Seems to assume all Twitter users are U.S. citizens. That not allowing someone to talk to you is a violation of their right to free speech.
That's not remotely what the ruling says. Twitter can be considered a public forum and that public officials cannot block the public from a public forum regardless of their citizenship. If a mayor has a public town meeting, they can't block non US citizens from it who might be visiting or residing in the town.
And that digital forums are 'public', despite plenty of homeless and impoverished citizens lacking access to them
Have ever heard of a public library? Mine allows homeless and poor people in them to use the computers.
Both cases involve email, therefore total equivalence? I mean, whats the difference between archival data being mislabeled, (assuming that was the case), and purposely destroying records after a preservation order has been issued? It's not even a decent whataboutism.
No what you want is "total equivalence" and not some equivalence. The Bush email controversy:
Up to 88 Bush administration personnel used a private email server
51 personnel having no retention and all users were allowed to delete their emails
They were told to use the private server to avoid violations of the Hatch Act; however, some emails specifically discussed government business like the firing of US Attorney Generals and not political business.
The 22 million emails were lost for a time due to bad archiving practices.
Clinton email controversy
Clinton used a private email server some of the emails were classified after the fact and none of which were marked classified at the time.
Clinton admitted to deleting some emails which she said were not work-related. In 33,000 had been deleted
17,000 of the deleted emails were recovered.
In some ways what the Bush administration did was worse; it was more wide-spread and
I guess I shouldn't be so cynical when career politicians become incredibly wealthy and start having these kind of shenanigans when it comes to their communications while in office. Even when their spouses are getting paid 500k for speeches. Nah, it was all just for convenience.
Again your assertions on top of your accusations. I don't trust any politician but I don't think you know what is in their mind any more than I do. From the investigation, the main reason cited was the Hillary wanted to use her Blackberry for emails instead of a desktop and that besides Obama's custom Blackberry no else had an adequately secured Blackberry who worked for the government.
To be fair to D-Link, that's a really old router that according to the article less than 100 are still being used. But D-Link did say that an update would be provided if an enterprise customer requested it.
It's called netFLIX. not netTV. not netSERIES. netFLIX. Where are the flix? Gone. They don't have any good ones.
Um, they still have good ones but they are just fewer. For example Captain America Civil War, Doctor Strange, Rogue One, etc are still on Netflix. Again "fewer" does not mean "none".
You mean the 22 million emails that were recovered on archival tape?
So you're not denying that for a time that emails were "missing"? Why haven't you railed against the Bush administration for being so careless? Did you call for Bush to resign when they were found out to be missing? What about everyone else with the fiasco? Did you call on Congress to investigate them? See how that double standard works?
In the links you provided I didn't see much to suggest that these GOP members were using personal accounts for the sake of circumventing FOIA requests. We can agree that public disclosure for the sake of oversight is important. As noted by the Times article:
In your accusations I don't see any support for the idea that the use of a private email server was specifically to avoid FOIA requests. That's speculation on your part. The investigation could not find that as the reason either with the more plausible explanation was that it was simply easier for Clinton to set up a private server rather than deal with the IT bureaucracy. I see all the time in the private sector with one of my department heads going to Best Buy and buying some cheap desktops and expensing them rather than waiting for IT to order/build the desktops. The difference that there were no national security implications in my company only normal IT security.
Officials are supposed to use government emails for their official duties so their conversations are available to the public and those conducting oversight. But it is not illegal for White House officials to use private email accounts as long as they forward work-related messages to their work accounts so they can be preserved.
Yes and in the case of Clinton the way they recovered most of them were that she forwarded them from her normal account. But did you bring this up in defense of Hillary?
I think one thing CR noted was the high variability in stopping distance. Normally that might mean an issue in the testing methodology but CR has been doing these tests a long time.
Where you have been? Bush email controversy It wasn't just Bush but it was his administration including Karl Rove and Colin Powell. In all 22 million emails are "missing". As for the current administration they also have been using private emails. That doesn't include GOP members like Scott Walker, Marco Rubio etc. Seriously you can google and find many GOP members caught using their own private unsecured email.
You mean the government investigations that were conducted by political hacks who made the determination she wasn't guilty of breaking the law before they conducted the investigation?
BY political hacks, you do know that the GOP is in charge of Congress--the same "political hacks" that oppose her politically in every way?
Your recollection was wrong. The vast majority of classified emails were copied from a classified system to Clinton's system by Huma Abedin, who received immunity from investigator, not so she could testify against her boss, but strictly so she could not be prosecuted for this crime.
