No, she didn't. She was careless. Being careless is not illegal.
Compare that to Dick Cheney who deliberately outed an undercover CIA agent for political vindictiveness. The man remains free to lord over Halliburton who received a multi-billion dollar no-bid contract to help with the invasion of Iraq. If that doesn't scream cronyism and illegality, nothing does.
So long as the criminals keep killing themselves, I don't see the problem.
Granted, sometimes the innocent do get caught up in the gun fights, but on the whole it's the criminals gunning each other down.
Saves the taxpayers tons of money since investigations are much cheaper than incarcerations. It may even help reduce future crime if the criminals are killed young enough.
Not everyone failed. I know for a fact CNN had multiple stories on the shady information Bush was using, poking holes in his lies.
But since people consider CNN left leaning they ignored the reports, caught up in the RA! RA! of invading someone.
Even when the lies of how the Iraqis would welcome us, how they would pay for everything through their oil profits, were shown to devoid of reality, people kept calling CNN liars and anti-American for pointing out the ugly truths.
"I feel like Iraq was stolen from us," said Mr Jabouri. "Bush and Blair are liars. They destroyed Iraq and took us back to zero, and took us back to the Middle Ages or earlier. If I was a criminal, I would kill them with my bare hands."
As well it should be. There was plenty of time, effort and someone else's money expended to produce this product which will not be recouped. The artists, who took time from their lives to produce the music, won't get paid.
This is absolutely no different than if you were writing software for a company and someone released the software before it went on sale. You don't paid.
But that would be a travesty, wouldn't it, when you don't get paid for the work you did, but when someone else doesn't get paid for the work they did, fuck 'em, right?
Queensland Police Service's Task Force Argos, a small, specialised unit focused on combating child exploitation crimes, identified the site's Australian administrator in part because of a localized greeting he signed messages with.
In other words, an Australian law enforcement agency was going after an Australian running a child porn site. Yeah, that is totally out of bounds for them. Who would ever think a country would have jurisdiction over people committing crimes in their country.
Child pornography has no borders. Based on the hyperbole from Motherboard we can presume they support child pornographers to be protected so they can continue raping one and two-year olds because that's what's most important.
It is one thing to disagree with someone, criticize their actions or point of view, but to repeatedly and ad nauseum go after them because of their race, that is not something which, despite free speech, should be tolerated on someone elses platform.
As Twitter said when banning him:
"People should be able to express diverse opinions and beliefs on Twitter. But no one deserves to be subjected to targeted abuse online, and our rules prohibit inciting or engaging in the targeted abuse or harassment of others."
But go ahead. Whine about how only one point of view was censored while completely ignoring the relevant facts.
And yet, the same people who claim voting fraud is taking place which is why these laws are needed, steadfastly and adamantly refuse to require a verifiable and auditable paper trail to make sure the votes which are cast are properly recorded.
Time and again when the subject of vote verification is brought these same people use the excuse, "It's a computer. They don't make mistakes."
Well how do you know they don't make mistakes if you don't have a process in place to check if votes are being recorded?
I'm guessing these same people would fit in the same category you describe: how do you know validation is taking place if you don't have an audit trail?
Which is a great work of circular reasoning. One can't show voting fraud has taken place but that's only because there isn't any way to detect it. If one can't detect voter fraud, how do you know it's taking place?
One of the biggest issues with PA's attempt was the person who did not have a driver's license had to travel to only a select few locations during certain hours and do this twice. Once to prove who they were then come back a second time to get their state-issued ID. All during regular business hours.
If you're on the bottom rung of life you need to work as much as you can and can't afford to take off work to prove who you are, twice, and if you're a senior citizen you may be dependent upon someone else to take you around because not everyone has a bus stop in front of their house.
PA's law was nothing but a blatant attempt to suppress voting.
Funny, when police use cameras to watch protests where people are voluntarily being in the open and visible to everyone around, in case someone decides to destroy someone elses property or cause bodily harm, it's an invasion of privacy because "you have nothing to hide" doesn't apply.
However, when phone numbers, passwords and so forth which are hidden from view for various reason are exposed, suddenly the invasion of privacy doesn't apply.
