These are fine observations, but pretty much all, with some variation as needed, apply to the other candidates as well.
The right question about Trump is, which candidate is better? Because they all share his faults to some extent, aside from Trump's salient qualities which are that he's not beholden to the PC culture and he's more plain spoken. Chris Christie almost had this going some years ago, but lost his mojo some time after falling in love with Obama.
The common mistake is to interpret "plain spoken" as honest. I would never argue or assume that he is. I do prefer plain spoken lies over the weasel words of our political establishment though. Trump might become a monkeywrench to the gears of political establishment, at least the traditional passing of power.
The repubs have been making deals and passing laws to "reform immigration" since before JFK. Abortion laws they propose tend to include poison pill details forcing rape and incest victims to carry to term. The party of fiscal constraint?? These clowns aren't serious about any of this, it's all just lip service. So if the Donald is guilty of same, conservatives haven't lost anything.
It was never about legal rights, because an equivalent civil union would have solved such inequalities. It was always about taking marriage and redefining it, in an act of cultural imperialism.
By then the economy will have recovered enough that the concept of "minimum wage" will no longer have to mean "livable wage". We will go back to a time when teenagers would get a minimum wage job for gas money and date night funds.
To even joke about it shows a flippant disregard for the rule of law. Not only do you think there is no rule of law, but you don't even care if there is -- you're simply accepting it as fait accompli.
I don't think that was flippant disregard, but growing disgust for the downward spiral into 3rd world style gov't, because there is no rule of law, only rule of some laws as they fit the policy of the person in office at a given time.
I've never met a person who denies climate change. I think most people learn in grade school that Earth's climate has changed since the beginning when it was a molten, soupy mess. The inaccurate "climate change deniers" label helps the AGW "industry" (another cheap label, but untrue?) keep ongoing debate to a low, inconsequential level.
When it comes to climate science I am an ignorant layman so my default position on AGW would be agnostic. I already know climate change is a feature of the planet, so I'm bored to tears reading articles about pro-AGW zealots proposing fines, imprisonment, death, concentration camps, etc for "deniers" and downright put-off by quotes from hypocrite Al Gore or the dubious Michael Mann.
Then there's the "it's already decided, so don't even ask" posture that useless zealots adopt. It is NOT decided because you are assuming the wrong debate - climate change predates man and is not in question. What amount of current climate change is anthropogenic and how do you arrive at such numbers? What are effective responses to this, if it is worthy of response, and why do you think it will work? What are the costs - are any economies going to come crashing down? Will the price of corn become such that 3rd world children go hungry while thier Western counterparts enjoy a smug ride in ethanol powered SUVs? What impact have AGW measures had so far, if at all measurable? Answers to these questions may be available, but the public won't know because their bandwidth is overwhelmed by the school-yard nonsense of name-calling, lawsuits, and Jessica Alba rockin' a bikini for the cause.
Kyoto turned out to be a blunt political instrument that hardly anyone intended to adopt anyway. Other suggestions have a passing similarity to wealth redistribution schemes. AGW "solutions" should be reviewed for such features. AGW deserves rigorous criticism if only due to the tremendous amount of resources already comandeered to study and address it, and the social engineering measures proponents appear to be licking their chops over. Get rid of school-yard posturing and name-calling, Michael Mann, and regarding people who would challenge you as imbeciles. Then maybe your efforts will get more traction.
They never promised that. They merely promised that they wouldn't break into the house, not that nobody would.
I also haven't made up my mind one way or the other about any level of US/UK involvement on behalf of Ukraine. Reality is they had about 36 hours after Ukrainians booted Moscow's puppet to make Crimea too bothersome for Putin to just walk in, but none of those gov'ts had any political resources for playing Putin's brand of game.
But I think you're wrong about no obligations to enforce Ukraine's territorial integrity. The US and UK obviously were no threat to Ukraine at that time - the only reason they were signatories was to provide support vs Russia. None of us can know the particulars of the talks leading up to the agreement. And sure, people can argue about the fine print or admonish Ukraine for not hiring better lawyers before letting US/UK/Russia talk them into surrendering their amazing nuclear arsenal.
I think we all can reasonably understand that Ukraine was led to believe they'd get some heavy lifting on their behalf in exchange for giving up a nuclear capability greater than all other nations except US and Russia. And so we are now at this entirely predictable crossroads, and the US and UK get to either man up (in some fashion) or weasel out and take their deserved lumps for selling their crippled buddy down the river.
Ah, the ancient "shut up unless you join the war" argument, designed to disallow any argument contrary to your own. You are full of shit, and you know damn well he means the US has an obligation to step up per the Security Assurances, which the US, UK, and Russia all used to convince Ukraine to surrender their irreplaceable, top of the line nuclear deterrent. Keep your STFU to the playground; his argument gets a consideration in an adult conversation.
