One feature of libertarianism is that government is suppose to be resolving disputes. What should happen is anyone with property being negatively impacted by someone else polluting should take that someone to court. The court should rightly find that they need to stop or compensate the other person.
You would not need specific regulation liability would force everyone to behave. The results would probably be much better because rather than one size fits all regulation, actually damages would need to be assessed and determined. So for example in ecologically sensitive areas the amount of polluting you can do might be much lower at least if you wish to avoid being sued into oblivian.
The problem with what boils down to browbeating by analytics is that it's still too much stick
It also presumes you actually know what to analyze. Where your support staff really 'off task' for an hour because they did not close any tickets or draft any advisory documents or did they have an adhoc meeting where someone came up with a good idea for a process improvement that they can take to management later?
If you metric everything to the point the adhoc does not occur you might be missing out value you don't know how to measure.
I wonder how carefully this stuff will consider the intangibles. How busy my team is or isn't often depends on how much selling the sales force have or have not does. I know for example if we are having a slow week. We might all go out to lunch together. It will take more than the allotted hour and nobody really cares. The flip side is when we are having a busy week and we have to work through lunch to keep up, no time for Slashdot etc; we don't feel like we are being shit on, at least I don't and I assume that goes for the others.
Optimizing away all the downtime at work sounds like a way to ensure employee burn out. I don't think just giving people more vacation would fix the problem either. Sometime what someone really needs is just to space out for 20min, drink some coffee and come back at it. Nobody is going punch out to do that. Its just going result in people being more stressed and likely less productive.
I am not a armor tactics export but from what I have read on the matter you are correct infantry can be highly effective against tanks. However the parent is correct about current US military strategy and that strategy is believed to be correct in general. This is why the US typically does not advance without first obtaining control of the air.
The parent poster is describing a situation where air power has already softened the enemy position. A disorganized infantry is never effective against an organized force that has air support not in terms of holding ground anyway. (This is not say they can't be a difficult and costly problem in terms of security or function as insurgents, just that they won't stop an advancing force).
When the takers have superior information being pass to them from the air support about the landscape ahead and where the enemy may be positioned, the won't be lead into a trap easily. A disorganized broken force isn't going to have the communications a discipline required to draw the tanks anywhere specific anyway.
Just look at the invasion of Iraq. US air power made up the bulk of "Shock and awe" and it was highly effective. Even the best trained Iraqi forces put up very little resistance to our ground forces moving in that might be described as effective. Once your are broken you are broken. Where air power does not work is in establishing security.
Yhey are not guilty of a crime since they paid for the CD (just paid to the wrong person)
That is not true receipt of stolen property is a crime, at least when done knowingly in most jurisdictions.
This is yet another example of why we don't need more laws we just need to enforce the ones we have. The legal system needs to decide is intellectual property distinct from physical property as a matter of law or not. If the answer is no fine, we have plenty of laws governing the possession and distribution of stolen goods. I realize this article was about the UK. To speak about the US for a moment; If intellectual property isn't really property but rather a civil construct (hint the US Constitution itself makes a separate issue of it) then we have to ask ourselves why are our criminal investigative services like FBI acting as an enforcement arm? They don't that in other civil matters. The FBI isn't running around making sure I comply with my clients NDAs. They lawers do that, and I suppose they hire PIs to check up on people when they feel its needed. Why isn't Hollywood and the publishing industry left to do their own leg work?
Which only bolsters my general case against to much government and market manipulation. Why do think land values are so insanely high on the west coast in the first place. Precisely because that labor intensive life style is possible. The folks watering that lawn don't want mow it themselves, make their own coffee, or butter their own bagel.
Stop voting to subsides these folks by making a labor force available below market rates. Welfare does not take from the rich to give to the poor it steals from the middle class to ensure the very wealthy have a perpetual servant class that the middle class by and large can't afford to utilize either. If you want to fix the wealth gap in America this is the policy answer:
1) Stop illegal immigration, period make sure nobody gets over the boarder and if they do they are quickly found and returned to the other side.
