SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In a full-page ad taken out in major US newspapers on Monday, tech manufacturer Samsung has offered an apology for the Galaxy Note 7 smartphone, which was fitted with a faulty battery, leading to an unprecedented number of the devices exploding. In September of this year, Samsung issued a full recall; now it's promising to fully investigate the phone, Korea Herald reports.
"An important tenet of our mission is to offer best-in-class safety and quality. Recently, we fell short on this promise. For this we are truly sorry," the ad reads."A careful Note 7 investigation is underway and the findings will be shared when the process is complete...We will re-examine every aspect of the device, including all hardware, software, manufacturing and the overall battery structure. We will move as quickly as possible, but will take the time needed to get the right answers."
Is it too late? The devices have been exploding for months.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @07:07PM
Nor the US President-elect.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bob_super on Thursday November 10 2016, @07:21PM
Enjoy your last few weeks of being able to anonymously and harmlessly slander The Dear Great Leader.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @07:34PM
Not that he ever made a mistake significant enough to merit an apology, apart from some locker room talk which should never have been recorded.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @07:41PM
Calling you low-brow would be an insult to low-brows.
(Score: 3, Touché) by edIII on Thursday November 10 2016, @07:53PM
Ahhh, so it's the death of free speech is it? Just like North Korea, nobody can insult Dear Fearless Leader?
Get fucking used to it. We had 8 years of utterly toxic crap being thrown at Obama (I enjoyed throwing some of it), and I will never kow tow, be silent, intimated, by that utterly worthless fucking piece of psychotic shit that is the upcoming President of the United States.
#NOTMYPRESIDENT
So, yeah, you may be right that civil rights and the Constitution of the United States of America is under attack like never before. Germany survived Hitler. America will somehow survive Trump.
I don't give a fuck what implied threats you make! FREEDOM MOTHER FUCKER! Live it! Breath IT!!
FUCK TRUMP! He's a dumb misogynistic piece of shit that rapes little girls. By all means, come find me, come do something to me. The more he goes full retard and starts picking on us, the closer we all come to actual civil war.
Keep it up. This is certainly how we keep the country together right?
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday November 10 2016, @08:02PM
> He's a dumb misogynistic piece of shit
Yet I don't think he can fuck up the country quite as much as Cheney's puppet did (note that there won't be much left if I'm wrong).
Sadly, he will be my president, because he may be what you call him, but I won't contest his legitimate if appalling victory.
We need to stop with the years of attacking the top guys for who they are, and make sure we only focus on what they do.
Just to be back on topic, what they do is the only thing they should have to apologize for.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday November 10 2016, @08:45PM
That's fine and all, but you need to be more fucking careful about it. I've read your posts before, and you're better than that.
Don't go full fucking retard like the ordinary Trumpanzees, joyfully reveling in his upcoming instances of petty vengeful activities. Which is exactly what you had threatened that person! That by just speaking about a PUBLIC figure in a way they don't like risks your human right of anonymity being taken away from you, and then consequences.. You've heard of a chilling effect right? Well you just promoted it quite heavily. This fucking cocksucker has already indicated he wants to do away with the strongest aspects of free speech, precisely so that he can in a petty fashion enjoy his revenge against the people who have slighted him in the slightest. He's complained bitterly like a petulant child about how the media gets away with attacking him.... with his own words and actions. Perish the Thought! Oh noes! I might actually have to suffer for my bombastic ways! Life is just not fair right?
That's the president you just gleefully held up! One that would spend his time destroying our civil rights, and disrupting by force, all dissent against him. He has PLENTY for us to legitimately dissent against as well.
You're right about one thing. He's no BUSH. While we had a few legitimate grievances with that coke head, by comparison, he's a fucking choir boy compared to the piece of shit about to infect the White House. You cannot compared the two of them, at all.
