Well, we're about to elect Hillary Clinton. She's not stupid. She thinks everyone else is stupid, and she's got enough supporters who don't care whether or why she's being feloniously coy about things like her email use (her lawyer just this evening explained that Clinton has destroyed all of her email that wasn't printed out to lamely respond to demands for her records from her tenure at State).

When she's president, don't ask why we elected a stupid person. As why we stupidly elected her. We'll have eight years to think it through. Yay.

What ARE you talking about? The problem you describe is the state being required to be more thorough in investigating matters like the case in question (the lady with the car, Twitter, etc). The solution to that isn't lowering the threshold by which we describe airlines pilots as too unstable to do that particularly stressful, demanding, and highly responsible (for other people's lives) work.

1/3 of people aren't airline pilots.

And more to the point, 1/3 of people don't take out their depression on a hundred or so other families by slaughtering a plane load of people.

Everybody goes through "rough patches," but very few of them kill themselves over it, let alone decide to kill a hundred other people just to add some more drama to it. The whole point here is that you can't have someone in a position of responsibility like that, and have them be one of those much more fragile people who become suicidal/murderous over a "rough patch."

If it takes something bad happening in their life to make it clear they can't keep a level head and maintain their professionalism, then they are not in the right line of work.

"Many people" are not commercial airline pilots.

No, he's saying it should be illegal to keep things like mental instability and dangerous suicidal mindsets secret from the state when the state is what licenses you to be entrusted, day-in, day-out, with the lives of hundreds of people. If you've got mental problems, don't look for a job where that is by definition a disqualifier. It appears this German guy knew that, and was hiding his problems from his employer and the regulatory agencies that license his operation of giant passenger aircraft.

Yeah, thought so.

Your hypocrisy is strong.

The bakery chose to not make a birthday cake for an innocent child.

Where was your outrage then?

LK

The problem with segregation wasn't that it was allowed to happen.
The problem with segregation was that it was legally mandated.

Haven't you ever seen the movies where there were police officers enforcing segregated dance floors at concerts?

If segregation was happening by choice, it would simply be a free market issue and people could vote with their dollars. Segregation was legally mandated and it wasn't optional.

"If I were in the south and a southerner didn't want me to eat in his restaurant and I forced my way in and then let him go back in his kitchen and prepare some coffee for me to drink, I'd consider myself insane to drink it." - Malcolm X

LK

You are mistaken.

What prompted this law was a bakery in Oregon was driven into bankruptcy because they declined to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding.

They were willing to sell the couple a different cake but that wasn't acceptable to the couple. They wanted to compel the bakery to make their wedding cake or face financial penalties.

THIS is why religious freedom laws are needed.

LK

Did these people sue when the bakery refused to sell them a cake?

Where was your outrage then?

LK

I remember when this happened and none of the hypocrites who are against this law said a thing in support of these people who wanted nothing more than to buy their child a birthday cake.

LK

It may indeed count - lots of products have latent features included specifically to support future developments or accessories, or interoperability with perhaps some other product or service which is still in development.

The "car's design" may not be a "secret" in the most casual sense of that term, but there may be software features, or other aspects of things like interface design that are not yet put to work because new options are coming down the road. Even if a not-yet-used feature or interface is patented, that doesn't mean that knowledge of it or how it might leverage other third-party deals for new behavior or features isn't considered very much to be sensitive information and exactly the sort of thing you'd want to discuss under and NDA. I may have a patent on something, but that doesn't mean that everything I have to say with prospective partners or employees or retailers is something that I consider insignificantly strategic or sensitive to want to protect.

Just because you can walk into a datacenter doesn't mean you'll understand, by looking around, every last competitive detail about how things are being done under the hood.

I have a pile of equipment running in a datacenter. There's a two-way NDA in place to protect both their operations and mine, not that either of us are doing anything terribly exciting. Sometimes the NDA is there just to keep the overall nature of the business arrangements or financial information from being disclosed. For example, I don't want MY customers to be able to pick around and find out what I pay for my co-lo space. Likewise, my datacenter doesn't want me to write a blog describing their internal security operations, or what I pay for the particular deal we struck three mergers/acquisitions ago.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-...

Sure it does. Just because a product is available to buy doesn't meant that every aspect of its design, operation, or future plans for evolution and enhancement by the manufacturer are something they consider public domain.