.
It's a matter of an unclear law. I'd bet you could find unclear and badly written laws anywhere.
The cases are not comparable. Nishimura deliberately put classified material on his personal systems. Clinton had insufficient safeguards against classified material being on her systems. There's a difference in intent here, which is why Nishimura was prosecuted and Clinton wasn't. I'm not saying what's legal or illegal here, just that nobody's found me a case like Clinton's where there was criminal prosecution.
(Intent, in US law, in general means intent to commit an act that is illegal. Nishimura had intent in putting classified material on his systems. Clinton did not.)
I'm in the US. We can sue for almost anything.
Filing a lawsuit and winning can be significantly more difficult.