Citation needed. From wikipedia: "After allegations were raised that some of the emails in question contained classified information, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) initiated an investigation regarding the origin and handling of classified emails on Clinton's server. FBI Director James Comey identified 110 emails as containing information that was classified at the time it was sent, including 65 emails deemed "Secret" and 22 deemed "Top Secret". None of these had classification markings.". I would say that your facts are wrong.
No. I would want any investigation against Trump to be above board, legal and based on evidence, unlike the fixed investigation which cleared Clinton.
Please explain why a former prosecutor who was appointed by a Republican Attorney General wouldn't be above board or are you trying to give yourself an excuse not to trust evidence that would implicate Trump.
Meanwhile the "Russian Collusion" investigation, which was tainted from the very beginning, and no more than the DNC backup plan to destroy Trump should he be elected, has found nothing, and is reduced to prosecuting people using entrapment.
That's a lot of opinion based on conspiracies and nothingness.
What's remarkable, is the continuing criticism of Trump for this kind of thing. His predecessors were no better - and often worse - but they were given a free pass by the media. Obama used an ordinary Blackberry for years. Hillary's email server was a disaster.
That's factually false. Obama used a Blackberry specifically made for him that passed security requirements drafted by the government. In fact he thought he would have to give it up once he became President but Blackberry sensing an PR opportunity worked with the government to make a custom one.
As for Hillary, Bush did the same thing AND it appears that members of the GOP did the same thing after. Really it's more about our leaders not understanding security and technology.
And how do you know he doesn't use his unsecured phone for private communications? Second, there is a security danger in knowing the President's exact location as opposed to his relative location.
1. It works the other way, too. The same people getting the vapors over Trump tweeting from an insecure phone will spend hours explaining how Hillary did nothing wrong with her email server.
You mean besides the countless, multiple government investigations that came up with the same conclusions? Yes what she did was reckless but could find that she didn't break any laws. But to address your point, would you agree that Trump should have to face the same public investigations that Hillary faced? Yes or no?
2. The two aren't even comparable. She had classified emails on her unsecured server, in addition to Anthony Weiner's laptop.
That's not quite factually true. My recollection is that the vast majority of emails were not classified and those that were classified were classified after they were sent.
Rather, the issue is that he has a phone on him that is a huge target for hacking. As long as they change the phone out regularly (which shouldn't be difficult since it's his twitter phone) there's a smaller chance of that happening. An email server sitting there for a couple of years is an easier, albeit different target.
How is changing out his phone make it more difficult for hacking? Updating the phone's software will but changing his phone out does nothing to make his phone more secure.
nd it's all a bunch of shit nobody wants to watch.
I have to disagree. Some shows like Black Mirror and Arrested Development are what people want to watch. While their movies are less than impressive, I'd still watch some of them.
People want movies. Big theatrical movies we all heard of. Nobody wants Netflix's crap.
Some people want big theatrical releases and no doubt Netflix would offer it if they could afford to license all of them. As it stands now, that's not a reality. However, Netflix has a huge variety of TV shows. For example if you never saw Breaking Bad while it was on the network, you can binge watch all the seasons. Take another instance, Death Note which was a Japanese anime. It was originally broadcast in the US on Adult Swim but at 3:30 am EST so I never saw it . I only saw it when it came to Netflix and loved it. I also the live-action movie which was crap but I watched both.
Which begs the question - why are physical DVD rentals so much more profitable? Wasn't streaming supposed to eliminate all the overhead of maintaining warehouses and inventory - and paying postal fees. What's gonna happen post net neutrality when Netflix's costs go up?
1) streaming licensing. The content creators (in the case of movie studios) can charge whatever they want for streaming rights as opposed to DVD rentals. Before 2011, Netflix offered lots more current movies but then their licensing agreements ran out. The studios wanted far more money and Netflix was forced to reduce their catalogs.
2) Netflix is making their own content. Because Netflix wants to stay relevant they have actually started to purchase and make their own content. This has greatly increased Netflix's costs.
By your numbers from their DVD business Netflix makes $56M profit on $99M revenue for a return of over 50%. Compared to their streaming business which makes $560M on $11.7B which is almost a 5% return. Sure their streaming makes 10x the amount of DVD but it also is far less profitable in terms of percentage.
