The headphone jack did not cause problems for waterproofing. There are many waterproof phones with headphone jacks.

I mean, when literally every chef who has ever cooked has a story about how KniveCo's knives chopped off one of their fingers because the handle was too small, maybe its worth looking at mitigations.

Its simpler to file an FCC complaint. They have a pretty website set up and it takes like 3 clicks to file. I've gotten results with it and had my bill reduced to where it belongs, and I have to assume the FCC ferrets that case away and watches to see how many of them pile up.

I had Verizon trying to tell me that their quoted rate of $49.99 (after heavy haggling) was being increased to $60 because of fees and whatnot. All fine and good, but $5 of that was equipment fees. I had purchased my own FIOS router, and returned all set top boxes, so what were the fees? Well, Verizon informed me they were mandatory, and regardless of what the FCC said Verizon had their own policies.

2 months and 1 FCC complaint later, I got an apologetic letter from Verizon informing me that I was correct and they would lower their price.

As a child you assume that the laws we have in place means that the problem is solved. As an adult you find out that you have to be vigilant and not afraid to stand up for your rights, because people will take advantage either through greed, malice, or simple ignorance. I dont assume the Verizon reps knew the law, just what they were told by their supervisors, but if I had not taken the initiative on my own I would be paying an extra $60 a year for my ignorance.

All this to say-- glad this is being pressed, because the only way you get the phone reps to accord with the law is to put the fear of civil suits into the heart of their management.

Watching people continually make predictions about Donald Trump has been the one gift thats kept giving this cycle.

Not going to lie, thats pretty crummy.

This whole game is a joke, exactly because people are trying to take responsibility for more than their vote. Your job isnt to win the election. Its to vote for the best candidate. The more people do that, the more legitimate the race is. The fewer do that.... well, look what happened. We ended with two ridiculous candidates, because everyone assumed they had no choice but to vote against "the other guy".

Why wouldn't they, Harry Reid showed no compunctions in that regard despite his begging GOP not to do so 8 years prior.

Someone can be right some of the time and wrong other times. This is, in fact, an incredibly common occurance.

I can listen to his methodology on the investigation, and agree with all of it, and still think his conclusions were politically driven. I would contend that any reasonable individual who sets partisanship aside and is familiar with relevant law and relevant past cases would agree.

Because it drives more nails into his career's coffin. Who thinks this guy is trustworthy now?

Incorrect. If you recall your civics lessons, that is not a deterimination the FBI can make. The FBI investigates, the DOJ prosecutes, and a judge / jury makes findings of legal fact.

Because of stupid political games, Lynch was able to scapegoat the decision not to prosecute onto Comey, but it was in fact the DOJ's decision not to prosecute-- not the FBI's. And if you listen to Comey's "verdict" he did not even say that Clinton did not broke the law. He literally only said that there was no evidence that she intentionally broke the law, which is to say she may have unintentionally done so. Guess what-- there is also no evidence that the booz employee currently in FBI custody intentionally broke the law, but there he sits in jail awaiting a court date.

Comey literally said that she should have known, and that many of the emails were explicitly marked, and that she actively responded to threads containing confidential / secret / top secret classification.

It is unbelievable the apologetics happening around this. People love to recount how Nixon was a republican, but here we have a crook as big and people are running interference for her. Drop the stupid partisanship and call a spade a spade.

You are Correcting The Record. You should go back and listen / read what Comey reported the FBI found in July:

Note that in the last segment, he said "sent AND received". Not only that, once those emails were received, she had a duty to secure them on her system. Yet, the FBI got a lot of their data from "slack space" on the server, because the IT guys running the systems simply uninstalled Exchange without sanitizing the disks. It being her server commissioned under her authority, and it being her data, that directly becomes her problem.

Further, she then transported the servers-- well after receiving the data, well after its classification-- to her attorneys. This is, again, not a cleared location nor cleared individuals. That is, again, a violation of 18 USC 1924.

Comey literally said that there was evidence that for the majority of the confidential documents, Clinton knew (because they were marked) or should have known that the documents were classified. Roughly 100 of the confidential email chains that were sent and received by Clinton were classified at the time they were sent or received, and several were marked.

You should go back and listen to his explanation of what they found in July. The strongest evidence for why Clinton broke the law is ironically the first 9 minutes of Comey's discussion on it. Listen to what he says, and cross-reference it with 18 USC 1924

Joining a domain does not on its own disable those updates.

You cant just spend your way to victory if your case is bad enough.