It's so amazing that we have two awful candidates in a position where just about anyone sane and of average intelligence would likely win over each of those candidates. But the primaries are usually geared up to elect the most partisan players with moderates being shut out. Party loyalty trumps loyalty to the citizens. But Trump defies all logic in shutting down all Republican contenders, Clinton for some inexplicable reason is the heir apparent and few others even bother running.
Get a decent candidate though and it's not inconceivable that California could go Republican or Texas could go Democrat, as almost all voters are going to be holding their noses when November comes around.
Partisans are never to be believed. These are like sports fans, rooting for their team and booing the other team, even when both teams spend all the time on the field doing the same actions.
I would never trust Julian. He's a huge narcissist. He damages wikileaks by his association and by taking 100% credit for anything wikileaks has ever done. He's the guy that said he didn't care if any diplomats or government employees were killed or endangered by the release of unvetted and uncurated diplomatic memos.
There were suicides during Dubya and Obama years by government workers, party staffers, what not. Thousands and thousands of people end up being indirectly attached to any presidency. With roughly 25 suicides per 100,000 people, of course there will be a lot of them that could be tied to Dubya or Obama. You could make a similar list, there will easily have been enough suicides of the relevant type of person. Except that this is the Clinton's schtick with the conspiracy theorists, so they go with different conspiracies with those presidents, so no one is making such a list.
But no one can ever make a conspiracy theorist change their minds. Not worth it to even try. The goal is to prevent more idiots from being sucked into their elaborate fantasy world. There's enough reality to criticize politicians about without making up shit.
True, but you can debunk the allegations that he was on his way to meet with the FBI over testimony against Clinton.
That's how conspiracy theories work. You take a tiny bit of fact, like a news story. Then you tie it to something else with little to no solid links, implying that the two events are related. Because the tiny bit of fact was the origin this causes conspiracy theorists to latch onto it. If the new story has a mysterious part to it, such as "why was this guy killed?" then it's easy to just make up something as present it as a possible solution to the puzzle, such as "Hillary must have done it, it's the sort of thing she's done before." Then mess up the facts, add some exaggeration, misdirect the reader, etc, as in "Top DNC Official Murdered" instead of "DNC staff member killed."
Then of course, it's "whatdoesitmean.com" which is full of the most outrageous and outlandish stories that almost no one could believe (and yet a few people still manage to believe that Obama wanted to nuke Charleston). Even if that web site says that the sky is blue, I'd still look out my window to make sure.
Wikipedia is a great source of information if you do or don't now about a subject. A small percentage of it is biased of course, but the vast majority is pretty solid. Of course no one ever goes to Wikipedia to learn the "facts" about Ruby Ridge, duh. The only people that thinks Snopes is discredited are conspiracy theorists.
What's wrong with attacking the messenger? Are we supposed to believe every moron that comes along just because the moron is a "messenger"? If a conspiracy theorist comes along and claims the moon landing was a hoax then you attack both the message and messenger.
Years to plan, but generally when you have no budget the planning is pointless. These are not like corporations where expenses are approved with a rubber stamp.
Another issue is that this "planning" often happens at the IT level, which over time has become more insular and disconnected from the larger organization they're supposed to be working with. So plans come down as directives or orders, "do as we say" rather than "let us help you".
It was never actually finished. It's very good but with rough brush strokes and it's been reworked as he changed his mind.
I also wonder if the method used to figure out the colors used may have cause them to come out much brighter than they were originally. It does seem brighter than many Degas pieces. Another reason for painting on the top being darker may be due to the use of varnish over the surface which can darken as it ages.
Can you point to examples of them actually being used to communicate useful ideas, other than just being ways to punctuate other test in strange ways? What about medium ideas, like "I'll meet you at the lawyer's office at 3:30"? Or complex ideas, like "the relative speed of the object combined with gravitational constant and the radius of the earth indicates it will miss the batter's box resulting in a 0.002 reduction his batting average, thus forfeiting the chance for inclusion All Stars game."
What is the communication capability of emoji in comparison with Lojban for example?
Well, I know what "eggplant+peach+thumbsup" means but no one's ever had difficulty communicating that concept even before we invented language.
Just have blank squares and then the users can draw whatever they like in those squares. Custom pictograms instead of some so-called "standards" organization constantly trying to update to the ever changing fashions. The other benefit is that it's faster to draw a detailed picture than to find the emjoi you want while scrolling through the millions that will soon be available.
Mhy other suggestions is about sending smells over the phone, but that's a topic for another thread.
Not everyone has a job, and there's no requirement to ever have had a job in order to vote. We still have a very large number of women who've always been "house wives" and never needed an ID (and they got their social security cards at a young age). They should be allowed to vote. We have homeless people, and they should be allowed to vote. We have runaways who have turned 18, they should be allowed to vote. I was at a university for too long, and I've have seen students who did not have any state issued ID on them who relied on their student ID to get checks cashed, and they should be allowed to vote.
Trump spends an very large amount of time pointing out how high his poll numbers are (except every candidate can do this by picking and choosing the polls to look at). This is most likely due to his psychological need to talk about himself, but I can definitely see him take this of proof of fraud, and then accuse mathematicians of fraud when they point out how statistics work.
If purely fair in all possible ways, it's still very likely The Donald will lose. But he'd take it as proof of fraud because he spends half of his campaign speeches declaring how high his poll numbers are.
Slashdot Mirror
It's so amazing that we have two awful candidates in a position where just about anyone sane and of average intelligence would likely win over each of those candidates. But the primaries are usually geared up to elect the most partisan players with moderates being shut out. Party loyalty trumps loyalty to the citizens. But Trump defies all logic in shutting down all Republican contenders, Clinton for some inexplicable reason is the heir apparent and few others even bother running.
