The policies state that the person is to leave copies of all work-related emails at the time they leave duty if using a personal/outside email system. Hillary's spokesman has maintained that if regular forwarding or CC'ing is done, then the State Department will have a copy. The "rule" didn't state the format of the copies, only that it had to be done. It seems that technically, the CC/forwarding process would comply.
Because the internal email system hiccuped, they allegedly couldn't verify if this was actually done properly.
I've never seen a clear statement on why cc/forwarding wouldn't comply. Anybody?
Does anybody have the specific text of the policies and/or laws she allegedly violated? Emotions run high on this, and therefore I'd like to see it directly from the horse's mouth (no, that's not a Carly joke).
Due to political pressure from Ross Perot. I give that credit to Ross, not GOP. GOP didn't give a shit about debt under Reagan and Bush 1.
promoted a business environment that encouraged investment by private companies.
Please be more specific.
Since Obama, nothing but crap and anti-business nonsense.
I'd like something specific there to analyze also. Many conservatives blame ACA, but other successful countries have HC systems in place that are not hurting them.
That's true because the laws are convoluted and vague. That gives an advantage to those who can afford the best lawyers: if you have a crappy lawyer, the interpretation can more easily be tilted against you.
OJ could afford layers who were masters of F.U.D., you and I couldn't, and that's why he wasn't convicted of a pretty obvious crime.
At least be glad you are (probably) middle class, because the poor have this problem even more so.
That's life in plutocracy, and our election will likely be between Plutocrat A and Plutocrat B. Hillary is only a symptom, not the problem.
Republicans in the House are why the 90s were great. [Bill] was just along for the ride.
Yeah right, you are cherry-picking combo's. Okay, I'll play this game: specifically what did GOP do then that made the econ take off?
a lot of French went to the UK, which shockingly has better taxes than France does. Others went to Germany, Belgium, and the US.
Those 3 countries are more socialist leaning than USA, and arguably doing better per middle class.
There's often an optimum balancing point. France may have over-did it; I won't disagree there. Find the right balancing point like UK, Germany, Canada, and Belgium did.
You seem to be making Bernie's argument for him, without using the dreaded "S" word.
Conservatives blame everything on regulation out of habit. Somalia hardly boomed when there was zero regulation, except the pirate biz.
And many of the economies with strong middle-classes, such as Canada, Germany, and the European countries Bernie talks about are not lightly-regulated.
I think the "threat" of alleged future regulation you talk about comes from Fox News, not the Democrats. Turn it off: it lies to you.
Re: "it is the economy that drives the inflation rate" -- They are related, but I disagree it's a one-way relationship.
Re: "When you have no idea what policy is going to be one day to the next" -- Nobody has a crystal ball, get over it: wars and change happen. Trump is not exactly a pillar of predictability either.
Re believing gov't inflation statistics: I won't entertain conspiracy theories here. We can take that debate elsewhere.
Re: "I'm a business owner, I have money. I'm not investing it because I don't trust the Democrats" -- Why not? The best economy of recent years was under Bill. I don't count Reagan because he had a "stimulus" by jacking spending and debt way up.
Re: "Result? Tens of thousands of the wealthiest have left [France]" -- Where are they going? Let's punish tax heavens: they use gimmicks to suck away wealth and because we let them they keep doing it. Tell the WTO to go to hell: we negotiate on OUR terms.
Re: "[inflation] side-effects are clear and obvious. 1930's Germany and 2000s Zimbabwe" -- Different circumstances: apples to oranges. And, we can try it in increments so it's not an all-or-nothing thing.
Mass automation of grunt work and more free time because of it should be a good thing. But, we don't know how to distribute the resulting goods and wealth. We seem to be entering a new phase of history and economics with different rules. It's both exciting and frustrating.
The economies of "mature" nations are not behaving normally:
1. The "recovery" is slower than past patterns.
2. Inflation is too low. Economies tend to do best with inflation around 2.2% (annual), but we've been hovering around 1.7% for a while.
3. Low interest rates are not triggering investments.
4. Investors and companies prefer sitting on cash instead of investing.
Taxing the wealthy heavily is one common suggestion for distributing this "jammed" wealth, but this rubs many people wrong.
Outright printing money and distributing it to regular consumers is another suggestion (AKA "helicopter money"), but nobody is sure of the side-effects.
Reducing regulations is another suggestion, but most federal regulations were put in place because one or more organization were doing sleazy things. We don't want to become a 3rd-world dump in order to compete with the 3rd world by polluting more and having abusive working conditions. State-level regulations, which are often passed with less scrutiny, are possibly a better place to clean up bad laws, but require state governments to act.
What are the other options? We may have to just experiment with one or more of the above, but admitting you are experimenting looks bad, politically.
once worked at Microsoft, so "is responsible in part for a lot of bad software."