100,000 DVD titles and 5,600 stream-able movies so less than 6% available. My personal experience is that once in a while you get a new release on streaming but the majority of the catalog is older and not necessarily classic. For example Airplane! is now available but wasn't for a long time. There are lots of b-movies and lower quality titles on their movie list. TV shows have a much better selection.
And say any film released on DVD must be made streamable, and if the studios refuse, tell the customer to pirate it.
So you want Netflix not only violate copyright laws but also encourage their customers to do so? [sarcasm]No ramifications would ever happen to Netflix because of your advice[/sarcasm]. I can only imagine that would put Netflix out of business and as consumers we'd have fewer options.
Does safety mean that you can trust the code in the router or does safety mean performance of router to defend against attacks because those are different requirements. If code trust is more important, I would recommend any router that you can replace the firmware with open source firmware like DD-WRT or Tomato. For performance, I don't know of any comparisons published on different models of routers.
I have yet to see one much less use one since the launch 3 years ago so I don't know how common they are. I don't doubt that they might be in short supply but the last sales figures I got were 2 years ago: 2000 units That's hardly record shattering.
Apparently the town in this case was against it too.
1) Where do you get the "town" was against it. All reports say "Two people" were against it. 2) The reports do not say why they were against it
I realize you probably don't own a home, or care about where you live, but some people do.
And how would you know that? That's an assertion without foundation. My neighbor a few houses down painted his/her place an ugly color. Did I lodge a formal protest with the city and the neighborhood association? No: I don't interfere with my neighbor's personal choice but apparently you wold have done so.
Let me see if I understand you: You are complaining about Apple's "ugly" data center that will look like any other industrial building that you can't really see and is located away from a town that has no bearing on you because are "not a self-centered idiot". It seems like you are only demonstrating the opposite of what you claim.
Your entire post is that it's "ugly" in your town. If it's not in your town and you can't see it, what windmill are you tilting at? Do you rant about the "ugly" buildings in your state that you have never seen or visited?
Yeah I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't want that in their town. It is in the "middle of nowhere" right? No ecological problems there - it is "nowhere".
Are you changing the goalposts?
You guys are so stupid. A building of that size has only a negative impact on a town. There is nothing good about that picture.
What you are describing is basically every single industry that comes into a town then. That building could be making car parts or assembling furniture. Are you against any sort of industry in any place then?
Slashdot Mirror
Seems to assume all Twitter users are U.S. citizens. That not allowing someone to talk to you is a violation of their right to free speech.
That's not remotely what the ruling says. Twitter can be considered a public forum and that public officials cannot block the public from a public forum regardless of their citizenship. If a mayor has a public town meeting, they can't block non US citizens from it who might be visiting or residing in the town.
And that digital forums are 'public', despite plenty of homeless and impoverished citizens lacking access to them
Have ever heard of a public library? Mine allows homeless and poor people in them to use the computers.
Both cases involve email, therefore total equivalence? I mean, whats the difference between archival data being mislabeled, (assuming that was the case), and purposely destroying records after a preservation order has been issued? It's not even a decent whataboutism.
No what you want is "total equivalence" and not some equivalence. The Bush email controversy:
Clinton email controversy
In some ways what the Bush administration did was worse; it was more wide-spread and
I guess I shouldn't be so cynical when career politicians become incredibly wealthy and start having these kind of shenanigans when it comes to their communications while in office. Even when their spouses are getting paid 500k for speeches. Nah, it was all just for convenience.
Again your assertions on top of your accusations. I don't trust any politician but I don't think you know what is in their mind any more than I do. From the investigation, the main reason cited was the Hillary wanted to use her Blackberry for emails instead of a desktop and that besides Obama's custom Blackberry no else had an adequately secured Blackberry who worked for the government.
To be fair to D-Link, that's a really old router that according to the article less than 100 are still being used. But D-Link did say that an update would be provided if an enterprise customer requested it.
How is this a "Hackintosh"? It's at best an external GPU adapter for Macs which addresses one of the weakest points of Macs.
It's called netFLIX. not netTV. not netSERIES. netFLIX. Where are the flix? Gone. They don't have any good ones.
Um, they still have good ones but they are just fewer. For example Captain America Civil War, Doctor Strange, Rogue One, etc are still on Netflix. Again "fewer" does not mean "none".
You mean the 22 million emails that were recovered on archival tape?
So you're not denying that for a time that emails were "missing"? Why haven't you railed against the Bush administration for being so careless? Did you call for Bush to resign when they were found out to be missing? What about everyone else with the fiasco? Did you call on Congress to investigate them? See how that double standard works?
