That's why we do things like retroactively make the telcos innocent, and make no investigations into the previous regime's - i mean, administration's - activities, under the claim of "moving on". Moving on to even more of the same, that is.
Which I guess is why the opposition party never bothers accusing the party in power of the things they do actually do wrong, but make up batshit insane things instead.
I was rather thinking the paper would try something. "Hacking" is probably hilarious enough to stick. Maybe defamation and trademark infringement or publicity rights. They can pull anything out of a hat, apparently.
Wow, that's... A whole state gone doomsday prepper right there. And here i thought it was something slightly more innocuous, like the Home Ports program attempted by the navy during the Reagan base-closure years. *'Because most people in the middle of America haven't seen a real naval vessel with guns and things and flags'.
*Yes, that is damn close to a verbatim quote. The last 6 words totally are.
Sort of, possibly. The charitable (and one accurate) interpretation is due to the fact that simple removal of the cert itself does not get rid of it. Most will not know how to figure this out. (Even those who successfully delete the cert and don't know why theirs doesn't regenerate because they are in the habit of killing pointless services to begin with.)
Still, could be a bit of attitude from Dell in there too.
I am about having an aneurysm here over how many other people still use mail clients. I run into this in very few other places. (And, quite frankly, cannot get anyone to switch to one, no matter how much they complain about their webmail - functionality, interface, the constantly changing UI on some of them, ads, etc. Although most of them who have been around long enough remember liking Outlook Express for some reason...)
Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't understand your type of sarcasm
If anyone ever threatened anyone, anyone else can usually see the point. It's a bit of a given.
So you are backing up the claims of a threat with evidence, or...?
Since Ledonne isn't breaching confidentiality as the university has done (selectively), we won't find out the "story" of the single putative threat on Facebook to someone who was pestering Ledonne. But the university had previously found no threat in the communication. This rather appears to be an abuse by the president, former president, and the campus cops.
And if he was making credible threats and they chose not to press charges, then they are equally idiotic and wrong in that regard.
Regardless: Bringing up this video game and film are irrelevant and stupid, as are a number of other claims listed which have nothing to do with anything, as far as one can tell, except it seems they are trying to construct a "motive" as well as disparage Ledonne's character.
It's like if someone from the Union of Concerned Scientists got irritated with someone bothering them and maybe said something someone wanted to construe as a threat. To make that threat "credible", the police point out that this scientist has done nuclear weapons research showing just how bad the effects of such weapons are, used and unused. So, he must be a dangerous individual who is going to go all Nagasaki on someone.
Never mind that, you know, video games!
Heaven forbid the cops ever talk about these spree killings, because boy are they screwed next time someone calls excessive force on them, right?
I don't think they are so likely to change along those reasons, nor are they likely to be held very much more accountable in the near future.
If there is some back-off effect in actual policing, it isn't due to their fear, it's because they want to be jerks.
If there were a realization that they were more accountable, should such a thing actually be true, they wouldn't be backing off from "aggressively policing", but merely "policing with aggression". Which is not what the claimed Ferguson Effect is, and doesn't appear to be happening, either.