Seriously. Go down to costco. Buy 10 boxes of full sized candies. It will cost you $200. Much less than a lot of crappy Halloween decorations. I guarantee you, the kids will remember. Often into adulthood. "There was this one house that gave out full sized bars!"
For bonus points, keep your receipts, and return any box you didn't end up opening.
When you're paying $70k a year, you have your choice of thousands of highly qualified, extremely productive, workers to choose from. This is not the sort of situation in which a lazy employee is likely to survive at a company. You get what you pay for - at both ends of the spectrum.
Oh, and as far as Communism is concerned,the old USSR was organized very much like a single monopolistic employer paying everyone minimum-wage. (Or paying them artificially large amounts of worthless currency.) The joke Russians then is the same that applies to minimum wage workers today: "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work."
Add on top of that, the modern day US teabagger's belief that you can slash taxes (to the megawealthy) with no loss in government services, and you end up with a classic example supporting the horseshoe theory (which states that extremists on both lunatic wings resemble each other far more than they do the center). In this case, both Communists and Teabaggers think you can violate basic economic principles, and get free goods and services from the government, simply by voting for it.
Magnetized Target Fusion, such as is being developed by the Canadian company General Fusion, solves all these problems.You surround a microscopic amount of tritium and deuterium in a sphere, filled with a molten bath of metal, and hit the outsides of it with computer-controlled hammers. Properly calibrated, the shockwaves concentrate in the center to briefly allow fusion conditions to occur. All the neutron energy is absorbed by the molten metal, causing absolutely no damage to the machine. So it can actually operate indefinitely.
While hundreds of billions of Euros are wasted on approaches that cannot possibly work, this little private company is plugging along, starting to scale up their first practical demonstration system.
The key here is "somewhat". I specifically recall an article about a guy using an electron microscope to retrieve information like this. It would be extremely hard to do for average people though, and Apple is well within its rights to tell the Judge that if he wants this information, he can pony up the several million dollars it would take to extract the key.
Or talk to the NSA, if it were a national security matter.
I think OP may be used to renting, where these things are taken care of for you. Buf just FYI, that's hardly unique. Having ants sounds a lot like like my house.
As a rule of thumb, the colder electronic components are, the cleaner their signals are, the faster they can run, etc. All the fastest overclocking gets done via subzero temperatures (though this is dangerous as condensation of water from the atmosphere can cause catastrophic short-circuits).
Well, yes. It's affordability too, but try to imagine how soured on space the general public would get to see people slowly dying in an under-resourced "base" on Mars.
If you want to make Mars at all realistic, you need to start by building a set of space and mars-dust hardened machinery capable of doing remote controlled construction. What we send would need to have the ability to tunnel, create cement from Martian soils, smelt, and construct buildings. All to create an environment that might be capable of sustaining life. This is because keeping astronauts alive is orders of magnitude harder than anything else we might conceivably do.
Technologically, we're no where near there yet. Counter-intuitively, the hardest step is the first one: getting out of our own gravity well. The minimal amount of material that we would have to get into orbit to be able to construct a settlement is considerably larger than the International Space station, which is, I remind everyone, the most expensive human construct - at $100 billion dollars. The next most difficult stage would be landing on Mars with precision, not breaking anything.
Your historical perspective is admirable, but not apropos. In WW2, planes really only had bullets to shoot at each other. Large SAMs today can take any plane out of a fight. The A10 armor is really only useful against stuff that is handheld, and even then it's by no means perfect.
Seriously. Anonymity is a legal fiction and an illusion, and almost nothing you say anyone gives a damn about anyway. I mean, my God, seriously, what do you think is going to happen? Being embarrassed because you hold some sort of unpopular opinion? Currently in the U.S., the big news is that Carly "HP rose 6% when I was fired" Fironina, is considered to have "won" the Republican debate over Trump the Clown, because she brazenly lied multiple times about Planned Parenthood! And you think you're going to be affected by some pro- or anti- Gamergate opinion?!?
The problem, ultimately, is that people really don't know who is wrong or right - so as a shortcut, they look to see if someone "caught" acts as if whatever it is they've been "caught" doing is embarrassing. This is why Trump is leading right now. No matter how wrong he is, or stupid, he never acts like it's important. So instead of clutching your pearls over some opinion you have, trying to "erase" someone DOXing you, when you really should be posting the entire DOX, saying "See what assholes these people are, trying to DOX me instead of actually engaging in a contest if ideas? That's because they're wrong and they know it. They can't fight my ideas, so they attack me. I guarantee that you will get an outpouring of support for whatever you believe in.