Epic insult, hats off.
If there is an official award for professional insults, this has gotta be a top contender. The only way to top it would be a double whammy, something like:
"You have the engineering skills of a Microsoft employee, and the grooming skills of Richard Stallman."
Tech mergers rarely work. Why are they gambling? Is there a hidden shell game here that make a few select executives and lawyers rich while screwing everything else?
Actually people generally don't even try to use HTML documents for formal printing and publishing, unless backed into a corner. It's because it's so unpredictable.
I say outright get rid of software patents: the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. Most new software ideas are created in the act of making a specific product, not mass general research labs of the kind Edison used. This means that the ideas would be created anyhow even without the royalty incentives.
And most don't bother to mine existing patents for new ideas because most are vague, obvious, or trivial junk, often filed for defensive or legal ammunition reasons.
Thus, the two main reasons for patents: incentives and publicizing ideas, are mostly moot these days. For every good software patent, I bet there are at least 10 junk patents.
Patents can join H-1B visas in the high abuse-to-legitimacy ratio: a game played by and for big biz to stay big at the expense of everybody else.
It seems J. Edgar Hoover is back. The agency is becoming rather power-hungry of late.
It's not their job to push for policy, only implement it. It's fine if they say, "we can do our job better if we have access to X", but to use scare tactics and political pressure to get X is over-stepping their bounds, bordering on McCarthyism.
A lot of sites/apps get auto-flow wrong. Maybe a UI expert or top guru can figure out how to get auto-flow to work properly on all devices, but us mere mortals struggle with it. Any overly-complicated tech can be "justified" with "if you were just smart enough and/or spent enough time learning it, it will work".
That's a crock. Presentation of everyday things should NOT require rocket science.
To use hypothetical numbers, let's say WYSIWYG takes 10 units of learning to master, while auto-flow takes 200 units to master. It's not worth 20x the learning cost to gain the SMALL benefits auto-flow have over WYSIWYG.
The costs are not economically logical in my book. It's a lot of resources spent for very minor gains, and if a shop skips the additional effort, they will have screwy interfaces that wrap wrong or have blanked out overlaps of CSS collisions, which is what is often found.
I suspect auto-flow is being protected by those who want job security dealing with its finicky intricacies. Similar arguments were used by assembler coders against higher-level languages.
I'd argue Delphi has a longer learning curve. You are probably more productive once you master Delphi, but there is a trade-off in the ramp-up time.
Note the Lazarus project is more or less an OSS Delphi clone. Haven't used it myself and thus won't comment on it compared to Delphi in terms of quality or learning curve.
Usually PDF publishers don't want people messing around with copies of their documents anyhow.
There are ways to mitigate such anyhow with certain internal markers to delimit paragraphs etc. That is, visuals splits versus semantics splits, as illustrated below, but so far there is not much demand for such, except maybe for accessibility purposes.
<p>
<line attribute="etc">This is one visual line.</line>
<line attribute="etc">This is another visual line.</line> </p>
Android is so fragented it is frustrating for everyone. Carriers and Manufactureres are allowed to screw it up and Google does not care
Having owned both an iPhone and Android, I have to agree. iPhone "experience" is just overall cleaner and has better-coordinated common tools/apps.
If Apple is cautious in order to reduce breaches, it may just well benefit them. A couple of high-profile Android breach(es) will send customers back to Apple.
Perhaps Windows versus Mac is a better comparison than Blackberry versus iPhone. Macs are more expensive, but are more reliable, less vulnerable to malware, and have a cleaner UI. A lot of Mac users were former Windows users who got hacked or had the OS choke on them.
Apple didn't need a large market share to make Mac's viable and profitable; it only needed roughly 10% of the market to have sufficient 3rd-party software support for the common applications used by most consumers.
Maybe some "cool" AI will come to Android first, but it will probably be choppy and inconsistent like early trends and fads usually are. Apple will then copy only the good aspects and include it in iOS.
The Wild West may seem fun and cheap UNTIL you get all shot up.
I'm not an expert in the field, but what I want to know is if there are inherent laws of physics and/or chemistry that make HFC's uneconomical, or if we possibly just don't know enough yet.
Do we need more research before we write HFC off, or do inherent properties of the universe doom it no matter what? If the second, how do we know it's a likely dead-end?
Freedom of speech should trump* profits, but because of big-ass lobbying, it's the other way around. Gray areas default toward commercial and big-org interests in our current setup, and it should be reversed.
Perhaps the penalties for misusing copyrights to crush opinion and dissent should be made large enough to scare the big-orgs. Larger penalties would then make it worth it for lawyers to take on small cases.
