Slashdot Mirror

There's a simple plan where Assange could easily move outside the embassy.

1) Create a fake Twitter account and post a really mean tweet followed by an announcement you'll be holding a parade just outside London - this will draw the entire London police force and most of the military to strike down the tweeter before he can tweet again, enabling Assange to walk out of the embassy unchallenged.

2) Embed himself in management for an under-age rape gang, as they are immune from policing in the UK and presumably he could make a good living there.

Of course, once free if I were him I'd stay away from park benches and BMW's given how much he has entered pretty much every government.

https://abcnews.go.com/Technol...

Obama campaign "asked" users, not the same thing.

I ride through this intersection on a regular basis. The intersection is fairly well lit with a park on the right side of the intersection. The news article was not specific as to the exact location where the accident happened. The speed limit is 35 mph on Mill Avenue approximately 100 feet South of the Intersection. The news story shows a picture of a sign "BEGIN RIGHT TURN LANE YIELD TO BIKES. The news story shows the remains of a flare on the ground on the Northbound side of Mill Avenue. There is a nice wide sidewalk in the center of the road with a sign with a no crossing symbol and "USE CROSSWALK" with an arrow pointing toward the intersection. There is a lot of Pedestrians in the area, and I can see why someone would cross the street to get to the center area which leads to the bar on the other side of the street.

News story
https://abcnews.go.com/Technol...

Google Map of same location
https://www.google.com/maps/@3...

We had rivers catching on fire and the government got serious about the pollution.

It remained serious until fairly recently. It's been backsliding in republican areas for a while.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...

https://www.motherjones.com/en...

The devastation from hurricanes Irma and Harvey, the two weeks of catastrophic flooding, and the toxic aftermath should have been opportunities for the head of the Environmental Protection Agency to snap into action. Had Scott Pruitt done so, it would have been in stark contrast with his tenure so far, which has mostly consisted of making the case that the regulatory power of the EPA should be undermined and advocating that his agency be made smaller in size and scope, be deprived of a robust budget and enforcement power, and shift focus to what he likes to call âoeregulatory certaintyâ for polluting industries.

In the past, the EPAâ(TM)s job in the aftermath of storms has been to help ensure that victims do not return to homes and neighborhoods that are toxic cesspools. The environmental aftermath of Harvey and Irma has been particularly devastating, with Superfund sites that have flooded, pipelines that have have leaked, forced evacuations because of explosions at the Arkema chemical plant, and a hazardous mix of floodwaters and sewage.

A week ago, George W. Bushâ(TM)s EPA administrator, Christine Todd Whitman, wrote a scathing assessment in the New York Times of how Pruitt has been performing on the job. âoeThe agency created by a Republican president 47 years ago to protect the environment and public health may end up doing neither under Mr. Pruittâ(TM)s direction,â she noted. When reflecting on Pruittâ(TM)s performance during Hurricane Harvey, she added that the EPAâ(TM)s recent actions, including the EPAâ(TM)s attack on an AP reporter, âoeare only the latest manifestations of my fears.â

Whitman may have missed some of Pruittâ(TM)s other activities. During the two hurricanes, the EPA administrator has appeared in far-right media, blasted the Obama administration and the mainstream media, disparaged discussions about climate change, and rolled back more regulations. Here are some noteworthy Pruitt sightings that took place during the recent weeks when severe weather battered the United States:

  Trump and Pruitt further sought to significantly shrink the EPA over the past year, proposing drastic budget cuts and offering buyouts that reduced staffing. From December 2016 to January 2018, the size of the agency has shrunk by 1,500 people, according to the Office of Personnel Management, and its current total of 14,162 employees is fewer than worked for it under President Ronald Reagan's administration.

The agency additionally altered its policy on the scientific boards that advise the agency, blocking any researchers from participating if they received grant money from the EPA.

---
And governor Snyder set up the Flint Michagan disaster by assigning managers who could override local governments.
Hundreds of kids poisoned with lead. They are still on bottled water. It's just that bad.

Other countries like Venezuela, and Australia removed guns from the plebes... and mysteriously the mass shootings stopped. Gee whiz.

Strange, it looks like the number of homicides rose steadily after the gun ban in Venezuela.

