This shutdown belongs to the Rs, and by the poll the Americans know it.
I'm looking at the vote tally. 45 Rs, 5 Ds for. 44 Ds against, 5 Rs against.
Sure looks like this belongs to the Dems alright. This is a #SchumerShutdown.
Your attempts to believe otherwise not withstanding.
I'm sorry that my believing FACTS and REALITY bother you this much.
We put a party in power that fundamentally believes government can't work. It's a core part of their platform. How the heck are you suppose to run something you want to tear down? It's like putting Peta in charge of McDonald's.
The Republicans actually do not believe that Governement can't work. They aren't Anarchists. Are you that drunk on D kool-aid you never even bothered looking at what Republicans and Conservatives want ? Small governement. Borders, Immigration, Military, Law enforcement. Tearing down things like centralized powers that belong to the states is a GOOD thing. States should be able to control their policies and spending to work for their citizens. Because what's good for California sure doesn't hold water in Wisconsin.
What you call chain migration others call reuniting families.
If you can't bear to be without close proximity to your family, just stay in your country. Chain migration only results in a massive influx of unskilled labor and welfare recipients. We accepted the immigrant on the basis of merit, if he brings in 10 unvetted people through Chain migration, it kind of defeats the purpose of vetting any of them based on merit in the first place.
If you miss your family, go visit during the holidays. No need to bring them here and clog up our welfare programs.
He could also undo the Obama era rule allowing H1-B worker's spouses to work in the States. Again, stroke of a pen, no input from Congress, he could do it today. The fact that he doesn't shows you something. It shows you who he really works for.
Errr... are you comfortable with that foot up your...
That is not much of a correction, though. Those four entities comprise the vast bulk of (the operations and analysis in) the American intelligence community, and are the most involved with questions of Russian influence in US affairs. Do you think the US Coast Guard Intelligence or the Department of Energy's Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence are going to have particular insights into Russian attempts to influence our elections?
If they didn't, why did the Media and Democrats push the narrative of 17 intelligence agencies ? The problem is that the FBI/CIA/NSA's credibility is in the pits. People simply don't believe those agencies are working for the population anymore and thus if a report came out of those 3, it's going to be met with skepticism. This is why the 17 number was pushed at first, and later retracted without much fanfare.
And the GP poster proved their strategy worked, as he is now repeating said 17 number, as if the claim is indisputable. This was simply an attempt to disarm any questioning of the conclusion. Russian "meddling" is still mostly unfounded, and the most they've come up with after 1 year is 100,000$ worth of Facebook ads coming from Russia.
Would meetings by people in the campaign with what they believe to be people working for the Russian Government for purposes of obtaining favors rise to the level of collusion for you?
The definition of collusion is simple:
col . lu . sion secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.
So for this "meeting" to be collusion, it would require for it to be to "cheat" or "deceive" and have been secret or illegal. Does said meeting meet those requirements ?
Is the fact the meeting took place collusion, or did collusion result in said meeting even taking place under false pretenses ? So what do you think about me thinking about a "simple meeting" being equal to collusion now ?
another wave of largely talented caring young people into our country will not hurt our economy in any way.
That's the problem. Illegals in the US are NOT largely talented or caring. The stats just do not support this tired narrative. Education is lower than the average, skillsets are lower than the average, participation in crime is higher than the average.
Also, where were you when the Canadian governement put an end to its own TPS program for Haitians in 2016 ? You say Trump is inhumane, but Canada ended their program a full 2 YEARS prior to the US. Are you saying Canada is even less humane ? Or maybe you just forgot what the word TEMPORARY means.
A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trumpâ(TM)s deflections and denials about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last yearâ(TM)s presidential election. The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies â" the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.
So who should you believe ? Obviously, you've been believing the wrong people.
At this point, any shred of evidence would suffice. It's been a whole year of people talking and talking and no one even showing a shred of evidence.
At least if you provided ANYTHING, it would give us something to actually talk about. At this point, this is just people shouting over each other's head, and the Democrats showing they are sore losers who can't accept their candidate's failing.
