They're not entirely contracts of adhesion in the way you seem to mean. While entry to the association is non-negotiable; accept the contract or don't live here, the members of the association have the ability to change the rules of their association whenever they collectively wish to do so.

Your example of a non-negotiable contract of adhesion seems to imply that the HOA is one side of a contractual relationship with which one can never negotiate. The reality is that it is an organization to which property members become members and, as members, can make changes to the rules of the association; or re-negotiate the contract. Some terms can be changed with simple majority votes, some changes with super majority votes and some with unanimous votes.

A contract of adhesion isn't necessarily bad and one whose terms can be changed by the members is certainly better than one that can't be negotiated or changed such as a shrink-wrap software license.

I use an Apple watch and it's a lot more convenient. I double tap the button and wave it over the reader and I'm done.

Using my phone would also be easier - I'd remove it from my back pocket and double tap the home button and wave it over the reader.

For my credit card - I remove the wallet from my pocket, remove the credit card and then figure out if it's swipe or insert for the chip. If it's insert then I have to wait for the network to complete the transaction before removing the card and re-inserting it back into the wallet.

There's no PIN for me to enter for any of the transactions. Signing requirements vary depending on the size of the transaction, the merchant and the card type.

So, sorting on convenience and time spent for the various options: watch, phone, credit card.

Wrong.

Had she been alone in that apartment you might be correct. There was a five year old child in that apartment.

Let's go with your proposal to wait it out. She then decides there's no other way out other than to kill herself and she doesn't want her child to live in her interpretation of a screwed up world so she kills the child before offing herself.

Wouldn't you be asking why the cops didn't forcibly enter that apartment and prevent her from kill her child?

It's call an inchoate crime. Soliciting and conspiracy to commit a crime can be charged as the crime as an indirect participant. I haven't read the FB posts but it is likely that both solicitation and conspiracy to commit murder were part of the conversational threads.

I'm not sure why you think a knife isn't a lethal threat.

Knife attack training video

I agree that just because someone has a knife doesn't mean they're a threat, just as someone having a gun isn't necessarily a threat just because of the gun. Someone on their feet behaving in a threatening manner with a knife is most certainly a lethal threat, though.

It wasn't just the Democrats that tried to prevent people on the "lists" from being able to buy firearms. Cornyn also introduced a bill preventing anyone on the list, or had been on the list within the past 5 years, from buying a firearm. His bill satisfied the NRA and the ACLU's concerns by requiring the government to prove to a judge within 72 hours why the person should be permanently barred from purchasing. Harry Reid didn't like that the bill was supported by the NRA and Joe Manchin didn't like the due-process requirement. It, too, failed on a party line vote.

There were 4 gun-control measures brought for a vote, 2 by the Democrats and 2 by the Republicans; all failed along party lines.

"Not all Democrats are for a complete ban on guns..." While this statement is true, there are enough Democrats in positions of leadership that want to ban some sets of guns that, taken in aggregate, represents pretty much a ban on the most useful and popular guns. "Australian-style gun control," popular with both Clinton and Obama, is a ban on semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. "Assault weapon" bans are a ban on the most popular rifle in the country.

By the way, there's significantly less regulation on operating a vehicle than in operating a firearm (treat guns like cars). There's also a lot more paperwork involved in buying a firearm than in getting a hunting license, at least for the states in which I hunt.

I didn't say potentially violent, I said violent. If the person has committed a violent crime then they should be locked the fuck up. If the person is mentally unstable and is a danger to others then they should be locked up.

No one should be locked up because someone thinks they might be violent.

If I knew someone who was violent and fucked up, I think the best approach would be to lock them the fuck up. Why would you force everyone else to give up tools that provide some utility to them in the hopes that that would result in fewer tools being available to the violent and fucked up person?

We're seeing the differences between two hard-set protocols.

Before Columbine, the standard protocol for an active shooter was to wait for force to arrive and organize before storming the building. After realizing how that protocol led to more deaths they changed the protocol to immediately enter and engage the active shooter.

In Orlando the police confirmed that they went from an active shooter to a hostage situation and changed the engagement protocol.

The protocol for dealing with hostage situations is still to wait until sufficient force has arrived along with a hostage negotiator. It wasn't until "negotiations" failed in Orlando that the SWAT team moved in.

The surgeons at the trauma center said more people could have been saved had they gotten to them sooner. I fear that a well-planned attack taking advantage of known protocols would be to injure as many people as possible, "take hostages" and then use other weapons to finish what was started; e.g., us a knife to kill any injured but still surviving victims.

I expect these protocols will be re-examined and would think that once an active shooter is engaged, no matter what happens in the mean-time, the immediate reaction will be to enter. The balance that needs to be struck relates to how much do you increase the danger to hostages and law enforcement by moving to an immediate action plan. They know that an immediate action plan is better for active shooters and, I suspect, they will discover the same for hostage situations.

Frankly, the target's protocol for dealing with this type of situation also has to change. We call the police the first responders but, in actuality, the victims were the first responders. This individual had already killed several when he ushered the hostages into a rest room. The people in that room had to have the mind set that they were already dead until something happened and they would be better off making that happen themselves rather than waiting for the cavalry.

They were required to print out paper to archive. However, from the report:

On the size of the Office of the Secretary, you need to include the support staff that are in some of the sub-sections. For example, the Chief of Staff isn't just a person but is an office. If the Chief of Staff has, for example, five assistants then you would need to include those people in the headcount of the Office of the Secretary.