Oh look, Maduro is giving guns to his supporters

Here's an example of responsible government gun usage

And another

It's a good thing that they have a ban in Venezuela, it keeps candidates in elections from getting shot

The Gun ban is working so well with petty crime too.

Pretty sure Rhode Island still has that law that it's ok for a stripper to be as young as 16...as long as she's home before curfew.

Yep, there it is : http://abcnews.go.com/Business...

Ah, America.

Isn't this a violation of both net neutrality AND 1st amendment.

Yes, but not for the reason that you think - this has very little to do with people commenting on porno, and everything to do with a content-discriminatory tax on pornography.

You can try to dress it up any way that you like, but content-based taxes are unconstitutional. This way, > that way, and especially when adding mandatory filters.

But it's not as if politicians have sworn to uphold the constitution or anything...

Better hope you don't ever see the inside of a prison, nonce

http://abcnews.go.com/US/priso...

Prison Is 'Living Hell' for Pedophiles

In prison, fellow inmates derisively call pedophiles "chesters," "tree jumpers" and "short eyes."

Prison can be a menacing place for child molesters like the former Roman Catholic priest John Geoghan, who was killed in his cell Saturday -- or for other alleged pedophile priests working their way through the criminal justice system.

"If you take out a sex offender like this former priest in Massachusetts, maybe the person who took him out thought he'd make a name of himself," said Margot Bach, a spokeswoman for California Department of Corrections. "Taking [a pedophile] out would gain [the killer] a lot more respect among the other inmates."

In fact, Goeghan's accused killer, Joseph Druce, "looked upon Father Geoghan as a prize," and plotted his killing for a month, John Conte, district attorney for Worcester County, Mass., told reporters Monday.

Though prison officials in some Northeastern states question the idea of an automatic social hierarchy among prisoners based solely upon their offenses, most agree that if there is one, child molesters and informants -- derided as "snitches" -- occupy the lowest rungs.

You missed my point.

  If someone who has gone through the training to "serve and protect" wilted in the face of danger, do you think people who have been trained to teach kids are going have better reactions?

Maybe there is another way to go.

Kendra St. Clair: Oklahoma Girl, 12, Shoots Intruder During Home Burglary
Girl, 11, scares off home intruder with shotgun
Armed With Her Dad’s Gun, This 17-Year-Old Girl Fended Off A Wanted Man Who Broke Into Her Home

I recognize you and some teachers don't feel up to it, but apparently there are people who manage.

Police carry guns. Is your thinking that they are all cowards? (Even if a few actually are?)

Soldiers carry guns. Is your thinking that they are all cowards?

Are young girls that don't get assaulted, raped, or murdered because they used a gun "cowards"? Or do you think they should be assaulted, raped, or murdered?

Girl, 11, scares off home intruder with shotgun
Kendra St. Clair: Oklahoma Girl, 12, Shoots Intruder During Home Burglary
Armed With Her Dad’s Gun, This 17-Year-Old Girl Fended Off A Wanted Man Who Broke Into Her Home

Maybe the problem isn't that any of them are cowards, but that you believe and wrote something foolish. What will people think if you do that often enough? Perhaps that you are a ..... ?

If women walk around with their heads uncovered, it's an invitation to rape them. Remember the Arab Spring and Tarhir Square in Egypt? On the night that Hosni Mubarak stepped down, CBS Reporter Lara Logan was gang-raped by men who were too turned on by her bare head.She wasn't wearing a headscarf, so she was asking for it. Do we not remember this? It was huge, huge news.

Logan said her clothes were torn off and her muscles were agonizingly stretched as she was separated from her crew and swallowed into the 200-to-300-strong mob. She recalled the flashes of cell phone cameras taking pictures of her naked body as her merciless attackers raped her with their hands.

Logan said she hoped her screams would stop her assailants, but they only provoked them.

"Because the more I screamed, it turned them into a frenzy," she said.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/cbs-reporter-lara-logan-opens-tahrir-square-assault/story?id=13492964

Outrage as Iraqi migrant who raped boy, 10, in 'sexual emergency' at swimming pool has conviction overturned because court couldnâ(TM)t prove the child said 'no'. The child was attacked at an Austrian swimming pool last December. The boy was a refugee from Serbia. And afterwards, what did he do? He went for a swim like nothing had happened. I mean, the natural reaction would be to run far away, but it was no biggie. I mean, the little kid was too attractive, he had a sudden sexual emergency, he satisfied himself, problem solved right? Because in his own country, it would be nothing. The boy would be stoned for making an accusation. They are taught this way of life from birth, for thousands of years. Why would we expect they change just because they come to our countries?

