I support a more limited, less intrusive federal government. Trump is proving quite ineffective at making real change, and the minor changes he has made mostly do reduce the role of the feds. OTOH, Hillary has widely expressed a desire to expand the fed's role, and has the experience to do so. Government is best which governs least, and Trump is proving good at doing not much.
This "current clusterfuck," as you call it, is just a manufactured partisan brouhaha. Although he's a buffoon and half the country is going to disagree with anything he does politically, the worst Trump has done in a non-political sense is making bad choices for staff, which he has every right to do.
The whole "Russia tried to influence the election" thing is bullshit. Hell, every candidate, PAC, political party and media outlet tried to influence the election. The US regularly tries to influence foreign votes.
Brains? Like asking about wiping a computer "like with a cloth or something?" Or not campaigning in large swing states? There simply was no reasonable choice this cycle, which can only be blamed on both parties. I don't like the politics of either (but in different ways), so I'd much rather have one with little chance of effecting real change than one skilled in deception (at least when Trump lies, it's immediately obvious).
Look on the bright side - it could be worse, it could be Hillary. Better to have someone who's incompetent than someone who's very practiced at being dangerous.
Donald Trump publicly complemented Comey's press conferences and other actions related to Hillary's email during his campaign events.
How stupid would you have to be to believe that Donald Trump fired Comey for the actions which he publicly commended him for?
Apparently, as stupid as you, who selectively believes or disbelieves him depending on whether it suits your argument/worldview. You forgot to mention Trump's criticism of Comey after he refused to prosecute Clinton. Your selective memory and ignorance of fact matches that of Trump.
The media agreed with you all day, writing about how he mislead Congress about the Abedin/Weiner emails. Right up until he got fired, that is. Now they're all about how this is a repeat of the "Saturday Night Massacre," firing a fine upstanding law enforcement officer for doing his job.
" prosecutors should be denied secured material they cannot specify. In this case they seem to know just what they are looking for,"
Almost. They don't know it exists, let alone on the phone. They don't know that there's a bass, let alone that it lives in the lake they want to fish. So, it is a fishing expedition.
"...paper files in a locked box, the prosecution would be permitted top saw the boxes in half..."
And they can do whatever they want to try to retrieve the data from the phone. That's completely different than forcing someone to produce knowledge against their own interest.
Thumbprints and DNA are physical. A PIN is knowledge. Anyone who's been arrested has been promised that they "have the right to remain silent," as it should be.
unless every female programmer signs it with "Coded by a Female Programmer!"
Exactly how does a code reviewer know the sex of the code submitter, which would be a prerequisite to any claim of bias? I'd guess the only way would be a real name was attached to the submission. But why should that be the case? Why not anonymize submissions? If it's felt there is a need for reviewers to know the past quality of submissions for a each submitter (but why, isn't the review supposed to judge the current submission?), have the system show a quality metric (% of submissions accepted?).
Is there any real need for submitters to be personally identifiable to others, besides perhaps via a back-end system only available to management?
Now keep reading. First, I've already quoted the specific exemption for professional employees. Second, you've also ignored the definition for covered occupations given in section two, which says "shall not include professional service, agricultural and farm work..."
Professionals, such as computer admins and programmers, are not covered. If you doubt that, I refer you to this, which says
...a professional worker must mostly do work requiring advanced knowledge, predominantly intellectual in character, which includes consistent exercise of discretion and judgment. The advanced knowledge must be in a field of science or learning, or be of work requiring invention, imagination, originality or talent in a recognized field of artistic or creative endeavor. The advanced knowledge must also be the kind usually acquired after a long course of specialized intellectual instruction.
Here's my cite, listing salaried employees exempt from MA overtime requirements. Exempt employees include a "professional person... earning more than eighty dollars per week," which seems to cover the position in the summary. And, no mention whatever of the 48 hour figure you give in the MA Official Website of the Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development Overtime FAQ.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not just call it what it is - a Pringle's can?
I support a more limited, less intrusive federal government. Trump is proving quite ineffective at making real change, and the minor changes he has made mostly do reduce the role of the feds. OTOH, Hillary has widely expressed a desire to expand the fed's role, and has the experience to do so. Government is best which governs least, and Trump is proving good at doing not much.