Yes, they're so aware of their privacy they're posting nude pictures of themselves online, posting where they're going for vacation, posting how drunk/stoned they are, posting pictures, in general, of themselves at all kinds of locations and notifying everyone and everything about their daily lives.
Yes, they're much more aware of their privacy by showing the world everything about their lives.
False analogy. All of those services protect or serve the country in one form or another.
Forcing people to hand over their money to give someone else money who isn't paying their fair share of taxes (as the case is used against the rich) is not the same as everyone chipping in to keep each other safe.
The question I always ask: how much of your personal money have you given to someone? Not through an organization but you pulling out your wallet and giving someone money?
The same with those who think forcing people to hand over their money to a private company is the way to go. How much of your own money have you given to someone who had a medical need? Again, not through an organization or GoFundMe or anything like that, but you personally handing over your money to someone?
228km is only 141 miles. That's 2 hours driving. There are many places in the U.S. where you don't see anything for that long and have warning signs telling you so.
When you see a billboard on I-70 which says, "Colby Kansas. Oasis of the Plains. 3 Hours Ahead." you know you're pretty much in nowhere.*
*For you Europeans, 3 hours gets you to the next country. You're still in Kansas 3 hours later and have about another hour until you get to Colorado. That doesn't include the previous hours of driving to get to the sign. All in the same state.
So like Fox gets its talking points directly from the RNC? The ones who are so desperate to not have Trump as their candidate that they have ordered Fox to not say a single nice thing about Trump and criticize him whenever they can?
In fact, Robertson noted he saw the Fox reporter more often at breakfast than he did anywhere in the combat area.
So please, cut the crap about propaganda. Fox is a propaganda station, plain and simple, and they make no bones about it. That is why people watch. Not for news, but to be entertained.
The more IoT crap gets thrown out there the more we'll hear about this nonsense. In our mad rush to digitize everything, to make it "convenient", to show how 1337 we can be we've forgotten the virtue of simplicity.
You know why light switches are still analog? Because they work. Every time. No having to look at an app and muck about, no trying to get a signal, no being dependent upon someone else to provide connectivity. Finger. Switch. It's that simple.
And I probably shouldn't bother responding to stupid comments like yours since this is not about "nothing to hide". If there were 1,000 police watching the demonstrations that would be no difference than if the helicopter recorded everything.
The protestors are in public for everyone to see. That is their whole point. If you don't want to be seen then don't go to the protest.
Further, there are ALWAYS those criminals who use the excuse of protests to destroy someone else's property just for the lulz. They think it's great to stick it to the man or simply wreak havoc, completely forgetting they're destroying someone's livelihood.
This is where the police come in. They need to find out who committed the criminal act and arrest them. Whether the police visually see the event happen or it is recorded electronically the issue is the same: the act was done in the open for everyone to see. That is not the definition of "nothing to hide".
it's frighteningly easy to imagine how cameras with a slightly improved zoom resolution and face recognition technology could be used to identify protesters in the future.
You mean people who are in public could be identified? That people who are destroying other people's property or stabbing someone or randomly shooting could be identified so they could face justice?
Oh the horror of identifying criminals! Whatever shall we do if those committing crimes are found and punished.
Slashdot Mirror
Meanwhile Hillary broke the law...
No, she didn't. She was careless. Being careless is not illegal.
Compare that to Dick Cheney who deliberately outed an undercover CIA agent for political vindictiveness. The man remains free to lord over Halliburton who received a multi-billion dollar no-bid contract to help with the invasion of Iraq. If that doesn't scream cronyism and illegality, nothing does.
You mean they're not already?
Aww, butthurt much? Don't like reality slapping you in the face?
Deal with it.
Because you're assuming, incorrectly, that blacks commit 50% of all crimes.
Further, I didn't say sex offenders, I said child molesters and child rapists. They are almost all exclusively white.
Keep trying to twist reality to fit your warped views all you want, it won't happen.
So long as the criminals keep killing themselves, I don't see the problem.
Granted, sometimes the innocent do get caught up in the gun fights, but on the whole it's the criminals gunning each other down.
Saves the taxpayers tons of money since investigations are much cheaper than incarcerations. It may even help reduce future crime if the criminals are killed young enough.
50% all crime is committed by a very specific demographic.