This case was hardly covered in Austria, for obvious reasons.

Breaking news:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...

Do you have a source for that claim? Or are you just being racist against white people?

Are there sources? We could provide sources for you all day.

https://www.alternet.org/civil...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...

https://www.ussc.gov/research/...

Not as much to avoid as common noises, which might cause heart disease...

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/e...

Of course the world death rate is still at 100%:
https://www.theonion.com/world...

Wal-Mart is a big part of the problem. They only carry censored music, but they are big enough to have helped put real music stores out of business. Wal-Mart has literally decreased the availability of CDs that people want to buy.

I agree, an even bigger impact is their driving CD prices down to the point where record stores couldn't compete as consumers expectations were CDs were only worth $10 or less. Streaming's growth completed a 1 - 2 punch to their collective jaws. The only record stores we have now combine a large used CD / Video catalogue with some new releases. You can buy a CD and return it so your cost is essentially a dollar or two for the album; making it competitive with digital if you rip the CD or even cheaper if you like more than one song. The rise of digital also changed how we want to listen as well. Streaming has made it easy to play hours of music, either from a subscription or once you have ripped your collection without changing of CDs.

Wal-Mart is a big part of the problem. They only carry censored music, but they are big enough to have helped put real music stores out of business. Wal-Mart has literally decreased the availability of CDs that people want to buy.

1.

"Bill Clinton did receive $500,000 to deliver a speech at a Russian bank that was promoting Uranium One stock, according to The New York Times, and the company’s chairman donated $2.35 million to the foundation in four installments as Uranium One was being acquired by Rosatum between 2009 and 2013."

2.

"And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority
stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium
One stock."

3.

"Where he once had drawn $150,000 for a typical address in the years following his presidency, Clinton saw a succession of staggering paydays for speeches in 2010 and 2011, including $500,000 paid by a Russian investment bank and $750,000 to address a telecom conference in China."

I can give you more examples from otherwise acclaimed as reputable sources. If any of these you find literally incredible, please, share with us the foundations for discrediting them.

One of those 'facts' you claim " is a previously debunked conspiracy theory" is, indeed, factual, reported by several sources, of which I quoted only three.

Please, stop defending the indefensible by claiming that the facts are debunked in any meaningful way. At least limit your defense to either approval of their actions or, alternatively, approval of their goals.

Four Trump campaign and administration officials have been charged with serious crimes.

For lying either after the election or crimes long before the election. Which makes the special investigation moving beyond the original intent and your next point rather moot.

Donald Trump committed treason with Russia, and committed obstruction of justice in his cover-up.

The investigation about Trump Russian collusion only has arrests for things that never occurred during the election in which said collusion was supposed to happen. You know it's a witch because the scope has moved beyond "Trump Russia collusion during the election". Now, it's about "find any dirt and use that hopefully to impeach Trump when our team takes the congress". IOW, dirty politics and the same bullshit that has haunted every special investigation that has ever been convened.

There is most certainly a witch hunt because the original special investigation has moved well beyond "Trump Russian Collusion". Until the facts come out, the FBI, the special investigation, have had their reputation tarnished because of shit people like Strozk and Page.

You are a piece of shit anonymous coward pushing an agenda that gives zero shits about the rule of law when you brandish words like "treason" and "traitor" without giving a fuck about the fruit of the poison tree.

Archaic union contracts are the problem for public sector transit, and to a certain degree commuter rail, but not private sector freight.

I'm afraid, you are overly optimistic. Luddites, empowered by bundling together, have been holding humanity's progress for centuries. The most recent battle was against Uber et al (would somebody think of the taxi drivers!) may have been lost already, but new ones are ahead.

Paying two guys to babysit it is literal chump change.

I'm not sure... But, perhaps more importantly, humans suck at driving. If, as /.'s favorite genius predicts, some day driving a car will be illegal for a human, operating a train should already. Because we can automate trains with today's software. And, indeed, the cause of the recent train-wrecks was just that — a human error.

You don't get mass shootings at gun shows, police stations, or sportsmans clubs.