This "current clusterfuck," as you call it, is just a manufactured partisan brouhaha. Although he's a buffoon and half the country is going to disagree with anything he does politically, the worst Trump has done in a non-political sense is making bad choices for staff, which he has every right to do.
The whole "Russia tried to influence the election" thing is bullshit. Hell, every candidate, PAC, political party and media outlet tried to influence the election. The US regularly tries to influence foreign votes.
It was you making a comparison.
Brains? Like asking about wiping a computer "like with a cloth or something?" Or not campaigning in large swing states? There simply was no reasonable choice this cycle, which can only be blamed on both parties. I don't like the politics of either (but in different ways), so I'd much rather have one with little chance of effecting real change than one skilled in deception (at least when Trump lies, it's immediately obvious).
Look on the bright side - it could be worse, it could be Hillary. Better to have someone who's incompetent than someone who's very practiced at being dangerous.
Uh, how do you think he determines if there's evidence of wrongdoing without any investigation?
He doesn't need to build a tunnel which leaves his property. His troll is working perfectly as it is, just by posting a couple of animated gif loops.
YHBT.YHL.HAND.
It was "wiping, like with a cloth or something."
See that bit that's underlined? It's what's called a hyperlink. Click on it in your browser, and you'll find your entire comment is a non-sequitur.
You don't understand what a question is, do you, young Padawan?
Apparently, as stupid as you, who selectively believes or disbelieves him depending on whether it suits your argument/worldview. You forgot to mention Trump's criticism of Comey after he refused to prosecute Clinton. Your selective memory and ignorance of fact matches that of Trump.
You're younger than the Nixon years, aren't you?
You: "I think Microsoft is just chickening out here."
Microsoft: "Industry standardized interfaces are too confusing for people, they should use our proprietary, device specific one."
I don't think that counts as "chickening out," it's Apple-like courage.
Firing a special prosecutor (Archibold Cox) is very different than firing a bureaucrat who's just a mouthpiece, not an investigator.
"Comey is a real piece of shit"
The media agreed with you all day, writing about how he mislead Congress about the Abedin/Weiner emails. Right up until he got fired, that is. Now they're all about how this is a repeat of the "Saturday Night Massacre," firing a fine upstanding law enforcement officer for doing his job.
...do they really price gas in variable fractional cents? In the US, it's always $x.xx9 (e.g. $2.379/gallon, never $2.394/gallon).
/. editor strikes again!)
(And I find it humorous that the alternative link for the paywalled link is itself paywalled.
When there is no authentication, one can't claim that it worked in any sense.
" prosecutors should be denied secured material they cannot specify. In this case they seem to know just what they are looking for,"
Almost. They don't know it exists, let alone on the phone. They don't know that there's a bass, let alone that it lives in the lake they want to fish. So, it is a fishing expedition.
"...paper files in a locked box, the prosecution would be permitted top saw the boxes in half..."
And they can do whatever they want to try to retrieve the data from the phone. That's completely different than forcing someone to produce knowledge against their own interest.
Thumbprints and DNA are physical. A PIN is knowledge. Anyone who's been arrested has been promised that they "have the right to remain silent," as it should be.
Short summary: "You have the right to remain silent."
And yet, you're unable to articulate a single reason.
Exactly how does a code reviewer know the sex of the code submitter, which would be a prerequisite to any claim of bias? I'd guess the only way would be a real name was attached to the submission. But why should that be the case? Why not anonymize submissions? If it's felt there is a need for reviewers to know the past quality of submissions for a each submitter (but why, isn't the review supposed to judge the current submission?), have the system show a quality metric (% of submissions accepted?).
Is there any real need for submitters to be personally identifiable to others, besides perhaps via a back-end system only available to management?
"Who's going to pay a robot to be a drunken idiot that goes around harassing other robots?"
Prof. Farnsworth pays Bender to do a job like that.
Professionals, such as computer admins and programmers, are not covered. If you doubt that, I refer you to this, which says
- that describes computer admins and programmers.
Here's my cite, listing salaried employees exempt from MA overtime requirements. Exempt employees include a "professional person... earning more than eighty dollars per week," which seems to cover the position in the summary. And, no mention whatever of the 48 hour figure you give in the MA Official Website of the Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development Overtime FAQ.
Where's your support for your claim?