TL/DR: I don't censor my opinions. I call 'em as I see 'em. Under my own "brand", as you will. And I guarantee you, I'll never be embarrassed being myself. You shouldn't either.
"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."
- Anne Coulter
Please consider that just for a minute. Imagine if some commentator said "My only regret with Osama bin Laden is he didn't order the planes to fly into the Wall Street Journal." Would they then be welcome on news programs, asked their opinion, sell hundreds of thousands of books, and basically be a spokesperson for ideologically "pure" members of the Democratic party, instead of being rightfully shunned?
You need to open your eyes a little. One of the reason why blacks don't clutch their pearls quite so much over the relatively microscopic handful of terrorist deaths in the U.S., is because they've suffered terrorism for a century: the KKK burning crosses on their front yards, lynchings, and racist police on a hair-trigger, murdering completely innocent people and planting evidence (and getting off scott free, even when the evidence comes to light). But see, terrorism don't matter when it's just black lives being lost - at least not for the millions that Coulter, Rush, and many other mainstream Republicans. They don't even want to call it terrorism. White terrorists are all just "criminally insane", not like real terrorists - you know "them", "those people".
Either you've got to support a strong court system and the threat of force to back it up, or you've got to live by caveat emptor and not only let people simply deal with the consequences of fraud, but also make all debt the responsibility of the lender and not the borrower. Then you don't need a court system, and you can just work by might makes right. The only part which changes is not needing a court system.
There's another option, which is where a legislature sets some standards and a regulatory agency to ensure that the uninformed general public is not subject to too much danger and/or fraud before things get too bad. For example, ensuring that actual scientifically verified medicine is used to treat illness rather than snake oil. That way, there aren't quite as many lawsuits about whether or not someone would or would not have died with or without the non-treatment (in proceedings in which it is not at all guaranteed that justice will actually be served).
Of course grifters and con artists running businesses that depend on this kind of fraud, might band together and appeal to religious bigots (who are trying to shove their version of God down everyone's throats), along with war mongers and racists, to form a political party to call such oversight of their actions "government interference" and "bureaucracy". Because, as you know, accidents with customers and/or employees never happen.
Openness means freedom to speak your mind, to share things that would otherwise be not shared, and to know things you don't specifically need to know.. This includes sharing information that is otherwise confidential, at least to people outside the company. But to do that, you need to be assured that people won't spread information with which they've been entrusted to people outside the circle of trust. It's not just social, either. Sometimes sharing things outside a company has financial or legal consequences to the company itself. So if he has someone who is giving confidential business strategy away to potential rivals, then he won't be able to share things he otherwise would.
specifically resistant to insect and disease strains that have already adapted to the resistant strain crops such as triticale (a hybrid of wheat and rye)
If they are, they're not blocking everything, because all crops are being constantly bred for disease resistance
as synthetic strains, are patented, hence with marker genes can be traced into the wild and used to shut down farmers who refuse to buy Monsanto strains by litigating them to death when those marked strains are found sprouting in their hedgerows.
There has never been a lawsuit for accidental wind sprouting. The closest case was Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser, in which Schmeiser bred roundup-ready seed, pretending to have had it been part of a wind-blow, but actually having purchased the seed before, and simply bred a new crop without paying for it:
Regarding his 1998 crop, Schmeiser did not put forward any defence of accidental contamination. The evidence showed that the level of Roundup Ready canola in Mr. Schmeiser's 1998 fields was 95-98% (See paragraph 53 of the trial ruling[4]). Evidence was presented indicating that such a level of purity could not occur by accidental means. On the basis of this the court found that Schmeiser had either known "or ought to have known" that he had planted Roundup Ready canola in 1998.
Lots of luddites on slashdot right now. I thought I ought to correct the record.
We're talking a cool technology here (though not quite as new as many think - I remember cameras being put on model rockets in the 1970s), and all slashdot talks about is how to treat them like skeets. "Hurr durr. I'mma gon' shoot it down with my slingshot. No Clem! Use a waterhose, or maybe toss a polecat at it or somethin'."
I worked on a contract in which an auto manufacturer was trying to use that abomination, and we could never even get the source to compile. Literally a year later, it came out that Samsung was trying to use both git/gerrit and Perforce as version control for it, mixed between different teams:
Time went by and Bad Things started to appear. Git/gerrit was official in some teams, but Perforce was official in other teams (even working on the same component). Some patches went there, some there. The management finally decided Perforce code should be used as THE source for building OS images. Again, they only forgot to tell everyone else to stop using git
Both repositories diverged to the point of being almost incompatible. Issues in Perforce code were given to git teams, which resulted in a litany of WTFs. After all, there’s not many things more fun than being tasked with fixing a bug in code that you physically don’t have. ASAP. Meetings took place, arrangements were made to rectify the situation. Months later, the situation is still the same.