2) No more subsidized housing in any municipality where the cost of living exceeds the national median; bus tickets to the square states instead where folks who can't afford to live where they are can get the agriculture jobs the illegals were doing. These will be citizens with legal recourse so minimum wage will have to be paid. You can live on minimum wage in the square states.
Places like LA where the service workers class can no longer afford to live will quickly re-align. The very wealthy won't like not having a Starbucks within 50 miles. They will start leaving themselves for places with a better wealth distribution and your giant lawns will no longer be a problem they McMansions will be left vacant and the lawns fallow. The other possibility is they will start paying wages that allow folks to live near them without subsides. If the only way get their coffee made is to pay someone $20 an hour to do it they will. At that point middle class workers will also see a lift because too will start leaving if they are being priced out of the life style they are accustomed.
We have and always will have some super wealthy that are so far removed from the rest of us they exist almost outside of society. The wealth gap has been growing though, that is correlated with the grown of government and the social safety net. You will notice the upper end of the middle class tends to side with the GOP, the true %1ers lean left. (though obviously there are exceptions) That is no coincidence. The folks actually getting the handouts also lean left that is obvious, the middle gets squeezed as we race toward a neo-socialist society that looks frighteningly like the USSR. Where at no point was anything resembling equality ever realized. Reason through the behavior an realize that is the lefts great lie they have you under the impression they are trying to solve these problems. They are really trying to create them.
The rich entitled pricks continue to waste water by the millions of gallons because "they pay taxes", and therefore, deserve water more than poor people who want to drink it.
So you don't think the people paying to develop and extract a resource ought to have the first right to use it? Lets face it California could not sustain the populations it does without massive water infrastructure. Local availability in terms of aquifer and the naturally present surface water would not even come close.
If it was not for the people paying taxes, all your poor would be forced to leave! Deny the best their right to the top and you'll have no best left. That won't work out well for the masses.
As someone who is just a little older than you mellenials, I can't understand why you don't like the phone. Actually I can't even understand why you don't like voice mail.
You mention your parents and wanting to hear their voice, you don't like to hear the voice of your friends too? I happen to like to be reminded that my friends and co-workers are real personal contacts that I have and different then people I interact with exclusively via text, like other slashdot users.
A lot gets said in a voice mail that won't be said in an e-mail. People are generally not good actors. I can get a lot extra information from a voice mail about how someone 'feels' about the subject that they many times would not write. I can also convey a lot of information like 'don't push this issue with boss, I'll fight you on this' that I would not want to commit to writing but will state thru tone, rate of speech, pronoun selection etc in voice mail or on a call. If your interaction with voice mail is through some terrible TUI I get that, but if you have visual voice mail or get it delivered to e-mail as sound clips, what is not to like? Combine that with options truly good voice mail systems have like speech-to-text so you can optionally read your voice mails for those situations where you can't listen them its even better.
You could be impeached for failing to perform the duties required by the office, which you would be unable to do without access to the information. You can be impeached for committing basically any serious crime once in office, which you would be doing if you accessed information for which you did not have clearance breaking the law. So while CONgress would need to help get rid of a president who could not be given a clearance, it could and likely would happen.
Not its not her job. However the security of the Nation is and so she should still be aware when handling sensitive information. She should better than most be in a position to recognize when something that is unclassified perhaps ought to be and care about that. She could enough about operational security to care a second cell phone for personal/family matters if that is what it takes.
I don't really care what happens to Hillary in her personal life, if she gets fined/goes to jail/is given a president medal of freedom for her service, none of that matters to me!
I do care if she is elected president after she had demonstrated reckless behavior that many of us would have lost our jobs over. She isn't fit to serve and this is proof of that much. The standard of being suitable to lead the free world ought to be a little higher than "well technically she isn't a felon".
I don't get that one thought. Hillary has some real problems with likeability and trust as it is even without e-mailgate. The DNC could take her out of the running now and replace her easily with no harm to their general election chances.
On the other hand not aggressive prosecuting her means the GOP in congress will have an excuse to continue calling her to testify. It means someone unknown could come forward with more information at a potentially bad time like days or weeks before the poll etc.
Honestly if I were a DNC strategist I'd be asking her to step aside, so that Biden can fill void. If she would not step aside I'd threaten to lobby the Obama admin to investigate and prosecute the crap out of her destroying her electability as quickly as possible.