That reads like you are suggesting any gov't abuse short of North Korea's track record is okay and should be overlooked because we should feel "lucky" our overlords are not quite as malevolent.
That is a running joke that the Canadians burned anything in Washington. It was a compliment of British officers and soldiers who'd just defeated Napolean that conducted the Maryland campaign, taking and burning Washington as a strategic precursor to an offensive against Baltimore. Claiming "Canada burned the whitehouse" is akin to an American claiming "we really kicked ass in the War of Spanish Succession" which happened many decades before the US existed and was accomplished by forces fielded by our British Empire forebears almost certainly with negligable (if any) personnel from the 13 colonies.
Right here. There's plenty of 'em where I work. IT just ain't what it used to be 15 years ago. No need for ongoing quotas or diversity hires, just grab the best candidate, thank you.
Not only that, I don't see it demonstrated anywhere that the gov't will do society any more favors with additional funds than any random wealthy bastard already does. I hate rich people as much as the next prole, but I'm self-aware enough to be thankful for a good job given to me by a set of wealthy private citizens who happen to own a multi-national corporation that needs a few 100 databases taken care of. The last thing I want is some gov't initiative (that probably won't accomplish anything) putting the screws to wealthy people who actually (begrudgingly, not generously) provide decent jobs. If someone were to shoot the current fiscal monstrosity masquerading as gov't with a few silver bullets then maybe I'd consider what good Washington might accidentally do. We should be getting a lot more for what guv already spends, and they label you insane if you even mention balancing the budget. That crew does not qualify for additional tax receipts.
A sysadmin manipulating access privs hardly seems brilliant. Now if he'd leveraged some software exploits shortly before implementing patches that address said exploits, that would indicate a much greater knowledge of the systems he was looting - a certain grace or panache, if you will. I guess this "brilliant" quote is what you get when people who see these systems as a black box are doing the talking. I'm thinking reality resembles less Snowden brilliance and more NSA caught with their pants down.
Assange's narcissism facilitated this - the kid got put to work after the Wikileaks schism, and there surely was not enough manpower to properly vet the new guys. Longest lasting fallout is probably talent that would otherwise have gotten involved now have to wonder whether they are talking to just Wikileaks, or Wikileaks and the FBI/NSA/CIA.
And with widespread hacking comes additional regulation, the eventual future involves getting sidelined into the slow lane while the rich and connected glide by as if you are standing still.
Homeschoolers who would not go to college would never then be tested by your little metric.
Yes, people who deny reproductive education to their kids are also religious nutters. To a lessor degree than those who think their god planted dinosaur bones as a test.
You are wildly inaccurate. I supplied no metric, just a comparison of your reckless conjecture with a source you yourself supplied. If you have a problem with your own source's statement just admit you don't like your source. And people who wait until after elementary school to address reproduction issues on their own terms are not denying their children an education. So... thanks anyway.
That response stat is lumped in as a "religious and moral" education concern, and is *a* reason to homeschool, not *the* reason to homeschool (i.e. one of multiple reasons a given respondant gave). I think people who ticked that box because they didn't want their kids getting sex ed in elementary school are getting counted as religious nuts by you. Either way, later on that site indicates "homeschoolers generally fare quite well in college", which does not sound like "children being denied the ability to even operate in society".
My SQL is way lacking, but judging by the syntax, the '); is obviously the end of an insert command. the drop table students is the command to delete the table named students. The following semicolon must signal the end of that command. But, what are the two hyphens and a space for?
the hyphens comment our the rest of the (original) INSERT command, so that the truncated INSERT and the DROP TABLE commands get executed instead of erroring out due to syntax.
If these people educate the kids, which is generally the opposite of what home schooling is about. Most of these people want to indoctrinate their children into some crazy religion. Why should that kind of child abuse be legal? Why should a child be denied the ability to even operate in society later?
Disagree due to perceived inaccuracy of your terms "generally" and "most of these people". There's been a lot of homeschooling activity in the US during the past decade, and of the many homeschoolers I know not one of the families even goes to church more than 5 or 6 times per year. The concerns I hear have all been related to quality of education. I'm going to guess a few crazy, in-bred homeschoolers get more attention than a quiet, well-adjusted home-school family - they certainly have your attention. Of course this is anecdotal - if you could post some statistics that support your assertions I am open to that.
Slashdot Mirror
These are fine observations, but pretty much all, with some variation as needed, apply to the other candidates as well.
The right question about Trump is, which candidate is better? Because they all share his faults to some extent, aside from Trump's salient qualities which are that he's not beholden to the PC culture and he's more plain spoken. Chris Christie almost had this going some years ago, but lost his mojo some time after falling in love with Obama.
