The world also badly needs adventurists, people who strike out towards something new.
Like invading Iraq? Careful what you ask for.
And for every Lindbergh, there's several Stanton Wooster's: those who failed. There were several attempts at x86 GUI's in the 80's and 90's, but most failed and lost money. It's great that some people take risk for the progress of humanity, but statistically I wouldn't want to be one of them. (Actually, I've tried several startups. Great experience, but a financial drain.)
If history books were honest, we'd read more about Stanton Wooster, but it would make more kids look for cushy jobs in middle management instead of risk their wad on pie in the sky so that we can have smart phones and cheap rockets by leaving a trail of dead bodies and bankrupt entrepreneurs. Honesty often lacks glory.
But a deal is typically "you get X if you do Y". Whether Y happened is not clear. The IF clause may have been activated ("ran"), but that doesn't mean the conditions themselves were triggered.
hubris for Facebook to assume that can rely on the network effect from their huge membership
Why doesn't somebody come up with a standard to share and control sharing of info so that one is not tied to a monopoly to house such info?
Companies who "lost" the network effect fight or only sell generic hosting should be happy to support such a standard because it would level the playing field. Zuck would be zucked.
It might require a non-profit "registry" of contacts, though.
"Mr. Pagliano told investigators, he approached Ms. Mills to relay State Department concerns that the private server might pose a "federal records retention issue." According to Mr. Pagliano, Ms. Mills told him not to worry about it, because other secretaries of state had used similar setups."
If that's the case, then she didn't understand or know the distinction between an outside service and a personal server. (It actually makes no difference from a legal standpoint, but I'm looking at the "lie" claim here.)
An AOL "technician" and a personal server technician perhaps would be no different to her. She didn't "see" either. I work with non-IT people all the time that wouldn't understand that distinction unless explicitly and carefully explained.
You guys are speculating out of your ass. You ain't no fucking lawyers. Go ahead and mod me to oblivion for telling the goddam truth: they are guessing; eat it!
Slashdot Mirror
You sir, shall be demodded.
But he'd still keep it, calling it Microsoft Flame.
If Jobs were Samsung CEO: "It's because you're holding your Galaxy wrong."
just put it out with one of the snakes.
They should have hired Yahoo; they are quick and incompetent.
You have 3 choices? Wow!
For about 3 months we had three choices, but then Douche Inc merged with Bag Inc.
Wednesday Addams: "Are these girl-scout cookies made out of real girl scouts?"
Like invading Iraq? Careful what you ask for.
And for every Lindbergh, there's several Stanton Wooster's: those who failed. There were several attempts at x86 GUI's in the 80's and 90's, but most failed and lost money. It's great that some people take risk for the progress of humanity, but statistically I wouldn't want to be one of them. (Actually, I've tried several startups. Great experience, but a financial drain.)
If history books were honest, we'd read more about Stanton Wooster, but it would make more kids look for cushy jobs in middle management instead of risk their wad on pie in the sky so that we can have smart phones and cheap rockets by leaving a trail of dead bodies and bankrupt entrepreneurs. Honesty often lacks glory.
Then they'd interbreed and create a race of Darth's who come pestering us with bigass weapons.
Ditto. "Just get over it. It's water under the bridge."
It's as if they expect everyone to be psychopaths like them, and are surprised when they are not.
But a deal is typically "you get X if you do Y". Whether Y happened is not clear. The IF clause may have been activated ("ran"), but that doesn't mean the conditions themselves were triggered.
Private operations have always been like that. BYU expels students for growing a beard.
And Trump's taxes. 2-for-1 deal!
Suddenly conservatives are "bothered" by influence peddling. What changed, you Citizens-United-ruling huggers?
Why doesn't somebody come up with a standard to share and control sharing of info so that one is not tied to a monopoly to house such info?
Companies who "lost" the network effect fight or only sell generic hosting should be happy to support such a standard because it would level the playing field. Zuck would be zucked.
It might require a non-profit "registry" of contacts, though.
If we go that route, why should we only look at Fox and Rush's guesses? If we are comparing guesses, then compare all.
OR, wait for things to settle so that we get real details instead of speculate out of our cabooses.
There's no room in the closet; it's full of unauthorized servers.
PHB1: "Hey, let's be Craigslist without the blackjack and hookers!"
PHB2: "Excellent idea, I'll get on it! ... By the way, what's Craigslist?"
PHB1: "Uh, blackjack and hookers."
"Mr. Pagliano told investigators, he approached Ms. Mills to relay State Department concerns that the private server might pose a "federal records retention issue." According to Mr. Pagliano, Ms. Mills told him not to worry about it, because other secretaries of state had used similar setups."
If that's the case, then she didn't understand or know the distinction between an outside service and a personal server. (It actually makes no difference from a legal standpoint, but I'm looking at the "lie" claim here.)
An AOL "technician" and a personal server technician perhaps would be no different to her. She didn't "see" either. I work with non-IT people all the time that wouldn't understand that distinction unless explicitly and carefully explained.
http://canadafreepress.com/art...
You guys are speculating out of your ass. You ain't no fucking lawyers. Go ahead and mod me to oblivion for telling the goddam truth: they are guessing; eat it!
He's 90% Republican, anal wipeface
It's not their job: Congress can't stop initial war nor The Button, only stop its funding. But who pays for Armageddon is moot.
I see people pretending to be lawyers based on partial scraps of info.
He's been a Republican for most of his career. He recently registered as an independent.
Some Preparation H should heal it up