No. This is just what happens when you put people with no engineering background in charge of tech companies.
You're kidding, right? Do you know anything about her background, other than she was Larry's girlfriend?
She has far, far more engineering and CS experience than the vast majority of Silicon Valley CEOs. Being an engineer is not necessarily a good quality for a CEO.
I look at it the way that Microsoft threw Apple a $150M bone (http://www.cnet.com/news/microsoft-to-invest-150-million-in-apple/) to stave off antitrust action.
That's not a bad analogy, especially considering that Yahoo brought Mayer to be the next Steve Jobs. She was product person at Google and an engineer, but unfortunately that's not necessarily the best sort of person to put at the top of a Fortune 500 company. Yahoo hoped she would introduce new products at the company that people would want, but CEO is maybe not the best position to do that.
I contend, we — the Western world — are allowing in too many immigrants at once. Which leads to us becoming more like them, instead of them assimilating among us.
Sitting Bull said something like that.
If he did, then he was right. And he got conquered.
This bullshit about being able to defend ourselves is just that - bullshit. In cases where some asshole starts shooting and you, doing your best John Wayne impersonation, return fire, you're only adding to the confusion when the police show up. This isn't just my opinion, ask anyone in the LEO community
That'd be great if the police could instantly materialize when there's a problem, but the reality is they swing by some time later to clean up after the fact and go after the guys who have finished what they started already.
He claimed to support Army of God, one of the few acknowledged Christian terrorist organizations in the United States. I wouldn't go so far as to say Robert Dear was an organization member, but he did say they were "heroes" for their killings of abortion doctors and abortion clinics.
But while the majority of Islamist terror, it's only *part*- the IRA didn't go shooting up Paris, as a great example.
I'd say the difference there is that while both of them were shooting up their enemies, the IRA considered the English their enemies, and ISIL considers anyone who is not in the caliphate to be their enemies.
Japan bombs Pearl Harbour, and the us ends up dropping the two most devastating bombs in human history.
You make it sound like nothing happened in between those two events, or that there were no other extenuating circumstances (like Japan's Axis affiliation or your conquering of Pacific territories).
I'm still looking for the proof that Clinton said that credit records were to be used for blackmail.
Sure, the spying scandal wasn't great, but it's hardly out of the ordinary -- allies spy on enemies. Allies also spy on allies, though you're supposed to pretend in public that you don't. The most actually-controversial part of this was that diplomats were enlisted in the spying instead of (or in addition to) intelligence agencies, a big diplomacy no-no.
Oh God. You probably tried to throw as much weird stuff in one title as possible, but I'm pretty sure I know a few people who match this.
We'll get Hilary because as much as Americans insist they like the truth and a hard edge and all that, they're little bitches and they can't handle Trump
Trump sure gives the hard edge, but he only provides the illusion of truth. He projects the aura of competence without actually having it, but he's really just a narcissist. I like the definition from a marketplace.org article (wasn't talking about Trump, but about jerk bosses in general):
Murray Barrick, head of the Center for Human Resource Management at Texas A&M, offers the example of a door-to-door salesman. “Door-to-door salespeople get rejected all the time, but a narcissistic door-to-door salesperson can handle that rejection much better. Because a narcissistic person would say ‘you’re not rejecting me because of me, you’re rejecting me because you’re dumb or something about the situation,’ so I’m able to go easily to the next door.”
The result, writ large? “In a logical or rational world if you wanted to illustrate the relationship between talent and success for leadership, you could do it with only one circle in a Venn diagram, as opposed with two circles that are hardly overlapping, barely touching one another. But that is the case – you have lots of people who succeed in their personal careers, but when they get fired they get hired quickly by another company as if they didn’t fail, and you have many people who have hidden talent, the potential to lead effectively but they are overlooked because they lack these toxic assets,” said Chamorro-Premuzic.
Your ability to reject reality only goes so far in the Oval Office.
Funny thing about first-term Presidents: they tend not to have any experience as President.
Obama had a JD from Harvard and nearly a dozen years as a state and US Senator under his belt prior to being elected President. I think calling that "inexperienced" is a bit of a stretch.
You forget that in 2008 the experience goalposts were moved so that only "executive" experience, like being mayor of a podunk town, is what counts. Senator, State Senator, etc.. didn't matter. That wasn't presidential experience.
Never mind that it's far, far more valid governmental experience than just being CEO of a publicly-traded company, yet somehow those questions of experience don't matter anymore. Now if you haven't been in elected office you're an 'outsider' bringing fresh ideas, not part of the establishment.
Replace them by coopting people who do not actively seek power over others to work as representatives of the people, rather than holding a popularity contest with entry tickets costing a few million dollars.
