Strange, I've heard that she improved our perception considerably. (I'm a US citizen who has lived all his life in the US.)
I find your opinion of Europeans to be peculiar. What's wrong with doing things they like? Most of them are civilized, and run many societies that seem to do better by their people than US society does by ours.
Anyone in government employ would face administrative consequences, including potentially being fired, having one's security clearance revoked, and never getting another one. Clinton is no longer a government employee, and probably doesn't care if she ever has a clearance again. Her aides may have more problems with their careers. Corney didn't say that Clinton should face criminal prosecution, and said that past cases similar to Clinton's have not been handled with criminal prosecution, so prosecuting her would be violating precedent. A friend posted an interview with a Republican lawmaker who was going off on an anti-Clinton rant (it was an interview in name only), and said lawmaker agreed that prosecuting her would be unprecedented.
Clinton seems to have not had any malicious intent, and her carelessness doesn't appear to have caused any harm. Snowden did have criminal intent, and his leaks have caused a lot of problems. (I'm using "criminal intent" in the legal sense, since Snowden intended to commit pretty major crimes.) I'd call those some pretty big differences.
If cases without noticeable harm and intent are indeed not normally prosecuted, then it would appear that Corney was being reasonable, and that there is no overriding reason to believe that the FBI investigation was politically slanted or incomplete. Of course, those who think Clinton should be indicted regardless of the lack of precedent will find any excuse they can to label the investigation as deliberately crippled, and will disbelieve anything that disagrees with what they've decided up front.
Killing in self-defense, or to defend others, isn't murder. What I don't know enough of the situation to speculate about is whether this was legitimate defense (i.e., the shooter was an immediate threat where he was) or murder.
Wouldn't two weeks of severance pay be roughly equal to two weeks' notice? The deal here is that I do stuff and they give me money and other bennies for it. I can't do the stuff if I'm not here, but I can get the money and bennies even when I'm not.
There's a lot of things that are not US-specific, but state-specific. My state is what's called an "at-will" state, which means I can legally quit without any notice and the company can legally fire me without any notice, except for certain restrictions. Other states aren't "at-will", and I don't know what their laws are.
I had a contract gig at a mortgage company in 2007. One day, the boss called me into his office and said I'd done good work, they appreciated it, but they had to let me go, so they gave me two weeks' notice. Honestly, that was the first time in months that I felt confident I was going to be working for them the next week.
Treating employees well and caring about their problems improves morale, and that can have a lot of knock-on effects. Employees will tend to stay with such companies, and that cuts down on potentially expensive turnover. It gives employees reasons to do some extra now and then to help the company. "Kindness of their hearts" has a very real impact on the business.
As far as the harassment thing goes, I'd say that anything that happens suddenly and makes you feel unsafe is grounds to leave right then. One incident of sexual harassment might well do that.
Sounds like a reaction to a sudden event. If the job's changing under you without notice, it's reasonable to bail without notice if you don't like the changes.
Corporate culture is different in different companies. Some do have loyalty to their employees. You can't count on corporate culture to last too many years, but if the company will do right by you you should at least consider doing right by the company. Also, don't forget your teammates, who may need some notice to deal with your leaving.
Of course, even in the best of conditions there's times when it might be necessary to just quit (my father did it when in a hospital with a heart attack), but it's usually possible to at least give reasons.
From what I've seen, courts tend to look dimly on attempts to distort the meaning of words to evade rules. You're breaking things down much too far, and attempting to distance them from their actual meaning and purpose. It's fine to collect email addresses, but not to collect email addresses for sending information for payment outside the App Store. If Spotify used the email addresses in ways that don't involve sending payment information to the app users, Apple's happy.
What apparently is happening is that there is an action available in the app that asks for an email address, and an outside process that sends subscription information to anyone who has entered an email address. The user does something in the app that results in the user being directed to a means of payment outside the App Store. That is what happens, and it's clearly against the guidelines. This is not a matter of the app sending an email address for a legitimate purpose and Spotify using it for a private communication that coincidentally violates the guidelines. Look at what is being accomplished, not the individual technical steps, which have no legal significance.
