No, the Time article is perfectly clear. What is not clear is where you get your twisted ideas from. You haven't been able to support them yet.
You're deliberately being obtuse
I suggest you look up the meaning of obtuse. It is not synonymous with questioning, nor is it synonymous with challenging someone's partisan beliefs.
I have been asking you questions. You have been failing - repeatedly - to answer them in a factual manner.
I've produced 3 links and at least 2 quotes.
And I have shown how they do not actually support your statements. If these are your only sources, then you are at best spouting nonsense that you cannot support and at worst simply lying.
December 2014: Clinton turns over ~30k "work related" emails that she filtered herself (no third party) and deletes the other ~30k which she has deemed "personal"
You've gone back to your huge assumption, there. In fact, you have multiple huge assumptions in that one statement that you have shown repeatedly you cannot support with facts. You cannot support the claim that the emails were deleted only after the others were turned in, you cannot support the claim that Clinton deleted them herself, you cannot support the claim that she alone decided which emails were and were not personal.
But I've yet to see a single link from you.
You have provided several links that contradict or fail to support your assumptions. Not yet have you provided a single link that supports them.
You really should try reading some time.
Yes, at this point I've produced 3 links, all of which say the same timeline/details.
No , you have not. Had you bothered to read the pages you have linked to, you would know that they do not support your claims. In fact you would have done almost as well to link to goatse.
Are you telling me you leave all your email in your inbox and never delete anything? Maybe you don't get much email, but for those who use email for work that would be a huge volume of email.
No, I do not routinely delete 30,000 emails on a "regular basis".
You really suffer mightily at reading comprehension, here. Try reading what I wrote before you reply to it.
Which is probably why you also missed my statement before that there are a LOT of problems with Hillary. It just so happens that you are obsessing over making up shit about a problem that you cannot demonstrate to be an actual problem. You have a lot of egg on your face now, and throwing silly accusations at me doesn't help clear it.
It's not more secure than Windows 7. How can it be more secure if it leaks your information, without your knowledge, to a third party, AND if the software update mechanism is so user hostile (unrequested reboots, machine slowing to a crawl at random times) that the only workaround is to disable updates completely, either at the firewall or via hacks?
I like a lot about Windows 10, but it's less secure, more resource intensive, and less responsive. I'm keeping Windows 7 machines around in my home for a reason.
Doom, with its limited interactivity works fine.
Which Doom are you talking about? The first Doom isn't in Google Play Store. I searched, and all I got were Doom 3 ($9.95) and several apps whose titles included "Doom" but were unrelated to Idthesda's franchise.
Besides, how would I go about trying a paid game in order to understand how its input method works? Back in the old days of cartridge- and CD-based consoles, I could rent the cartridge from a local video store, and I could scan my local friends' collections on their shelves. Nowadays, with paid downloads, I'd have to ask each of my local friends whether he or she owns each game on this list, and I don't foresee much success in that especially in an era where one's gamer friends are more likely to live in a different city.
Perpetual licenses seems a very bad idea in the first place. I see no reason why they shouldn't have to be renegotiated yearly, by law
If it becomes standard practice for a motion picture's producer to own its copyright, then studios could make it a standard practice to require producers to defer royalties for a year and further require producers to forfeit royalties earned during the previous year if the producer declines to renew the license. Otherwise, if a producer can take the royalties and run, studios would be unwilling to give producers hundreds of millions of dollars to make motion pictures.
Can't open /usr/fortunes. Lid stuck on cookie jar.