In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
My 10 year old son is so good with computers. It's amazing.
I hire the best people.
Single authentication and accessible email from any device is pretty common? Thats what outlook 365 does.
It doesn't sound like it's clear what those terms mean.
* all internet accessible
some email servers are local access only, so you must actually be on the premises on the local intranet in order to access the email. it's more secure because you can't connect to things inside the intranet unless you're basically plugged in.
* single factor auth
o365 at least supports 2-factor, would make sense that win server 2003 doesn't support 2-factor.
* no MDM
any large company emphasizing tech/security will have mobile device management enabled. enabled on your phone, it does stuff like not letting you log in to corporate email without 4-digit pin, monitor app downloads, resetting your device if it's lost, etc. again would make sense that it's not supported if they're running things on win server 2003.
On October 18 2016 09:14 zlefin wrote: Lawyers splitting hairs? that would be unheard of! /sarcasm
I won't be convinced comey's wrong unless you put up a pretty strong argument, cuz he defended his case well, and he knows more about the law than you. and so far cannons details also look more thorough.
Danglars is wrong. Like the first article I linked to (see point 2), this second article details why Comey was right not to recommend pursuing criminal charges against Clinton under the Espionage Act.
In case anyone didn't feel like clicking that lawnewz link, the relevant section would seem to be this one, at least to my non-lawyer eye:
"In 1941, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case [on the 793(f) statute] which challenged whether the phrase “national defense” in this Espionage Law was too vague and overbroad. The answer was no only because:
“we find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith.”
They go on to talk about the fairly specialized legal meaning of the term "gross negligence," which I won't bother to quote because Danglars' position already appears soundly defeated: there is a Supreme Court decision on the specific section he cites (793(f)), specifically addressing the requirements of that section, and stating that the section requires either intent, or that the defendant had reason to believe the information was to be used to the injury of the United States or to advantage some foreign nation, that is they would have to have acted in bad faith.
I'm no lawyer, but unless someone can find a more recent Supreme Court case that interprets the statute more broadly, it would seem Comey got this one right.
You did a fine job imo. Danglars thinks we're in a "post-constitutional" society though, so your argument will go mostly unaddressed. Here, check out what else people who say similar things believe.
Wait, aren't we?
What does it matter? The claim from the right (in this case, Danglars) is that precedent would clearly favor prosecuting Hillary on the basis of negligent treatment of national security information, and the only reason she hasn't been charged is pro-Hillary bias from all relevant institutions. Here we have a Supreme Court case from 1941 setting what would seem to be a clear precedent that aligns with the position of the FBI, DoJ, etc. Since the 1941 Supreme Court could hardly have been acting from a pro-Hillary bias, isn't the right's position pretty clearly destroyed?
On October 18 2016 13:08 FlaShFTW wrote: Is no one on here talking about the James O Keefe findings?
Remember, investigative journalism is only valid if it impacts Republican candidates.
Yes, it's dishonest manipulation of media coverage to make rallies appear violent and confrontational (in case of actual protestors, more confrontational than already apparent).
Worst that happens is the Dems disavow a couple operators at the local level. More likely, it doesn't break national news and gets buried like all the rest.
It doesn't make Trump's accusations of how the election is rigged anything less than a child's pitiful cry. He should've accepted the media opposition like everybody else does. Indiana University study says only around 7% of journalists identify as Republican. There's scattered accusations of voter fraud, but none of the investigations will complete for a while. If you're trying to make the grander point that the little guy is getting trashed by elected and politically-connected elites, that's not the way to go about it.
On October 18 2016 09:14 zlefin wrote: Lawyers splitting hairs? that would be unheard of! /sarcasm
I won't be convinced comey's wrong unless you put up a pretty strong argument, cuz he defended his case well, and he knows more about the law than you. and so far cannons details also look more thorough.
Danglars is wrong. Like the first article I linked to (see point 2), this second article details why Comey was right not to recommend pursuing criminal charges against Clinton under the Espionage Act.
In case anyone didn't feel like clicking that lawnewz link, the relevant section would seem to be this one, at least to my non-lawyer eye:
"In 1941, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case [on the 793(f) statute] which challenged whether the phrase “national defense” in this Espionage Law was too vague and overbroad. The answer was no only because:
“we find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith.”
