Turn the game on Friday night, and turn it back off Monday morning.
Steam will count in-game pause as "gameplay". I learned that the hard way when I tried to return a game. Steam counts the executable being open as "gameplay". Someone who walks away in a long load screen and doesn't come back until after a leisurely dinner may have never seen any gameplay, yet be out of the return period.
50 hours is a weekend of play. Hoping they'll find the content they were promised. Playing it for a weekened then wanting a refund after lots of play that wasn't as advertised isn't theft. Wearing a dress once to a wedding and requesting a refund is theft. Not because you got use from it, but because it's diminished the value of the object to the owner, once returned.
That it's marginally more entertaining than solitaire doesn't mean it's theft to return a game that isn't as was described when sold. Hell, VW is taking cars back *years* after they were sold and well used, because they weren't as advertised.
Apparently fraud to sell is OK in your world, but returning something when it's discovered isn't.
"No civil rights legislation for lesbian or gay individuals passed during Reagan's tenure." And he requested 26M, a number so low, that Congress ignored it and funded it almost twice that. The funding increases were by Congress under him, not by him. He gave passing mention when personal friends like Rock Hudson died from it, but didn't *do* anything about it. Bush (Sr.) pushed President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports 1,000,000 times more than Reagan did AIDS awareness or support. Dallas Buyer's Club was shut down by Reagan. He made sure that while he funded a trickle of funding, to make sure he didn't go down as the most evil president ever, he did, and is the point of this pharma article:
President Ronald Reagan pushed for enforcement of DEA laws, and did so in a way that resulted in the deaths of Americans, for the benefit of the profits of big phama corporations, against the interests of the citizens (and, of course, the free market).
Whether you think he did or didn't do enough for gays, is irrelevant to whether he did or did not push for the weakening of the free market to boost big pharma profits.
The conservatives are the ones fighting to protect big business with protectionist measures that block the free market. It's reality that makes me come to that conclusion. What reality are you visiting today?
Pharma lobbied for the regulations. It creates a markey where one monopoly drug after another is the hot thing. The cosp of pharma isn't in R&D, as you imply. Pharma spends more on marketing than R&D. If we want to make pharma cheaper, we should do what many other countries have done, and make advertisment illegal. The costs will go down, so the drugs should get cheaper, right? Oh wait, that's not how the monopoly big pharma worked so hard to build works.
The irony is that big pharma worked so hard to create a monopoly system, to then, while directly supporting it, claim it's holding them back from providing affordable drugs.
and procedures for testing and certification in the US will have to be lowered/reduced/softened to more closely match the global markets like Indonesia or they will cease to exist (in the US, at least).
Indonesia? Why that? You should have picked Somalia or Canada. Do you really think drugs are significantly more dangerous in Canada than the US? Most of the world already has much more lax standards that work. The US somehow believes they are the only exception to every rule. People in Australia aren't dropping like flies, yet the costs are much lower than the US. Even in Indonesia, do you know of any specifics of unsafe drugs in Indonesia?
That's not how ballots work. There is no "anyone but" box. And if you are not an American, why are you so keen on American elections? A foreigner living in the US? Or a disinterested observer who thinks it would be hilarious if Trump were elected, so you'll do what little you can to get that result?
it's not up to her to police [classified materials].
Isn't that the point? It's up to her to police the classified materials? She didn't so she should be in jail. Oh wait, we found one point where she might have. Proof she needs more jail.
Every argument I see on this topic is irrational and contradictory. It all looks to be simple hate of Hillary, steered towards whatever the talk show told the Hillary haters to target.
All of you should just sign your posts "Heil Trump." After all, in a two party system, that's your effect, intended or not.
Someone isn't "cleared" to handle all classified material, once they are cleared to handle any material at that level.
destroying evidence is highly illegal.
No, it is not. A murder who washes his hands after the crime isn't prosecuted for destroying evidence. Destroying evidence after being ordered to turn it over is obviously clearly illegal. But that's been proven to not be the case here. Destroying all backups at 7 years old (an American standard for destroying old data) absolves you 100% if someone at 7 years and one day, sues you about something you just destroyed. So destroying the evidence would be 100% legal in that case. Arguably even if you knew the lawsuit was coming.