Because "painting republicans as evil" hasn't been a thing for decades in the US right ?
I've lived a somewhat decent span a time (born in the 70s) and all my life I heard about how Republicans are evil, from all sorts of media and publication.
So even that line of "sow division" is tired. No one needed the Russians to do that. Especially not with the current climate in academia, where outside "black blocks" come in and torch Berkerley over a conservative speaker.
Changing the trending section to show TrumpShutdown instead of SchumerShutdown, even though a basic Civics class and understanding shows clearly that this is a Democrat action isn't propaganda ?
Removing the hashtag Release the memo from trending because a left leaning PAC said something about Russian bots isn't propaganda ?
Twitter please. And they say right wingers are prone to believing conspiracies.
The path and query string themselves are enough to infer "people's information". With cleartext HTTP, a passive attacker can infer which medical condition you looked up on Wikipedia or WebMD. With HTTPS, an attacker can see the server's hostname in the Server Name Indication of the ClientHello message, such as en.wikipedia.org or www.webmd.com, but everything else is encrypted.
What you say is the same thing I said. Not every site is about having personal information transmitted or is personal in nature on the queries it responds to. Maybe I just run a site for my bathroom design business with my phone number on it. People visiting my site tell a 3rd party the same thing by simply typing the URL that they would from their full "page loads" since the only information to infer is that you're looking for a bathroom designer.
The fact this happens after the Logan Paul suicide vlog, does not mean it is a consequence of that.
Errr.. didn't even read the summary, much less the BBC article did you:
The moves follow a series of advertiser boycotts and a controversial vlog that featured an apparent suicide victim.
Also the article mentions Logan Paul often. He was still part of the Youtube Preferred programe and was only suspended AFTER the event took place. This will just make it harder for smaller content providers, who haven't published controversial videos, to get in, and won't impact the big names until AFTER they screw up royally.
Users say "Firewhatnow" ? Too bad, it was a great browser when it was introduced as Pheonix. Leave it to Mozilla to continue the Netscape tradition of going downhill.
In practice rich people can afford to destroy organizations giving them bad press or exposing their misdeeds.
Pretty homophobic of you saying "being gay" is a "misdeed". Because that's what Gawker exposed about Thiel. But I guess homophobia is OK if it's against conservatives right ?
The fact is, and you and the "anti-anything-conservative" crowd might not like it, Gawker destroyed Gawker. It was a shitty blog, like Buzzfeed "news" is. There was no journalism there, it was a clickbait farm out to get ad revenue by using naive leftists wanting confirmation bias, and "Conservative takedowns". And it was working until someone got the courts to intervene and enforce the law.
There are 10 countries from which 10 countries currently receive temporary protected status: El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. These are the 10 countries that Trump labeled as shitholes. The 10 countries that Trump wants to reduce immigration from, and labeled as shitholes, are all predominantly inhabited by dark-skinned people. The demographics are not in question. Trump then said he wanted more immigrants from Norway, which is mostly white. The fact is, Trump wants to reduce the dark-skinned people entering the United States, and to increase the white people entering the country. The demographics are not in question.
Trump made a racist comment, one of many. Trump is a racist. You're a racist for defending Trump.
Did you just assume Norway is rich and prosper because it is mostly inhabited by whites and that African countries are poor and corrupt because they are predominantly black ?
And you call Trump a racist ? Wow. Project much ?
Also, he didn't call Haiti, Honduras or El Salvador shitholes. Fake News CNN clarified what their source said, after again it seems, pushing out Fake News :
The right own virtually all forms of government in this country. And don't kid yourself, Google is a mega corp. They're not terrible left wing themselves. Not being homophobic does not not make you left wing.
And the media has a strong right wing bias on economic issues. There was never any serious discussion about the wars and they colluded with the Government to avoid showing soldier's caskets coming home. They worked hard to sell the Walstreet bail out and they're working hard to sell Republican tax cuts for the wealthy while ignoring Paul Ryan going around talking about entitlement reform (read: ending SS & Medicare for anyone under 55). The Media is hard right on the economy, and we shouldn't be surprised. Look who owns them.
