Who are her enemies? Republicans, Russia, or China? Only two of those probably rooted her server and read all her emails, including the top-secret information that was illegal to keep there.
That Hillary Clinton is more afraid of oversight than leaking information vital for national security to foreign governments says a lot about her priorities.
Federal law says that the government is supposed to keep and preserve official government records, including in the form of (work-related) email. When Clinton was Secretary of State, she arguably held the emails in her role as a cabinet member. (Otherwise, she was breaking the law by not having the State Department hold them.) When she left that office, she had a duty to leave the emails with the government. Thus Gowdy's use of the word "return": She unlawfully removed the records from the government's possession.
It's past time for peons who want to kibbitz on national affairs to get a legal clue. How can you demand justice when you don't know what you're talking about?
Congress certainly can constrain the executive branch's handling of foreign affairs. The Constitution identifies several cases where Congress is required to approve specific foreign-relations actions (treaties and wars), has explicit grants of regulatory powers over the executive branch's performance of its duties, and so forth.
You're lying, and I think you know it. Administrative policies cannot override the Federal Records Act, which requires that government records be preserved basically until they're thoroughly irrelevant. Agency heads (including the Secretary of State) have further explicit requirements to set up, maintain, and enforce policies to support that law. Hillary Clinton blatantly violated her record-keeping and enforcement obligations. Beyond that, Clinton sent out at least one memo early in her tenure saying that personal email could only be used in limited and short-term circumstances, and her staff enforced that policy when removing an ambassador from his post, so Clinton should have known she was in violation of her own department's email policies.
But as the Supreme Court has taught us, "any other thing" does *not* include fish.
At least when the law in question is Sarbanes-Oxley, reciting what can be financial records. (To be clear, the same logic they applied would say that computer files could be "any other thing" in this law.)
Diplomats get immunity because they represent a different government, and malfeasance procedures against them need to involve political processes to avoid making an undue mess of international relations. Cabinet members, federal judges, and other advise-and-consent offices don't need, or get, analogous immunities.
Um, for basically all of that 5000 years, only members of government could get rich. It's not that money gave people power, but vice versa. Which is still the problem with activist governments like Venezuela's and Cuba's.
Sure, the US legal system is designed to make it easy for people to sue. You're overlooking my point: We should expect the government to be more discerning in its (civil) lawsuits than the "average" case. When the federal government prosecutes abusive lawsuits that cost citizens time, money, and stress, at least two branches of the government have failed.
The plaintiff in this case is the US Department of Labor. They're not supposed to sue people without good reason, but the allegations as stated are very thin, and IMO likely to lead to a loss in court. Palantir will probably be entirely vindicated, but only after spending way more on lawyers than should be required.
If your car is driving along that dirt road while unmanned, maybe someone shooting it would be analogous to shooting down a drone. If a person is in the car, it's much easier to stop the car and tell them to stop (compared to a drone, where the operator may not be visible), and shooting at the vehicle puts a person at risk of harm (compared to a drone, where the only risk is recompensable property damage).
I'd go with something like: If the drone flew over private property without permission before, there's a presumption that it will fly over your property whenever it heads in the direction of your property. The property in the first case doesn't have to be your own -- it could belong to a neighbor who told you they hate drones and would never allow overflight.
Having a control group without a diet plan would have been stupid. It would not have helped resolve the hypothesis (that fitness trackers help people lose more weight than the traditional self-monitoring of diet and exercise), and it would have reduced the power of the experiment by reducing the group sizes.
Why do you think the exercise goals were different for the two groups in this study? The "Physical Activity" section of the paper does not describe any difference in the prescribed regimen -- only, as I remarked above, on the method used to measure and record their exercise (and diet). As far as I can tell, you're flat wrong about the number of free variables.
I wasn't the one who said "You have to fully identify confounds and correct them. This study obviously didn't, thus is irreparably flawed, thus gives no useful information." My first comment was a way of calling bullshit on that claim (by AK Marc) -- but you proceeded to totally miss the point.