Yes, whites do cause 50% of all crime and almost 100% of all child molesters and rapists are white men.
Hogwash. Here's how things went down.
Mgmt: There's an issue with duplication of encoding when using USB web cams. It needs to be fixed.
Developer: Sure, not a problem. Let me look at the issue.
10 minutes
Developer: Problem solved!
Mgmt: That was fast! How did you do it?
Developer: I removed access to the parts causing the problem.
Mgmt: Brilliant!
Not everyone failed. I know for a fact CNN had multiple stories on the shady information Bush was using, poking holes in his lies.
But since people consider CNN left leaning they ignored the reports, caught up in the RA! RA! of invading someone.
Even when the lies of how the Iraqis would welcome us, how they would pay for everything through their oil profits, were shown to devoid of reality, people kept calling CNN liars and anti-American for pointing out the ugly truths.
If Trump had been president he probably would have sued them for libel, as he has said he might do to anyone who puts out unfavorable coverage.
Even the guy who took a sledgehammer to Saddam's statue now vociferously regrets the invasion.
"I feel like Iraq was stolen from us," said Mr Jabouri. "Bush and Blair are liars. They destroyed Iraq and took us back to zero, and took us back to the Middle Ages or earlier. If I was a criminal, I would kill them with my bare hands."
They're simply following the example set by private industry, particularly those on Wall Street such as Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan.
As well it should be. There was plenty of time, effort and someone else's money expended to produce this product which will not be recouped. The artists, who took time from their lives to produce the music, won't get paid.
This is absolutely no different than if you were writing software for a company and someone released the software before it went on sale. You don't paid.
But that would be a travesty, wouldn't it, when you don't get paid for the work you did, but when someone else doesn't get paid for the work they did, fuck 'em, right?
raising legal questions around agencies' reach.
Queensland Police Service's Task Force Argos, a small, specialised unit focused on combating child exploitation crimes, identified the site's Australian administrator in part because of a localized greeting he signed messages with.
In other words, an Australian law enforcement agency was going after an Australian running a child porn site. Yeah, that is totally out of bounds for them. Who would ever think a country would have jurisdiction over people committing crimes in their country.
Child pornography has no borders. Based on the hyperbole from Motherboard we can presume they support child pornographers to be protected so they can continue raping one and two-year olds because that's what's most important.
Because repeatedly sending out abusive tweets directed at one person in particular should be allowed.
It is one thing to disagree with someone, criticize their actions or point of view, but to repeatedly and ad nauseum go after them because of their race, that is not something which, despite free speech, should be tolerated on someone elses platform.
As Twitter said when banning him:
"People should be able to express diverse opinions and beliefs on Twitter. But no one deserves to be subjected to targeted abuse online, and our rules prohibit inciting or engaging in the targeted abuse or harassment of others."
But go ahead. Whine about how only one point of view was censored while completely ignoring the relevant facts.
And yet, the same people who claim voting fraud is taking place which is why these laws are needed, steadfastly and adamantly refuse to require a verifiable and auditable paper trail to make sure the votes which are cast are properly recorded.
Time and again when the subject of vote verification is brought these same people use the excuse, "It's a computer. They don't make mistakes."
Well how do you know they don't make mistakes if you don't have a process in place to check if votes are being recorded?
I'm guessing these same people would fit in the same category you describe: how do you know validation is taking place if you don't have an audit trail?
When Pennsylvania tried to enact a voter ID law the people who voted for it (all Republicans) openly stated they could not point to a single act of voter fraud. The best they could say was, "the number of voter fraud cases that are prosecuted are only a sliver of the fraud taking place because there is no system in place to detect fraud."
Which is a great work of circular reasoning. One can't show voting fraud has taken place but that's only because there isn't any way to detect it. If one can't detect voter fraud, how do you know it's taking place?
One of the biggest issues with PA's attempt was the person who did not have a driver's license had to travel to only a select few locations during certain hours and do this twice. Once to prove who they were then come back a second time to get their state-issued ID. All during regular business hours.
If you're on the bottom rung of life you need to work as much as you can and can't afford to take off work to prove who you are, twice, and if you're a senior citizen you may be dependent upon someone else to take you around because not everyone has a bus stop in front of their house.