Reality denial is a strange thing to witness.
You're saying the media was complicit in working for the OBAMA administration for years and then you pretend that they are "selling the tax cuts" when they have been constantly misrepresenting them as precisely "tax cuts for the rich" when they are in fact tax cuts for everyone. The poor being ALSO recipients of them.
If anything, you're just further proving the media's liberal and left wing bias here. They were willing to work with the Obama administration, to hide any and all moral and ethical wrongs from a Democrat presidency, while attempting to sabotage a Republican one. That's clear left wing bias.
You're either blind to your own biases or you're being malicious in trying to hide your side's biases. We have eyes. We can see. Also : Big corporations are major actors, moreso than actual governements. Who do you think really bank rolls DC and policy ? Big pockets with big lobby groups.
The right have controlled America since Clinton took office by moving the Democratic party right to forge the alliance that won him the election. They own the State legislatures, the House, Senate and Presidency. Even Obama was pretty right of center. I think you're mistaking "Seeing a lot of left wing social issues on TV and in movies" with real political power.
Yet the Left overwhelmingly controls Hollywood, TV production, News Media, online Social Media and Academia.
There's a lot of casual sexual harassment that turns women off. What we men call 'locker room talk'.
Maybe you've never worked with women. Their "locker room talk" can be worse than men's. Especially women who work in IT, and thus share more character and personality traits with your typical "Brogrammer" than an HR employee.
The basic mistake he makes repeatedly is to assume that the variations the papers discuss have vastly more effect and influence than they actually do.
He actually states that the variations he discusses don't have a major effect, that the effect just causes that attaining the holy grail of a 50/50 split to not be quite possible to attain.
He also offers way to modify the work place so that those effects can be further diminished and thus promotes pro-women measures to put in place so that Google can get closer to said 50/50 split. AKA : He was FOR diversity. He just thought Google was going about it the wrong way.
Except it did nothing of the sort. What he ATTEMPTED to do was say, if females and males are biologically different, what we can do to improve the workplace environment for females? He may have been ham-fisted about it but that was the obvious intent. It was a paper focused on perceived environmental issues that he thought worked against women, and how he thought might be corrected... a great place to start a discussion on where he was right and wrong, not such a great place to start a series of violent threats followed by immediate termination.
It's almost as if his actual memo is the exact opposite of what the media says it is. It's almost as if... his memo is pro-women and pro-diversity. But you know, that would be crazy... reading the thing and understanding what it says....
Damore makes a pretty sophomoric error several times, conflating gender and sex
Oh, so then I guess what Google is attempting is not 50/50 split of SEX between males and females, but 50/50 split of Gender. Well that's easy, since Gender is a social construct and is fluid on a spectrum. Just say you have 50/50 and BOOM, diversity achieved.
Oh wait... doesn't that just support the Gender binary ? BIGOT ! BIGOT !
Maybe your education as a "evolutionary biologist" isn't as great as you think it is. I suggest you actually read the memo, rather than reading a Wired story about what a Journalist thinks of the memo he probably didn't even read.
Slashdot Mirror
This shutdown belongs to the Rs, and by the poll the Americans know it.
I'm looking at the vote tally. 45 Rs, 5 Ds for. 44 Ds against, 5 Rs against.
Sure looks like this belongs to the Dems alright. This is a #SchumerShutdown.
Your attempts to believe otherwise not withstanding.
I'm sorry that my believing FACTS and REALITY bother you this much.
We put a party in power that fundamentally believes government can't work. It's a core part of their platform. How the heck are you suppose to run something you want to tear down? It's like putting Peta in charge of McDonald's.
The Republicans actually do not believe that Governement can't work. They aren't Anarchists. Are you that drunk on D kool-aid you never even bothered looking at what Republicans and Conservatives want ? Small governement. Borders, Immigration, Military, Law enforcement. Tearing down things like centralized powers that belong to the states is a GOOD thing. States should be able to control their policies and spending to work for their citizens. Because what's good for California sure doesn't hold water in Wisconsin.
What you call chain migration others call reuniting families.