Get a decent candidate though and it's not inconceivable that California could go Republican or Texas could go Democrat, as almost all voters are going to be holding their noses when November comes around.
Facts have an anti-Trump bias.
Knives are forbidden in prison. And yet...
Partisans are never to be believed. These are like sports fans, rooting for their team and booing the other team, even when both teams spend all the time on the field doing the same actions.
Not a moron for linking to the website and mentioning it, but for pointing to that website as evidence.
Well frankly, I'm a bit pissed.
I would never trust Julian. He's a huge narcissist. He damages wikileaks by his association and by taking 100% credit for anything wikileaks has ever done. He's the guy that said he didn't care if any diplomats or government employees were killed or endangered by the release of unvetted and uncurated diplomatic memos.
There were suicides during Dubya and Obama years by government workers, party staffers, what not. Thousands and thousands of people end up being indirectly attached to any presidency. With roughly 25 suicides per 100,000 people, of course there will be a lot of them that could be tied to Dubya or Obama. You could make a similar list, there will easily have been enough suicides of the relevant type of person. Except that this is the Clinton's schtick with the conspiracy theorists, so they go with different conspiracies with those presidents, so no one is making such a list.
But no one can ever make a conspiracy theorist change their minds. Not worth it to even try. The goal is to prevent more idiots from being sucked into their elaborate fantasy world. There's enough reality to criticize politicians about without making up shit.
True, but you can debunk the allegations that he was on his way to meet with the FBI over testimony against Clinton.
That's how conspiracy theories work. You take a tiny bit of fact, like a news story. Then you tie it to something else with little to no solid links, implying that the two events are related. Because the tiny bit of fact was the origin this causes conspiracy theorists to latch onto it. If the new story has a mysterious part to it, such as "why was this guy killed?" then it's easy to just make up something as present it as a possible solution to the puzzle, such as "Hillary must have done it, it's the sort of thing she's done before." Then mess up the facts, add some exaggeration, misdirect the reader, etc, as in "Top DNC Official Murdered" instead of "DNC staff member killed."
Then of course, it's "whatdoesitmean.com" which is full of the most outrageous and outlandish stories that almost no one could believe (and yet a few people still manage to believe that Obama wanted to nuke Charleston). Even if that web site says that the sky is blue, I'd still look out my window to make sure.
Wikipedia is a great source of information if you do or don't now about a subject. A small percentage of it is biased of course, but the vast majority is pretty solid. Of course no one ever goes to Wikipedia to learn the "facts" about Ruby Ridge, duh. The only people that thinks Snopes is discredited are conspiracy theorists.
What's wrong with attacking the messenger? Are we supposed to believe every moron that comes along just because the moron is a "messenger"? If a conspiracy theorist comes along and claims the moon landing was a hoax then you attack both the message and messenger.
Years to plan, but generally when you have no budget the planning is pointless. These are not like corporations where expenses are approved with a rubber stamp.
Another issue is that this "planning" often happens at the IT level, which over time has become more insular and disconnected from the larger organization they're supposed to be working with. So plans come down as directives or orders, "do as we say" rather than "let us help you".
Makes for a good jingle though.
It was never actually finished. It's very good but with rough brush strokes and it's been reworked as he changed his mind.
I also wonder if the method used to figure out the colors used may have cause them to come out much brighter than they were originally. It does seem brighter than many Degas pieces. Another reason for painting on the top being darker may be due to the use of varnish over the surface which can darken as it ages.
And you insert it with a finglonger?
He may have used a water pistol, it's not clear.
He never used a gun though.
Can you point to examples of them actually being used to communicate useful ideas, other than just being ways to punctuate other test in strange ways? What about medium ideas, like "I'll meet you at the lawyer's office at 3:30"? Or complex ideas, like "the relative speed of the object combined with gravitational constant and the radius of the earth indicates it will miss the batter's box resulting in a 0.002 reduction his batting average, thus forfeiting the chance for inclusion All Stars game."
What is the communication capability of emoji in comparison with Lojban for example?
Well, I know what "eggplant+peach+thumbsup" means but no one's ever had difficulty communicating that concept even before we invented language.
Just have blank squares and then the users can draw whatever they like in those squares. Custom pictograms instead of some so-called "standards" organization constantly trying to update to the ever changing fashions. The other benefit is that it's faster to draw a detailed picture than to find the emjoi you want while scrolling through the millions that will soon be available.
Mhy other suggestions is about sending smells over the phone, but that's a topic for another thread.
It's not a confidence scheme, Officer, it's a self esteem building scheme!
Not everyone has a job, and there's no requirement to ever have had a job in order to vote. We still have a very large number of women who've always been "house wives" and never needed an ID (and they got their social security cards at a young age). They should be allowed to vote. We have homeless people, and they should be allowed to vote. We have runaways who have turned 18, they should be allowed to vote. I was at a university for too long, and I've have seen students who did not have any state issued ID on them who relied on their student ID to get checks cashed, and they should be allowed to vote.
Trump spends an very large amount of time pointing out how high his poll numbers are (except every candidate can do this by picking and choosing the polls to look at). This is most likely due to his psychological need to talk about himself, but I can definitely see him take this of proof of fraud, and then accuse mathematicians of fraud when they point out how statistics work.
If purely fair in all possible ways, it's still very likely The Donald will lose. But he'd take it as proof of fraud because he spends half of his campaign speeches declaring how high his poll numbers are.
We weren't speaking of them. Until this article showed up today.
They're both evil. If you think only one party is evil then you're too biased to be taken seriously.