As much as we dislike lawyers, they are often the only practical avenue for the little guy to fight back. Most regular folks don't have the time or knowledge to compete with big-org legal departments on their own. But big penalties will encourage lawyers to take their case.
Slashdot Mirror
The policies state that the person is to leave copies of all work-related emails at the time they leave duty if using a personal/outside email system. Hillary's spokesman has maintained that if regular forwarding or CC'ing is done, then the State Department will have a copy. The "rule" didn't state the format of the copies, only that it had to be done. It seems that technically, the CC/forwarding process would comply.
Because the internal email system hiccuped, they allegedly couldn't verify if this was actually done properly.
I've never seen a clear statement on why cc/forwarding wouldn't comply. Anybody?
Does anybody have the specific text of the policies and/or laws she allegedly violated? Emotions run high on this, and therefore I'd like to see it directly from the horse's mouth (no, that's not a Carly joke).
Gesundheit.
Due to political pressure from Ross Perot. I give that credit to Ross, not GOP. GOP didn't give a shit about debt under Reagan and Bush 1.
Please be more specific.
I'd like something specific there to analyze also. Many conservatives blame ACA, but other successful countries have HC systems in place that are not hurting them.
I was wondering why "fuckmicrosoft1" stopped working.
That's true because the laws are convoluted and vague. That gives an advantage to those who can afford the best lawyers: if you have a crappy lawyer, the interpretation can more easily be tilted against you.
OJ could afford layers who were masters of F.U.D., you and I couldn't, and that's why he wasn't convicted of a pretty obvious crime.
At least be glad you are (probably) middle class, because the poor have this problem even more so.
That's life in plutocracy, and our election will likely be between Plutocrat A and Plutocrat B. Hillary is only a symptom, not the problem.
Indeed. BS is America's comparative advantage.
Yeah right, you are cherry-picking combo's. Okay, I'll play this game: specifically what did GOP do then that made the econ take off?
Those 3 countries are more socialist leaning than USA, and arguably doing better per middle class.
There's often an optimum balancing point. France may have over-did it; I won't disagree there. Find the right balancing point like UK, Germany, Canada, and Belgium did.
You seem to be making Bernie's argument for him, without using the dreaded "S" word.
Soylent Trump? Eewww
Conservatives blame everything on regulation out of habit. Somalia hardly boomed when there was zero regulation, except the pirate biz.
And many of the economies with strong middle-classes, such as Canada, Germany, and the European countries Bernie talks about are not lightly-regulated.
I think the "threat" of alleged future regulation you talk about comes from Fox News, not the Democrats. Turn it off: it lies to you.
Re: "it is the economy that drives the inflation rate" -- They are related, but I disagree it's a one-way relationship.
Re: "When you have no idea what policy is going to be one day to the next" -- Nobody has a crystal ball, get over it: wars and change happen. Trump is not exactly a pillar of predictability either.
Re believing gov't inflation statistics: I won't entertain conspiracy theories here. We can take that debate elsewhere.
Re: "I'm a business owner, I have money. I'm not investing it because I don't trust the Democrats" -- Why not? The best economy of recent years was under Bill. I don't count Reagan because he had a "stimulus" by jacking spending and debt way up.
Re: "Result? Tens of thousands of the wealthiest have left [France]" -- Where are they going? Let's punish tax heavens: they use gimmicks to suck away wealth and because we let them they keep doing it. Tell the WTO to go to hell: we negotiate on OUR terms.
Re: "[inflation] side-effects are clear and obvious. 1930's Germany and 2000s Zimbabwe" -- Different circumstances: apples to oranges. And, we can try it in increments so it's not an all-or-nothing thing.
Mass automation of grunt work and more free time because of it should be a good thing. But, we don't know how to distribute the resulting goods and wealth. We seem to be entering a new phase of history and economics with different rules. It's both exciting and frustrating.
The economies of "mature" nations are not behaving normally:
1. The "recovery" is slower than past patterns.
2. Inflation is too low. Economies tend to do best with inflation around 2.2% (annual), but we've been hovering around 1.7% for a while.
3. Low interest rates are not triggering investments.
4. Investors and companies prefer sitting on cash instead of investing.
Taxing the wealthy heavily is one common suggestion for distributing this "jammed" wealth, but this rubs many people wrong.
Outright printing money and distributing it to regular consumers is another suggestion (AKA "helicopter money"), but nobody is sure of the side-effects.
Reducing regulations is another suggestion, but most federal regulations were put in place because one or more organization were doing sleazy things. We don't want to become a 3rd-world dump in order to compete with the 3rd world by polluting more and having abusive working conditions. State-level regulations, which are often passed with less scrutiny, are possibly a better place to clean up bad laws, but require state governments to act.
What are the other options? We may have to just experiment with one or more of the above, but admitting you are experimenting looks bad, politically.
Epic insult, hats off.
