You're obviously British, we don't even have that differentiation between "inquiry" and "investigation." And, it isn't public knowledge, so you have no idea what stage the investigation is in!
Here is a quote from the SEC website:
All SEC investigations are conducted privately. Facts are developed to the fullest extent possible through informal inquiry, interviewing witnesses, examining brokerage records, reviewing trading data, and other methods.
Right there you can see: they don't tell you anything until the end, silly pundit. And, they don't consider the word "inquiry" to be a stage in the process, but rather the action of asking questions as a part of an investigation. Inquiry is literally a synonym for "investigation" or "asking questions" in American English. It tells you nothing about the stage of any investigation in the United States.
You don't need to have committed a crime to be in legal hot water if you say "piss off, court, you're not the boss of me." You don't need to have committed a crime or even been accused of one to be required to respond to a court request.
False. If you had not committed a crime before beginning that sentence, you had committed one by the time you ended it!
It's a request from the lawyers in a case, that was filed with the Court. If you don't agree that it is proper, you can challenge it. That's what makes it a request; it hasn't even been fought over yet, but they're already asking for it. They're sometimes quashed when challenged, but even more often they're modified to take into consideration whatever the complaint was.
Compare that to a warrant; once it gets issued, now they can just send armed people to take it from you! No request there. And if it was improper, you just have to fight about if they can use whatever information they got; afterwards.
You're only violating the order if you refuse the request and also fail to challenge it. Of course, if you challenge it and lose, now that it has been authenticated as a proper request that you should have assisted, then it becomes something stronger. But then you'll have an additional order to follow, and it is that order, "respond to the subpoena" that more directly gets you in trouble if you're still obstinate.
1) Each party has a right to observers, and the law requires everything to be done in such a way that the observers can observe.
2) There is an optional "security envelope." The ballot is placed inside the security envelope. Everything inside inside the security envelope is anonymized. That is placed inside the ballot envelope, and signed. Then, when counting the votes, there is a two-step process of first validating the ballots and ballot signatures, then the security envelope moves to step two and can be opened and counted. And they know how many validated ballots are in each bin, so it can be re-counted and everything.
So in your scenario, the poll worker would have to already know you personally, and throw out your ballot just from raw personal malice. But where would they put it? They're surrounded by observers, and if they're claiming there is some problem, they just place it in a "problems" bin and somebody else is actually making the decision. So even then it would be hard. But they never know what your vote was, only what bin it went in.
You could have predicted that those types of entry-level complaints would have been addressed in the details of the law when I said "Oregon" and not "Jerrymanderistan" or whatever those flyover states are called.
If their innovation isn't American, why did they need to come here in order to do it? Why couldn't they innovate where they were before?
Maybe they weren't born American, and yet the work they do here in America is still American work. For an American university. And they were probably paid in American dollars.
Some of that technology you're giving Apple credit for was designed in the UK, like the CPU, and only customized by Apple. Apple in your example is China in this story! LMFAO!
Post-war Japan was producing products based on western designs with expired copyright. I have one in the room, a clone of a Singer sewing machine that was designed ~1900 and manufactured in the late 1940s.
They didn't "copy" anything, those are the products that they were told to make. Factories that had been producing war-related materials were all switched over by the Americans who were running their economy in that era. Many of the sewing machine factories were formerly making aircraft. There isn't a single bit of metal in it that isn't case-hardened. A clone of an already-old model, to be sure, and sold cheap, to be sure; current going rate is only about $15 for used ones made back then, because even though they're antiques there are too many still in working shape for it to become collectible yet.
They switched to back to making their own technology as soon as they were allowed, and it has always been high quality.
Clearly the FBI has been watching too much CSI and Criminal Minds. How did these guys do their job before technology kept track of everyone?
Well, OTOH, they matched the shoe print in the snow to an Under Armour sneaker, which they then somehow found, and took DNA from, and they already had the suspect's DNA in the database. Then they were also able to corroborate using a toll pass from his work(!!!) truck.
They're arrogant and lazy, and their hubris is their main impediment. Imagine if google had given them the information, and then they followed that to the other evidence, then they could have lost the whole case.
Just use the same marketing technique that guy with the book about a false narrative of the history of the tulip market! Then there is no limit to the idiocy that people will believe as history. And if you can rewrite the history, then of course you can give your Bulbcoin all the gravitas of a Federation Credit!
It might not even be that they don't want to pay to check, but that they don't the checking to stop them from "accidentally" saying a bunch of bombastic things.
And even in the better cases, they don't want to actually wait that long. They just want to shove it out wrong, then check and "update" later, because time.
There are so many different theories of what a CEO's behavior should be, it is pretty funny when critics talk about their own preference as if it might be the One True Way. It should be clear that there isn't any such thing.
In other years, or with CEOs having a different name, it is often stated casually that part of their job is to spin everything that happens in the light that best boosts the stock price. And then if his name is Elon Musk, the same people freak out because he didn't file an 8-K, even though the rules are really clear and explicit that an 8-K filing would be needed after the company consummated a deal to privatize. That's how far the critics are from reality, generally. It is highly comical.