I suspect the fact the Obama Justice Department isn't being more aggressive is because they fear culpability might extend outward. Its not like plenty of people did not recognize they were mailing her somewhere that was not a.gov or.mil. A less than rigorous investigation is probably about protecting others, possibly Obama himself, to avoid opening up what did so-and-so known and when did they know it type questions.
Worse he is ignoring the fact the Secretary of State is almost uniquely position to recognize what information should be classified or might be classified incorrectly. Even if handling documents like that out side government systems potentially administrated by people without clearance might not have been a crime its still a serious failure of judgement, for someone who wants to be the next president.
The Clinton family learned from experience that their political opponents have free access to dig through anything that's stored on official servers.
If she only did state business on state assets than her opponents would have nothing to find unless she was breaking the law. Being a public official is the one case where the "if you are not guilty than you have nothing to hide" argument actually holds at least regarding your official business.
The problems with Clinton are that it was not 1999 anymore. The security or lack of in inter domain email was well known even to lay people. People had been likening it to a post card for quite some time, e-mail is not some esoteric technology that only IT folks get.
Clinton herself called wikileaks an "attack" and condemned Edward Snowden for removing sensitive materials. It isn't as if she did not understand operational security. Lots of what wikileaks got form Manning was classified not as secret but only "confidential" and much of that was just as damning as more highly classified material. Clinton also must have understood sensitive documents change classification after the fact sometimes. Given she was a party to these documents and the head of the Department she should have recognized she was handling material likely to warrant a "secret" or "top secret" classification and been concerned about that independent of its current classification or lack of.
Did she go "oh shit I better get this sever over to state department control" when these events occurred, nope she just keep doing what she was doing. So I am left to wonder what does that say about her judgment? Clinton says she is the one to continue to lead us into the 21st century but can't be counted on to make basic operation security decisions about the use of e-mail? Does not appear to recognize when she has a potentially serious problem on her hands or won't adjust course? This should be a serious problem for her candidacy and the amount people don't seem to care is astonishing.
Please don't get hung up on arguing over definitions.
WRONG - That is the kind of post modernist thinking that has gotten us into all this trouble in the first place. That is how you end up with "kinetic military actions."
Definitions and ensuring we have a common understanding are VERY IMPORTANT. If fact its the cornerstone you need for the very idea of "codified law". This is why Trump is polling so well. People want someone that says what he means. They are truly tiring of weasel word soup. If Trump actually had ideas, that were not vapid, offensive, irrational or some combination of those, he'd have the GOP primary locked already. As it is I know people who don't agree with a single thing he has said since he announce his candidacy yet they still pick him over the SIXTEEN other GOP candidates. That really says something!
That is the realy problem with the American system since FDR appeared on the scene and maybe even going back a little before that.
Presidents do set policy lots of it. Congress has abdicated responsibility over and over again and handed executive agency broad rule making powers. You can't take those powers back once you give them up either because the President has his veto pen. We gave the president the power to commit military forces without a vote. Its hard to say nope you can't run your war after he has been doing it for two months. What would Congress refuse to allow a covered retreat? Can't happen not really. The budget is two big and the president has to great a discretionary authority all ready to make shutdowns or default threats effective. Obama as your will recall pretty much threatened to make the House of Representatives a moot body and just issue a trillion dollar coin on the Treasury Departments executive authority. Essentially we have allowed the President to be above the law.
Lessig is right about the need to dismantle the two party system but that isn't the first step. In fact if you make that the fist step the consequences will likely be disastrous. It would dilute the 'will' of the Legislative branch even further. Only a near unified legislature can resist the presidency as it is. If we go multiparty now we almost certainly will end up with a President becoming a dictator we can never get rid of. Step one is a castrate the office of the President. We need to pass laws returning power to the Legislature, removing rule making authorities, removing standing authorizations, an "opposition" party that controls the legislature at odds with the sitting President is the only way that can happen.
We need more polarization not less. We need to build up a level of hostility that will cause a legislature to grit their teeth and say "We are gonna break this President" consequences be damned. After that you can begin trying to weaken the mechanisms that let those people stay in power.