In the links you provided I didn't see much to suggest that these GOP members were using personal accounts for the sake of circumventing FOIA requests. We can agree that public disclosure for the sake of oversight is important. As noted by the Times article:
In your accusations I don't see any support for the idea that the use of a private email server was specifically to avoid FOIA requests. That's speculation on your part. The investigation could not find that as the reason either with the more plausible explanation was that it was simply easier for Clinton to set up a private server rather than deal with the IT bureaucracy. I see all the time in the private sector with one of my department heads going to Best Buy and buying some cheap desktops and expensing them rather than waiting for IT to order/build the desktops. The difference that there were no national security implications in my company only normal IT security.
Officials are supposed to use government emails for their official duties so their conversations are available to the public and those conducting oversight. But it is not illegal for White House officials to use private email accounts as long as they forward work-related messages to their work accounts so they can be preserved.
Yes and in the case of Clinton the way they recovered most of them were that she forwarded them from her normal account. But did you bring this up in defense of Hillary?
I think one thing CR noted was the high variability in stopping distance. Normally that might mean an issue in the testing methodology but CR has been doing these tests a long time.
That would only make their DVD more important as well as more profitable than streaming.
Where you have been? Bush email controversy It wasn't just Bush but it was his administration including Karl Rove and Colin Powell. In all 22 million emails are "missing". As for the current administration they also have been using private emails. That doesn't include GOP members like Scott Walker, Marco Rubio etc. Seriously you can google and find many GOP members caught using their own private unsecured email.
You mean the government investigations that were conducted by political hacks who made the determination she wasn't guilty of breaking the law before they conducted the investigation?
BY political hacks, you do know that the GOP is in charge of Congress--the same "political hacks" that oppose her politically in every way?
Your recollection was wrong. The vast majority of classified emails were copied from a classified system to Clinton's system by Huma Abedin, who received immunity from investigator, not so she could testify against her boss, but strictly so she could not be prosecuted for this crime.
Citation needed. From wikipedia: "After allegations were raised that some of the emails in question contained classified information, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) initiated an investigation regarding the origin and handling of classified emails on Clinton's server. FBI Director James Comey identified 110 emails as containing information that was classified at the time it was sent, including 65 emails deemed "Secret" and 22 deemed "Top Secret". None of these had classification markings.". I would say that your facts are wrong.
No. I would want any investigation against Trump to be above board, legal and based on evidence, unlike the fixed investigation which cleared Clinton.
Please explain why a former prosecutor who was appointed by a Republican Attorney General wouldn't be above board or are you trying to give yourself an excuse not to trust evidence that would implicate Trump.
Meanwhile the "Russian Collusion" investigation, which was tainted from the very beginning, and no more than the DNC backup plan to destroy Trump should he be elected, has found nothing, and is reduced to prosecuting people using entrapment.
That's a lot of opinion based on conspiracies and nothingness.
What's remarkable, is the continuing criticism of Trump for this kind of thing. His predecessors were no better - and often worse - but they were given a free pass by the media. Obama used an ordinary Blackberry for years. Hillary's email server was a disaster.
That's factually false. Obama used a Blackberry specifically made for him that passed security requirements drafted by the government. In fact he thought he would have to give it up once he became President but Blackberry sensing an PR opportunity worked with the government to make a custom one.
As for Hillary, Bush did the same thing AND it appears that members of the GOP did the same thing after. Really it's more about our leaders not understanding security and technology.
And how do you know he doesn't use his unsecured phone for private communications? Second, there is a security danger in knowing the President's exact location as opposed to his relative location.
1. It works the other way, too. The same people getting the vapors over Trump tweeting from an insecure phone will spend hours explaining how Hillary did nothing wrong with her email server.
You mean besides the countless, multiple government investigations that came up with the same conclusions? Yes what she did was reckless but could find that she didn't break any laws. But to address your point, would you agree that Trump should have to face the same public investigations that Hillary faced? Yes or no?
2. The two aren't even comparable. She had classified emails on her unsecured server, in addition to Anthony Weiner's laptop.
That's not quite factually true. My recollection is that the vast majority of emails were not classified and those that were classified were classified after they were sent.
Rather, the issue is that he has a phone on him that is a huge target for hacking. As long as they change the phone out regularly (which shouldn't be difficult since it's his twitter phone) there's a smaller chance of that happening. An email server sitting there for a couple of years is an easier, albeit different target.
