They're telling me (and everyone) to try to sell it to a few people (FB, TLAs, etc.). It's like lie detectors. They have to convince everyone it works to sell to their customers.
Well, Nixon's tax avoidance/evasion is the reason why the tradition evolved. He was the first president(al candidate) to do so, albeit after he was elected.
Also, his "I am not a crook" line was about his tax issues, not Watergate.
Joe Stewart says the scammers are "increasing the economic potential of the region they're living in by doing this, and I think they feel somewhat of a duty to do this."
Why wouldn't they? I mean, they're not even part of the society they're stealing/scamming from. It's historically not been hard for one government to convince its citizens to go loot/pillage that area run by the wrong government
IIRC, there was an article when they first started talking about deliberately causing an extinction of mosquitoes. Research found they weren't really necessary in any foodchain, and that the resources they compete for (other than blood) being freed up for similarly sized insects should cause no interruption in the foodchain. But that's why they're doing one of these reversable releases.
Personally, I don't see why we let mosquitoes live. They're a horrible disease vector, and beyond that annoying as hell. I didn't cry over smallpox, and I won't over them.
In a way, this is less snoopy than having a login to watch shows. At least this way, they're not tracking which shows you watch. A login would allow that.
Wait, are you saying that the encryption protocol can just be trivially modified? Because, absent writing your own firmware and flashing thr router, that is not how things work. We're on like gen 3 of WiFi encryption now, and it takes like 5 years to fully roll out a new system (given mean replacement times.)
If the BBC gets money from a compulsory license fee or from taxes, either way it's getting monies at rates determined by the government. So, why would one be more able to be politically influenced?
Or rather, what's the difference between the political pressure of "I'm going to cut your funding" and "I'm going to cut the license fee"
(Aside, you can use html anchor tags to do a hotlink)
I don't care if he didn't have access to classified intelligence. He supported it in 2003-2005. And he has the same intelligence now (well, any minute now he'll get classified intelligence) that he's saying "it was horrible, I was always against it."
I also, honestly, don't care about it. If it wasn't a point that other people cared about, I wouldn't consider it relevant to the discussion of who should be POTUS. It's just a wash between them.
I mean, I guess it would be nice if we elected a president who opposed the war at the time... but after 8 years of a president like that, would we even care about that issue?
Also, I have no idea why you think Iraq was anything like Syria or Libya.
Oops, stupidly left an unescaped <. That second line should read "... for a sum between $3k (if < 10 employees) up to over $75k, you too can purchase a vote"
Does Google dictate these changes in exchange for funding?
No, no, no. Nothing so crass. Google is a member of the W3C. Therefore it has the right to propose and vote for standards. Okay, Google is a Gold sponsor, so they have a bit more weight. Okay, the Gold sponsor.
But they can only propose regulations. There are 421 voting members of the W3C. You too can join. That is, for a sum of between $3k (if a
See, Google doesn't dictate changes for funding. All above board.
As a stupid idea now. Back in 2003-2005 on the other hand....
The only way his answer is any better than Hillary's is if (a) you ignore history or (b) if you get Hillary confused with "If I knew then what I know now I would still support the war" Jeb
I guess I just would like more than hindsight in a president.
The EU has to punish Britain. After all, the GrExit, the ItExit and the SpExit were only stopped by threatening to destroy their economies in retaliation. If the BrExit goes by with no consequences, the southern part of the EU will peel away, and Greece will start paying back its debt in drachmas.
Your list of countries that spent very little on remediation are not known as tech powerhouses. You know that the companies (in their countries) that developed the software were the ones who had to spend a lot of money to fix it?
The EFF panopticon page not only measures your uniqueness, but it also identifies the most distinct parts of your signature. It offers some solutions to shrinking your fingerprint. https://panopticlick.eff.org/
Well, for the media, I can imagine cases where I have the same asset in a variety of formats (because I really want you to see ti if you're on my page) and I want to make sure you get it in a format you can use.