I understand what the law is and that is not actually 'legal trespass'. I said it ought to be treated that way, meaning legal trespass should be defined to include remotely operated vehicles. Otherwise such ROVs should be considered to be abandon when they are own or over your property and the owner is not also physically present. In which case you should be free to size/dispose/destroy said object in any way you like, even if the thing is actively being controlled. Provided you have posted the property is private and visitors are unwelcome.
What if someone open your gate walked into your back yard holding their cell phone up, pointing it toward you and your daughter? That is more analogous to what happened here.
Flying drones over private property violates the property owners rights. Its trespass and ought to be treated that way.
Which is why when people like "No controlling legal authority" Clinton make statements about the rule of law its hard not to burst out laughing. Ditto for pretty much everyone else in office.
I was super disappointed in the Rand Paul Chris Christie exchange the other day too. Rand let Christie goad him on "nation security" and made a weak argument that these programs were not needed. What he should have said is these programs are not legal (he kinda did), but more than that they are anti freedom, and at their core unamerican. He should have argued the issue isn't national security at all, its the basic idea of the rule of law and our character as a people. He should have argued what we need is someone with the stones to say "We are americans and we don't do that sort of thing." He ought to have leveled charges of cowardice at Christy. When even Rand Paul can't make a strong case you known we have long gone off the deepend.
How much of this problem is due to old assumptions about running on real hardware? That is to say the entropy pool is fed from lots of sources most of them system devices. Is this just an unintended consequence of running on cut down virtual hardware platforms?
Proof does not have to meet incredibly high standards. A Civil trial over the amount of $20 can go before a jury.
If 100 geographically and economically disperse parents get together and say we all used use this drug while pregnant and all had children with similar birth defects. What would you conclude what do think a jury would likely conclude. If anything the burden is going to be on the company to show some pretty iron clad evidence they are not the problem.
Anything from the 90's has already been replaced or has long been fully depreciated. The simple fact is the telephone operators resisted at first and then largely failed to be competitive in the consumer access space.
This allowed the content guys "cable" to get in they game. They got everything to the "good enough" stage for major market segments, choked out the competitive offerings (the telcos and mom and pop ISPs) and have stagnated ever since. Mainly because they needed time to get their IP-VOD offerings up to industry par so they can protect their content distribution middle man revenue bonanza before allowing "cord-cutting" to be totally viable for most. Now that digital cable offers most of the on demand flexibility and DVR functions people seem to want they can lever their existing content agreements to ensure that stays the best deal. They don't have to worry about NFLX eating their lunch.
That is one view. I think though there may be some more complexity in it. I mean it asks how willing are people to empathize and assist a thing? How many people will see the project and be amused or want to help out before someone destructive does come along? Will our modern culture of fear 'interfere' how would the authorities respond etc, remember when they thought lightbrites just had to be bombs some years ago?
I think there was some artistic interest and merit in this. At least as much as covering the coast of Sydney in sheets. It was interesting momentarily now its over.
Hitchbot has a technology component yes, but its hardly state of the art anything, except maybe in 'art' were we might call it avant garde.
Hitchbot if anything was a work of performance or installation art and the show is over. It traveled a lot of miles elicited a lot of responses, many very positive, some negative and finally one vicious and destructive. That is its story. It the work of its creators and we should of course respect their wishes for the project but I think we gain more insight in considering the run it had rather than extending it forever.
Hitchbot is something that can be put back together, but this world is full of things that can't. Even rebuilding / recreating hitchbot won't reproduce the creative moment when some person had the idea to make a hitch hiking robot.
Insurance auto and home are funny industries. While most business try to retain long time customers and treat them well the insurance industry does the opposite.
The logic is apparently chaining insurers is something people find a pain in the ass. Being a long time customer does not add to your value as far they are concerned. No they are so efficient at paper work the overhead of on-boarding etc from customer churn is so low they don't care. They figure you having been on the rolls for awhile means you won't bother to switch and they can keep over charging you.
Just changing carriers every four years or so will frequently get you better rates.
