Yeah, and the news has picked up on a facebook joke that quotes Cruz as saying Obama couldn't run for president because his father wasn't American and he wasn't born in the US. Sometimes the news has it wrong.

And his corporate welfare and war policies were not significantly different from the previous president, marking him as center. He's far too right wing for me. He promises change, but doesn't deliver.

What, that in the rest of the world "center" is well to the left of the US "center"? How does that say anything about the messenger?

What year was he born? What year did HI become a state?

Because Obama's mother was a minor at the time, had he been born outside Hawaii, he would not have been a natural-born citizen without additional paperwork that wasn't done (as it wasn't needed, as he was born in Hawaii). The only problem with Obama's birth was that his mother, being under 18, was unable to confer citizenship at birth, because the laws were sexist. Though those laws, if challenged today, could be considered unconstitutional, making him retroactively a citizen at birth.

The law was not settled. It never really came up at the time, and was changed between his birth and now anyway.

What law is it against? I've seen one regulation quoted (after she was using personal email) that indicated that emails should use the official system, but no idea if there was any grandfather clause, and the department policy isn't "law".

Why is the standard of proof so much higher for Hillary than Palin?

So you are asserting that Hillary Clinton, while serving as Secretary of State, is not a government employee?

You can't enter into all kinds of contracts. The constitution bans you from selling yourself into slavery, for instance, and various other laws prevent various other terms. Doesn't matter who knows or signs.

They aren't a threat, because the "or else" must be stated or implied. I've had a non-compete in a contract. But they were too cheap to run it past a lawyer. The only remedy the contract allowed if I breached it was for them to terminate it. That made sense in that if I came to work drunk, they could fire me on the spot and not give me notice, a hearing, or other recourse. But if I quit, then take a job somewhere else that competes, there is no remedy allowed in the contract, so it's a threat like "go away or I shall taunt you a second time" is a threat. It is a statement of purpose, but since the consequence carries no harm, it doesn't meet my definition of threaten. "state one's intention to take hostile action against (someone) in retribution for something done or not done." Taunting someone isn't "hostile".

Even in states where non competes are allowed, the contract as explained here would likely be invalid. Think about the practical application. Someone that worked for Amazon leaves. Unless they work in a service-only industry (as a janitor or a lawyer), there's little they could do. They couldn't work for a book store (if there are any left), Wal-Mart, a movie theater, or millions of other places.

The allowable reasons for a non-compete are to protect the previous employer. A non-compete that offers no such protections, but is purely punitive is illegal in all 50 states. Though some may require more appearances in court to prove that point.

Then use a 5W CPU and set the disks to spin down after inactivity. Your argument only holds if the disks are spinning 100% of the time, which is only true if you have an incompetent idiot setting up your power-sensitive NAS, or are actually using it 100% of the time.

You are wrong. Amazon is a greater risk because there are more known unknowns and unknown unknowns. They can build a cloud. If I build my own, I can specify the MTBF myself. I can spec higher or lower equipment. Same reason why building my own PC is a lower risk. Rather than unknown components, I can specify specific components. This modifies risk.

Your stupid assertion is that risk is the same if you can't prove the risk is different. By that standard, parachuting without a chute is no more risky than snorkeling in a 5 ft pool. Neither are well defined risks, so we must accept them as equal.

No, I don't believe in that religion. I'll stick to more traditional risk management practices.

Or, to put it in the framework of your wrong religion, the risk is that the outsourcing company is lying to you. That is an additional risk that will always make outsourcing more risky than insourcing. It's the lazy and incompetent managers that mutter "core competency" while outsourcing the vital portions of the company. And the piles of consultants who make money writing rigged reports recommending outsourcing. Liars cheats and thieves.

And you there, leading the charge.

You do realize that you can turn them off sometimes, right?

Total control doesn't mean perfection. He has total control. His actions control the fate and risks of the drives 100%. There is no risk outsourced to a 3rd party entity.

After Hiroshima, the Allies requested a surrender. Japan surrendered. The allies rejected the surrender (unacceptable terms). Nagasaki was nuked. Japan revised their terms of surrender. That one, still with terms, was accepted.

Which of those sentences are false? If none are false and they are in chronological order, the US committed mass murder to negotiate better terms of surrender.