Such statements aren't usually wrong. Some superfast mass mover will exist on the ground. MagLev, or Hyperloop, or what-have you. Keep in mind, when poeple said, e.g. Da Vinci's ornithopter thing would never fly, they really meant heavier than air flight. And ewhile we got heavier than air flight, and his ornithopter can now be buitl, we primarily use planes or helicopters. The few ornithopters are built as toys. Likewise, while we may eventually be able to build a hyperloop, it seems likely that mag leve will beat it as super-fast people mover.
The statemnts that are normally wrong are theings where no competitor obviates the need before the technology matures.
I can predict he'll start isolationist trade policies (his only consistent position for 30+ years), that he'll prefer Putin to our historic allies (he's been working on Putin for Trump Tower - Moscow for 15 years), that he'll poison our relationship with Mexico (at least offically and for the length of his presidency), that he'll cause a crazy debt default incident (the Republicans already went half-way, and he's never said anything indicating he understands what works well for a casino doesn't work well for a country).
Is that sufficent?
And,yeah, Clinton's no prize. But if the worst that happens is she takes a few million bucks to pardon a tax cheat who already fled to a non-extradition country or gets eaten out in the Oval Office, I honestly don't care about those scandals.
They don't care about unauthorized publicity. Their sponsors care about their exclusive rights.
But the IOC desperately wants any story on the games (other than "Rio will kill the athletes"), all press is good press, etc.
Long story short, giving the IOC the finger is good for their sponsors (they get publicity, but no backlash), good for the IOC (they get publicity for the games, sponsors happy), and not bad for the IOC (people mentally separate IOC from the games themselves - see FIFA governing body and World Cup)
Slashdot Mirror
They're telling me (and everyone) to try to sell it to a few people (FB, TLAs, etc.). It's like lie detectors. They have to convince everyone it works to sell to their customers.
Well, Nixon's tax avoidance/evasion is the reason why the tradition evolved. He was the first president(al candidate) to do so, albeit after he was elected.
Also, his "I am not a crook" line was about his tax issues, not Watergate.
Why wouldn't they? I mean, they're not even part of the society they're stealing/scamming from. It's historically not been hard for one government to convince its citizens to go loot/pillage that area run by the wrong government
IIRC, there was an article when they first started talking about deliberately causing an extinction of mosquitoes. Research found they weren't really necessary in any foodchain, and that the resources they compete for (other than blood) being freed up for similarly sized insects should cause no interruption in the foodchain. But that's why they're doing one of these reversable releases.
Personally, I don't see why we let mosquitoes live. They're a horrible disease vector, and beyond that annoying as hell. I didn't cry over smallpox, and I won't over them.
In a way, this is less snoopy than having a login to watch shows. At least this way, they're not tracking which shows you watch. A login would allow that.
Wait, are you saying that the encryption protocol can just be trivially modified? Because, absent writing your own firmware and flashing thr router, that is not how things work. We're on like gen 3 of WiFi encryption now, and it takes like 5 years to fully roll out a new system (given mean replacement times.)
If the BBC gets money from a compulsory license fee or from taxes, either way it's getting monies at rates determined by the government. So, why would one be more able to be politically influenced?
Or rather, what's the difference between the political pressure of "I'm going to cut your funding" and "I'm going to cut the license fee"
(Aside, you can use html anchor tags to do a hotlink)
Every Republican nominee since Nixon has made his tax returns public.
I don't care if he didn't have access to classified intelligence. He supported it in 2003-2005. And he has the same intelligence now (well, any minute now he'll get classified intelligence) that he's saying "it was horrible, I was always against it."
I also, honestly, don't care about it. If it wasn't a point that other people cared about, I wouldn't consider it relevant to the discussion of who should be POTUS. It's just a wash between them.
I mean, I guess it would be nice if we elected a president who opposed the war at the time... but after 8 years of a president like that, would we even care about that issue?
Also, I have no idea why you think Iraq was anything like Syria or Libya.