Trump is a toxic person with horrible character flaws that has demonstrated what he does with power. Now he just got a lot more of it. YOU just threatened somebody else with that power in an effort to create the chilling effect by proxy.
Be careful. He lost the popular vote and only won through fear. However, there is plenty of anger, hate, and frustration mixed with preexisting desperation and disillusionment. It would be wise not to push us, and even wiser to figure out ways to come back together.
Either that, or America really is over.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Touché) by bob_super on Thursday November 10 2016, @09:58PM
I was pretty sure that calling him "The Dear Great Leader" was sufficient to establish the tone of my comment.
Maybe I'll try "His Wonderful Highness The Mighty Great Lord And Dear Savior" next time...
I am deeply saddened that, after 18 months, "President Trump" stopped being a joke in itself.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cubancigar11 on Thursday November 10 2016, @08:26PM
Somewhere, in the history of time, misogyny stopped being 'who hates women' and became 'women hate it'.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday November 10 2016, @09:06PM
You mean there was a point in which it wasn't always both? You imply that the predilection of hating women wasn't consistently hated by women from the beginning?
Are you awkwardly lamenting the rise of women to the extent that they now defend themselves and demand the rights of personhood?
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday November 10 2016, @09:33PM
Not defending GP, but I assume he's trying to make a distinction between misogyny as active "hatred of women" (e.g., somebody who simply enjoys beating women up because of a psychological problem or whatever) vs. misogyny as various acts that may not be viewed as hateful or with intent to harm by one party, but which many women now define as "misogynistic," regardless of whether actually driven by hate.
I don't know that this distinction makes much difference, since acting in a way that is perceived as hateful is still problematic (to me), but I'm guessing that's what this is about.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:52PM
Thank you for the explanation, the distinction was truly lost on me.
In that regard, there is a lot of anger towards Hillary Clinton that I would not describe as misogynistic. There were quite legitimate reasons to not like here.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Friday November 11 2016, @01:17PM
The difference is that of intent and (mis)appropriation of malice. I hate my employer for not giving me enough money does not equate my employer not giving me money because it hates me.
It is not that hard to understand but I suppose people have a blind spot when the word 'woman' is put a sentence. Another factor at play is misandry which stops people (men and women) from questioning the validity of a woman's action. A woman hits a man and suddenly people just know that the man must have done something wrong to deserve it.
Misogyny used to mean a time when domestic violence was considered the right way to "fix" women. Now it is just, 'oooog hillary didn't get vote because misogyny', 'oooh people laugh on mean jokes misogynyyyy'.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday November 11 2016, @01:40PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:03PM
Appropriately posted yesterday: http://www.theonion.com/article/vessel-male-sexual-gratification-very-sad-today-54674 [theonion.com]
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Thursday November 10 2016, @08:34PM
Curious non-American here. What happens to the sexual assault charges/accusations now that he is president, or, if charges are not laid yet, but are after he's president? Can he pardon himself?
(Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday November 10 2016, @08:57PM
Fantastic question, but I think the answer is no. While I don't know that definitively, Nixon did not pardon himself. It was Gerald Ford that pardoned [wikipedia.org] him.
Presidents can't pardon everyone for any reason either. IIRC, Presidents can only deal with the federal courts. So if a President or citizen were convicted in a state court under state laws, even the next President can't pardon them. In that case, it would need to be a governor :)
Seriously, Ford did establish the precedence, with the reasoning of protecting the union from divisive scandal, of pardoning a past President of their alleged crimes. Nixon resigned and was only indicted, which is exactly what is going on with Hillary Clinton right now. Quite likely under the federal courts which places her under Trump's jurisdiction (brb gotta vomit after saying that).