Gun shows have had 4 mass shootings since 1987. However, there are a multitude of other shootings at gun shows.

As to police stations, 2016 mass shooting in Dallas, 2011 in Detroit, and 2012 in New Jersey where an inmate caused a mass shooting, 2012 again in New Jersey though this more a domestic issue. There have been numerous shootings of and at police stations, though they are not considered mass shootings.

The TrumpShutdown Hashtag got far more Tweets than SchumerSchutdown http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumpshutdown-beats-schumershutdown-hashtag-battle-assign-blame/story?id=52487452. Twitter didn't make a political decision there. This is also in keeping with the fact that more Americans blame the Republicans than the Democrats for the shutdown https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/more-blame-republicans-than-democrats-for-potential-government-shutdown-post-abc-poll-finds/2018/01/19/c4fce2f6-fd32-11e7-ad8c-ecbb62019393_story.html?utm_term=.2b05358862e7, and that you can make reasonable arguments blaming a whole bunch of groups for the shutdown depending on what you want to focus on https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/01/18/if-the-government-shuts-down-heres-your-cheat-sheet-on-which-party-to-blame/?utm_term=.e08056687732, but given that the Republicans control the House, the Senate and the Presidency, and Trump explicitly said repeatedly during the Obama administration that any shut down would be the President's fault http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/369756-trumps-comments-blaming-obama-for-2013-government-shutdown-resurface, #TrumpShutdown makes a fair bit of sense anyhow.

Agreed. People act like when a new phone or laptop comes out and everyone upgrades they throw their old devices in the bin instead of trading them in (where they end up being refurbed and sold or used for warranty replacements or recycled if they are beyond useful) or handing them down or selling them. Apple devices, in particular, hold their resale value pretty well.

Here is an article on what happens to those Apple trade-in phones: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/recycled-iphones-apple-products/story?id=37872881

Trump became president for two reasons. First, he ran as a left wing populist

Here is the full text of Donald Trump's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention.

He did not run as a left-wing populist. He ran on an agenda of racism, jingoism and owning the libs.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...

Actually most people who read the news likely knew about it. That story was covered all over the place when it happened.

Just a sampling:

https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
https://nypost.com/2017/10/16/...
http://abcnews.go.com/Internat...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com....

One would have to be fairly ignorant to not have run across it on some news website after it happened.

I see we will never agree on this point of the conversation, so I won't respond further.

Oh, wow. Then what is het waddle in the rest of your post? Something to accept without response? You just told yourself a lie. (Saying I am not going to respond further and then you respond). Supposedly I am no longer to do so. Obscene principals at work here. Do you expect me to be impressed by your holiness? You are just dishonest. Your morals are a clear fail.

Can you honestly not see that my comment only applied to one point of the conversation (eg. whether the original group gets to define the term it uses for itself) and not to the whole conversation?

Your statements about trademarks is reasonably accurate this time. Except the fair use bit. The church can call itself Mormon but so can anyone else and the church cannot sue for it. It is not a trademark.

I quoted a swath from the Church's own statement on trademark and servicemarks. Intellectual Reserves, Inc (IRI), does have a trademark on the term Mormon and has filed lawsuits to enforce the trademark. One such lawsuit was against "Mormon Match" (a dating service) in 2013. Can the Church of Latter-Day Saints Trademark the Word 'Mormon'?

"Fuck" gets you an 'R' rating in a movie? That alone? I doubt you can find anyone in the civilised world who believes or accepts that. In Iran, or parts of Asia maybe. Cite me the regulations where that is true because I believe you are just lying again. If it is the case in all or parts of the USA then you should be thoroughly ashamed.

Please read the Ratings Rules of the MPAA. It used to be (eg. 1990s or earlier) that a single F-bomb was all it took for a movie to carry an R rating. Currently, a single F-bomb could be PG-13 depending on other criteria, but 2 F-bombs force an R-rating or NC-17.

And liars are not part of polite society. They do not understand what it means. You fail to see that you can never, ever be part of polite society as long as you are peddling lies.

But I don't peddle in lies. One question on the temple recommend interview is of I'm honest in all my dealings.

Just like Hubbard FWTIW. You show an excellent example when you say you will not respond because we will never agree.

When neither side is likely to change their viewpoint, what's the point in repeating the same arguments ad nauseum? Rather than waste each other's time on that one point, let's agree to disagree.