PA's law was nothing but a blatant attempt to suppress voting.
Funny, when police use cameras to watch protests where people are voluntarily being in the open and visible to everyone around, in case someone decides to destroy someone elses property or cause bodily harm, it's an invasion of privacy because "you have nothing to hide" doesn't apply.
However, when phone numbers, passwords and so forth which are hidden from view for various reason are exposed, suddenly the invasion of privacy doesn't apply.
No, no hypocrisy whatsoever.
OR take the George Bush approach:
"I don't know where he is (Osama Bin Laden) and I don't care. He's not important to me." (after 3,000 people were murdered in one day)
Yes, they're so aware of their privacy they're posting nude pictures of themselves online, posting where they're going for vacation, posting how drunk/stoned they are, posting pictures, in general, of themselves at all kinds of locations and notifying everyone and everything about their daily lives.
Yes, they're much more aware of their privacy by showing the world everything about their lives.
False analogy. All of those services protect or serve the country in one form or another.
Forcing people to hand over their money to give someone else money who isn't paying their fair share of taxes (as the case is used against the rich) is not the same as everyone chipping in to keep each other safe.
The question I always ask: how much of your personal money have you given to someone? Not through an organization but you pulling out your wallet and giving someone money?
The same with those who think forcing people to hand over their money to a private company is the way to go. How much of your own money have you given to someone who had a medical need? Again, not through an organization or GoFundMe or anything like that, but you personally handing over your money to someone?
Yeah, thought so.
228km is only 141 miles. That's 2 hours driving. There are many places in the U.S. where you don't see anything for that long and have warning signs telling you so.
When you see a billboard on I-70 which says, "Colby Kansas. Oasis of the Plains. 3 Hours Ahead." you know you're pretty much in nowhere.*
*For you Europeans, 3 hours gets you to the next country. You're still in Kansas 3 hours later and have about another hour until you get to Colorado. That doesn't include the previous hours of driving to get to the sign. All in the same state.
So like Fox gets its talking points directly from the RNC? The ones who are so desperate to not have Trump as their candidate that they have ordered Fox to not say a single nice thing about Trump and criticize him whenever they can?
Talk about propaganda. At least CNN reporters don't sit in a hotel room and call in their reports because they're too scared to go out in a war zone.
In fact, Robertson noted he saw the Fox reporter more often at breakfast than he did anywhere in the combat area.
So please, cut the crap about propaganda. Fox is a propaganda station, plain and simple, and they make no bones about it. That is why people watch. Not for news, but to be entertained.
You seem to have mistyped. The words you are looking for are:
Fox isn't news. It is info-tainment.
They aren't known as the Fox Tabloid for nothing. It comes from the same guy who owns The Star and The Sun tabloids.
Incidentally, he also owns part of Hulu.
The more IoT crap gets thrown out there the more we'll hear about this nonsense. In our mad rush to digitize everything, to make it "convenient", to show how 1337 we can be we've forgotten the virtue of simplicity.
You know why light switches are still analog? Because they work. Every time. No having to look at an app and muck about, no trying to get a signal, no being dependent upon someone else to provide connectivity. Finger. Switch. It's that simple.
And I probably shouldn't bother responding to stupid comments like yours since this is not about "nothing to hide". If there were 1,000 police watching the demonstrations that would be no difference than if the helicopter recorded everything.
The protestors are in public for everyone to see. That is their whole point. If you don't want to be seen then don't go to the protest.
Further, there are ALWAYS those criminals who use the excuse of protests to destroy someone else's property just for the lulz. They think it's great to stick it to the man or simply wreak havoc, completely forgetting they're destroying someone's livelihood.
This is where the police come in. They need to find out who committed the criminal act and arrest them. Whether the police visually see the event happen or it is recorded electronically the issue is the same: the act was done in the open for everyone to see. That is not the definition of "nothing to hide".
it's frighteningly easy to imagine how cameras with a slightly improved zoom resolution and face recognition technology could be used to identify protesters in the future.
You mean people who are in public could be identified? That people who are destroying other people's property or stabbing someone or randomly shooting could be identified so they could face justice?
Oh the horror of identifying criminals! Whatever shall we do if those committing crimes are found and punished.