One implication was code review process. With gerrit in place, that was a non-issue. But the Korean teams didn’t (and still don’t) understand the notion of code review and pushed everything directly to the repo. The quality of some patches was so bad that enforcing code review became top priority for non-Korean teams. Finally, a solution was developed – MS Word based code review. Each changeset needs to be attached to a bug in the tracker. Each bug can have a Word document attached with a request for code review. That document is a three pages long form with information so useless, nobody even wants to read it. At the end there’s a place for copy-pasting a diff for each file changed, with the explanation why. Reviewers are supposed to fill a Word form with details about which line they comment on and what their issue with it is.
Submitting a patch, clicking through the awful issue tracker and filling the form takes literal hours. All this because using git with gerrit was too tough. Fortunately, the review form has fields listing times taken by various steps in fixing a bug. Maybe someday someone will read how long pushing the code actually takes.
No, they won’t.
Luckily, that contract was short term. But because I put it on my resume, I got a few head-hunters inquiring about it. Quickly though, interest waned. Not hard to see why...
I'm pretty sure that "Lawnchair" isn't a typical appellation given by right-wingers to President Obama. ( They typically go for things like "Obummer", "Binladen-lover", "Tyrant", "Dictator, and "Weak" - not that these make much sense.) It sounds like damn_registrars is mad that Obama hasn't done more, which equally senseless, given the dysfunction of Congress. But I count him as absolutely very left wing.
Yes, they could potentially do this legally. Prosecutors quite often twist the law to try to make it cover things it does not. However, Twitter isn't some nearly unknown white-hat security hacker who just happens to know a few things, and can be quietly persecuted. Twitter is a service used by billions of people. And I promise you, "The U.S. government is trying to shut down Twitter because it refuses to turn over foreign data it isn't legally entitled to." is not a news story that will ever see the light of day - because that would move the uncaring populace (and hence, politicians) in ways that many other things would not.
Mark Twain has a good line about this effect: "Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel".
The real question, SuperKendall, is when your hilariously wrong prediction utterly fails to come true, or even better, is an amazingly good deal that helps settle the regiou will you admit that you were wrong and start voting for the Democrats who backed it? Or will you, in the face of the never-ending drumbeat of psychotic far-right ineptitude in the Middle East ("they will greet us as liberators"), just conveniently pretend it never happened, and go on to the next completely inane prediction, backed by a nearly clinically-paranoid world view?
Let me go out on a limb here, and predict that it will be the latter.
Huh? You can just forward classified material to non-secure servers outside of a classified network? I think not!
As Secretary of State she would have access to incredibly sensitive material.
A couple of things, that might set your mind at ease. According to reports:
Ms. Clinton did not "forward" material to her private server. People were just emailing to her at her personal email address at "clintonemail.com".
Those emails she received considered to be official business, her staff forwarded to the State Department for their IT operators to save.
She also produced a huge amount of documents to various Congressional Committees.
None of these emails were classified. They appear to have been sent to her unencrypted
Sensitive material never went through this email system.
Apparently the State Department isn't very good at IT. They only recently were able to figure out how to even just save Secretary Kerry's email; his top staff using the @state.gov address still do not have their email records saved. So by using @clintonemail.com, HRC likely was preserving more email than if she'd saved used an @state.gov address.
Personal emails (and presumably spam) was not sent on. But no law covers that anyway.
This is much akin to the media breathlessly discovering that Hillary Clinton also has a private phone number, which maybe official calls were received. Except that because this is "email", it's totally different somehow. (By which I mean, as she's the presumptive Democratic nominee, the nutcases and conspiracy loons are going to do their nutcase conspiracy theorizing, which Blogs and FOX will pick up - because it sells eyeballs.)
In short, nothing in science proves the earth is older than 10,000 year old. In only proves that it could be older and doesn't need the creation explanation. Or in other words, you cannot disprove that a supernatural being supernaturally created things with the appearance of a natural beginning simply for our understanding.
You fundamentally fail to understand science, "sumdumass". No hypothesis is ever proven right in science. It simply offers testable hypotheses that would falsify it, and then when such discoveries are made, survives the new information unchanged. When a hypothesis survives enough of these attempts, scientists will call it a theory, and start to believe it to be true.
