Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:*sigh* (Score 1) 229

by AK Marc (#49364109) Attached to: Iowa's Governor Terry Branstad Thinks He Doesn't Use E-mail

You're clearly a fan of Hillary Clinton.

You've proven yourself a liar or an idiot. You are wrong on that point, and so you believe it to be false and are baiting me by lying, or you think it true and are an idiot for making up things in your mind to make your silly little world view easier to reconcile with reality when the two are quite divergent.

Everything I said was 100% true, but because I point out reality, that proves my bias, and it must be my bias I'm arguing with you, and not because you are 100% provably wrong.

If she is so innocent, when the emails were requested, why did she print them out on 55,000 pages?

You are lying again. I never said she was "innocent." I just said that her handling of emails didn't break any law identified so far. I note that the Hillary haters don't quote the laws broken often (except when accusing her of having received confidential documents, which would have indicated a law breach, but not by her). But for the email-only issue, what law did she break? If there is no law broken,then it's legal. It is that simple. If you can't name the law you think she broke, then you should default to thinking she's law-aiding. That you don't indicates *your* bias, not mine.

Comment: Re:Good Luck (Score 1) 317

by AK Marc (#49363893) Attached to: Amazon Requires Non-Compete Agreements.. For Warehouse Workers
So the "penalty" is that they will file for an injunction to prevent you from working at the new place. No loss of money. No fees or monetary penalty at all. The only "punishment" is forcing you to get a new job. And that's only if they get a court injunction, which might get thrown out by a judge looking at the invalid clause.

Comment: Re:*sigh* (Score 1) 229

by AK Marc (#49363885) Attached to: Iowa's Governor Terry Branstad Thinks He Doesn't Use E-mail
What she did was use personal email when an official email was not provided for her, at a time when it was allowed to do so. The rest is mostly lies, made up by the people who hate her. When did the IT department make an official email account for her to use? Never. When was she officially notified that the rules she was hired under had changed? Never.

But it's her fault that she followed all the rules she agreed to.

Comment: Re:*sigh* (Score 1) 229

by AK Marc (#49363237) Attached to: Iowa's Governor Terry Branstad Thinks He Doesn't Use E-mail
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.

Comment: Re:*sigh* (Score 1) 229

by AK Marc (#49363167) Attached to: Iowa's Governor Terry Branstad Thinks He Doesn't Use E-mail

Not only was keeping a private email server against the law,

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".

Comment: Re:*sigh* (Score 1) 229

by AK Marc (#49363153) Attached to: Iowa's Governor Terry Branstad Thinks He Doesn't Use E-mail

Without all of the e-mails, there's no way to verify this statement, but it is probably true.

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

But in this case, the responsibility is where it belongs -- on the government and the government employees. By being on Clinton's private server ... who is legally responsible?

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

Comment: Re:Good Luck (Score 1) 317

by AK Marc (#49362057) Attached to: Amazon Requires Non-Compete Agreements.. For Warehouse Workers
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".

Comment: Re:Good Luck (Score 1) 317

by AK Marc (#49361931) Attached to: Amazon Requires Non-Compete Agreements.. For Warehouse Workers
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.

At the source of every error which is blamed on the computer you will find at least two human errors, including the error of blaming it on the computer.

Working...