Which is it, do you want CEOs to do nothing, or to do something? The stock price went up after his comments, because people believed them, and now it is a week later and we know that a deal is in fact being negotiated. That's verified. People want to chase him around with handcuffs over their narrow parsing of the word "secured," even though the standard for truth is not that every single possible dictionary definition of the word are all simultaneously true. In fact, if any of the common meanings of the word are true, then it is obviously true. People don't even remember the difference between truth and lies while they're chasing him with their imaginary handcuffs. And they certainly don't remember it while they're bloviating about how much they know about the job of a CEO. They don't even know that most companies would prefer to have a controversial CEO who can keep their company in the news! And if the public thinks he's some brilliant engineer, there is almost no way that it hurts the company; even all the nonsense of people chasing him with their imaginary handcuffs, it benefits Tesla immensely. They're a bigger part of the public mindspace than BMW or Mercedes Benz! Not only has he made his tiny car company the absolute center of public thought about his industry, he even has them associated with the engineering of fuckin' space ships! He's like, knocking it out of the park with a Galaxy-class performance as CEO, and the supposed "nerds" on slashdot are too busy sucking their own herpaderp to notice the difference between "I don't like him" and "he's doing a bad job."
Being asked for information when the public is wringing their hands, as you are, is not "serious trouble." It is just the expected next step, no matter what the legalities are.
If the media is fretting for a whole fucking week, yeah, the related regulatory agency is going to send some subpoenas. That means a request for information. That is all it means.
Also, you used the phrase "back-bencher," but you don't seem to comprehend the meaning. It means you. Not just them.
They haven't even convinced me that they've denied saying it. It sounds more like they're arguing about the wording, or if the comment was intended to be anonymous.
That will last about a week, until somebody important wants to buy some electronics and finds out they can't, because Australia only has niche devices.
Slashdot Mirror
You're obviously British, we don't even have that differentiation between "inquiry" and "investigation." And, it isn't public knowledge, so you have no idea what stage the investigation is in!
Here is a quote from the SEC website:
All SEC investigations are conducted privately. Facts are developed to the fullest extent possible through informal inquiry, interviewing witnesses, examining brokerage records, reviewing trading data, and other methods.
Right there you can see: they don't tell you anything until the end, silly pundit. And, they don't consider the word "inquiry" to be a stage in the process, but rather the action of asking questions as a part of an investigation. Inquiry is literally a synonym for "investigation" or "asking questions" in American English. It tells you nothing about the stage of any investigation in the United States.
You don't need to have committed a crime to be in legal hot water if you say "piss off, court, you're not the boss of me." You don't need to have committed a crime or even been accused of one to be required to respond to a court request.
False. If you had not committed a crime before beginning that sentence, you had committed one by the time you ended it!
It's a request from the lawyers in a case, that was filed with the Court. If you don't agree that it is proper, you can challenge it. That's what makes it a request; it hasn't even been fought over yet, but they're already asking for it. They're sometimes quashed when challenged, but even more often they're modified to take into consideration whatever the complaint was.
Compare that to a warrant; once it gets issued, now they can just send armed people to take it from you! No request there. And if it was improper, you just have to fight about if they can use whatever information they got; afterwards.
You're only violating the order if you refuse the request and also fail to challenge it. Of course, if you challenge it and lose, now that it has been authenticated as a proper request that you should have assisted, then it becomes something stronger. But then you'll have an additional order to follow, and it is that order, "respond to the subpoena" that more directly gets you in trouble if you're still obstinate.
1) Each party has a right to observers, and the law requires everything to be done in such a way that the observers can observe.
2) There is an optional "security envelope." The ballot is placed inside the security envelope. Everything inside inside the security envelope is anonymized. That is placed inside the ballot envelope, and signed. Then, when counting the votes, there is a two-step process of first validating the ballots and ballot signatures, then the security envelope moves to step two and can be opened and counted. And they know how many validated ballots are in each bin, so it can be re-counted and everything.
So in your scenario, the poll worker would have to already know you personally, and throw out your ballot just from raw personal malice. But where would they put it? They're surrounded by observers, and if they're claiming there is some problem, they just place it in a "problems" bin and somebody else is actually making the decision. So even then it would be hard. But they never know what your vote was, only what bin it went in.
You could have predicted that those types of entry-level complaints would have been addressed in the details of the law when I said "Oregon" and not "Jerrymanderistan" or whatever those flyover states are called.
If their innovation isn't American, why did they need to come here in order to do it? Why couldn't they innovate where they were before?
Maybe they weren't born American, and yet the work they do here in America is still American work. For an American university. And they were probably paid in American dollars.
Since China became a place where it is illegal to call them out on it too strongly.
Minor nit, but HTML is literally SGML, it didn't "come from" it any more than a square "came from" a rectangle.