The problem with the "God planted the dinosaur bones (and the light of the universe, and stratification in sediments, radioactive dating, and the tens of thousands of interlocking details that show us how long the earth has been around, etc., etc., etc.)" idea, is that it offers no falsifiable predictions. There is literally no fact that an adherent to one of these belief systems would accept as proof it is incorrect. All of these ideas stem from magical thinking, and so, in the immortal words of Wolfgang Pauli, they're not only not right, they're "not even wrong".
That is not science. And it is absurd to pretend as such.
(Alas, your attitude is quite common among the religious right and a tiny sprinkling of the kook left, which is a big reason why politics is doing such a disservice to science.)
Probably not. His head is too far up Mohammed's ass to see the real world.
According to the Wikipedia article on the subject, as of "15 January 2015, it was reported that over 16,000 airstrikes had been carried out by the Coalition". Please note that this coalition consists of both a backbone of U.S. military power, and surrounding Islam-majority states like Jordan, which the Obama administration has coaxed into the war.
Let me repeat that, in case you appear to misread it. 16,000 airstrikes
I'm not exactly sure how anyone can say we're not "stopping them". Indeed, about the only thing they can really do at this point is make snuff videos of idiots who wander into the region.
But go back to watching your wall-to-wall CPAC coverage and FOX lies. That seems to be what you prefer. No actual facts seem likely to persuade you.
from gameability (in short, SPAM) to politics. Rather than punish above-board or non-predatory websites, it will punish both subversive and innovative thought that runs well ahead of social consensus. Sure, it will also eliminate willful misinformation, but it turns Google into an inherently conservative, rather than socially innovative, force.
Can't say I think it's better. Probably not any worse, but certainly not panacea.
You seem to be confusing "opinion" with "fact". Presumably "subversive" and "innovative" thought is simply giving a different take on established fact, as opposed to actually pulling "facts" out of one's ass - which is the way many websites work these days.
I can't help but think this is a good thing, because my opinion is the same as Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
Google sole arbiter of truth. Just what I need an MIC/advertisement company will define what is and isnt truth for me.
I trust google over random Anonymous Cowards pulling "facts" out of their ass, especially in political discussions. But, you can always choose to not use google. There are other search engines, you know.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously. Go down to costco. Buy 10 boxes of full sized candies. It will cost you $200. Much less than a lot of crappy Halloween decorations. I guarantee you, the kids will remember. Often into adulthood. "There was this one house that gave out full sized bars!"
For bonus points, keep your receipts, and return any box you didn't end up opening.
I was responding to the parent of what I responded to.
When you're paying $70k a year, you have your choice of thousands of highly qualified, extremely productive, workers to choose from. This is not the sort of situation in which a lazy employee is likely to survive at a company. You get what you pay for - at both ends of the spectrum.
Oh, and as far as Communism is concerned,the old USSR was organized very much like a single monopolistic employer paying everyone minimum-wage. (Or paying them artificially large amounts of worthless currency.) The joke Russians then is the same that applies to minimum wage workers today: "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work."
Add on top of that, the modern day US teabagger's belief that you can slash taxes (to the megawealthy) with no loss in government services, and you end up with a classic example supporting the horseshoe theory (which states that extremists on both lunatic wings resemble each other far more than they do the center). In this case, both Communists and Teabaggers think you can violate basic economic principles, and get free goods and services from the government, simply by voting for it.
Magnetized Target Fusion, such as is being developed by the Canadian company General Fusion, solves all these problems.You surround a microscopic amount of tritium and deuterium in a sphere, filled with a molten bath of metal, and hit the outsides of it with computer-controlled hammers. Properly calibrated, the shockwaves concentrate in the center to briefly allow fusion conditions to occur. All the neutron energy is absorbed by the molten metal, causing absolutely no damage to the machine. So it can actually operate indefinitely.
While hundreds of billions of Euros are wasted on approaches that cannot possibly work, this little private company is plugging along, starting to scale up their first practical demonstration system.
The key here is "somewhat". I specifically recall an article about a guy using an electron microscope to retrieve information like this. It would be extremely hard to do for average people though, and Apple is well within its rights to tell the Judge that if he wants this information, he can pony up the several million dollars it would take to extract the key.
Or talk to the NSA, if it were a national security matter.
I think OP may be used to renting, where these things are taken care of for you. Buf just FYI, that's hardly unique. Having ants sounds a lot like like my house.
As a rule of thumb, the colder electronic components are, the cleaner their signals are, the faster they can run, etc. All the fastest overclocking gets done via subzero temperatures (though this is dangerous as condensation of water from the atmosphere can cause catastrophic short-circuits).