Dying from what? US made drugs, made to US specifications that were distributed in Canada, before being re-imported into the US at 1/10th to 1/100th the price of US retail? Yay, conservatives, restricting personal freedom to protect us from ourselves.
The liberals want to set drug prices in the US, the whole "allow people to buy drugs from foreign nations" is just the whip they're using to pressure the other lawmakers to allow them to set prices to avoid opening the US pharma market.
So the whip to pressure the conservatives is a free market, and the conservatives run from that idea.
Exactly what I said. The conservatives are regressive (wanting change back to some previous ideal, real or imagined), and the liberals are conservative on many gains, and progressive on a smaller number of things (being pro-gay marriage is a conservative stance - it's the law of the land, so someone trying to change it is progressive, and someone trying to keep it the way it is now is conservative, though actions have been confused with ideology, and both have been confused with cheap political labels to where no words have any meaning when used in, or near, politics or politicians.
You make it sound like i ever used the words "democrat" or "republican" in my post. I note how every political post becomes ana rgument over words. Any argument on facts becomes a "no true Scotsman" or strawman. And nobody ever actually discusses the issue, just how it's discussed.
but to cast it as 'the "conservatives" are against a free market, and the "liberals" are for the free market.' when it's more the opposite is quite a stretch there...
I'm just looking at the work Reagan did to punish gays. He tightened enforcement of US-made drugs being re-imported to a level never before seen (to keep the "God hates fags" christian conservatives happy), and (Arguably) not seen since. Clinton kept the status quo of bans on re-imports, but there was no presidential pressure to prosecute, and so the Canadian mail-order drugs came back. At least until Bush II. Or do you recall the presidencies differently?
Free Market, unless you want to buy medicine, then we don't let you. Funny how, in this, like so many other issues, the "conservatives" are against a free market, and the "liberals" are for the free market.
Yes. In the defense of a non-crime at a non-investigation, if she noticed improper emails stored on her server, she's essenially required by law to wipe them securely.
Yet, when she does follow the law, it's seen as proof she planned to break it all the time.
This shows an improper bias in the investigation (and trial by public), not proof of intent.
So, if she's so bad, who are you voting for in November?
It's not an investigation by a law enforcement organization, they are called "hearings" not investigation.. And it wasn't interested in unrelated emails. It was Benghazi-only, at the time.
The order of events given in TFA and those posting here filling in the gaps, seems to indicate a timing where she was asked to take a close look at her emails for Benghazi, then she wiped unrelated (possibly classified) emails, then completed her requirements with Benghazi, having 100% fulfilled her legal responsibilities into that investigation, then a new, separate investigation started into emails, after they were wiped.
The car analogy would be, you went mudding in your car. Someone reported that you did so illegally on private land. While investigating that, you notice your other car is dirty. You have it cleaned while the first is off being investigated. Then someone sees your receipt for getting your car cleaned, and claims you were guilty the whole time, and that you cleaned your car is proof you did the same thing elsewhere in the second car, but wanted to hide it.
Nope. There was no active investigation into her emails at the time. Just Benghazi, and it wasn't an investigation, because it was "just" a congressional hearing, not an investigation by a law enforcement organization.
There was no investigation at the time (a Benghazi inquiry that wasn't a legal investigation, and wasn't concerned with the emails at the time), and turning over your classified material to the FBI for an investigation into your self is not only stupid, but illegal. It's an illegal mis-handling of classified material. Leaks should not be handled by leaking the material to others, even law enforcement. They are to be handled by destroying the offending materials, so as to eliminate/minimize the leak.
Her actions, as described in TFA were the proper course. But she's vilified for them. The whole thing is illogical.
In Dallas, "the turnpike", "central" and "the tollway" all refer to separate sections of road independently. They are based on current or past "common" names of sections of road. None are "proper". All are unambiguous.
In part, the informal terms are more proper. They convey not only unambiguous meaning about the subject, but also convey information about the speaker. "I went west on Interstate 30, Tom Landry Freeway" that would reveal the speaker to be a non-native of the area. The Turnpike stopped being a turnpike in '78, but that was the common name, and has continued to be used as such by locals.
Language isn't solely to convey a thought, but to communicate about those involved in the conversation. And for that, inexact language is best. When there are a million ways to say something, the way you pick says something about you.