How is changing out his phone make it more difficult for hacking? Updating the phone's software will but changing his phone out does nothing to make his phone more secure.
nd it's all a bunch of shit nobody wants to watch.
I have to disagree. Some shows like Black Mirror and Arrested Development are what people want to watch. While their movies are less than impressive, I'd still watch some of them.
People want movies. Big theatrical movies we all heard of. Nobody wants Netflix's crap.
Some people want big theatrical releases and no doubt Netflix would offer it if they could afford to license all of them. As it stands now, that's not a reality. However, Netflix has a huge variety of TV shows. For example if you never saw Breaking Bad while it was on the network, you can binge watch all the seasons. Take another instance, Death Note which was a Japanese anime. It was originally broadcast in the US on Adult Swim but at 3:30 am EST so I never saw it . I only saw it when it came to Netflix and loved it. I also the live-action movie which was crap but I watched both.
Which begs the question - why are physical DVD rentals so much more profitable? Wasn't streaming supposed to eliminate all the overhead of maintaining warehouses and inventory - and paying postal fees. What's gonna happen post net neutrality when Netflix's costs go up?
1) streaming licensing. The content creators (in the case of movie studios) can charge whatever they want for streaming rights as opposed to DVD rentals. Before 2011, Netflix offered lots more current movies but then their licensing agreements ran out. The studios wanted far more money and Netflix was forced to reduce their catalogs.
2) Netflix is making their own content. Because Netflix wants to stay relevant they have actually started to purchase and make their own content. This has greatly increased Netflix's costs.
By your numbers from their DVD business Netflix makes $56M profit on $99M revenue for a return of over 50%. Compared to their streaming business which makes $560M on $11.7B which is almost a 5% return. Sure their streaming makes 10x the amount of DVD but it also is far less profitable in terms of percentage.
100,000 DVD titles and 5,600 stream-able movies so less than 6% available. My personal experience is that once in a while you get a new release on streaming but the majority of the catalog is older and not necessarily classic. For example Airplane! is now available but wasn't for a long time. There are lots of b-movies and lower quality titles on their movie list. TV shows have a much better selection.
And say any film released on DVD must be made streamable, and if the studios refuse, tell the customer to pirate it.
So you want Netflix not only violate copyright laws but also encourage their customers to do so? [sarcasm]No ramifications would ever happen to Netflix because of your advice[/sarcasm]. I can only imagine that would put Netflix out of business and as consumers we'd have fewer options.
Does safety mean that you can trust the code in the router or does safety mean performance of router to defend against attacks because those are different requirements. If code trust is more important, I would recommend any router that you can replace the firmware with open source firmware like DD-WRT or Tomato. For performance, I don't know of any comparisons published on different models of routers.
I have yet to see one much less use one since the launch 3 years ago so I don't know how common they are. I don't doubt that they might be in short supply but the last sales figures I got were 2 years ago: 2000 units That's hardly record shattering.
Sorry snowflake, I am not complaining aobut anything.
Your posts say otherwise. You are the one that is so offended by Apple's "ugly" data center, not me.
I am saying that I wouldn't want a data center in my town, especially one that looks like this:
All I see are non-descript buildings in some trees. So you are offended by this then?
Apparently the town in this case was against it too.
1) Where do you get the "town" was against it. All reports say "Two people" were against it. 2) The reports do not say why they were against it
I realize you probably don't own a home, or care about where you live, but some people do.
And how would you know that? That's an assertion without foundation. My neighbor a few houses down painted his/her place an ugly color. Did I lodge a formal protest with the city and the neighborhood association? No: I don't interfere with my neighbor's personal choice but apparently you wold have done so.
Let me see if I understand you: You are complaining about Apple's "ugly" data center that will look like any other industrial building that you can't really see and is located away from a town that has no bearing on you because are "not a self-centered idiot". It seems like you are only demonstrating the opposite of what you claim.
Your entire post is that it's "ugly" in your town. If it's not in your town and you can't see it, what windmill are you tilting at? Do you rant about the "ugly" buildings in your state that you have never seen or visited?
Yeah I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't want that in their town. It is in the "middle of nowhere" right? No ecological problems there - it is "nowhere".
Are you changing the goalposts?
You guys are so stupid. A building of that size has only a negative impact on a town. There is nothing good about that picture.
What you are describing is basically every single industry that comes into a town then. That building could be making car parts or assembling furniture. Are you against any sort of industry in any place then?