If you can't bear to be without close proximity to your family, just stay in your country. Chain migration only results in a massive influx of unskilled labor and welfare recipients. We accepted the immigrant on the basis of merit, if he brings in 10 unvetted people through Chain migration, it kind of defeats the purpose of vetting any of them based on merit in the first place.
If you miss your family, go visit during the holidays. No need to bring them here and clog up our welfare programs.
He could also undo the Obama era rule allowing H1-B worker's spouses to work in the States. Again, stroke of a pen, no input from Congress, he could do it today. The fact that he doesn't shows you something. It shows you who he really works for.
Errr... are you comfortable with that foot up your ...
http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/15/technology/h1b-visa-spouses-h4-trump/index.html
What is that I hear ? Your narrative shattering ? Good job playing yourself.
That is not much of a correction, though. Those four entities comprise the vast bulk of (the operations and analysis in) the American intelligence community, and are the most involved with questions of Russian influence in US affairs. Do you think the US Coast Guard Intelligence or the Department of Energy's Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence are going to have particular insights into Russian attempts to influence our elections?
If they didn't, why did the Media and Democrats push the narrative of 17 intelligence agencies ? The problem is that the FBI/CIA/NSA's credibility is in the pits. People simply don't believe those agencies are working for the population anymore and thus if a report came out of those 3, it's going to be met with skepticism. This is why the 17 number was pushed at first, and later retracted without much fanfare.
And the GP poster proved their strategy worked, as he is now repeating said 17 number, as if the claim is indisputable. This was simply an attempt to disarm any questioning of the conclusion. Russian "meddling" is still mostly unfounded, and the most they've come up with after 1 year is 100,000$ worth of Facebook ads coming from Russia.
Would meetings by people in the campaign with what they believe to be people working for the Russian Government for purposes of obtaining favors rise to the level of collusion for you?
The definition of collusion is simple :
col . lu . sion
secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.
So for this "meeting" to be collusion, it would require for it to be to "cheat" or "deceive" and have been secret or illegal. Does said meeting meet those requirements ?
Let's look at the other side. Was it in fact deception that even led to this meeting ? And did this deception require special steps from an outside influence ?
Is the fact the meeting took place collusion, or did collusion result in said meeting even taking place under false pretenses ? So what do you think about me thinking about a "simple meeting" being equal to collusion now ?
another wave of largely talented caring young people into our country will not hurt our economy in any way.
That's the problem. Illegals in the US are NOT largely talented or caring. The stats just do not support this tired narrative. Education is lower than the average, skillsets are lower than the average, participation in crime is higher than the average.
Also, where were you when the Canadian governement put an end to its own TPS program for Haitians in 2016 ? You say Trump is inhumane, but Canada ended their program a full 2 YEARS prior to the US. Are you saying Canada is even less humane ? Or maybe you just forgot what the word TEMPORARY means.
Every single one of our intelligence agencies are convinced that the Russians directly influenced our election but you believe it is a lie?
It's funny you quote that, as that was debunked as well :
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/pageoneplus/corrections-june-29-2017.html
A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trumpâ(TM)s deflections and denials about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last yearâ(TM)s presidential election. The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies â" the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.
So who should you believe ? Obviously, you've been believing the wrong people.
At this point, any shred of evidence would suffice. It's been a whole year of people talking and talking and no one even showing a shred of evidence.
At least if you provided ANYTHING, it would give us something to actually talk about. At this point, this is just people shouting over each other's head, and the Democrats showing they are sore losers who can't accept their candidate's failing.
Because "painting republicans as evil" hasn't been a thing for decades in the US right ?
I've lived a somewhat decent span a time (born in the 70s) and all my life I heard about how Republicans are evil, from all sorts of media and publication.
So even that line of "sow division" is tired. No one needed the Russians to do that. Especially not with the current climate in academia, where outside "black blocks" come in and torch Berkerley over a conservative speaker.
Changing the trending section to show TrumpShutdown instead of SchumerShutdown, even though a basic Civics class and understanding shows clearly that this is a Democrat action isn't propaganda ?