Slashdot Mirror
One feature of libertarianism is that government is suppose to be resolving disputes. What should happen is anyone with property being negatively impacted by someone else polluting should take that someone to court. The court should rightly find that they need to stop or compensate the other person.
You would not need specific regulation liability would force everyone to behave. The results would probably be much better because rather than one size fits all regulation, actually damages would need to be assessed and determined. So for example in ecologically sensitive areas the amount of polluting you can do might be much lower at least if you wish to avoid being sued into oblivian.
The problem with what boils down to browbeating by analytics is that it's still too much stick
It also presumes you actually know what to analyze. Where your support staff really 'off task' for an hour because they did not close any tickets or draft any advisory documents or did they have an adhoc meeting where someone came up with a good idea for a process improvement that they can take to management later?
If you metric everything to the point the adhoc does not occur you might be missing out value you don't know how to measure.
I wonder how carefully this stuff will consider the intangibles. How busy my team is or isn't often depends on how much selling the sales force have or have not does. I know for example if we are having a slow week. We might all go out to lunch together. It will take more than the allotted hour and nobody really cares. The flip side is when we are having a busy week and we have to work through lunch to keep up, no time for Slashdot etc; we don't feel like we are being shit on, at least I don't and I assume that goes for the others.
Optimizing away all the downtime at work sounds like a way to ensure employee burn out. I don't think just giving people more vacation would fix the problem either. Sometime what someone really needs is just to space out for 20min, drink some coffee and come back at it. Nobody is going punch out to do that. Its just going result in people being more stressed and likely less productive.
I am not a armor tactics export but from what I have read on the matter you are correct infantry can be highly effective against tanks. However the parent is correct about current US military strategy and that strategy is believed to be correct in general. This is why the US typically does not advance without first obtaining control of the air.
The parent poster is describing a situation where air power has already softened the enemy position. A disorganized infantry is never effective against an organized force that has air support not in terms of holding ground anyway. (This is not say they can't be a difficult and costly problem in terms of security or function as insurgents, just that they won't stop an advancing force).
When the takers have superior information being pass to them from the air support about the landscape ahead and where the enemy may be positioned, the won't be lead into a trap easily. A disorganized broken force isn't going to have the communications a discipline required to draw the tanks anywhere specific anyway.
Just look at the invasion of Iraq. US air power made up the bulk of "Shock and awe" and it was highly effective. Even the best trained Iraqi forces put up very little resistance to our ground forces moving in that might be described as effective. Once your are broken you are broken. Where air power does not work is in establishing security.
Yhey are not guilty of a crime since they paid for the CD (just paid to the wrong person)
That is not true receipt of stolen property is a crime, at least when done knowingly in most jurisdictions.
This is yet another example of why we don't need more laws we just need to enforce the ones we have. The legal system needs to decide is intellectual property distinct from physical property as a matter of law or not. If the answer is no fine, we have plenty of laws governing the possession and distribution of stolen goods. I realize this article was about the UK. To speak about the US for a moment; If intellectual property isn't really property but rather a civil construct (hint the US Constitution itself makes a separate issue of it) then we have to ask ourselves why are our criminal investigative services like FBI acting as an enforcement arm? They don't that in other civil matters. The FBI isn't running around making sure I comply with my clients NDAs. They lawers do that, and I suppose they hire PIs to check up on people when they feel its needed. Why isn't Hollywood and the publishing industry left to do their own leg work?
Which only bolsters my general case against to much government and market manipulation. Why do think land values are so insanely high on the west coast in the first place. Precisely because that labor intensive life style is possible. The folks watering that lawn don't want mow it themselves, make their own coffee, or butter their own bagel.
Stop voting to subsides these folks by making a labor force available below market rates. Welfare does not take from the rich to give to the poor it steals from the middle class to ensure the very wealthy have a perpetual servant class that the middle class by and large can't afford to utilize either. If you want to fix the wealth gap in America this is the policy answer:
1) Stop illegal immigration, period make sure nobody gets over the boarder and if they do they are quickly found and returned to the other side.
2) No more subsidized housing in any municipality where the cost of living exceeds the national median; bus tickets to the square states instead where folks who can't afford to live where they are can get the agriculture jobs the illegals were doing. These will be citizens with legal recourse so minimum wage will have to be paid. You can live on minimum wage in the square states.