Most of us on Slashdot know more about how free/open source projects work better than 99.9% of the population. You are correct in that it's largely a reputation economy, and developers scratch their own itches. (The corporate stuff is not usually for reputation but to scratch itches.) That means they aren't interested in doing exactly what you want, but what they want. Privately run projects focus on the interests of the developers, and things will be done for developer convenience. That's why there's tons of excellent F/OSS development tools of various sorts and much less software for routine business and accounting purposes. (I get off on development tools, myself, so I'm not complaining.) If there was more hack value in making something run more efficiently than in making something generally work better, things would go more according to what you want, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
I think you're way overestimating the ease of packing new features into software without increasing the footprint. Spending an extra week on several new features is not going to reduce their additional CPU and memory requirements to trivial levels. It's going to take a lot of work of the sort that most people don't consider fun, and which won't get them much rep, and it's going to fail anyway because there's only a certain achievable level of efficiency. As software is improved in functionality, it is going to require more hardware. (If the functionality remains more or less the same, further development can reduce the footprint.) This means that, if you want improved software, you may have to improve your hardware. If you're unable or unwilling to, consider staying at an earlier version of the software.
This results in more resource use for the user, but usually that isn't too bad. Very few people will suddenly find their RAM is inadequate (it tends to come in large quantities anyway nowadays) given a minor expansion.
The fact is that hardware has advanced much farther than software. My current desktop is very roughly a million times better than what I started with (a TRS-80), but software has become nowhere near a million times better. Better hardware allows better software to be written, and compensates for the fact that more features is more memory and slower execution.
In other words, you have no sympathy for anyone in a bad enough situation that heroin looks like a good idea? You don't care about why people use it? How do you expect various people to deal with heroin and try to minimize its harm without understanding why people take it?
Disclosure: My experience with illegal drugs is limited to having smoked marijuana once. I didn't like it.
You appear to be saying that Apple should increase the amount of storage in their low-end phones. Fortunately for you, that's what they're doing. There's still a lot of people out there who don't use their 16G, and now they'll have another unused 16G, which isn't a problem as long as they don't have to pay more.
No. I'm claiming that removable batteries are not an unalloyed good, that the iPhones and iPods and iPads I've seen are more than adequately sturdy, that the App Store is adequate as is for quite a few people, and that you don't need to run the Apple-supplied stuff after all. I've had excellent customer service from Apple, considerably better than average. In other words, there are very good reasons to buy an iPhone or iPad. There are very good reasons to buy an Android phone or tablet also, of course, and in fact my tablet runs Android.
In other words, I'm trying to be reasonable, as objective as I can be, and to relate my personal experience. If that suggests to you that I'm a shill, you might want to try to expand your thinking. I recommend a practice of assuming for the sake of conjecture that people know what they're doing, and figuring things out from that. It's worked well for me.
The FBI doesn't have to reveal everything in their investigation. They say they can't find enough to justify a prosecution, and I'm going with that.
By carelessness, I mean she was careless with the security while it was going on. I'm not at all impressed by her later coverup; I want my elected officials to be more skillful liars, if nothing else. I'm definitely unhappy about what she did here. However, it doesn't make me necessarily agree with someone who makes me idly want to piss on his leg.
Snowden did a great service, and a good many disservices. His contribution is mixed, but the negative parts are much more significant than Hillary's.
Yeah, jury nullification. I've heard all about it around here. It's been used to subvert a lot of justice. I'm a lot happier with the guilty getting off than the innocent getting punished, but in some of the cop-shoots-black action going on it gives the police license to be murderers. I believe it used to be used to get lynch mobs legal immunity.
Snowden did a lot of harm to the US, and lots of people realize this. I think the good outweighs the harm, and some people are willing to disregard the harm, but I don't think twelve people on a jury are going to agree to disregard the law and acquit him. Most people don't get to commit crimes and get away with it because of their good deeds, and the legal system doesn't support that.