Removing the hashtag Release the memo from trending because a left leaning PAC said something about Russian bots isn't propaganda ?
Twitter please. And they say right wingers are prone to believing conspiracies.
A crappy blog is a great source to get things like "top of something better than average of another". Awesome comparison.
We are hearing this from fans of "real maple syrup." Much like we hear from fans of craft beers or certain wines.
No. Coors is still Beer, no matter how much "fans of craft beers" hate to admit it. But, this :
http://www.auntjemima.com/products/syrups/original
Is just not Maple Syrup. Why is there a distinction ? Look at the Ingredients :
INGREDIENTS: CORN SYRUP, HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, WATER, CELLULOSE GUM, CARAMEL COLOR, SALT, NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR, SODIUM BENZOATE AND SORBIC ACID (PRESERVATIVES), SODIUM HEXAMETAPHOSPHATE.
I don't see Maple in there. If it doesn't have Sap from a maple tree, it's simply not Maple syrup. It has nothing to do with "fandoms".
The path and query string themselves are enough to infer "people's information". With cleartext HTTP, a passive attacker can infer which medical condition you looked up on Wikipedia or WebMD. With HTTPS, an attacker can see the server's hostname in the Server Name Indication of the ClientHello message, such as en.wikipedia.org or www.webmd.com, but everything else is encrypted.
What you say is the same thing I said. Not every site is about having personal information transmitted or is personal in nature on the queries it responds to. Maybe I just run a site for my bathroom design business with my phone number on it. People visiting my site tell a 3rd party the same thing by simply typing the URL that they would from their full "page loads" since the only information to infer is that you're looking for a bathroom designer.
The fact this happens after the Logan Paul suicide vlog, does not mean it is a consequence of that.
Errr.. didn't even read the summary, much less the BBC article did you :
The moves follow a series of advertiser boycotts and a controversial vlog that featured an apparent suicide victim.
Also the article mentions Logan Paul often. He was still part of the Youtube Preferred programe and was only suspended AFTER the event took place. This will just make it harder for smaller content providers, who haven't published controversial videos, to get in, and won't impact the big names until AFTER they screw up royally.
... of Logan Paul, yet wouldn't affect Logan Paul.
Great plan.
Not all content requires people's information to be transmitted over the wire.
Users say "Firewhatnow" ? Too bad, it was a great browser when it was introduced as Pheonix. Leave it to Mozilla to continue the Netscape tradition of going downhill.
In practice rich people can afford to destroy organizations giving them bad press or exposing their misdeeds.
Pretty homophobic of you saying "being gay" is a "misdeed". Because that's what Gawker exposed about Thiel. But I guess homophobia is OK if it's against conservatives right ?
The fact is, and you and the "anti-anything-conservative" crowd might not like it, Gawker destroyed Gawker. It was a shitty blog, like Buzzfeed "news" is. There was no journalism there, it was a clickbait farm out to get ad revenue by using naive leftists wanting confirmation bias, and "Conservative takedowns". And it was working until someone got the courts to intervene and enforce the law.
There are 10 countries from which 10 countries currently receive temporary protected status: El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. These are the 10 countries that Trump labeled as shitholes. The 10 countries that Trump wants to reduce immigration from, and labeled as shitholes, are all predominantly inhabited by dark-skinned people. The demographics are not in question. Trump then said he wanted more immigrants from Norway, which is mostly white. The fact is, Trump wants to reduce the dark-skinned people entering the United States, and to increase the white people entering the country. The demographics are not in question.
Trump made a racist comment, one of many. Trump is a racist. You're a racist for defending Trump.
Did you just assume Norway is rich and prosper because it is mostly inhabited by whites and that African countries are poor and corrupt because they are predominantly black ?
And you call Trump a racist ? Wow. Project much ?
Also, he didn't call Haiti, Honduras or El Salvador shitholes. Fake News CNN clarified what their source said, after again it seems, pushing out Fake News :
https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/951839755884531712
Also, Hal_Porter, I just want to say I got the sarcasm in your post, since people replying to you missed it.