Places like LA where the service workers class can no longer afford to live will quickly re-align. The very wealthy won't like not having a Starbucks within 50 miles. They will start leaving themselves for places with a better wealth distribution and your giant lawns will no longer be a problem they McMansions will be left vacant and the lawns fallow. The other possibility is they will start paying wages that allow folks to live near them without subsides. If the only way get their coffee made is to pay someone $20 an hour to do it they will. At that point middle class workers will also see a lift because too will start leaving if they are being priced out of the life style they are accustomed.
We have and always will have some super wealthy that are so far removed from the rest of us they exist almost outside of society. The wealth gap has been growing though, that is correlated with the grown of government and the social safety net. You will notice the upper end of the middle class tends to side with the GOP, the true %1ers lean left. (though obviously there are exceptions) That is no coincidence. The folks actually getting the handouts also lean left that is obvious, the middle gets squeezed as we race toward a neo-socialist society that looks frighteningly like the USSR. Where at no point was anything resembling equality ever realized. Reason through the behavior an realize that is the lefts great lie they have you under the impression they are trying to solve these problems. They are really trying to create them.
The rich entitled pricks continue to waste water by the millions of gallons because "they pay taxes", and therefore, deserve water more than poor people who want to drink it.
So you don't think the people paying to develop and extract a resource ought to have the first right to use it? Lets face it California could not sustain the populations it does without massive water infrastructure. Local availability in terms of aquifer and the naturally present surface water would not even come close.
If it was not for the people paying taxes, all your poor would be forced to leave! Deny the best their right to the top and you'll have no best left. That won't work out well for the masses.
As someone who is just a little older than you mellenials, I can't understand why you don't like the phone. Actually I can't even understand why you don't like voice mail.
You mention your parents and wanting to hear their voice, you don't like to hear the voice of your friends too? I happen to like to be reminded that my friends and co-workers are real personal contacts that I have and different then people I interact with exclusively via text, like other slashdot users.
A lot gets said in a voice mail that won't be said in an e-mail. People are generally not good actors. I can get a lot extra information from a voice mail about how someone 'feels' about the subject that they many times would not write. I can also convey a lot of information like 'don't push this issue with boss, I'll fight you on this' that I would not want to commit to writing but will state thru tone, rate of speech, pronoun selection etc in voice mail or on a call. If your interaction with voice mail is through some terrible TUI I get that, but if you have visual voice mail or get it delivered to e-mail as sound clips, what is not to like? Combine that with options truly good voice mail systems have like speech-to-text so you can optionally read your voice mails for those situations where you can't listen them its even better.
You could be impeached for failing to perform the duties required by the office, which you would be unable to do without access to the information. You can be impeached for committing basically any serious crime once in office, which you would be doing if you accessed information for which you did not have clearance breaking the law. So while CONgress would need to help get rid of a president who could not be given a clearance, it could and likely would happen.
Not its not her job. However the security of the Nation is and so she should still be aware when handling sensitive information. She should better than most be in a position to recognize when something that is unclassified perhaps ought to be and care about that. She could enough about operational security to care a second cell phone for personal/family matters if that is what it takes.
I don't really care what happens to Hillary in her personal life, if she gets fined/goes to jail/is given a president medal of freedom for her service, none of that matters to me!
I do care if she is elected president after she had demonstrated reckless behavior that many of us would have lost our jobs over. She isn't fit to serve and this is proof of that much. The standard of being suitable to lead the free world ought to be a little higher than "well technically she isn't a felon".
I don't get that one thought. Hillary has some real problems with likeability and trust as it is even without e-mailgate. The DNC could take her out of the running now and replace her easily with no harm to their general election chances.
On the other hand not aggressive prosecuting her means the GOP in congress will have an excuse to continue calling her to testify. It means someone unknown could come forward with more information at a potentially bad time like days or weeks before the poll etc.
Honestly if I were a DNC strategist I'd be asking her to step aside, so that Biden can fill void. If she would not step aside I'd threaten to lobby the Obama admin to investigate and prosecute the crap out of her destroying her electability as quickly as possible.