Spare us your disconnected anecdotes. Specifically how do you think relevant, uncontrolled variables affected the outcome of this study? Like most blowhards, you have so far avoided being specific about the things you whine about. Please show that you aren't just a blowhard.
Her campaign says she "supports the Department of Commerce’s plans to formally transition its oversight role in the management of the Domain Name System to the global community of stakeholders".
Why do you believe "[t]he group that got fitness trackers also stopped participating in the health-counseling sessions"? According to the paper, "at 6 months, both interventions added telephone counseling sessions, text message prompts, and access to study materials on a website". It says the intervention staff had access to the fitness tracker data during those telephone sessions. The key difference appears to be whether participants (who completed the study) self-reported their diets and physical activity, or used the device alone.
Climate scientists do not identify and correct for all the confounding variables, which is what AK Marc apparently demands of scientific studies (otherwise they are "irreparably flawed").
That's because climate scientists can't do randomized studies. Participants in this study were randomly assigned to either a standard intervention group or an enhanced intervention group. As far as studies in social science go, that isn't a very small group, and the idea is that with enough members in each group, uncontrolled variables (which one may or may not be able to identify) average out. Do you think the randomization failed to average things out? Exactly what confounding variables do you think they should have tried to identify and correct for? Be sure to explain how they should correct for each.
Do you also deny that man has had an effect on the earth's climate, simply because climate science didn't identify and correct for each confounding variable in the climate system?
No, there really isn't. With no alternative implementation of the language, the ABI is inherently part of the language definition. You can't carve out bits and pieces of Swift 3.0 and declare that it's going to be forward-compatible when it won't be.
On top of that, Apple has promised compatibility before, and changed their minds when it was convenient.
Slashdot Mirror
Who are her enemies? Republicans, Russia, or China? Only two of those probably rooted her server and read all her emails, including the top-secret information that was illegal to keep there.
That Hillary Clinton is more afraid of oversight than leaking information vital for national security to foreign governments says a lot about her priorities.
Federal law says that the government is supposed to keep and preserve official government records, including in the form of (work-related) email. When Clinton was Secretary of State, she arguably held the emails in her role as a cabinet member. (Otherwise, she was breaking the law by not having the State Department hold them.) When she left that office, she had a duty to leave the emails with the government. Thus Gowdy's use of the word "return": She unlawfully removed the records from the government's possession.
It's past time for peons who want to kibbitz on national affairs to get a legal clue. How can you demand justice when you don't know what you're talking about?
Congress certainly can constrain the executive branch's handling of foreign affairs. The Constitution identifies several cases where Congress is required to approve specific foreign-relations actions (treaties and wars), has explicit grants of regulatory powers over the executive branch's performance of its duties, and so forth.
You're lying, and I think you know it. Administrative policies cannot override the Federal Records Act, which requires that government records be preserved basically until they're thoroughly irrelevant. Agency heads (including the Secretary of State) have further explicit requirements to set up, maintain, and enforce policies to support that law. Hillary Clinton blatantly violated her record-keeping and enforcement obligations. Beyond that, Clinton sent out at least one memo early in her tenure saying that personal email could only be used in limited and short-term circumstances, and her staff enforced that policy when removing an ambassador from his post, so Clinton should have known she was in violation of her own department's email policies.
But as the Supreme Court has taught us, "any other thing" does *not* include fish.
At least when the law in question is Sarbanes-Oxley, reciting what can be financial records. (To be clear, the same logic they applied would say that computer files could be "any other thing" in this law.)
Diplomats get immunity because they represent a different government, and malfeasance procedures against them need to involve political processes to avoid making an undue mess of international relations. Cabinet members, federal judges, and other advise-and-consent offices don't need, or get, analogous immunities.
Um, for basically all of that 5000 years, only members of government could get rich. It's not that money gave people power, but vice versa. Which is still the problem with activist governments like Venezuela's and Cuba's.