Lynch said she'd follow the FBI recommendation, which meant that if the FBI recommended prosecution she had committed herself to going through with it. Whatever Corney said would have had DoJ support, according to Lynch. Corney was, in any case, not exactly complimentary to the likely next President, so if he was worried about angering Hillary he'd have said something more supportive than that the case didn't warrant a criminal prosecution.
Um, politics is, basically, manipulating people and getting them to do what you want. Hillary, for example, got the world in general to think much better of the US, which is a real contribution to US foreign policy, which she was in charge of at the time.
I you haven't noticed what the Republicans are trying to do to Hillary, you either haven't been paying attention (not necessarily a bad idea, but it does make me not take your comment seriously), or you've bought into what the assholes are saying, which does make me not take your comment seriously. Hint: holding over a dozen expensive Congressional hearings in a desperate and unsuccessful attempt to find something Clinton did wrong about Benghazi show assholiness and was done by Republicans.
The presence of a steering wheel doesn't mean there isn't a safe autopilot mode. It can well be for situations where it's easier to maneuver the car than to tell the autopilot where to go. (It isn't, of course, but having a steering wheel isn't evidence that autopilot isn't safe.) People don't read manuals, in general.
The problem of relying on the Darwin Awards is that people who screw up driving kill other people besides themselves. (They may also have reproduced already, in which case they're not eligible unless they also kill their offspring.)
What does it do to check that hands are on the wheel? Does it need to sense skin somewhere? (If so, I'm not buying it. It gets cold where I live, and I don't want a car I can't drive with gloves on.) Will it detect my hand in all the positions I might use? If it can detect a gloved hand at any point, how good is it at avoiding false positives (e.g., knee touching wheel - I've read about people steering with their knees, and I'd rather they did that somewhere other than the road any of my loved ones or me are on)?
Everyone remotely familiar with aircraft autopilots might well know that, but lots of people know the word "autopilot" and don't know how aircraft autopilots work.
It's very possible to go from a state where everything's fine and normal to one where people are dead in much less than fifteen seconds. It's possible for the driver to lose situational awareness in much less than fifteen seconds. This doesn't seem very safe to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Strange, I've heard that she improved our perception considerably. (I'm a US citizen who has lived all his life in the US.)
I find your opinion of Europeans to be peculiar. What's wrong with doing things they like? Most of them are civilized, and run many societies that seem to do better by their people than US society does by ours.
Anyone in government employ would face administrative consequences, including potentially being fired, having one's security clearance revoked, and never getting another one. Clinton is no longer a government employee, and probably doesn't care if she ever has a clearance again. Her aides may have more problems with their careers. Corney didn't say that Clinton should face criminal prosecution, and said that past cases similar to Clinton's have not been handled with criminal prosecution, so prosecuting her would be violating precedent. A friend posted an interview with a Republican lawmaker who was going off on an anti-Clinton rant (it was an interview in name only), and said lawmaker agreed that prosecuting her would be unprecedented.
Clinton seems to have not had any malicious intent, and her carelessness doesn't appear to have caused any harm. Snowden did have criminal intent, and his leaks have caused a lot of problems. (I'm using "criminal intent" in the legal sense, since Snowden intended to commit pretty major crimes.) I'd call those some pretty big differences.
If cases without noticeable harm and intent are indeed not normally prosecuted, then it would appear that Corney was being reasonable, and that there is no overriding reason to believe that the FBI investigation was politically slanted or incomplete. Of course, those who think Clinton should be indicted regardless of the lack of precedent will find any excuse they can to label the investigation as deliberately crippled, and will disbelieve anything that disagrees with what they've decided up front.
Killing in self-defense, or to defend others, isn't murder. What I don't know enough of the situation to speculate about is whether this was legitimate defense (i.e., the shooter was an immediate threat where he was) or murder.
Wouldn't two weeks of severance pay be roughly equal to two weeks' notice? The deal here is that I do stuff and they give me money and other bennies for it. I can't do the stuff if I'm not here, but I can get the money and bennies even when I'm not.
There's a lot of things that are not US-specific, but state-specific. My state is what's called an "at-will" state, which means I can legally quit without any notice and the company can legally fire me without any notice, except for certain restrictions. Other states aren't "at-will", and I don't know what their laws are.