I suspect the fact the Obama Justice Department isn't being more aggressive is because they fear culpability might extend outward. Its not like plenty of people did not recognize they were mailing her somewhere that was not a .gov or .mil. A less than rigorous investigation is probably about protecting others, possibly Obama himself, to avoid opening up what did so-and-so known and when did they know it type questions.
Worse he is ignoring the fact the Secretary of State is almost uniquely position to recognize what information should be classified or might be classified incorrectly. Even if handling documents like that out side government systems potentially administrated by people without clearance might not have been a crime its still a serious failure of judgement, for someone who wants to be the next president.
The Clinton family learned from experience that their political opponents have free access to dig through anything that's stored on official servers.
If she only did state business on state assets than her opponents would have nothing to find unless she was breaking the law. Being a public official is the one case where the "if you are not guilty than you have nothing to hide" argument actually holds at least regarding your official business.
The problems with Clinton are that it was not 1999 anymore. The security or lack of in inter domain email was well known even to lay people. People had been likening it to a post card for quite some time, e-mail is not some esoteric technology that only IT folks get.
Clinton herself called wikileaks an "attack" and condemned Edward Snowden for removing sensitive materials. It isn't as if she did not understand operational security. Lots of what wikileaks got form Manning was classified not as secret but only "confidential" and much of that was just as damning as more highly classified material. Clinton also must have understood sensitive documents change classification after the fact sometimes. Given she was a party to these documents and the head of the Department she should have recognized she was handling material likely to warrant a "secret" or "top secret" classification and been concerned about that independent of its current classification or lack of.
Did she go "oh shit I better get this sever over to state department control" when these events occurred, nope she just keep doing what she was doing. So I am left to wonder what does that say about her judgment? Clinton says she is the one to continue to lead us into the 21st century but can't be counted on to make basic operation security decisions about the use of e-mail? Does not appear to recognize when she has a potentially serious problem on her hands or won't adjust course? This should be a serious problem for her candidacy and the amount people don't seem to care is astonishing.
Please don't get hung up on arguing over definitions.
WRONG - That is the kind of post modernist thinking that has gotten us into all this trouble in the first place. That is how you end up with "kinetic military actions."
Definitions and ensuring we have a common understanding are VERY IMPORTANT. If fact its the cornerstone you need for the very idea of "codified law". This is why Trump is polling so well. People want someone that says what he means. They are truly tiring of weasel word soup. If Trump actually had ideas, that were not vapid, offensive, irrational or some combination of those, he'd have the GOP primary locked already. As it is I know people who don't agree with a single thing he has said since he announce his candidacy yet they still pick him over the SIXTEEN other GOP candidates. That really says something!
That is the realy problem with the American system since FDR appeared on the scene and maybe even going back a little before that.
Presidents do set policy lots of it. Congress has abdicated responsibility over and over again and handed executive agency broad rule making powers. You can't take those powers back once you give them up either because the President has his veto pen. We gave the president the power to commit military forces without a vote. Its hard to say nope you can't run your war after he has been doing it for two months. What would Congress refuse to allow a covered retreat? Can't happen not really. The budget is two big and the president has to great a discretionary authority all ready to make shutdowns or default threats effective. Obama as your will recall pretty much threatened to make the House of Representatives a moot body and just issue a trillion dollar coin on the Treasury Departments executive authority. Essentially we have allowed the President to be above the law.
Lessig is right about the need to dismantle the two party system but that isn't the first step. In fact if you make that the fist step the consequences will likely be disastrous. It would dilute the 'will' of the Legislative branch even further. Only a near unified legislature can resist the presidency as it is. If we go multiparty now we almost certainly will end up with a President becoming a dictator we can never get rid of. Step one is a castrate the office of the President. We need to pass laws returning power to the Legislature, removing rule making authorities, removing standing authorizations, an "opposition" party that controls the legislature at odds with the sitting President is the only way that can happen.
We need more polarization not less. We need to build up a level of hostility that will cause a legislature to grit their teeth and say "We are gonna break this President" consequences be damned. After that you can begin trying to weaken the mechanisms that let those people stay in power.