I wouldn't say never, but not until your morals improve and you raise you are no more special (or right) than anyone else. There is a reason why you "don't discuss politics or religion at the dinner table", as no cilvil discourse or polite society can arise. Either or both sides will be lying through their teeth.

You don't discuss religion in polite society because a certain amount of faith is required. There is no repeatable empirical evidence to scientifically prove who is correct.

Why do you think that you can set the limits of 'polite society'? Research has shown that people who use profanity tend to be more honest than those that don't. I am not going to cite because it was all over the news just recently. You might also note that I don' use profanity all that much, just to reinforce things (and partly, I admit, to see how you would react. You reacted by focussing on the words not their meaning. You are just not self-honest and cannot be honest to others. The only reason that profanity can impair a situation is when one side won't listen to it (and then dismiss the argument).

I addressed all your initial points and included an aside on your potty mouth; you turne

Well, apparently you can get away with this in New York, New Mexico, and lots of other places.

It probably won't topple North Korea, but that technique appears to have had some limited success. South Koreans regularly send balloons of choco pies over the border, since that particular snack was banned in NK as a symbol of capitalism. From what I've read, it may have contributed to at least one guard defecting to the South, though he had to mostly dodge a hail of gunfire to do it. When he woke up in the hospital after surviving being shot five times, he asked for a choco pie, so the manufacturer sent him 100 boxes of them as a welcoming present.

It probably won't topple North Korea, but that technique appears to have had some limited success. South Koreans regularly send balloons of choco pies over the border, since that particular snack was banned in NK as a symbol of capitalism. From what I've read, it may have contributed to at least one guard defecting to the South, though he had to mostly dodge a hail of gunfire to do it. When he woke up in the hospital after surviving being shot five times, he asked for a choco pie, so the manufacturer sent him 100 boxes of them as a welcoming present.

Cat's are homicidal maniacs.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technolo...

Maybe get a dog. They're generally smart enough to know what not to kill.

most medical professionals would find this deeply insulting

Yeah, they like to pretend they're doing good rather than being purely commercial about it. e.g.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/p...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/d...

Fancy a chance at surviving a serious head injury, especially if it may take months or years to recover? Don't sign up to being an organ donor: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/1...

This court case appears to be still ongoing: https://nypost.com/2012/09/26/...

Trump's Mar-A-Lago gets approval to hire 70 foreign workers
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/trumps-mar-lago-approval-hire-70-foreign-workers-51041012

MPAC dossier, page 9

Its July 1999 issue featured Ayatollah Khomeini and Osama bin Laden on its cover, with a headline "The Spirit of Jihad." Inside, bin Laden was identified as a "freedom fighter and philanthropist."

After 9/11 made Osama too much of an embarrassment, they did portray him as a villain.. as a puppet controlled by Dick Cheney or working with The Jews.

What's the relevence? This is the group that runs Twitter, Reddit, Wikipedia, Mozilla, Metafilter, BoingBoing, etc, as part of a federally funded Internet censorship program called "Viral Peace" that is run out of the Berkman Center at Harvard University. Gamergate happened when they rolled out the censorship machine two years early to cover up a racketeering scandal. (It was supposed to be a secret weapon against Hillary's opponents in the 2016 election.) The autistic gamers have spent three years finding out what happened, and the signs pointed back to the feds protecting a censorship bureau run by Islamists.

MPAC was placed there by Lisa Monaco. Yes, the Department of Homeland Security put Islamists in charge of censoring the Internet. No one in the MSM considers this a scandal but everyone wants to talk about Russia buying ads on Facebook.

Now take a look at who is often accused of being "alt-right" and "white supremacist." Steve Bannon, Sebastian Gorka, Ben Shapiro, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Cathy Young, Phyllis Chesler, Melanie Phillips, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Milo Yiannopoulos, Bill Maher, Julian Assange, Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin, David Auerbach, and then there are a few open Nazi LARPers like Richard Spencer that they point at to justify censoring the rest. Many of the people who are accused of being "alt-right" are not White Supremacists. They are anti-terrorist, or they are aligned with Hillary Clinton's political opponents, or they just got in the way of the censors. Take a hint, if the Zionist Organization of America or the Jerusalem Post honors somebody then they are probably not a Nazi.