The common mistake is to interpret "plain spoken" as honest. I would never argue or assume that he is. I do prefer plain spoken lies over the weasel words of our political establishment though. Trump might become a monkeywrench to the gears of political establishment, at least the traditional passing of power.
The repubs have been making deals and passing laws to "reform immigration" since before JFK. Abortion laws they propose tend to include poison pill details forcing rape and incest victims to carry to term. The party of fiscal constraint?? These clowns aren't serious about any of this, it's all just lip service. So if the Donald is guilty of same, conservatives haven't lost anything.
I vote Monkeywrench.
Same. Tho I can't promise he wouldn't find me settled in a quiet corner reading the materials I was supposed to be packing.
They should have watched Snatch and found themselves a hog farm.
"You need at least 16 pigs to finish the job in one sitting, so be wary of any man who keeps a pig farm."
surely he meant "whinging"
According to the court's majority decision marriage is not about property and inheritance rights, but about love, spirituality, etc.
It was never about legal rights, because an equivalent civil union would have solved such inequalities. It was always about taking marriage and redefining it, in an act of cultural imperialism.
Arguably, you would need a deeper well.
translation: he doesn't like your views so he'll suggest you can't get laid in an attempt to shame you. yawn.
By then the economy will have recovered enough that the concept of "minimum wage" will no longer have to mean "livable wage". We will go back to a time when teenagers would get a minimum wage job for gas money and date night funds.
To even joke about it shows a flippant disregard for the rule of law. Not only do you think there is no rule of law, but you don't even care if there is -- you're simply accepting it as fait accompli.
I don't think that was flippant disregard, but growing disgust for the downward spiral into 3rd world style gov't, because there is no rule of law, only rule of some laws as they fit the policy of the person in office at a given time.
I've never met a person who denies climate change. I think most people learn in grade school that Earth's climate has changed since the beginning when it was a molten, soupy mess. The inaccurate "climate change deniers" label helps the AGW "industry" (another cheap label, but untrue?) keep ongoing debate to a low, inconsequential level.
When it comes to climate science I am an ignorant layman so my default position on AGW would be agnostic. I already know climate change is a feature of the planet, so I'm bored to tears reading articles about pro-AGW zealots proposing fines, imprisonment, death, concentration camps, etc for "deniers" and downright put-off by quotes from hypocrite Al Gore or the dubious Michael Mann.
Then there's the "it's already decided, so don't even ask" posture that useless zealots adopt. It is NOT decided because you are assuming the wrong debate - climate change predates man and is not in question. What amount of current climate change is anthropogenic and how do you arrive at such numbers? What are effective responses to this, if it is worthy of response, and why do you think it will work? What are the costs - are any economies going to come crashing down? Will the price of corn become such that 3rd world children go hungry while thier Western counterparts enjoy a smug ride in ethanol powered SUVs? What impact have AGW measures had so far, if at all measurable? Answers to these questions may be available, but the public won't know because their bandwidth is overwhelmed by the school-yard nonsense of name-calling, lawsuits, and Jessica Alba rockin' a bikini for the cause.
Kyoto turned out to be a blunt political instrument that hardly anyone intended to adopt anyway. Other suggestions have a passing similarity to wealth redistribution schemes. AGW "solutions" should be reviewed for such features. AGW deserves rigorous criticism if only due to the tremendous amount of resources already comandeered to study and address it, and the social engineering measures proponents appear to be licking their chops over. Get rid of school-yard posturing and name-calling, Michael Mann, and regarding people who would challenge you as imbeciles. Then maybe your efforts will get more traction.
They never promised that. They merely promised that they wouldn't break into the house, not that nobody would.
I also haven't made up my mind one way or the other about any level of US/UK involvement on behalf of Ukraine. Reality is they had about 36 hours after Ukrainians booted Moscow's puppet to make Crimea too bothersome for Putin to just walk in, but none of those gov'ts had any political resources for playing Putin's brand of game.
But I think you're wrong about no obligations to enforce Ukraine's territorial integrity. The US and UK obviously were no threat to Ukraine at that time - the only reason they were signatories was to provide support vs Russia. None of us can know the particulars of the talks leading up to the agreement. And sure, people can argue about the fine print or admonish Ukraine for not hiring better lawyers before letting US/UK/Russia talk them into surrendering their amazing nuclear arsenal.
I think we all can reasonably understand that Ukraine was led to believe they'd get some heavy lifting on their behalf in exchange for giving up a nuclear capability greater than all other nations except US and Russia. And so we are now at this entirely predictable crossroads, and the US and UK get to either man up (in some fashion) or weasel out and take their deserved lumps for selling their crippled buddy down the river.