If there is an official award for professional insults, this has gotta be a top contender. The only way to top it would be a double whammy, something like:
"You have the engineering skills of a Microsoft employee, and the grooming skills of Richard Stallman."
Tech mergers rarely work. Why are they gambling? Is there a hidden shell game here that make a few select executives and lawyers rich while screwing everything else?
Zuck must read slashdot, he pretty much took my advice:
https://politics.slashdot.org/...
Actually people generally don't even try to use HTML documents for formal printing and publishing, unless backed into a corner. It's because it's so unpredictable.
I say outright get rid of software patents: the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. Most new software ideas are created in the act of making a specific product, not mass general research labs of the kind Edison used. This means that the ideas would be created anyhow even without the royalty incentives.
And most don't bother to mine existing patents for new ideas because most are vague, obvious, or trivial junk, often filed for defensive or legal ammunition reasons.
Thus, the two main reasons for patents: incentives and publicizing ideas, are mostly moot these days. For every good software patent, I bet there are at least 10 junk patents.
Patents can join H-1B visas in the high abuse-to-legitimacy ratio: a game played by and for big biz to stay big at the expense of everybody else.
I haven't checked, but I betcha MS's good buddy Gartner did.
It seems J. Edgar Hoover is back. The agency is becoming rather power-hungry of late.
It's not their job to push for policy, only implement it. It's fine if they say, "we can do our job better if we have access to X", but to use scare tactics and political pressure to get X is over-stepping their bounds, bordering on McCarthyism.
A lot of sites/apps get auto-flow wrong. Maybe a UI expert or top guru can figure out how to get auto-flow to work properly on all devices, but us mere mortals struggle with it. Any overly-complicated tech can be "justified" with "if you were just smart enough and/or spent enough time learning it, it will work".
That's a crock. Presentation of everyday things should NOT require rocket science.
To use hypothetical numbers, let's say WYSIWYG takes 10 units of learning to master, while auto-flow takes 200 units to master. It's not worth 20x the learning cost to gain the SMALL benefits auto-flow have over WYSIWYG.
The costs are not economically logical in my book. It's a lot of resources spent for very minor gains, and if a shop skips the additional effort, they will have screwy interfaces that wrap wrong or have blanked out overlaps of CSS collisions, which is what is often found.
I suspect auto-flow is being protected by those who want job security dealing with its finicky intricacies. Similar arguments were used by assembler coders against higher-level languages.
F auto-flow!
I'd argue Delphi has a longer learning curve. You are probably more productive once you master Delphi, but there is a trade-off in the ramp-up time.
Note the Lazarus project is more or less an OSS Delphi clone. Haven't used it myself and thus won't comment on it compared to Delphi in terms of quality or learning curve.
Usually PDF publishers don't want people messing around with copies of their documents anyhow.
There are ways to mitigate such anyhow with certain internal markers to delimit paragraphs etc. That is, visuals splits versus semantics splits, as illustrated below, but so far there is not much demand for such, except maybe for accessibility purposes.
Having owned both an iPhone and Android, I have to agree. iPhone "experience" is just overall cleaner and has better-coordinated common tools/apps.
If Apple is cautious in order to reduce breaches, it may just well benefit them. A couple of high-profile Android breach(es) will send customers back to Apple.
Perhaps Windows versus Mac is a better comparison than Blackberry versus iPhone. Macs are more expensive, but are more reliable, less vulnerable to malware, and have a cleaner UI. A lot of Mac users were former Windows users who got hacked or had the OS choke on them.
Apple didn't need a large market share to make Mac's viable and profitable; it only needed roughly 10% of the market to have sufficient 3rd-party software support for the common applications used by most consumers.
Maybe some "cool" AI will come to Android first, but it will probably be choppy and inconsistent like early trends and fads usually are. Apple will then copy only the good aspects and include it in iOS.
The Wild West may seem fun and cheap UNTIL you get all shot up.
I'm not an expert in the field, but what I want to know is if there are inherent laws of physics and/or chemistry that make HFC's uneconomical, or if we possibly just don't know enough yet.
Do we need more research before we write HFC off, or do inherent properties of the universe doom it no matter what? If the second, how do we know it's a likely dead-end?
Freedom of speech should trump* profits, but because of big-ass lobbying, it's the other way around. Gray areas default toward commercial and big-org interests in our current setup, and it should be reversed.
Perhaps the penalties for misusing copyrights to crush opinion and dissent should be made large enough to scare the big-orgs. Larger penalties would then make it worth it for lawyers to take on small cases.
As much as we dislike lawyers, they are often the only practical avenue for the little guy to fight back. Most regular folks don't have the time or knowledge to compete with big-org legal departments on their own. But big penalties will encourage lawyers to take their case.
* No candidate reference intended.