She wiped unrelated emails after an investigation into Benghazi. If they were, as asserted, classified material improperly held on insecure servers, it would be her duty to wipe them. Why do you hate Hillary when she does what's legally required? Oh, you'd hate her if she gave you $20 ("Not $50? You bitch.").
Let's say she's guilty of everything she's been accused of (I think she assassinated Gandhi and JFK/RFK as well), what would it be if the timeline went as follows:
She's investigated for Benghazi. During that investigation, someone realizes there's classified material on the "private" email server. The legal, prudent, and best practice thing to do when such an error is noticed, is to wipe the offending material. So, while being investigated for Benghazi, she wipes unrelated emails.
So, between killing Michael Jackson and founding ISIS, she properly disposes of mishandled classified material. And she's faulted for the one time she does properly handle it?
The misogynist Republican stance is showing. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. They hate her, and anything she did is a crime. Anything she didn't do is criminally negligent for not acting. She's been under investigation constantly for 20 years, not because she'd done bad things for which she's hated, but she's accused of bad things because she's hated. It seems so obviously irrational to everyone but the Hillary haters, who hated her before she did anything on their list of reasons they hate her.
TFA is Fox News quoting a Hillary hater saying that "wiping drives is proof of guilt". That's all the story is. There's nothing in the story even implying that the wiping happened after the investigation was underway. So where are you getting your facts from? Making them up and hoping nobody checks?
So committing a felony is fine, so long as you don't properly dispose of the improperly handled classified materials? Or is it that it's only allowed if it's a Republican? As bad as she is, who are you voting for in November?
That's not in TFA. The Fox News article indicates she's obviously criminal because her team used BleachBit. There was no indication given in TFA as to the time of the wiping, or the content wiped or anything like that.
The highly biased single-source news article doesn't even assert what you said. Did you hear that somewhere else, or is that your hallucination to help justify your irrational hatred of Hillary? If not Hillary, then who are you voting for in November?
Even if nothing on her server was "classified" much of it was sensitive. Using industry best practices to clean up old servers is proper, not proof of criminal activity.
I can't believe the constant anti-tech anti-science politics on a tech site. When hillary uses encryption, it's proof of guilt. Great, so we should arrest everyone who uses encryption. Oops, Slashdot defaults to https, so most everyone reading this is committing a felony, according to the Hillary haters. Encryption and deleted file scrubbing. Best practices, unless you are Hillary. Then it's a felony.
Then link to a picture of what you think a telegraph pole looks like. They *are* utility poles, so to say they don't look like utility poles, while being utility poles makes me think you are lying to feel like you won an argument nobody was having.
Slashdot Mirror
Turn the game on Friday night, and turn it back off Monday morning.
Steam will count in-game pause as "gameplay". I learned that the hard way when I tried to return a game. Steam counts the executable being open as "gameplay". Someone who walks away in a long load screen and doesn't come back until after a leisurely dinner may have never seen any gameplay, yet be out of the return period.
50 hours is a weekend of play. Hoping they'll find the content they were promised. Playing it for a weekened then wanting a refund after lots of play that wasn't as advertised isn't theft. Wearing a dress once to a wedding and requesting a refund is theft. Not because you got use from it, but because it's diminished the value of the object to the owner, once returned.
That it's marginally more entertaining than solitaire doesn't mean it's theft to return a game that isn't as was described when sold. Hell, VW is taking cars back *years* after they were sold and well used, because they weren't as advertised.
Apparently fraud to sell is OK in your world, but returning something when it's discovered isn't.
"No civil rights legislation for lesbian or gay individuals passed during Reagan's tenure." And he requested 26M, a number so low, that Congress ignored it and funded it almost twice that. The funding increases were by Congress under him, not by him. He gave passing mention when personal friends like Rock Hudson died from it, but didn't *do* anything about it. Bush (Sr.) pushed President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports 1,000,000 times more than Reagan did AIDS awareness or support. Dallas Buyer's Club was shut down by Reagan. He made sure that while he funded a trickle of funding, to make sure he didn't go down as the most evil president ever, he did, and is the point of this pharma article:
President Ronald Reagan pushed for enforcement of DEA laws, and did so in a way that resulted in the deaths of Americans, for the benefit of the profits of big phama corporations, against the interests of the citizens (and, of course, the free market).
Whether you think he did or didn't do enough for gays, is irrelevant to whether he did or did not push for the weakening of the free market to boost big pharma profits.