Unless it's using something like Android TV or an embedded Chromecast, which some recent TV offerings do, the answer is a definitive no.
If it's a Samsung TV, then it's an pretty blatant and obvious NO, all caps. Samsung, LG and Vizio were already caught red handed with active spying practices, and some of them are facing or faced lawsuits because of it.
Just unplug it. Without smart TV features, it's just a plain TV, which is the safest option as it always was.

https://www.pcworld.com/articl...
https://www.theguardian.com/te...
http://bgr.com/2014/10/31/smar...
http://abcnews.go.com/Technolo...
https://www.consumerreports.or...
https://www.cnet.com/news/sams...
http://bgr.com/2013/11/20/lg-s...

And no, it's not illogical to prevent some devices from connecting to the Internet. The reality of it is that the less stuff you have connected, the less chance you have of getting spied upon and your data being collected. This also applies to IoT devices and other Internet connected devices. If it does not make sense for a service to be connected to the Internet, it shouldn't be. You already have a proper dedicated device for all the "smart" needs, you don't need the often poorly updated with crappy hardware duplicate that came with the TV.

Basic principle of privacy and security standards, limit the stuff you have connected, always measure the convenience of devices versus the privacy risks they can bring. Something that it just seems that lots of people don't realize these days, which is why we'll soon miss the days we didn't have all details of our lives exposed to hackers, advertisers and big corporations.

A single smartphone and a computer is bad enough as is, adding security cameras, TVs, refrigerators, thermostats, smart bulbs, automated blinds, always listening assistants, and whatever more is out there is not simply wrong, it's just plain stupid. People barely have any knowledge or control of simple routers and their desktop computers, let alone all these smart home crap that most don't even really need. People and the tech industry in general are just marching towards a path of no return, we already have growing evidence on how damaging the move is, but people are usually blind to it because they still didn't face their first identity theft case, or something of the like. By the time most people realize the problem it'll already be too late. Data is out there, either publicly exposed or being sold in huge packages of information to be exploited on the dark web, and there will be nothing you can do about it.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business...
I've seen guys get caught doing crap like this. One woman I know was a PM for 3 different government agencies and was charging them all at the same time for the same hours worked. She got caught, however somehow because IMHO she was black and a woman didn't go to jail. They just made her quit two jobs and show up for one of them. I think she should have gone to jail for fraud.

I have guys working remotely for me. I have to watch them like a hawk or they cheat on me too. Crap like 3 or 4 hour lunch brakes. Can't get in touch with them, work goes way down. I have two that I don't have to watch. One is an Ex-air force/Navy guy, the other is an old black woman that is ex Army. The young people are the toughest. They always think they are way smarter than they are and can pull crap.

If we could solve that problem we could eliminate commutes I think. There is really no reason why I have to go in anymore. I VPN in, my laptop has a dock so I get 3 screens, there's even a video camera. It's a Dell ultra with 16 gig of memory and ssd drive. Unfortunately it runs Windows. However I simply use it to fire up a remote desktop to a real machine - a Linux host.

I know some people at IBM. My understanding is they were losing a lot of productivity because of people working at home and goofing off. Probably not an official position.

I am *not* dead wrong. Russia has a terrible position. They're no Soviet Union. They're surrounded, where are they going to go?

Uhh, Crimea, for a start? They have Syria, too.

The US won't allow anything to happen to its captive vassal states in Europe.

I think the people of Ukraine would disagree with you on that.

The European Union is already strong enough to defend against Russia

So far, they've been strong enough to impose some sanctions over the invasion of Ukraine and the taking of Crimea. But it's kinda over... nobody believes Russia is going to just pack up and leave. Re-draw the maps: Crimea is now part of the Russian Federation.

Don't fall for the old "blame the dirty foreigners" line, it's the oldest trick in the book.

Unless the dirty foreigners are actually playing dirty. They play dirty in Ukraine, they play dirty in Syria. They play dirty on the high seas. They have vast oil wealth, hold real estate interests worldwide, and maintain the largest nuclear stockpile in the world, which Putin said (over dinner) could destroy America in a half-hour or less.

And then there's that whole internet hacking thing. If the shoe fits, wear it.

These are exactly similar to all those advertising. Each portion of the content discloses only a part of the fact but never state it in full, or audiences would find that it is false.

