So, up until now it has been a childish conversation?
If he's looking to have an "adult" conversation (and not the prurient kind! get your minds out of the gutter!) then the conversations he's been having have been non-adult, i.e. childish, conversations.
In order to be an "adult" conversation, both sides need to behave like adults. I'm pretty certain the tech side of the conversation been maintained by adults -- critical thinking, cost/benefit analysis, etc. So that leads me to wonder why Comey should now be considered an "adult" for purposes of the intended conversation.
But, of course, none of that stops the government from getting your server if they want it... it's just that in this one case you'll know about it.
Nope. I think the NSA probably has the tools available to get at any private email server a non-ubergeek would set up. They just need to use the magic phrase "terrorism investigation" and the FISA court will secretly grant them the right to hack the server. You will never know (until they knock on your door...)
It is a clique; I suspect most of those commentators are contributors, which are the people they should be bending over backwards to keep engaged/happy. And if they aren't contributors, then engagement with them in the comments could very well get them to become contributors.
This is cwf-rtb (or in this case 'c') at its base, and they are throwing that away. NPR see an ophthalmologist -- it appears you are short sighted.
This sounds like someone (or some ones) clicked "report" on the video. Similar to the TechDirt 'Flag' button which will hide a post. Once it hits a certain number it gets hidden/removed. All 'grandpa' would need to do is to have some of his 'grandchildren' flag the video -- Facebook probably never had a real person look at it. Post another video that gets flagged and you get banned -- I suspect if it happened again it might end up being permanent.
All of this sounds like a stupid automated system that can be abused to get someone banned without Facebook ever really getting a human involved.
A singer sues about a joke that he considers "offensive". A joke only a few people (hundreds? maybe fewer) have heard. Streisand effect will now make this joke even more wide spread. You can't really buy this much advertising.
... I'm just not sure if it is advertising for the comedian or for the singer.
And the first example was "We are the champions" by Queen (and the late Freddie Mercury who oddly remains dead rather than coming back to life to attack Trump...)
The real amusing part of the whole video is the choices of music & performers by the RNC. Queen? Rolling Stones? Can't they at least support _American_ musicians? "Can't get no satisfaction"?? Really?? Was that a prediction?
While watching the show with my family I pointed out that I thought that it was wrong: you just purchase a license and "your fine" -- for values of "fine". If you are going to use a specific song/anthem for your campaign, however, it would be stupid to not approach the musician/author to head off/avoid the Drop Kick Murphy response.
The musicians can't stop you from using their song, but they can certainly give you bad publicity.
Once again the real question is can the MPD actually hold copyright on anything? It is a government agency; is there some distinction in Minnesota that allows them to hold copyright? By statute the US Government can't, I recall California municipalities can't (not sure what the limits are on that, but certainly not on committee meetings published on YouTube); is there an overall guideline on state-related agencies and their ability to produce3 copyrighted materials?
Dealership? I wouldn't expect them to know anything. Their advertising department (and they tend to spend money on advertising!)? Yes, I'd not only expect them to know but I would expect them to also know about licensing images and copyright. It is their *job* for which they are getting paid (or, I hope, it *was* their job; maybe they can switch to sales staff...).
In Robert's Rules of Order it is called a "vote to reconsider". If he saw that it was not going to pass, he would vote with the winning side, such that within three days (*= standard rules, not sure what the rules of the senate are) he can ask for a "reconsideration" since as a prevailing voter he has reconsidered and would like to re-vote; the vote to reconsider only requires a majority (i.e. not 60) so it will pass, followed by a revote of the original motion (in this case a cloture vote to end discussion); presumably at that point he, and the person he strong-armed will vote yes, the discussion will be closed and the motion can be voted on (and presumably will pass since it had 60 votes to get to that point).
I can just see the FBI shopping for a tame judge located somewhere/anywhere in the US who would be willing to sign any warrant put in front of him/her. Bad judges of that ilk were limited in who they could effect, but not anymore; now they will have a reach covering the entire US (and possibly further!)