It wasn't the "critics" or the political commentator who brought this to court. It was Mann who sued them, opening the way for discovery subpoenas against him, not FOIA requests. This blocks the defendant from getting to a public employee's communications that may possibly be used to defend one's self against a suit by that employee. This could be a very bad precedent. And don't confuse this with the FOIA stuff, nor with critics/skeptics using it to harass Mann: Bottom line is that if Mann had not sued in order to silence a political columnist, none of this would ever have been necessary.
That is what worries me more than anything else - if a public employee sues you in a matter of free speech (to silence you from criticizing him, via use of libel laws), this precedent gives that government employee a huge shield to hide behind and resist your attempts to discover information to defend yourself with against his lawsuit. This is a terrible precedent because it will provide for government coverups and denials of FOIA requests in the long run. Imagine this being used by a public employee you do not like politically, for a libel suit for your criticism of him - whether justifiable or not, it limits your ability to defend yourself. These folks are public employees, and their correspondence should as a general rule be available (excluding classified information, or personal privacy redacted info). A blanket limit on discovery when defending against a lawsuit from a public employee is a bad thing
The real irony is that you've confused Iran and Israel.
Then why aren't you buying your own modem for less than $50 and saving yourself the money every month? I mean, I get it, I think Comcast is for the birds too but honestly bitching about something you can buy yourself and they'll absolutely allow you to take on all the risk for is not something to choose to complain about.
With that uid you have been around long enough to remember the AOL invasion of Usenet and the massive chaos that imposed on users. However, unlike Usenet back then, we now have plenty of alternatives, and this place will become quickly abandoned if a similar impact happens. I wonder if those pushing this have read Santayana...
Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
Or the company provides the minimum insurance to meet the ACA mandate and forces you out into the private insurance world to get coverage wholly on your own.
I'm not complaining about it mind you, I'm just stating that 1099 isn't the only thing companies are doing to avoid this these days.
I did read the article and while I had a typo in the first line of my comment, I think it's silly that he says he would be less likely to hire someone with an MBA.
As a one-time worker bee who is now a part of senior management (with an MPA and not an MBA, although they are pretty similar) I understand what he is saying but I disagree that people should have a better chance of being hired because they have the three letters next to their name.
I hire for open reqs based on the PERSON and their SKILLSET, not the degree they may or may not hold. You know, the way it should be. What Musk is promoting through another one of his ridiculous soundbites is that we should pay more attention to degrees (good or bad) than the skills someone brings along with them.
Musk can be absolutely brilliant and incredibly and insanely stupid all at the same time.
A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson
