While the White House's email system may be clunky and annoying to use (as I've heard repeatedly), there's simply no excuse for Clinton not to have used it at all
I vehemently disagree.
Ever try to use tools which don't work well enough to conduct your job? Consider yourself lucky.
Imagine, briefly, if every TD employee was forced to use IE6 as a must-use program.
How's that for clunky and difficult to work with, and yes, the government's email system is actually as bad as using IE6.
If you've never used it, it's easy to criticize those who don't use it, but I guarantee one week of trying to use it will have you using an alternative as well.
I also dislike the notion email systems like Gmail and Outlook.com aren't as secured as a government's system. I've yet to see any government system in use be reliable in this regard, even if such compromise came within from a consultant.
As long as HRC didn't delete emails and archived them, there's no reason why she couldn't easily hand over the credentials to turn them over for proper categorization, which is most likely what she did when she left her post.
You cannot prevent collisions if the data that can prevent them is still making its way through the network. Then the following ISPs should NOT be used for self-driving cars' WiFi systems: -AT&T -Verizon -Comcast -CenturyLink -Fronti...
... you know, it'll just be easier to say "Do NOT use any WiFi service offered by ISPs in the United States."
Better safe than sorry, because you can bet I sure as hell wouldn't want a company throttling traffic because cars take up too much bandwidth without paying for it.
...there would likely be much head-scratching over how this whole thing could have gotten so misused. This isn't true. The Founding Fathers knew damn well how copyright could stifle innovation and be abused. Lest ye forget, they left a country which was abusing the very law they didn't want in the Constitution.
The reality of the situation is much more grim, and definitely reminiscent of today's "lobbying" in that the wealthy, who had power over government, refused to invest in the "New World" unless provisions of copyright and patent were guaranteed.
This withholding of "crucial funds" kept ratification of the revised Constitution from occurring, and it's why the document took years to get all the signatures.
Remember, kids: since we absolutely, positively refuse to learn from history, we're guaranteed to repeat it.
Enjoy those nastygrams from Google. They're not going anywhere anytime in your lifetime, thanks to copyright.
I agree with Verizon, though certainly not for the same reason.
This law is a bad law because it's taking rules for an infrastructure that no longer exists and applies them to a new infrastructure which is being abused.
Everything is digital now. This means everything is being transferred over the same line. Television, "radio", movies", hell, even books. Phone calls are now digital and many people have taken to using the internet for their everyday tasks, such as paying bills.
So why is it we're still regulating this as a communication platform? It's absurd. It needs to be regulated as a digital transfer platform, whereas nothing can be "held back".
Because of Title II, the age-old (and yes, they are terrible) laws now regulated how that information is transferred to us digitally.
It means cable "stations" have to pay far more for the exact same content as other avenues.
It means fees can be assessed unnecessarily because "this portion of the communication platform says they can be applied".
It's a ridiculous and stupid decision to use Title II, a law written when Morse Code was the communication platform, to regulate what comes across the digital line.
This may be a step forward, but that's just it. It's a step, and one that'll take years to show fruits of its labor.
The FCC should have reclassified the structure by writing a completely new law from scratch, safeguarding our privacy from government and corporate spying, preventing companies from selling our information, and of course, getting rid of the stupidity of charging people up to 3x for the same goddamn service.
So... hurray. Verizon may be joking, but they're spot on. It's just too bad we have a corrupt government which doesn't service the people.
Enjoy that $200+ cable bill. It's not going anywhere. Ever.
The article says both Smart TVs should be dumb but 50% of people disable the feature.
How is this Samsung's fault again? If the APP being used is running NOT on the TV and is displaying a Pepsi ad, I'm extremely confused how Samsung is inserting the ad on a TV that supposedly has its "smart" disabled.
Because if the "smart" is disabled, and the ad was injected regardless, this presents a much, much, much more damaging problem about to befall us consumers.