It is legal for a company to offer some advantages to giving notice rather than quitting on the spot.
I had a contract gig at a mortgage company in 2007. One day, the boss called me into his office and said I'd done good work, they appreciated it, but they had to let me go, so they gave me two weeks' notice. Honestly, that was the first time in months that I felt confident I was going to be working for them the next week.
Treating employees well and caring about their problems improves morale, and that can have a lot of knock-on effects. Employees will tend to stay with such companies, and that cuts down on potentially expensive turnover. It gives employees reasons to do some extra now and then to help the company. "Kindness of their hearts" has a very real impact on the business.
As far as the harassment thing goes, I'd say that anything that happens suddenly and makes you feel unsafe is grounds to leave right then. One incident of sexual harassment might well do that.
Sounds like a reaction to a sudden event. If the job's changing under you without notice, it's reasonable to bail without notice if you don't like the changes.
Corporate culture is different in different companies. Some do have loyalty to their employees. You can't count on corporate culture to last too many years, but if the company will do right by you you should at least consider doing right by the company. Also, don't forget your teammates, who may need some notice to deal with your leaving.
Of course, even in the best of conditions there's times when it might be necessary to just quit (my father did it when in a hospital with a heart attack), but it's usually possible to at least give reasons.
From what I've seen, courts tend to look dimly on attempts to distort the meaning of words to evade rules. You're breaking things down much too far, and attempting to distance them from their actual meaning and purpose. It's fine to collect email addresses, but not to collect email addresses for sending information for payment outside the App Store. If Spotify used the email addresses in ways that don't involve sending payment information to the app users, Apple's happy.
What apparently is happening is that there is an action available in the app that asks for an email address, and an outside process that sends subscription information to anyone who has entered an email address. The user does something in the app that results in the user being directed to a means of payment outside the App Store. That is what happens, and it's clearly against the guidelines. This is not a matter of the app sending an email address for a legitimate purpose and Spotify using it for a private communication that coincidentally violates the guidelines. Look at what is being accomplished, not the individual technical steps, which have no legal significance.
Most of us on Slashdot know more about how free/open source projects work better than 99.9% of the population. You are correct in that it's largely a reputation economy, and developers scratch their own itches. (The corporate stuff is not usually for reputation but to scratch itches.) That means they aren't interested in doing exactly what you want, but what they want. Privately run projects focus on the interests of the developers, and things will be done for developer convenience. That's why there's tons of excellent F/OSS development tools of various sorts and much less software for routine business and accounting purposes. (I get off on development tools, myself, so I'm not complaining.) If there was more hack value in making something run more efficiently than in making something generally work better, things would go more according to what you want, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
I think you're way overestimating the ease of packing new features into software without increasing the footprint. Spending an extra week on several new features is not going to reduce their additional CPU and memory requirements to trivial levels. It's going to take a lot of work of the sort that most people don't consider fun, and which won't get them much rep, and it's going to fail anyway because there's only a certain achievable level of efficiency. As software is improved in functionality, it is going to require more hardware. (If the functionality remains more or less the same, further development can reduce the footprint.) This means that, if you want improved software, you may have to improve your hardware. If you're unable or unwilling to, consider staying at an earlier version of the software.
This results in more resource use for the user, but usually that isn't too bad. Very few people will suddenly find their RAM is inadequate (it tends to come in large quantities anyway nowadays) given a minor expansion.
The fact is that hardware has advanced much farther than software. My current desktop is very roughly a million times better than what I started with (a TRS-80), but software has become nowhere near a million times better. Better hardware allows better software to be written, and compensates for the fact that more features is more memory and slower execution.
In other words, you have no sympathy for anyone in a bad enough situation that heroin looks like a good idea? You don't care about why people use it? How do you expect various people to deal with heroin and try to minimize its harm without understanding why people take it?
Disclosure: My experience with illegal drugs is limited to having smoked marijuana once. I didn't like it.