Sure, the US legal system is designed to make it easy for people to sue. You're overlooking my point: We should expect the government to be more discerning in its (civil) lawsuits than the "average" case. When the federal government prosecutes abusive lawsuits that cost citizens time, money, and stress, at least two branches of the government have failed.
The plaintiff in this case is the US Department of Labor. They're not supposed to sue people without good reason, but the allegations as stated are very thin, and IMO likely to lead to a loss in court. Palantir will probably be entirely vindicated, but only after spending way more on lawyers than should be required.
It's hard to top Laurel and Hardy.
If your car is driving along that dirt road while unmanned, maybe someone shooting it would be analogous to shooting down a drone. If a person is in the car, it's much easier to stop the car and tell them to stop (compared to a drone, where the operator may not be visible), and shooting at the vehicle puts a person at risk of harm (compared to a drone, where the only risk is recompensable property damage).
Then my rule of thumb doesn't apply to the drone flying over that neighbor's property.
I'd go with something like: If the drone flew over private property without permission before, there's a presumption that it will fly over your property whenever it heads in the direction of your property. The property in the first case doesn't have to be your own -- it could belong to a neighbor who told you they hate drones and would never allow overflight.
Come on, everybody knows the ultimate language needs a COME FROM statement.
This is about ethics and transparency in tech news reporting, so of course there will be outrage all around.
Having a control group without a diet plan would have been stupid. It would not have helped resolve the hypothesis (that fitness trackers help people lose more weight than the traditional self-monitoring of diet and exercise), and it would have reduced the power of the experiment by reducing the group sizes.
Why do you think the exercise goals were different for the two groups in this study? The "Physical Activity" section of the paper does not describe any difference in the prescribed regimen -- only, as I remarked above, on the method used to measure and record their exercise (and diet). As far as I can tell, you're flat wrong about the number of free variables.
You're already in a hole. Stop digging it deeper.
I wasn't the one who said "You have to fully identify confounds and correct them. This study obviously didn't, thus is irreparably flawed, thus gives no useful information." My first comment was a way of calling bullshit on that claim (by AK Marc) -- but you proceeded to totally miss the point.
Spare us your disconnected anecdotes. Specifically how do you think relevant, uncontrolled variables affected the outcome of this study? Like most blowhards, you have so far avoided being specific about the things you whine about. Please show that you aren't just a blowhard.
Her campaign says she "supports the Department of Commerce’s plans to formally transition its oversight role in the management of the Domain Name System to the global community of stakeholders".
Why do you believe "[t]he group that got fitness trackers also stopped participating in the health-counseling sessions"? According to the paper, "at 6 months, both interventions added telephone counseling sessions, text message prompts, and access to study materials on a website". It says the intervention staff had access to the fitness tracker data during those telephone sessions. The key difference appears to be whether participants (who completed the study) self-reported their diets and physical activity, or used the device alone.
Ah. You're a name-calling hypocrite who doesn't have a clue how randomized clinical trials work.
Climate scientists do not identify and correct for all the confounding variables, which is what AK Marc apparently demands of scientific studies (otherwise they are "irreparably flawed").
That's because climate scientists can't do randomized studies. Participants in this study were randomly assigned to either a standard intervention group or an enhanced intervention group. As far as studies in social science go, that isn't a very small group, and the idea is that with enough members in each group, uncontrolled variables (which one may or may not be able to identify) average out. Do you think the randomization failed to average things out? Exactly what confounding variables do you think they should have tried to identify and correct for? Be sure to explain how they should correct for each.
Do you also deny that man has had an effect on the earth's climate, simply because climate science didn't identify and correct for each confounding variable in the climate system?
No, there really isn't. With no alternative implementation of the language, the ABI is inherently part of the language definition. You can't carve out bits and pieces of Swift 3.0 and declare that it's going to be forward-compatible when it won't be.
On top of that, Apple has promised compatibility before, and changed their minds when it was convenient.