They go on to talk about the fairly specialized legal meaning of the term "gross negligence," which I won't bother to quote because Danglars' position already appears soundly defeated: there is a Supreme Court decision on the specific section he cites (793(f)), specifically addressing the requirements of that section, and stating that the section requires either intent, or that the defendant had reason to believe the information was to be used to the injury of the United States or to advantage some foreign nation, that is they would have to have acted in bad faith.
I'm no lawyer, but unless someone can find a more recent Supreme Court case that interprets the statute more broadly, it would seem Comey got this one right.
You did a fine job imo. Danglars thinks we're in a "post-constitutional" society though, so your argument will go mostly unaddressed. Here, check out what else people who say similar things believe.
The thrust of the post constitutional society comment is the current state of eroded structural limits of power and a citizenry that has not made use of constitutional means to bring the reins of power back to the state and individual.
To aforementioned supreme court writ, I'll look into it a little more since some do appear to be making good-faith efforts to defend the decision based on a supreme court opinion. And I would totally welcome a special prosecutor investigation and indictment that appeals up to the supreme court for clarifying a rewriting of intent into the statute when there is clear evidence that those committing these acts knew it was against the law (Move classified documents from secure servers to a private server housed in a residence pretty clearly speaks to the "scienter is established," [Gorin] not to benefit the enemy, but to knowingly be negligent with materials clearly related to the national defense.) As Gorin mentions at the beginning
But we find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law.
and continuing
Where there is no occasion for secrecy, as with reports relating to national defense, published by authority of Congress or the military departments, there can, of course, in all likelihood be no reasonable intent to give an advantage to a foreign government.
Hillary's camp may not have wanted to benefit foreign governments, but they did have reason to determine that this was unlawful movement of classified materials in violation of the law AND an occasion for secrecy. Given the relatively innocuous nature of the documents in Gorin's case, and the vague relation to national defense, the Supreme Court would need a second go at it to determine if the plain language statute ought to be struck down for clearly dangerous nature of the documents (top secret) and in direct connection to national defense. The justices there found "national defense" too vague, and a new set of justices would have their say on more clearly sensitive documents to the national defense to see if violating state department training on their transmission is enough knowledge to establish mens rea. The 5th and 6th amendment claims would certainly take a different form than Gorin.
On October 18 2016 14:57 Danglars wrote: Indiana University study says only around 7% of journalists identify as Republican.
Because the platform is abhorrent to the educated and inquisitive minds of journalists. I'll happily believe that journalists don't support Republican candidates, after all it seems that most of the country doesn't either. What I don't understand is how you look at that fact and think "the problem is the journalists, they should be more Republican" rather than "the problem is our platform, it should be less unpalatable". If nobody likes your plans in a democracy you don't go "this democracy is broken", people rejecting you is a perfectly valid part of a democracy.
On October 18 2016 14:57 Danglars wrote: Indiana University study says only around 7% of journalists identify as Republican.
Because the platform is abhorrent to the educated and inquisitive minds of journalists. I'll happily believe that journalists don't support Republican candidates, after all it seems that most of the country doesn't either. What I don't understand is how you look at that fact and think "the problem is the journalists, they should be more Republican" rather than "the problem is our platform, it should be less unpalatable". If nobody likes your plans in a democracy you don't go "this democracy is broken", people rejecting you is a perfectly valid part of a democracy.
The question is how that influences their coverage. This election is one of the better ones to demonstrate that the preference shows through in their reporting. And Trump should recognize it just like we've all grown used to it. It's getting to be as predictable as John Oliver doing a "truth to power" segment on everyone except the ruling party that's been in power for eight years.
On October 18 2016 14:57 Danglars wrote: Indiana University study says only around 7% of journalists identify as Republican.
Because the platform is abhorrent to the educated and inquisitive minds of journalists. I'll happily believe that journalists don't support Republican candidates, after all it seems that most of the country doesn't either. What I don't understand is how you look at that fact and think "the problem is the journalists, they should be more Republican" rather than "the problem is our platform, it should be less unpalatable". If nobody likes your plans in a democracy you don't go "this democracy is broken", people rejecting you is a perfectly valid part of a democracy.
The question is how that influences their coverage. This election is one of the better ones to demonstrate that the preference shows through in their reporting. And Trump should recognize it just like we've all grown used to it. It's getting to be as predictable as John Oliver doing a "truth to power" segment on everyone except the ruling party that's been in power for eight years.