Uh-oh, does this mean Google is in control of the planet's only Stargate?!?! z0mg!
Some of that technology you're giving Apple credit for was designed in the UK, like the CPU, and only customized by Apple. Apple in your example is China in this story! LMFAO!
Post-war Japan was producing products based on western designs with expired copyright. I have one in the room, a clone of a Singer sewing machine that was designed ~1900 and manufactured in the late 1940s.
They didn't "copy" anything, those are the products that they were told to make. Factories that had been producing war-related materials were all switched over by the Americans who were running their economy in that era. Many of the sewing machine factories were formerly making aircraft. There isn't a single bit of metal in it that isn't case-hardened. A clone of an already-old model, to be sure, and sold cheap, to be sure; current going rate is only about $15 for used ones made back then, because even though they're antiques there are too many still in working shape for it to become collectible yet.
They switched to back to making their own technology as soon as they were allowed, and it has always been high quality.
If they're passive devices, it only introduces a single point of failure if the passivity fails. Bad, but not explainable to average people.
In Oregon we vote by mail, and we use paper ballots that are optically scanned by the computer.
They can be re-scanned, they can be hand-recounted, no hanging chad. No booth, but you can hand-deliver your ballot if you want.
And your toll pass.
And your shoes.
Clearly the FBI has been watching too much CSI and Criminal Minds. How did these guys do their job before technology kept track of everyone?
Well, OTOH, they matched the shoe print in the snow to an Under Armour sneaker, which they then somehow found, and took DNA from, and they already had the suspect's DNA in the database. Then they were also able to corroborate using a toll pass from his work(!!!) truck.
They're arrogant and lazy, and their hubris is their main impediment. Imagine if google had given them the information, and then they followed that to the other evidence, then they could have lost the whole case.
Everything can be insured.
If you think you found an exception, it only means your insurance agent doesn't think you can afford it!
It may be turtles all the way down, but that doesn't stop it from being assholes, all the way up.
Just use the same marketing technique that guy with the book about a false narrative of the history of the tulip market! Then there is no limit to the idiocy that people will believe as history. And if you can rewrite the history, then of course you can give your Bulbcoin all the gravitas of a Federation Credit!
It might not even be that they don't want to pay to check, but that they don't the checking to stop them from "accidentally" saying a bunch of bombastic things.
And even in the better cases, they don't want to actually wait that long. They just want to shove it out wrong, then check and "update" later, because time.
Well, their news is center-right, but generally balanced. Close to the center. If you don't know that, yeah, it says a lot about you.
You've got some derp on your chin. Get back in the pile!
There are so many different theories of what a CEO's behavior should be, it is pretty funny when critics talk about their own preference as if it might be the One True Way. It should be clear that there isn't any such thing.
In other years, or with CEOs having a different name, it is often stated casually that part of their job is to spin everything that happens in the light that best boosts the stock price. And then if his name is Elon Musk, the same people freak out because he didn't file an 8-K, even though the rules are really clear and explicit that an 8-K filing would be needed after the company consummated a deal to privatize. That's how far the critics are from reality, generally. It is highly comical.
Which is it, do you want CEOs to do nothing, or to do something? The stock price went up after his comments, because people believed them, and now it is a week later and we know that a deal is in fact being negotiated. That's verified. People want to chase him around with handcuffs over their narrow parsing of the word "secured," even though the standard for truth is not that every single possible dictionary definition of the word are all simultaneously true. In fact, if any of the common meanings of the word are true, then it is obviously true. People don't even remember the difference between truth and lies while they're chasing him with their imaginary handcuffs. And they certainly don't remember it while they're bloviating about how much they know about the job of a CEO. They don't even know that most companies would prefer to have a controversial CEO who can keep their company in the news! And if the public thinks he's some brilliant engineer, there is almost no way that it hurts the company; even all the nonsense of people chasing him with their imaginary handcuffs, it benefits Tesla immensely. They're a bigger part of the public mindspace than BMW or Mercedes Benz! Not only has he made his tiny car company the absolute center of public thought about his industry, he even has them associated with the engineering of fuckin' space ships! He's like, knocking it out of the park with a Galaxy-class performance as CEO, and the supposed "nerds" on slashdot are too busy sucking their own herpaderp to notice the difference between "I don't like him" and "he's doing a bad job."
Being asked for information when the public is wringing their hands, as you are, is not "serious trouble." It is just the expected next step, no matter what the legalities are.
If the media is fretting for a whole fucking week, yeah, the related regulatory agency is going to send some subpoenas. That means a request for information. That is all it means.
Also, you used the phrase "back-bencher," but you don't seem to comprehend the meaning. It means you. Not just them.
Well shit, with an explanation that good I'm sure they'll let you check all the couches for change to spend on it.
They haven't even convinced me that they've denied saying it. It sounds more like they're arguing about the wording, or if the comment was intended to be anonymous.
That will last about a week, until somebody important wants to buy some electronics and finds out they can't, because Australia only has niche devices.