The wall is about to go up, and nobody can stop it.

What was the full promise again? Yes, Mexico will pay for it. Hmm... Really? Are you that stupid dumb f**k who still believes that part too? No, you don't believe that part but rather intend to ignore it, or you would have included this portion in your post. Well, you voted for him, then you will PAY for it (including all other innocents).

Illegal aliens *will* be deported. If you're illegal, you should have straightened that out long ago.

You are not only stupid but also ignorant. Deporting illegal aliens happened in many other presidents including the one you and your overlord are accusing. There are many sources if you just really use your brain to do some googling. Oh wait, you aren't capable of doing that, I forgot.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-pol...
http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...

You had plenty of warning. Trump is the FIRST politician to ACTUALLY do what he SAID he would.

No, he is the same as all politicians that DO WHAT THEY SAID IN PART and COVER OTHER PARTS THEY DIDN'T DO. The only difference is that he always attempts to CLAIM ALL CREDITS THAT ARE FOR OTHERS.

A computer at the center of a lawsuit digging into Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election has been wiped.

"What, like with a cloth or something??" - That never gets old...

Of course it's falsifiable, but you have to prove the evidence presented is not true.

* * *

http://www.latimes.com/nation/...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...

* * *

There are emails . . . There are receipts.

Um, ok. Unsurprisingly, neither of the articles you linked show any of the actual emails or receipts you claim to be evidence of "a deal to exchange the lifting of sanctions for campaign help." In fact, the original WaPo article your ABC News link mentions says exactly the opposite -- that the new emails bolster the Russian lawyer's story that the meeting had nothing at all to do with campaign help:

It could offer evidence backing up the Russian lawyer’s claims that she was meeting with Trump Jr. solely to discuss a 2012 law despised by the Kremlin that imposed financial sanctions on wealthy Russians as punishment for human rights abuses.

If there's some specific "evidence" you'd like to specifically direct me to and specifically say why you feel it proves the deal you mention, I'm very happy to talk about it. But I'm frankly not holding my breath given your well-established tendency to... er, embellish.

It's not at all clear to me why this non-falsifiable

Of course it's falsifiable, but you have to prove the evidence presented is not true.

That's how evidence works: The prosecution (or scientist) presents the evidence, and it is proven up by a court (or peers). The defense can try to cast doubt on that evidence (falsification) or on witnesses. A prosecution (in this case a political prosecution) is not a hypothesis.

We're past hypothesis now. Hypotheses can be falsifiable (or not). We're now at the proving up stage. There is hard evidence that Russia endeavored to influence the 2016 election in favor of Donald Trump. We have hard evidence of meetings between Trump campaign officials and agents of the Russian government where a deal to exchange the lifting of sanctions for campaign help. And this is only one small part of the entire Russian effort to illegally influence the election.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...

This is not fake news. There are emails from Trump officials about the meetings and testimony from Russian officials about the intent. There are receipts. If there's some part of that you believe is false, you are free to falsify.

Likewise, it's also not a legal certificate of divorce.

Depends on the jurisdiction: http://abcnews.go.com/Internat...

"Tesla " is a knock off of a man who was vastly more intelligent than the person behind the company you are representing. And do not believe those cars have any less of a carbon footprint than ICE engines. Electricity in my town comes from coal and gas burners with solar subsidizing rolling blackouts from undersupply issues from lazy fatcats.
And autonomous? fucking hilarious. I think you are referring to Teslas "Auto Pilot" FEATURE, which is a self proclaimed driver assist feature because it is NOT truly autonomous without interactions, and is a misnomer to the general public.

Bald eagles have gotten so numerous and are so aggressive that they are considering taking it off the protected list in the USA. Homer, Alaska is over run with them.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story...

What most people don't realize is that, even if you were in a plane crash, there's a very good chance you'll survive.

No such luck in a hyperloop crash, I'm afraid. Remember that the carriages are travelling in an evacuated tube at 1/1000th atmospheric pressure. If the carriage was punctured in any way it would quickly become depressurized and everyone onboard with suffocate.

That said I think the chance of a hyperloop crash would be extremely remote. It's not like a train where even a slight derailment of one bogey is catastrophic for the whole train - hyperloop carriages will be travelling on a self-correcting maglev field.