Why even in 10% increments. You just need to know, at most, three levels: Normal, Low, Shutdown Eminent.
Oops, stupidly left an unescaped <. That second line should read "... for a sum between $3k (if < 10 employees) up to over $75k, you too can purchase a vote"
No, no, no. Nothing so crass. Google is a member of the W3C. Therefore it has the right to propose and vote for standards. Okay, Google is a Gold sponsor, so they have a bit more weight. Okay, the Gold sponsor.
But they can only propose regulations. There are 421 voting members of the W3C. You too can join. That is, for a sum of between $3k (if a
See, Google doesn't dictate changes for funding. All above board.
As a stupid idea now. Back in 2003-2005 on the other hand....
The only way his answer is any better than Hillary's is if (a) you ignore history or (b) if you get Hillary confused with "If I knew then what I know now I would still support the war" Jeb
I guess I just would like more than hindsight in a president.
Oh no, a law firm doing something perfectly legal, but of questionable social value. Heavens to Betsy, I've never heard of such a thing.
The EU has to punish Britain. After all, the GrExit, the ItExit and the SpExit were only stopped by threatening to destroy their economies in retaliation. If the BrExit goes by with no consequences, the southern part of the EU will peel away, and Greece will start paying back its debt in drachmas.
Your list of countries that spent very little on remediation are not known as tech powerhouses. You know that the companies (in their countries) that developed the software were the ones who had to spend a lot of money to fix it?
The EFF panopticon page not only measures your uniqueness, but it also identifies the most distinct parts of your signature. It offers some solutions to shrinking your fingerprint. https://panopticlick.eff.org/
Well, for the media, I can imagine cases where I have the same asset in a variety of formats (because I really want you to see ti if you're on my page) and I want to make sure you get it in a format you can use.
They did roll it back. We were making progress for a couple of decades, but that's all undone now.
A link
I'm not sure it was the Rosenbergs, but at least one major Atom Bomb spy was caught because of the breakable encryption he used.
You're point only makes sense if you think encryption started with smartphones.
Now, backdoors can be bad for a host of reasons, but that doesn't mean you should make easily-refuted points against them, instead of better ones.
Such statements aren't usually wrong. Some superfast mass mover will exist on the ground. MagLev, or Hyperloop, or what-have you. Keep in mind, when poeple said, e.g. Da Vinci's ornithopter thing would never fly, they really meant heavier than air flight. And ewhile we got heavier than air flight, and his ornithopter can now be buitl, we primarily use planes or helicopters. The few ornithopters are built as toys. Likewise, while we may eventually be able to build a hyperloop, it seems likely that mag leve will beat it as super-fast people mover.
The statemnts that are normally wrong are theings where no competitor obviates the need before the technology matures.
I can predict he'll start isolationist trade policies (his only consistent position for 30+ years), that he'll prefer Putin to our historic allies (he's been working on Putin for Trump Tower - Moscow for 15 years), that he'll poison our relationship with Mexico (at least offically and for the length of his presidency), that he'll cause a crazy debt default incident (the Republicans already went half-way, and he's never said anything indicating he understands what works well for a casino doesn't work well for a country).
Is that sufficent?
And,yeah, Clinton's no prize. But if the worst that happens is she takes a few million bucks to pardon a tax cheat who already fled to a non-extradition country or gets eaten out in the Oval Office, I honestly don't care about those scandals.
That's a strange position. "You should vote for crazy stuff to happen because the press will then report on the crazy stuff"
They don't care about unauthorized publicity. Their sponsors care about their exclusive rights.
But the IOC desperately wants any story on the games (other than "Rio will kill the athletes"), all press is good press, etc.
Long story short, giving the IOC the finger is good for their sponsors (they get publicity, but no backlash), good for the IOC (they get publicity for the games, sponsors happy), and not bad for the IOC (people mentally separate IOC from the games themselves - see FIFA governing body and World Cup)
Umm... they want publicity about the games.