And where does the power come from for people who don't seek power to force others out of office? Because clearly the general public doesn't really have a problem with the "power seeker" type.
This is flamebait, and I'm not sure why it was modded as such. I think some folks just blindly believe that everyone in the world is enamored of Western-style, liberal democracy. That that is the sort of government they would be happiest with. They aren't. That was the blind thinking that got the "we'll be greeted as liberators" crowd into trouble.
Like it or not, Mubarak, Hussein, Ghaddafi, Assad were all very good at maintaining a strong government, and doing what you need to do to keep the people in those countries in line: harsh, brutal control. And strangely, that gave citizens more freedom (from our perspective) than the alternate: the Islamic theocracies and partisans that arise otherwise. They never had an Enlightenment, and they won't be happy with Western Democracy until they do.
Leaders in the Middle East have to follow Machiavelli, not Alexis de Tocqueville.
The server was set up so she can do all her dirty business deals outside the eyes of the federal watchdogd. A complete disregard of the law. She tried to hide her pay Bill to get favors criminal act. Not to mention the clintons history of anti women anti law pratices. Bill hangs out and visits known sex traficers . He went to the island but did not know what was going on . Please
Too incoherent to even respond to.
It's more innuendo that he doesn't have to prove, because lack of proof is proof of wrongdoing. Lack of evidence is only proof of coverup. You can't prove or disprove either way, so you can never lose.
Fortunately, our justice system doesn't (theoretically) operate that way.
You vote for the candidate you actually want. You never vote for the lesser of two evils. Why? Because I've seen enough elections to see that the same thing happens every time.
First, you will get the choice between a really horrible candidate, and a really really horrible candidate. Second, everyone will crusade to vote for the lesser of two evils, and they almost invariably say something along the lines of "yes, voting for your conscience is normally fine, but this is the most important election of our lifetime, and we can't afford to let win." Every election is somehow the most important, most defining moment of our lives. Every opposition leader is just "the worst person ever." And we fall for the rhetoric every time. Amazing how we don't learn, and amazing how well this works.
You know what not voting for your conscience gets you? It gets you trapped in a cycle of crappy choices that you can never get out of, because you consciously reward crappy candidates.
An most towers have a (long) pyramidal shape. Everyone nows that pyramids concentrate cosmic energies! They also attract mummies but that's another story.
I think only the enclosed ones do, because that gives the mummies someplace to hide. You don't see mummies with an open metal girder structure, but it still has problems with electricity and other energies being drawn in.
But really, living mummies occur when there are real dead bodies buried in a pyramid, and the cosmic energies are gathered and focused by the pyramids into the bodies to reanimate them. If you never put dead people in there in the first place, you won't have mummies. Geez, you idiots really need to learn your sciences.
Robert Goddard, one of the fathers of rocketry and author of A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes used to hear from people often in the 1910s and 1920s who believed that his rockets were traveling high enough to shatter the shield that God placed around the Earth. The dome of the stars.
After several weeks of complaints rolling in about impotence and dead pets, he invites the neighbors over to show them the crated, unpowered rig. Then he hams away in peace.
Well clearly then the problem isn't that there's power going through it. The metal structure itself acts as an antenna, so it's the tower, powered or unpowered, that is at fault there.
I'm just surprised your friend hasn't run into that objection yet.
Instead of simply looking down on and being mean to those people, wouldn't it be better to give them a "test for WiFi allergy", wherein wifi is randomly enabled or shut off and they have to indicate how they're feeling?
That would suck for the people who are actually trying to use the Wi-Fi.
They would then come up with some sort of bullshit explanation for why they failed the test. Like "Oh, the damage in the body takes awhile to build up and manifest itself. Wi-Fi is on, but she feels fine? She hasn't been exposed to it long enough to have a noticeable effect. Wi-Fi is off, but she is still feeling unwell? Of course, she hasn't had time to make a full recovery yet."
These are arguments and mindsets that do not have rationality behind them, so rational arguments trying to convince them are unlikely to work. People who believe in Wi-Fi sickness hold onto it, and that belief is more akin to a religious fervor. If you try to shoot holes in their arguments, they will repeatedly move the goalposts. Now that the child is dead, there's no way, no way at all to test her "electrical sensitivity," so the parents will always be able to hold onto that. There will be no convincing.
It's been well over a decade since Andrew Wakefield's study on Thimerosal and Autism was roundly debunked, and it was the only study to ever show any link to vaccines. Yet the vaccines == autism belief is alive and well. Expect ESD to not go away any time soon, even though it's easier to test and debunk.