You appear to be saying that Apple should increase the amount of storage in their low-end phones. Fortunately for you, that's what they're doing. There's still a lot of people out there who don't use their 16G, and now they'll have another unused 16G, which isn't a problem as long as they don't have to pay more.
No. I'm claiming that removable batteries are not an unalloyed good, that the iPhones and iPods and iPads I've seen are more than adequately sturdy, that the App Store is adequate as is for quite a few people, and that you don't need to run the Apple-supplied stuff after all. I've had excellent customer service from Apple, considerably better than average. In other words, there are very good reasons to buy an iPhone or iPad. There are very good reasons to buy an Android phone or tablet also, of course, and in fact my tablet runs Android.
In other words, I'm trying to be reasonable, as objective as I can be, and to relate my personal experience. If that suggests to you that I'm a shill, you might want to try to expand your thinking. I recommend a practice of assuming for the sake of conjecture that people know what they're doing, and figuring things out from that. It's worked well for me.
The FBI doesn't have to reveal everything in their investigation. They say they can't find enough to justify a prosecution, and I'm going with that.
By carelessness, I mean she was careless with the security while it was going on. I'm not at all impressed by her later coverup; I want my elected officials to be more skillful liars, if nothing else. I'm definitely unhappy about what she did here. However, it doesn't make me necessarily agree with someone who makes me idly want to piss on his leg.
Snowden did a great service, and a good many disservices. His contribution is mixed, but the negative parts are much more significant than Hillary's.
Yeah, jury nullification. I've heard all about it around here. It's been used to subvert a lot of justice. I'm a lot happier with the guilty getting off than the innocent getting punished, but in some of the cop-shoots-black action going on it gives the police license to be murderers. I believe it used to be used to get lynch mobs legal immunity.
Snowden did a lot of harm to the US, and lots of people realize this. I think the good outweighs the harm, and some people are willing to disregard the harm, but I don't think twelve people on a jury are going to agree to disregard the law and acquit him. Most people don't get to commit crimes and get away with it because of their good deeds, and the legal system doesn't support that.
Lynch said she'd follow the FBI recommendation, which meant that if the FBI recommended prosecution she had committed herself to going through with it. Whatever Corney said would have had DoJ support, according to Lynch. Corney was, in any case, not exactly complimentary to the likely next President, so if he was worried about angering Hillary he'd have said something more supportive than that the case didn't warrant a criminal prosecution.
Um, politics is, basically, manipulating people and getting them to do what you want. Hillary, for example, got the world in general to think much better of the US, which is a real contribution to US foreign policy, which she was in charge of at the time.
I you haven't noticed what the Republicans are trying to do to Hillary, you either haven't been paying attention (not necessarily a bad idea, but it does make me not take your comment seriously), or you've bought into what the assholes are saying, which does make me not take your comment seriously. Hint: holding over a dozen expensive Congressional hearings in a desperate and unsuccessful attempt to find something Clinton did wrong about Benghazi show assholiness and was done by Republicans.
The presence of a steering wheel doesn't mean there isn't a safe autopilot mode. It can well be for situations where it's easier to maneuver the car than to tell the autopilot where to go. (It isn't, of course, but having a steering wheel isn't evidence that autopilot isn't safe.) People don't read manuals, in general.
The problem of relying on the Darwin Awards is that people who screw up driving kill other people besides themselves. (They may also have reproduced already, in which case they're not eligible unless they also kill their offspring.)
What does it do to check that hands are on the wheel? Does it need to sense skin somewhere? (If so, I'm not buying it. It gets cold where I live, and I don't want a car I can't drive with gloves on.) Will it detect my hand in all the positions I might use? If it can detect a gloved hand at any point, how good is it at avoiding false positives (e.g., knee touching wheel - I've read about people steering with their knees, and I'd rather they did that somewhere other than the road any of my loved ones or me are on)?
Everyone remotely familiar with aircraft autopilots might well know that, but lots of people know the word "autopilot" and don't know how aircraft autopilots work.
It's very possible to go from a state where everything's fine and normal to one where people are dead in much less than fifteen seconds. It's possible for the driver to lose situational awareness in much less than fifteen seconds. This doesn't seem very safe to me.