What most people don't realize is that, even if you were in a plane crash, there's a very good chance you'll survive. Heck, even JAL 123, which slammed at full speed into a mountain, had survivors. Of course, survivability depends highly on location of seating, weather conditions etc. I imagine HL would be similar with the benefit of not being forced down by gravity, but with the cost of not being able to glide...

I know I've been discriminated by race, and I've seen people throw away unread resumes of people they knew they were black (I've seen it with my fucking eyes.)

I'm sure I've seen an article about how your name affects your job prospects. Have something innocuous like Scott or Jacke or Jane or Mary and there's no thought put into that area. Have something like Darnell or Tyrone or Shaneequa or Neveah and your resume is tossed before they get to your skill set.
Oh here's one:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/top...

Sadly in the USA, it is might be better to not help the victim. This is due to how their legal system allow victim to sue the helper, and how the victim in the USA mentality willing to sue the helper. (search on google, you'll know 1, 2, 3)

So if you helped someone in the USA, you can be sued even if you are genuinely trying to help to save lives. it might be better to "Let the people die".

Blame Trump

Hey, why not? I mean, if you can blame 9/11 on *teh gheys*...

God Will Not Be Mocked!

Symapthiser isn't the word I'd use. But he associated with them and fails to condemn them when given the opportunity, because he knows that distancing himself from them would damage his base.

You mean, like this?

Even if he didn't, I'd blame your Dear Leader for this only once I hear Hillary and Bernie condemning BLM. To the contrary, they keep singing praise.

but any evenhanded analysis of

Nice. So, any analysis that disagrees is automatically not evenhanded

I did not make that claim. If you have reference to good analysis that finds otherwise, cite it.

else we'd never have needed the Civil Rights Act and related legislation.

If anything, that legislation has proven itself a remarkable failure 50 years later. For all the "reverse" racist laws and policies, for all the self-flagellation of the Whites, the dissatisfaction among Blacks is still remarkably high — indeed higher now after the first Black President, than it was before.

Should have left it to the market-forces.

Your conclusion does not follow from your observations, mostly because your observations are very shallow. Also, you are engaging in a blindingly blatant false equivalency. I won't attempt to address all of the problems in your statement, but I'll pick just one: the fact that black dissatisfaction appears to be higher after the first black president was elected. Note that I'm not claiming to offer an authoritative explanation of that fact, but just a plausible explanation which suggests a completely different conclusion than the one you're uncritically assuming.

I think the reason that black dissatisfaction has increased is because blacks saw the election of Obama as a turning point in race relations, as evidence that the country really was ready to listen to their concerns about the extensive and systemic oppression under which they live. Prior to that point, they had focused instead on the slow, steady improvement they were seeing, but Obama's election seemed to indicate a step change. In particular, a change that indicated that they were now free to speak out about issues they hadn't previously felt it was safe to speak about.

But the step change didn't actually happen. The system didn't suddenly become fair and evenhanded, and when blacks complained about old injustices what they got was a backlash. Anyone who thought that white supremacy was dying learned that there was a lot more of it than anyone had realized. This backlash resulted in the election of wink-and-nod racist as president, with the full-throated support of lots of open and outspoken white supremacists. The more cynical -- and racist -- blacks took this as confirmation of what they already thought they knew, and the more optimistic blacks felt their hopes crushed.

So I am not in the least bit surprised that blacks are more dissatisfied. They achieved a triumph of progress, only to have their hopes dashed by discovering that it doesn't really mean what they thought it would, and that in fact their situation is even worse than they thought it was. That'll disappoint even the most optimistic.

And how in the world can you possibly equate the dissatisfaction we see today with the open, bald-faced oppression that existed in Jim Crow? That's mind-boggling.

but any evenhanded analysis of

Nice. So, any analysis that disagrees is automatically not evenhanded... One would've thought, this method for pre-emptively disarming a dissenter was mocked out of existence by Hans Christian Andersen in the 19th century, but no, evidently, the "sophisticated" debaters continue to employ it with smug self-satisfaction...

else we'd never have needed the Civil Rights Act and related legislation.

If anything, that legislation has proven itself a remarkable failure 50 years later. For all the "reverse" racist laws and policies, for all the self-flagellation of the Whites, the dissatisfaction among Blacks is still remarkably high — indeed higher now after the first Black President, than it was before.

Should have left it to the market-forces.