Slashdot Mirror
No. This is just what happens when you put people with no engineering background in charge of tech companies.
You're kidding, right? Do you know anything about her background, other than she was Larry's girlfriend?
She has far, far more engineering and CS experience than the vast majority of Silicon Valley CEOs.
Being an engineer is not necessarily a good quality for a CEO.
I look at it the way that Microsoft threw Apple a $150M bone (http://www.cnet.com/news/microsoft-to-invest-150-million-in-apple/) to stave off antitrust action.
That's not a bad analogy, especially considering that Yahoo brought Mayer to be the next Steve Jobs. She was product person at Google and an engineer, but unfortunately that's not necessarily the best sort of person to put at the top of a Fortune 500 company. Yahoo hoped she would introduce new products at the company that people would want, but CEO is maybe not the best position to do that.
Sitting Bull said something like that.
If he did, then he was right. And he got conquered.
You're mistaking his signature file for something that he wrote to you.
This bullshit about being able to defend ourselves is just that - bullshit. In cases where some asshole starts shooting and you, doing your best John Wayne impersonation, return fire, you're only adding to the confusion when the police show up. This isn't just my opinion, ask anyone in the LEO community
That'd be great if the police could instantly materialize when there's a problem, but the reality is they swing by some time later to clean up after the fact and go after the guys who have finished what they started already.
and abort their abortions.
Once you have an abortion, isn't aborting it again just piling on?
He claimed to support Army of God, one of the few acknowledged Christian terrorist organizations in the United States. I wouldn't go so far as to say Robert Dear was an organization member, but he did say they were "heroes" for their killings of abortion doctors and abortion clinics.
And come on, he lived in a trailer: http://static01.nyt.com/images...
That's a far cry from "crazy homeless guy."
Oh, well, ok then, AC.
Michael Brown a future leader of America? Oh my God, we were FUCKED.
AKA "when I lose arguments I pretend it's because the opponent was just too stupid to understand my superior position".
That's the nature of the Narcissist, of which Trump is a prime example. "I didn't make a mistake, you were just too stupid to accept my argument."
But while the majority of Islamist terror, it's only *part*- the IRA didn't go shooting up Paris, as a great example.
I'd say the difference there is that while both of them were shooting up their enemies, the IRA considered the English their enemies, and ISIL considers anyone who is not in the caliphate to be their enemies.
Japan bombs Pearl Harbour, and the us ends up dropping the two most devastating bombs in human history.
You make it sound like nothing happened in between those two events, or that there were no other extenuating circumstances (like Japan's Axis affiliation or your conquering of Pacific territories).
I'm still looking for the proof that Clinton said that credit records were to be used for blackmail.
Sure, the spying scandal wasn't great, but it's hardly out of the ordinary -- allies spy on enemies. Allies also spy on allies, though you're supposed to pretend in public that you don't. The most actually-controversial part of this was that diplomats were enlisted in the spying instead of (or in addition to) intelligence agencies, a big diplomacy no-no.
transfurotherhelicopterkin on Tumblr
Oh God. You probably tried to throw as much weird stuff in one title as possible, but I'm pretty sure I know a few people who match this.
We'll get Hilary because as much as Americans insist they like the truth and a hard edge and all that, they're little bitches and they can't handle Trump
Trump sure gives the hard edge, but he only provides the illusion of truth. He projects the aura of competence without actually having it, but he's really just a narcissist. I like the definition from a marketplace.org article (wasn't talking about Trump, but about jerk bosses in general):
Your ability to reject reality only goes so far in the Oval Office.
Funny thing about first-term Presidents: they tend not to have any experience as President.
Obama had a JD from Harvard and nearly a dozen years as a state and US Senator under his belt prior to being elected President. I think calling that "inexperienced" is a bit of a stretch.
You forget that in 2008 the experience goalposts were moved so that only "executive" experience, like being mayor of a podunk town, is what counts. Senator, State Senator, etc.. didn't matter. That wasn't presidential experience.
Never mind that it's far, far more valid governmental experience than just being CEO of a publicly-traded company, yet somehow those questions of experience don't matter anymore. Now if you haven't been in elected office you're an 'outsider' bringing fresh ideas, not part of the establishment.
Replace them by coopting people who do not actively seek power over others to work as representatives of the people, rather than holding a popularity contest with entry tickets costing a few million dollars.
And where does the power come from for people who don't seek power to force others out of office? Because clearly the general public doesn't really have a problem with the "power seeker" type.
This is flamebait, and I'm not sure why it was modded as such. I think some folks just blindly believe that everyone in the world is enamored of Western-style, liberal democracy. That that is the sort of government they would be happiest with. They aren't. That was the blind thinking that got the "we'll be greeted as liberators" crowd into trouble.