The conservatives are the ones fighting to protect big business with protectionist measures that block the free market. It's reality that makes me come to that conclusion. What reality are you visiting today?
The irony is that big pharma worked so hard to create a monopoly system, to then, while directly supporting it, claim it's holding them back from providing affordable drugs.
and procedures for testing and certification in the US will have to be lowered/reduced/softened to more closely match the global markets like Indonesia or they will cease to exist (in the US, at least).
Indonesia? Why that? You should have picked Somalia or Canada. Do you really think drugs are significantly more dangerous in Canada than the US? Most of the world already has much more lax standards that work. The US somehow believes they are the only exception to every rule. People in Australia aren't dropping like flies, yet the costs are much lower than the US. Even in Indonesia, do you know of any specifics of unsafe drugs in Indonesia?
That's not how ballots work. There is no "anyone but" box. And if you are not an American, why are you so keen on American elections? A foreigner living in the US? Or a disinterested observer who thinks it would be hilarious if Trump were elected, so you'll do what little you can to get that result?
it's not up to her to police [classified materials].
Isn't that the point? It's up to her to police the classified materials? She didn't so she should be in jail. Oh wait, we found one point where she might have. Proof she needs more jail.
Every argument I see on this topic is irrational and contradictory. It all looks to be simple hate of Hillary, steered towards whatever the talk show told the Hillary haters to target.
All of you should just sign your posts "Heil Trump." After all, in a two party system, that's your effect, intended or not.
destroying evidence is highly illegal.
No, it is not. A murder who washes his hands after the crime isn't prosecuted for destroying evidence. Destroying evidence after being ordered to turn it over is obviously clearly illegal. But that's been proven to not be the case here. Destroying all backups at 7 years old (an American standard for destroying old data) absolves you 100% if someone at 7 years and one day, sues you about something you just destroyed. So destroying the evidence would be 100% legal in that case. Arguably even if you knew the lawsuit was coming.
Dying from what? US made drugs, made to US specifications that were distributed in Canada, before being re-imported into the US at 1/10th to 1/100th the price of US retail? Yay, conservatives, restricting personal freedom to protect us from ourselves.
The liberals want to set drug prices in the US, the whole "allow people to buy drugs from foreign nations" is just the whip they're using to pressure the other lawmakers to allow them to set prices to avoid opening the US pharma market.
So the whip to pressure the conservatives is a free market, and the conservatives run from that idea.
Exactly what I said. The conservatives are regressive (wanting change back to some previous ideal, real or imagined), and the liberals are conservative on many gains, and progressive on a smaller number of things (being pro-gay marriage is a conservative stance - it's the law of the land, so someone trying to change it is progressive, and someone trying to keep it the way it is now is conservative, though actions have been confused with ideology, and both have been confused with cheap political labels to where no words have any meaning when used in, or near, politics or politicians.
but to cast it as 'the "conservatives" are against a free market, and the "liberals" are for the free market.' when it's more the opposite is quite a stretch there...
I'm just looking at the work Reagan did to punish gays. He tightened enforcement of US-made drugs being re-imported to a level never before seen (to keep the "God hates fags" christian conservatives happy), and (Arguably) not seen since. Clinton kept the status quo of bans on re-imports, but there was no presidential pressure to prosecute, and so the Canadian mail-order drugs came back. At least until Bush II. Or do you recall the presidencies differently?
Free Market, unless you want to buy medicine, then we don't let you. Funny how, in this, like so many other issues, the "conservatives" are against a free market, and the "liberals" are for the free market.
Yes. In the defense of a non-crime at a non-investigation, if she noticed improper emails stored on her server, she's essenially required by law to wipe them securely.
Yet, when she does follow the law, it's seen as proof she planned to break it all the time.
This shows an improper bias in the investigation (and trial by public), not proof of intent.
So, if she's so bad, who are you voting for in November?
It's not an investigation by a law enforcement organization, they are called "hearings" not investigation.. And it wasn't interested in unrelated emails. It was Benghazi-only, at the time.
The order of events given in TFA and those posting here filling in the gaps, seems to indicate a timing where she was asked to take a close look at her emails for Benghazi, then she wiped unrelated (possibly classified) emails, then completed her requirements with Benghazi, having 100% fulfilled her legal responsibilities into that investigation, then a new, separate investigation started into emails, after they were wiped.