Balance doesn't mean treating unequal positions as if they were equal. Journalists have absolutely no obligation to polish your turds for you.
On October 18 2016 14:57 Danglars wrote: Indiana University study says only around 7% of journalists identify as Republican.
Because the platform is abhorrent to the educated and inquisitive minds of journalists. I'll happily believe that journalists don't support Republican candidates, after all it seems that most of the country doesn't either. What I don't understand is how you look at that fact and think "the problem is the journalists, they should be more Republican" rather than "the problem is our platform, it should be less unpalatable". If nobody likes your plans in a democracy you don't go "this democracy is broken", people rejecting you is a perfectly valid part of a democracy.
The question is how that influences their coverage. This election is one of the better ones to demonstrate that the preference shows through in their reporting. And Trump should recognize it just like we've all grown used to it. It's getting to be as predictable as John Oliver doing a "truth to power" segment on everyone except the ruling party that's been in power for eight years.
you really shouldn't complain about the coverage. Because of a false notion that equity means false equivalence, the media has been objectively pro Trump in the coverage of the candidates scandals. We'be heard for a year every day of that non story email crap while Trump has something like 15 much much much more serious scandals that were barely examined.
Next thing is that if everybody educated and with a brain runs away when you talk, you shouldn't whine about it. He could start by lying less and say stuff that you know, make sense.
On October 18 2016 14:57 Danglars wrote: Indiana University study says only around 7% of journalists identify as Republican.
Because the platform is abhorrent to the educated and inquisitive minds of journalists. I'll happily believe that journalists don't support Republican candidates, after all it seems that most of the country doesn't either. What I don't understand is how you look at that fact and think "the problem is the journalists, they should be more Republican" rather than "the problem is our platform, it should be less unpalatable". If nobody likes your plans in a democracy you don't go "this democracy is broken", people rejecting you is a perfectly valid part of a democracy.
The question is how that influences their coverage. This election is one of the better ones to demonstrate that the preference shows through in their reporting. And Trump should recognize it just like we've all grown used to it. It's getting to be as predictable as John Oliver doing a "truth to power" segment on everyone except the ruling party that's been in power for eight years.
I somehow doubt you understand just how "alien" the republican agenda, not just Trumps, seems to many (educated) People. Naturally it will have effects on journalists, they have to constantly hold back and try to appeal to a fact free demographic that cares more about ideology/feelings than anything else. I'm actually surprised there are not more journalists having total meltdowns on live TV.
Yes, liberals/democrats also have some factfree zones where this gets problematic (tolerating intolerance/bad religious traditions), but these are few and far inbetween or are in areas were acting according to these facts would make society worse instead of better.
As for Trump, he is just 10 times worse than Hillary on scandals and has barely any policies, at least not ones that are actually realistic in any way. Journalists, if anything, didn't do nearly enough to show this.
On October 18 2016 11:50 CatharsisUT wrote: Good news people of the politics megathread! The 538 predictor graph has been updated with:
More x-axis labels!
Good. Well, in that case, I agree with the original statement that pussygate had a tiny impact, if any, on Trump's chances to become president. Clearly the first debate was the real dealbreaker for him, and the second debate was, at best, insufficient to turn it around (preaching to the choir, as many here have noted). Can't really distinguish between pussygate and the 2nd debate, but there's not a large jump.
Oh boy Joey Salads, shit bird, fake social experiment and prankster extraordinaire here with another video! Pretty sad when you've fallen so low you're using a the cancer of the internet to make some sort of point. Every single youtube prankster or social experimenter is making their vids up whole cloth with actors and its all painfully obvious. Every single one. I do believe the bar for sources on TL is slightly higher than Joey Salads or Ethan Bradberry.
On October 18 2016 16:23 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: How long does a car adorned with Trump stickers last in a black neighborhood? Around forty five minutes. + Show Spoiler +
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQtHx5GY164
On October 18 2016 17:00 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Fake video apparently, pretty lame attempt to get some views.
On October 18 2016 16:23 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: How long does a car adorned with Trump stickers last in a black neighborhood? Around forty five minutes. + Show Spoiler +
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/60zA3ny.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jUsZRKQ.png)