Like it or not, Mubarak, Hussein, Ghaddafi, Assad were all very good at maintaining a strong government, and doing what you need to do to keep the people in those countries in line: harsh, brutal control. And strangely, that gave citizens more freedom (from our perspective) than the alternate: the Islamic theocracies and partisans that arise otherwise. They never had an Enlightenment, and they won't be happy with Western Democracy until they do.
Leaders in the Middle East have to follow Machiavelli, not Alexis de Tocqueville.
The Terrorists are Coming! The Terrorists are Coming! Quick! Throw them another Freedom!
That would probably be funnier if it matched the rhetoric.
The server was set up so she can do all her dirty business deals outside the eyes of the federal watchdogd. A complete disregard of the law. She tried to hide her pay Bill to get favors criminal act. Not to mention the clintons history of anti women anti law pratices. Bill hangs out and visits known sex traficers . He went to the island but did not know what was going on . Please
Too incoherent to even respond to.
It's more innuendo that he doesn't have to prove, because lack of proof is proof of wrongdoing. Lack of evidence is only proof of coverup. You can't prove or disprove either way, so you can never lose.
Fortunately, our justice system doesn't (theoretically) operate that way.
How do you vote now?
You vote for the candidate you actually want. You never vote for the lesser of two evils.
Why? Because I've seen enough elections to see that the same thing happens every time.
First, you will get the choice between a really horrible candidate, and a really really horrible candidate.
Second, everyone will crusade to vote for the lesser of two evils, and they almost invariably say something along the lines of "yes, voting for your conscience is normally fine, but this is the most important election of our lifetime, and we can't afford to let win." Every election is somehow the most important, most defining moment of our lives. Every opposition leader is just "the worst person ever." And we fall for the rhetoric every time. Amazing how we don't learn, and amazing how well this works.
You know what not voting for your conscience gets you? It gets you trapped in a cycle of crappy choices that you can never get out of, because you consciously reward crappy candidates.
You're giving the people who come up with this stuff too much credit. Careful logical analysis is not usually a strength.
Eh, I've been involved in enough of these arguments to see how good the opposition is at moving the goalposts if a claim is debunked.
An most towers have a (long) pyramidal shape. Everyone nows that pyramids concentrate cosmic energies!
They also attract mummies but that's another story.
I think only the enclosed ones do, because that gives the mummies someplace to hide. You don't see mummies with an open metal girder structure, but it still has problems with electricity and other energies being drawn in.
But really, living mummies occur when there are real dead bodies buried in a pyramid, and the cosmic energies are gathered and focused by the pyramids into the bodies to reanimate them. If you never put dead people in there in the first place, you won't have mummies.
Geez, you idiots really need to learn your sciences.
Robert Goddard, one of the fathers of rocketry and author of A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes used to hear from people often in the 1910s and 1920s who believed that his rockets were traveling high enough to shatter the shield that God placed around the Earth. The dome of the stars.
After several weeks of complaints rolling in about impotence and dead pets, he invites the neighbors over to show them the crated, unpowered rig. Then he hams away in peace.
Well clearly then the problem isn't that there's power going through it. The metal structure itself acts as an antenna, so it's the tower, powered or unpowered, that is at fault there.
I'm just surprised your friend hasn't run into that objection yet.
Instead of simply looking down on and being mean to those people, wouldn't it be better to give them a "test for WiFi allergy", wherein wifi is randomly enabled or shut off and they have to indicate how they're feeling?
That would suck for the people who are actually trying to use the Wi-Fi.
They would then come up with some sort of bullshit explanation for why they failed the test. Like "Oh, the damage in the body takes awhile to build up and manifest itself. Wi-Fi is on, but she feels fine? She hasn't been exposed to it long enough to have a noticeable effect. Wi-Fi is off, but she is still feeling unwell? Of course, she hasn't had time to make a full recovery yet."
These are arguments and mindsets that do not have rationality behind them, so rational arguments trying to convince them are unlikely to work. People who believe in Wi-Fi sickness hold onto it, and that belief is more akin to a religious fervor. If you try to shoot holes in their arguments, they will repeatedly move the goalposts. Now that the child is dead, there's no way, no way at all to test her "electrical sensitivity," so the parents will always be able to hold onto that. There will be no convincing.
It's been well over a decade since Andrew Wakefield's study on Thimerosal and Autism was roundly debunked, and it was the only study to ever show any link to vaccines. Yet the vaccines == autism belief is alive and well. Expect ESD to not go away any time soon, even though it's easier to test and debunk.