Well, there's giving flash drives full of emails to her attorney -- was _he_ cleared? Did _he_ have the appropriate security measures in place to receive and protect such information? I haven't heard a word about that aspect, and I've always thought it was the smokingest gun here. Then there's putting the server in a bathroom somewhere. Was that a secure facility? I will admit it's a good place for "wiping," if called for.

OMG -- The "gross negligence" statute at issue specifically does NOT require intent, for the obvious reason that "gross negligence" is about incompetence, not intent. People don't "intend" to be "grossly negligent". That's why it's called negligence and not intentional harm. Good grief at least get THAT right.

Apparently I'm the only one who has trouble believing that this app has been used successfully to challenge 160,000 tickets. It appears the reporter took the developer's word for that. Any proof at all of that rather extraordinary claim?

I'm not sure which Google you're talking about, but the one I'm aware of regularly antagonizes huge percentages of its users, between contentious Google doodles, their various political stances, the omnipresence of Google on one side of political campaigns, etc. I agree with you that it "would be foolish"; what you seem to be missing is that they are doing it in spite of that fact.

If you don't understand how tax law works, posting comments regarding it is a bad idea. Tax deductibility does not make something free.

Whatever dude. Somehow I'm completely missing how that justifies Gawker publishing a sextape of Hulk Hogan.

Just to make sure I'm reading this right . . . did I get it that Elon Musk is complaining about subsidies that OTHER companies get? Has he read his own financials? His company wouldn't exist without subsidies.

I'm sorry, maybe I misread what you said. Did you just say terrorists are imaginary? Because if you did you'd have to be pretty much the biggest moron I've ever seen on slashdot, and that's some heavy competition right there.

You lost me when you tried to argue that interest on a loan could be construed as a tax just because the loan was made by the federal government.

Sorry, my Slashdot formatting skills suck.

Yeah because only poor people pay taxes. Corporations don't, and successful business people don't. (Or do I, by some chance, have that backward?) "It" was built by the taxes paid by people who actually made money. And the teeming millions who also pay taxes get to pay them because of the efforts and risktaking of entrepreneurs who employ them. Really it's not a difficult concept, and the reason "you liberals" can't figure out a nice way to claim otherwise is that otherwise is false.

>We liberals haven't figured out a nice way to say you didn't build it, but you know what? You didn't. Yeah because only poor people pay taxes. Corporations don't, and successful business people don't. (Or do I, by some chance, have that backward?) "It" was built by the taxes paid by people who actually made money. And the teeming millions who also pay taxes get to pay them because of the efforts and risktaking of entrepreneurs who employ them. Really it's not a difficult concept, and the reason "you liberals" can't figure out a nice way to claim otherwise is that otherwise is false.

Really. Then please subtract some money from your bank account and add it to mine, since it "does nothing".

Um, all of taxation is that . . .

Then they shouldn't say "We can well afford to pay our current taxes, and we can afford to pay even more." They should make it clear that they also want to take from other people who have not signed on to their cause. But they never do. It's always this altruistic "Oh, we can pay more." So yeah, your answer goes in the "non-responsive to the actual situation" bucket.

^that. I don't know why these stories never read as "millionaires have used existing mechanisms to voluntarily pay more in taxes". Somehow it never quite reads like that.