The right own virtually all forms of government in this country. And don't kid yourself, Google is a mega corp. They're not terrible left wing themselves. Not being homophobic does not not make you left wing.
And the media has a strong right wing bias on economic issues. There was never any serious discussion about the wars and they colluded with the Government to avoid showing soldier's caskets coming home. They worked hard to sell the Walstreet bail out and they're working hard to sell Republican tax cuts for the wealthy while ignoring Paul Ryan going around talking about entitlement reform (read: ending SS & Medicare for anyone under 55). The Media is hard right on the economy, and we shouldn't be surprised. Look who owns them.
Reality denial is a strange thing to witness.
You're saying the media was complicit in working for the OBAMA administration for years and then you pretend that they are "selling the tax cuts" when they have been constantly misrepresenting them as precisely "tax cuts for the rich" when they are in fact tax cuts for everyone. The poor being ALSO recipients of them.
If anything, you're just further proving the media's liberal and left wing bias here. They were willing to work with the Obama administration, to hide any and all moral and ethical wrongs from a Democrat presidency, while attempting to sabotage a Republican one. That's clear left wing bias.
You're either blind to your own biases or you're being malicious in trying to hide your side's biases. We have eyes. We can see. Also : Big corporations are major actors, moreso than actual governements. Who do you think really bank rolls DC and policy ? Big pockets with big lobby groups.
The right have controlled America since Clinton took office by moving the Democratic party right to forge the alliance that won him the election. They own the State legislatures, the House, Senate and Presidency. Even Obama was pretty right of center. I think you're mistaking "Seeing a lot of left wing social issues on TV and in movies" with real political power.
Yet the Left overwhelmingly controls Hollywood, TV production, News Media, online Social Media and Academia.
There's a lot of casual sexual harassment that turns women off. What we men call 'locker room talk'.
Maybe you've never worked with women. Their "locker room talk" can be worse than men's. Especially women who work in IT, and thus share more character and personality traits with your typical "Brogrammer" than an HR employee.
The basic mistake he makes repeatedly is to assume that the variations the papers discuss have vastly more effect and influence than they actually do.
He actually states that the variations he discusses don't have a major effect, that the effect just causes that attaining the holy grail of a 50/50 split to not be quite possible to attain.
He also offers way to modify the work place so that those effects can be further diminished and thus promotes pro-women measures to put in place so that Google can get closer to said 50/50 split. AKA : He was FOR diversity. He just thought Google was going about it the wrong way.
And yet here you are, screeching at him.
Except it did nothing of the sort. What he ATTEMPTED to do was say, if females and males are biologically different, what we can do to improve the workplace environment for females? He may have been ham-fisted about it but that was the obvious intent. It was a paper focused on perceived environmental issues that he thought worked against women, and how he thought might be corrected... a great place to start a discussion on where he was right and wrong, not such a great place to start a series of violent threats followed by immediate termination.
It's almost as if his actual memo is the exact opposite of what the media says it is. It's almost as if... his memo is pro-women and pro-diversity. But you know, that would be crazy... reading the thing and understanding what it says....
Damore makes a pretty sophomoric error several times, conflating gender and sex
Oh, so then I guess what Google is attempting is not 50/50 split of SEX between males and females, but 50/50 split of Gender. Well that's easy, since Gender is a social construct and is fluid on a spectrum. Just say you have 50/50 and BOOM, diversity achieved.
Oh wait... doesn't that just support the Gender binary ? BIGOT ! BIGOT !
Maybe your education as a "evolutionary biologist" isn't as great as you think it is. I suggest you actually read the memo, rather than reading a Wired story about what a Journalist thinks of the memo he probably didn't even read.
The Verge is obvioulsy a non-credible source. Or does that just apply to stories editors don't want to publish (*ahem* twitter *ahem) ?
What a terrible article. Here Slashdot editors, a better one from a no-name site that actually gets the facts right :
https://www.lowyat.net/2018/152301/amd-begin-distributing-firmware-updates-patch-spectre-vulnerability/
Or just use the damn primary source :
http://www.amd.com/en/corporate/speculative-execution