The car analogy would be, you went mudding in your car. Someone reported that you did so illegally on private land. While investigating that, you notice your other car is dirty. You have it cleaned while the first is off being investigated. Then someone sees your receipt for getting your car cleaned, and claims you were guilty the whole time, and that you cleaned your car is proof you did the same thing elsewhere in the second car, but wanted to hide it.
Nope. There was no active investigation into her emails at the time. Just Benghazi, and it wasn't an investigation, because it was "just" a congressional hearing, not an investigation by a law enforcement organization.
There was no investigation at the time (a Benghazi inquiry that wasn't a legal investigation, and wasn't concerned with the emails at the time), and turning over your classified material to the FBI for an investigation into your self is not only stupid, but illegal. It's an illegal mis-handling of classified material. Leaks should not be handled by leaking the material to others, even law enforcement. They are to be handled by destroying the offending materials, so as to eliminate/minimize the leak.
Her actions, as described in TFA were the proper course. But she's vilified for them. The whole thing is illogical.
In Dallas, "the turnpike", "central" and "the tollway" all refer to separate sections of road independently. They are based on current or past "common" names of sections of road. None are "proper". All are unambiguous.
In part, the informal terms are more proper. They convey not only unambiguous meaning about the subject, but also convey information about the speaker. "I went west on Interstate 30, Tom Landry Freeway" that would reveal the speaker to be a non-native of the area. The Turnpike stopped being a turnpike in '78, but that was the common name, and has continued to be used as such by locals.
Language isn't solely to convey a thought, but to communicate about those involved in the conversation. And for that, inexact language is best. When there are a million ways to say something, the way you pick says something about you.
She wiped unrelated emails after an investigation into Benghazi. If they were, as asserted, classified material improperly held on insecure servers, it would be her duty to wipe them. Why do you hate Hillary when she does what's legally required? Oh, you'd hate her if she gave you $20 ("Not $50? You bitch.").
Let's say she's guilty of everything she's been accused of (I think she assassinated Gandhi and JFK/RFK as well), what would it be if the timeline went as follows:
She's investigated for Benghazi.
During that investigation, someone realizes there's classified material on the "private" email server.
The legal, prudent, and best practice thing to do when such an error is noticed, is to wipe the offending material. So, while being investigated for Benghazi, she wipes unrelated emails.
So, between killing Michael Jackson and founding ISIS, she properly disposes of mishandled classified material. And she's faulted for the one time she does properly handle it?
The misogynist Republican stance is showing. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. They hate her, and anything she did is a crime. Anything she didn't do is criminally negligent for not acting. She's been under investigation constantly for 20 years, not because she'd done bad things for which she's hated, but she's accused of bad things because she's hated. It seems so obviously irrational to everyone but the Hillary haters, who hated her before she did anything on their list of reasons they hate her.
TFA is Fox News quoting a Hillary hater saying that "wiping drives is proof of guilt". That's all the story is. There's nothing in the story even implying that the wiping happened after the investigation was underway. So where are you getting your facts from? Making them up and hoping nobody checks?
So committing a felony is fine, so long as you don't properly dispose of the improperly handled classified materials? Or is it that it's only allowed if it's a Republican? As bad as she is, who are you voting for in November?
That's not in TFA. The Fox News article indicates she's obviously criminal because her team used BleachBit. There was no indication given in TFA as to the time of the wiping, or the content wiped or anything like that.
The highly biased single-source news article doesn't even assert what you said. Did you hear that somewhere else, or is that your hallucination to help justify your irrational hatred of Hillary? If not Hillary, then who are you voting for in November?
Even if nothing on her server was "classified" much of it was sensitive. Using industry best practices to clean up old servers is proper, not proof of criminal activity.
I can't believe the constant anti-tech anti-science politics on a tech site. When hillary uses encryption, it's proof of guilt. Great, so we should arrest everyone who uses encryption. Oops, Slashdot defaults to https, so most everyone reading this is committing a felony, according to the Hillary haters. Encryption and deleted file scrubbing. Best practices, unless you are Hillary. Then it's a felony.
Then link to a picture of what you think a telegraph pole looks like. They *are* utility poles, so to say they don't look like utility poles, while being utility poles makes me think you are lying to feel like you won an argument nobody was having.