A wise and knowledgeable President would do that. I'm going to get popcorn ready for her hanging on the White House lawn though with Trump's known proclivities, although I hope I can afford the pay-per-view fees that he negotiates ;)
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @09:11PM
It had always been the case that cases against the President would be deferred until they were no longer President so, for the good of the country, he couldn't be distracted/railroaded by people bringing real or questionable cases against him. This was always more rooted in custom and not written in law, but it never really occurred to any major extent before. However, the Republicans decided it was a grave and serious issue and insisted on the importance of civil cases being brought against the President when Clinton was in office. Now, if there is any cosmic justice, they get to pay the price for their relentless dogging of Clinton at all costs because, surely, it is still a grave and serious issue. Unfortunately, it really won't be cosmic karma justice because the Republicans in Congress would love to see Trump thrown out so that they can get a "true" Republican in his place; remember, they hate Trump too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @09:25PM
While in office, a US president is immune from prosecution for "petty" crimes.
If the House of Representatives decides that a sitting president needs to answer for "high crimes or misdemeanors", they can bring articles of impeachment against the president and vote to approve those.
If the charges are approved, the trial is then held in the Senate who judges whether an officeholder is guilty and unsuitable to remain in office or not.
The period before the January 20 inauguration is still available to charge, try, convict, and imprison President-Elect Trump via normal criminal courts.
The Constitution does not specify what happens after that.
One assumes that either Trump would govern from inside prison or that another election would need to be held.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday November 10 2016, @09:45PM
> The Constitution does not specify what happens after that.
> One assumes that either Trump would govern from inside prison or that another election would need to be held.
Neither.
A president incapable to fulfill his duties is replaced by his vice-president.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:12PM
This was a plot point in a "The West Wing" episode.
(Jed Bartlett had disabling episodes due to multiple sclerosis.)
The Constitution specifies that the vice-president takes over if the president DIES in office.
(Remember Edith Wilson after Woodrow had a stroke?)
...and it says nothing about someone who hasn't yet taken the oath of office.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:32PM
The constitution has nothing to say about a random citizen until the day he is sworn in.
>The Constitution specifies that the vice-president takes over if the president DIES in office.
Incorrect.
The constitution did specify "In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, " (2.1.6)
And since that removal mess was still a bit ambiguous, wise people fixed the problem in 1967:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday November 10 2016, @09:28PM
This is a matter of unsettled law, actually. The consensus is that if a President commits illegal acts while in office, he would be impeached first, where Congress could vote to remove him from office. Assuming the vote succeeds and he is removed, criminal charges could then theoretically be filed.
But things are more murky when you're dealing with acts committed before the person assumes office. There is a 19th-century precedent that basically implied that impeachment should only apply to acts committed while in office, which leaves open the question of how exactly the legal process would work to deal with an ongoing criminal investigation on a sitting President about alleged acts before taking office.
The Constitution is also silent on the matter of whether an executive could pardon himself. But my guess is that any attempt to do so would likely result in impeachment for abuse of the powers of his office.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday November 10 2016, @09:30PM
Since they were pretty much all Democrat propaganda they will all probably shut up or be sued.
You seem to have no understanding of the depths the Democrats will go to when smearing someone for political gain. Remember Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas? If you don't google them.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:01PM
I absolutely do.
...and there's yet ANOTHER case of sexual abuse against him.
Clarence Thomas is a serial sexual predator.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @09:10PM
It's important to note that the greatest power a US president has[1] is to nominate federal judges who essentially have lifelong tenure.
The stupid Blues typically appoint old farts who are on death's door and only get a few years of effect from that.
The Reds appoint young whippersnappers who then have many decades to implement Reactionary ideology.
...and, with a Republican-majority senate, those appointments will likely breeze through the approval process.
[1] ...well, with the War Powers Act in place and no need to get congressional approval to "declare war", a US president can also nuke the planet then take 48 hours to report to Congress about why that was a good idea.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Sourcery42 on Thursday November 10 2016, @08:41PM
At the risk of being pedantic, this being a text based medium that was libel.
Now if he had said that about the God Emperor-elect that would have been slander. ;)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @02:49PM
Heil To The Chief!