Actually could work. "If you give me this, I'll leave" If not you probably have to put up with "four more years!"
I understand what the law is and that is not actually 'legal trespass'. I said it ought to be treated that way, meaning legal trespass should be defined to include remotely operated vehicles. Otherwise such ROVs should be considered to be abandon when they are own or over your property and the owner is not also physically present. In which case you should be free to size/dispose/destroy said object in any way you like, even if the thing is actively being controlled. Provided you have posted the property is private and visitors are unwelcome.
What if someone open your gate walked into your back yard holding their cell phone up, pointing it toward you and your daughter? That is more analogous to what happened here.
Flying drones over private property violates the property owners rights. Its trespass and ought to be treated that way.
Which is why when people like "No controlling legal authority" Clinton make statements about the rule of law its hard not to burst out laughing. Ditto for pretty much everyone else in office.
I was super disappointed in the Rand Paul Chris Christie exchange the other day too. Rand let Christie goad him on "nation security" and made a weak argument that these programs were not needed. What he should have said is these programs are not legal (he kinda did), but more than that they are anti freedom, and at their core unamerican. He should have argued the issue isn't national security at all, its the basic idea of the rule of law and our character as a people. He should have argued what we need is someone with the stones to say "We are americans and we don't do that sort of thing." He ought to have leveled charges of cowardice at Christy. When even Rand Paul can't make a strong case you known we have long gone off the deepend.
How much of this problem is due to old assumptions about running on real hardware? That is to say the entropy pool is fed from lots of sources most of them system devices. Is this just an unintended consequence of running on cut down virtual hardware platforms?
Proof does not have to meet incredibly high standards. A Civil trial over the amount of $20 can go before a jury.
If 100 geographically and economically disperse parents get together and say we all used use this drug while pregnant and all had children with similar birth defects. What would you conclude what do think a jury would likely conclude. If anything the burden is going to be on the company to show some pretty iron clad evidence they are not the problem.
Anything from the 90's has already been replaced or has long been fully depreciated. The simple fact is the telephone operators resisted at first and then largely failed to be competitive in the consumer access space.
This allowed the content guys "cable" to get in they game. They got everything to the "good enough" stage for major market segments, choked out the competitive offerings (the telcos and mom and pop ISPs) and have stagnated ever since. Mainly because they needed time to get their IP-VOD offerings up to industry par so they can protect their content distribution middle man revenue bonanza before allowing "cord-cutting" to be totally viable for most. Now that digital cable offers most of the on demand flexibility and DVR functions people seem to want they can lever their existing content agreements to ensure that stays the best deal. They don't have to worry about NFLX eating their lunch.
That is one view. I think though there may be some more complexity in it. I mean it asks how willing are people to empathize and assist a thing? How many people will see the project and be amused or want to help out before someone destructive does come along? Will our modern culture of fear 'interfere' how would the authorities respond etc, remember when they thought lightbrites just had to be bombs some years ago?
I think there was some artistic interest and merit in this. At least as much as covering the coast of Sydney in sheets. It was interesting momentarily now its over.
Hitchbot has a technology component yes, but its hardly state of the art anything, except maybe in 'art' were we might call it avant garde.
Hitchbot if anything was a work of performance or installation art and the show is over. It traveled a lot of miles elicited a lot of responses, many very positive, some negative and finally one vicious and destructive. That is its story. It the work of its creators and we should of course respect their wishes for the project but I think we gain more insight in considering the run it had rather than extending it forever.
Hitchbot is something that can be put back together, but this world is full of things that can't. Even rebuilding / recreating hitchbot won't reproduce the creative moment when some person had the idea to make a hitch hiking robot.
Insurance auto and home are funny industries. While most business try to retain long time customers and treat them well the insurance industry does the opposite.
The logic is apparently chaining insurers is something people find a pain in the ass. Being a long time customer does not add to your value as far they are concerned. No they are so efficient at paper work the overhead of on-boarding etc from customer churn is so low they don't care. They figure you having been on the rolls for awhile means you won't bother to switch and they can keep over charging you.
Just changing carriers every four years or so will frequently get you better rates.