I'm not sure how many ways I can answer this or how many citations I can provide. You want to go over the IG's report and create a counter argument, be my guest. I've provided an answer and citation for each and every question you've asked and you still seem to be lost in disbelief that Secretary Clinton actually did something wrong.

From two replies, and many more, ago:

The above came from the IG's report, which you either are ignoring or can't comprehend. In case of the latter, here's the explanation:

- The Department of State instituted a system called SMART that allows a copy of emails to be stored in compliance with National Archive's rules
- The Secretary's office chose "not to use SMART," "because of concerns that the system would allow overly broad access to sensitive materials."

In conclusion, the rest of the Department of State uses a system called SMART to be in compliance. The Secretary's office didn't want to use SMART. Therefore, since there was no other compliant system in place at State, the Secretary's Office had to print and file their emails to remain in compliance.

I've provided that answer multiple times and provided multiple links to the explanation. Have you bothered to read them?

I've also answered, multiple times, where to find the regulations. In fact, I provided what I thought was a helpful pointer to the IG's document that gives the statutes and regulations, along with a detailed history of their origin and interpretation by courts, the Federal Government and the Inspector General's office. Apparently, that still wasn't enough to satisfy your curiosity.

Do your own Google search and when you're ready to counter the IG's report with factual arguments rather than repeating the same questions over and over then you can get back to me.

Call the IG's office. It's not my interpretation, it's theirs. The Inspector General of the Department of State said, and I quote, "...As a result, printing and filing remained the only option by which emails could properly be preserved within the Office of the Secretary in full compliance with existing FAM guidance."

What about that statement is unclear to you?
What about that statement requires interpretation from me, whether my interpretation is right or wrong; printing and filing are and were the only legal option.

Help me understand how CC'ing, given the statement from State's IG, can in any way allow them to remain in "full compliance with existing FAM guidance." Explain how CC'ing is even a "possible step." The emails had to be printed and filed. They were not. Therefore, the Office of the Secretary was not in compliance with the Federal Records Act - according to the Inspector General.

You're disagreement isn't with me, it's with State's Inspector General. You keep saying I'm wrong in criticizing your solution. O.K., I think your solution is wonderful, fantastic and better than anything anyone else has ever considered. Now, explain to me how it comports with the requirements as outlined by the Inspector General.

I've not only answered these questions before but I provided links to the Inspector General's report. You want to go on and keep defending the indefensible, then go ahead. The links to the exact text of the laws is included in the IG's report. The IG gave a thorough explanation of the history of the legislation, the regulations and how Secretary Clinton failed to follow the law.

You want to armchair quarterback the IG's report then that's your business. But don't pretend to have a discussion or debate when you don't even bother read the fucking responses or citations you've been provided.

From a previous response I provided to you:

The above comes from the first paragraph of page 8 of the IG's report.

The regulations under the Federal Records act allow 3 methods for storing email as a record. The State Department doesn't meet the requirements for one of them and the Office of the Secretary chose not to implement another one. That leaves a single, legal method for the Office of the Secretary of the Department of State: printing.

Regardless of the intermediate form, even if the Secretary's office met the requirements in order to use electronic storage of the emails, the method you describe in simply cc'ing someone does not satisfy the process requirements of the regulation. Nor does saying, "Hey, I sent it to someone else in State so, therefore, it's on the up-and-up as far as the Federal Records Act is concerned."

You may think it a simple technical matter to search email archives. It may or may not be depending on how State has implemented their email. It doesn't matter though because National Archives has established a procedure which must be followed and the Secretary's office did not follow the procedure.

I've worked for the federal government and I've sold product to the federal government. I know the documents I was required to sign and I sure as hell stayed on the right side of the law because of the language in those documents. I was reminded on almost every page that violation of the regulations could result in jail time. Secretary Clinton signed such papers when she became Secretary of State. I don't think it's too much to ask that her office follow the law as it relates to federal records.

Stop making this so fucking complicated.

This has nothing to do with SQL, or IT staff or techies or the internal workings of an email system.

Under the conditions under which the Office of the Secretary of State works there is precisely one acceptable and legal way to follow the law under the Federal Records Act: print and store the emails for transfer to the National Archives. She can print them or her subordinate can print them but printed they must be.

Some of the reasons for this are because of decisions made by past Secretaries of State and continued under Secretary Clinton's watch. This, by the way, will change for all federal agencies on January 1, 2017.

Your complex example is specifically prohibited for recordkeeping because of how the Office of the Secretary is managed - through no fault of Secretary Clinton. What is at fault is her failing to assure that her office executed the statutory requirements incumbent on all members of the cabinet.

You only want to fault her if it was a good statute. Thus far, there's no evidence that the rest of the federal government has any issue with following the law as it relates to record keeping so why should she be exempt?

You keep coming back to using your knowledge of how email systems work and how YOU would perform a search for records. You incorrectly presume that the email system is a valid recordkeeping system for federal records; it is not. It isn't for many reasons spelled out in the National Archives statutes and regulations that implement the Federal Record Keeping statute.

If the email system was a valid recordkeeping system, and if it was a single monolithic system, and if it was capable of never losing data and if it was easily searchable by subject then, just maybe, the National Archives would accept your method of keeping records. Since it isn't, they've chosen a method that differs from your theoretical approach on how it should work. I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

The Federal Record Keeping statute was put in place so that historical records could be preserved until the end of the Republic, or, at least, until they no longer have significance. It was put in place long before emails or electronic recordkeeping systems existed. Email, through the end of this year anyway, is force-fitted into the existing structure.

She and her staff didn't follow the law. That's not my opinion but the opinion of the Inspector General of the Department of State. Go complain to the IG's office if you want an easier SQL implementation put in place.