Unfortunately no, as then there'd have been multiple deaths: one (or more cops), Scott, and his girlfriend. She would have been killed in the hail of bullets unleashed when the cops all opened fire into the home.
The actual takeaway is: pray that a cop doesn't come to your door in the middle of the night, so that you may live to see tomorrow.
Sort of. If the tower you're connected to is congested, then your packets get lower priority and you will see slower speeds. But if it's not congested, the lower priority doesn't mean much and you'll still get fast speeds. It's a much fairer way to do things than a straight slow lane.
They're part of the executive branch, so he does have the authority to do so. However, he will have trouble if he tries to fire people. In general, civil service employees at or below the pay level of GS-15 cannot be fired on a presidential whim. Those above that pay level can be and are political appointees. People at GS-15 are senior employees who know how the system works and have access to information before their politically appointed bosses do. Combine that with the gag order and leaks of "censored" information will probably become quite common. (Censored here referring to information that Trump's administration tries to prevent being published.)
It'd be hilarious if that was how the PTO interpreted it, and businesses started raising holy hell because they couldn't get any new patents or trademarks. Especially ones with huge sway with congress like the pharmaceutical companies.
I think you missed the part in this case where the image found was in slack space. That means the GS employee had to run forensics software to find the image at all. This particular case goes way, way beyond someone digging through your files when you bring a computer in. This employee was hunting for stuff that wasn't even accessible from the file system. (In this case it was most likely a deleted picture, or something that ended up in slack space from web browsing. However malware could have put it there as well. There's probably no way to prove how it go there, so there's likely no actual case. Thus why the FBI didn't inform the judge of this fact when getting a warrant. Otherwise the warrant would have been denied.)
They can defend the bad cops legally without a PR offensive on their behalf. Just refuse to give statements, provide lawyers that provide the cop a vigorous defense and they've done their job just fine. I don't think anyone would complain about that, unions are there to defend their members. And they could, and probably should, do this in all cases.
The problem is the PR offensive that the unions go on, attacking anyone, everyone and everything in defense of the bad cops. They do far, far more damage to the police than any of the bad cops in the process. People understand there's going to be bad actors that slip through the hiring process in any organization, but they don't expect the union to go out there claiming reality isn't reality in defense of the bad cops. That just tells people the union does not have a problem with bad cops, not that they defend all their members. And so, people stop trusting any cops.
Frankly, I'm pretty sure the GOP will move quickly to dismantle net neutrality and neuter the FCC. They have done this before historically, and all signs are that many of the party leaders are eager to overplay their hand again. They gain control and they think they have a mandate for the worst of their ideas (such as Ryan wanting to destroy Social Security and Medicare), then get slapped down by the voters.
Now some GOP in congress, particularly the senate, are more sane and will block congressional efforts from getting passed. (Notably, GOP senators have already said they won't support Ryan's plans to destroy Social Security and Medicare. And congress as a whole is still largely terrified of provoking another backlash like SOPA did.) But the Republicans in the FCC will probably go bonkers and push their agenda quickly, hoping no one will notice. It's going to take another SOPA-style backlash to reign it in, and even then I won't be remotely surprised if Trump just throws a Twitter hissy fit and refuses to back down. Congress is beholden to the reality of needing votes for reelection. Trump doesn't seem to have a very firm relationship with reality at all. I can easily see him thinking he'll get reelected no matter what he does, because in his world he's always right.
Considering the reason he hates Gawker so much is because their Valleywag site outed him as gay, that's absolutely true. It's made even sadder by the fact that apparently everyone already knew he was gay so it wasn't much of an outing.
It's more than just that, he's also taken to accusing anyone who points out he didn't invent E-mail as being racist because they can't handle the fact an Indian-American invented it.
In my opinion he's a delusional, insecure, egotistical asshole. I don't know what he was hoping to accomplish, but I can tell you that he's managed to make me have no respect for him whatsoever. If he'd not been such a delusional asshole, I might have respected the fact he created an E-mail program independently. And he can't sue to make me respect him. Respect can't be ordered by a court.
Frankly I suspect he's just so stuck on himself that he really believes he did invent E-mail. Which doesn't say much about his grip on reality.
And when it comes to Google, if you have a Google account, don't search while logged in. I access my Gmail in a portable Firefox instance, and my main browser (where I do all my searching) isn't logged in at all. So my Google searches aren't being associated with my Google account. I also use Firefox on my phone instead of Chrome, but that's more so I can adblock on mobile.
I can confirm, had them try this twice on my phone and then I had to deal with it on mom's and dad's phones. It's presented as no big deal, just something you should accept so you'll have better service. They also make it difficult to figure out how to reject it. If I'm remembering it correctly, you have to select "more information", and after that you can finally decline. (Also, you have to select more information to even find out what it changes.)
Google has done this change extremely underhandedly. I have no doubts it was done that way on purpose. I just don't see how you could get it so confusing and tricky without actively trying to make it that way.
If Univision is that scared of getting sued over news articles, they should get out of the news business entirely. That's the only way they can eliminate that particular risk. Also, they shouldn't have bought the Gawker Media sites. That's sort of like killing someone on a busy street and hoping no one saw you.
Well there's no lawyer involved (at least via the papers). They were filed by a pro se litigant, and the defendant is also pro se. I would have thought such lawsuits where BOTH parties are pro se would be unusual enough for the judge to give it extra scrutiny. But maybe such lawsuits are more common than I think.
Now there might be a shady lawyer doing this behind the scenes, but I'd be willing to bet it really was done by that Brad Smith (and he's lying to cover it up) or by a scummy reputation management company, either with or without Smith's knowledge. (I give that one 50/50 odds, both seem equally likely.) Either way I doubt a real lawyer drew up the fraudulent papers and filed them.
Still doesn't let Smith off the hook for hiring a scummy reputation management company.