Ah, the ancient "shut up unless you join the war" argument, designed to disallow any argument contrary to your own. You are full of shit, and you know damn well he means the US has an obligation to step up per the Security Assurances, which the US, UK, and Russia all used to convince Ukraine to surrender their irreplaceable, top of the line nuclear deterrent. Keep your STFU to the playground; his argument gets a consideration in an adult conversation.
That reads like you are suggesting any gov't abuse short of North Korea's track record is okay and should be overlooked because we should feel "lucky" our overlords are not quite as malevolent.
That is a running joke that the Canadians burned anything in Washington. It was a compliment of British officers and soldiers who'd just defeated Napolean that conducted the Maryland campaign, taking and burning Washington as a strategic precursor to an offensive against Baltimore. Claiming "Canada burned the whitehouse" is akin to an American claiming "we really kicked ass in the War of Spanish Succession" which happened many decades before the US existed and was accomplished by forces fielded by our British Empire forebears almost certainly with negligable (if any) personnel from the 13 colonies.
Right here. There's plenty of 'em where I work. IT just ain't what it used to be 15 years ago. No need for ongoing quotas or diversity hires, just grab the best candidate, thank you.
Not only that, I don't see it demonstrated anywhere that the gov't will do society any more favors with additional funds than any random wealthy bastard already does. I hate rich people as much as the next prole, but I'm self-aware enough to be thankful for a good job given to me by a set of wealthy private citizens who happen to own a multi-national corporation that needs a few 100 databases taken care of. The last thing I want is some gov't initiative (that probably won't accomplish anything) putting the screws to wealthy people who actually (begrudgingly, not generously) provide decent jobs. If someone were to shoot the current fiscal monstrosity masquerading as gov't with a few silver bullets then maybe I'd consider what good Washington might accidentally do. We should be getting a lot more for what guv already spends, and they label you insane if you even mention balancing the budget. That crew does not qualify for additional tax receipts.
I read the title as: Sauron Is "Infinitely" Weaker As a Result of Destruction of the One Ring
A sysadmin manipulating access privs hardly seems brilliant. Now if he'd leveraged some software exploits shortly before implementing patches that address said exploits, that would indicate a much greater knowledge of the systems he was looting - a certain grace or panache, if you will. I guess this "brilliant" quote is what you get when people who see these systems as a black box are doing the talking. I'm thinking reality resembles less Snowden brilliance and more NSA caught with their pants down.
Assange's narcissism facilitated this - the kid got put to work after the Wikileaks schism, and there surely was not enough manpower to properly vet the new guys. Longest lasting fallout is probably talent that would otherwise have gotten involved now have to wonder whether they are talking to just Wikileaks, or Wikileaks and the FBI/NSA/CIA.
And with widespread hacking comes additional regulation, the eventual future involves getting sidelined into the slow lane while the rich and connected glide by as if you are standing still.
Homeschoolers who would not go to college would never then be tested by your little metric.
Yes, people who deny reproductive education to their kids are also religious nutters. To a lessor degree than those who think their god planted dinosaur bones as a test.
You are wildly inaccurate. I supplied no metric, just a comparison of your reckless conjecture with a source you yourself supplied. If you have a problem with your own source's statement just admit you don't like your source. And people who wait until after elementary school to address reproduction issues on their own terms are not denying their children an education. So... thanks anyway.
That response stat is lumped in as a "religious and moral" education concern, and is *a* reason to homeschool, not *the* reason to homeschool (i.e. one of multiple reasons a given respondant gave). I think people who ticked that box because they didn't want their kids getting sex ed in elementary school are getting counted as religious nuts by you. Either way, later on that site indicates "homeschoolers generally fare quite well in college", which does not sound like "children being denied the ability to even operate in society".
My SQL is way lacking, but judging by the syntax, the '); is obviously the end of an insert command. the drop table students is the command to delete the table named students. The following semicolon must signal the end of that command. But, what are the two hyphens and a space for?
the hyphens comment our the rest of the (original) INSERT command, so that the truncated INSERT and the DROP TABLE commands get executed instead of erroring out due to syntax.
If these people educate the kids, which is generally the opposite of what home schooling is about. Most of these people want to indoctrinate their children into some crazy religion. Why should that kind of child abuse be legal? Why should a child be denied the ability to even operate in society later?
Disagree due to perceived inaccuracy of your terms "generally" and "most of these people". There's been a lot of homeschooling activity in the US during the past decade, and of the many homeschoolers I know not one of the families even goes to church more than 5 or 6 times per year. The concerns I hear have all been related to quality of education. I'm going to guess a few crazy, in-bred homeschoolers get more attention than a quiet, well-adjusted home-school family - they certainly have your attention. Of course this is anecdotal - if you could post some statistics that support your assertions I am open to that.