Well, yes. It's affordability too, but try to imagine how soured on space the general public would get to see people slowly dying in an under-resourced "base" on Mars.
If you want to make Mars at all realistic, you need to start by building a set of space and mars-dust hardened machinery capable of doing remote controlled construction. What we send would need to have the ability to tunnel, create cement from Martian soils, smelt, and construct buildings. All to create an environment that might be capable of sustaining life. This is because keeping astronauts alive is orders of magnitude harder than anything else we might conceivably do.
Technologically, we're no where near there yet. Counter-intuitively, the hardest step is the first one: getting out of our own gravity well. The minimal amount of material that we would have to get into orbit to be able to construct a settlement is considerably larger than the International Space station, which is, I remind everyone, the most expensive human construct - at $100 billion dollars. The next most difficult stage would be landing on Mars with precision, not breaking anything.
Your historical perspective is admirable, but not apropos. In WW2, planes really only had bullets to shoot at each other. Large SAMs today can take any plane out of a fight. The A10 armor is really only useful against stuff that is handheld, and even then it's by no means perfect.
Seriously. Anonymity is a legal fiction and an illusion, and almost nothing you say anyone gives a damn about anyway. I mean, my God, seriously, what do you think is going to happen? Being embarrassed because you hold some sort of unpopular opinion? Currently in the U.S., the big news is that Carly "HP rose 6% when I was fired" Fironina, is considered to have "won" the Republican debate over Trump the Clown, because she brazenly lied multiple times about Planned Parenthood! And you think you're going to be affected by some pro- or anti- Gamergate opinion?!?
The problem, ultimately, is that people really don't know who is wrong or right - so as a shortcut, they look to see if someone "caught" acts as if whatever it is they've been "caught" doing is embarrassing. This is why Trump is leading right now. No matter how wrong he is, or stupid, he never acts like it's important. So instead of clutching your pearls over some opinion you have, trying to "erase" someone DOXing you, when you really should be posting the entire DOX, saying "See what assholes these people are, trying to DOX me instead of actually engaging in a contest if ideas? That's because they're wrong and they know it. They can't fight my ideas, so they attack me. I guarantee that you will get an outpouring of support for whatever you believe in.
TL/DR: I don't censor my opinions. I call 'em as I see 'em. Under my own "brand", as you will. And I guarantee you, I'll never be embarrassed being myself. You shouldn't either.
"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."
- Anne Coulter
Please consider that just for a minute. Imagine if some commentator said "My only regret with Osama bin Laden is he didn't order the planes to fly into the Wall Street Journal." Would they then be welcome on news programs, asked their opinion, sell hundreds of thousands of books, and basically be a spokesperson for ideologically "pure" members of the Democratic party, instead of being rightfully shunned?
You need to open your eyes a little. One of the reason why blacks don't clutch their pearls quite so much over the relatively microscopic handful of terrorist deaths in the U.S., is because they've suffered terrorism for a century: the KKK burning crosses on their front yards, lynchings, and racist police on a hair-trigger, murdering completely innocent people and planting evidence (and getting off scott free, even when the evidence comes to light). But see, terrorism don't matter when it's just black lives being lost - at least not for the millions that Coulter, Rush, and many other mainstream Republicans. They don't even want to call it terrorism. White terrorists are all just "criminally insane", not like real terrorists - you know "them", "those people".
Either you've got to support a strong court system and the threat of force to back it up, or you've got to live by caveat emptor and not only let people simply deal with the consequences of fraud, but also make all debt the responsibility of the lender and not the borrower. Then you don't need a court system, and you can just work by might makes right. The only part which changes is not needing a court system.
There's another option, which is where a legislature sets some standards and a regulatory agency to ensure that the uninformed general public is not subject to too much danger and/or fraud before things get too bad. For example, ensuring that actual scientifically verified medicine is used to treat illness rather than snake oil. That way, there aren't quite as many lawsuits about whether or not someone would or would not have died with or without the non-treatment (in proceedings in which it is not at all guaranteed that justice will actually be served).
Of course grifters and con artists running businesses that depend on this kind of fraud, might band together and appeal to religious bigots (who are trying to shove their version of God down everyone's throats), along with war mongers and racists, to form a political party to call such oversight of their actions "government interference" and "bureaucracy". Because, as you know, accidents with customers and/or employees never happen.
Openness means freedom to speak your mind, to share things that would otherwise be not shared, and to know things you don't specifically need to know.. This includes sharing information that is otherwise confidential, at least to people outside the company. But to do that, you need to be assured that people won't spread information with which they've been entrusted to people outside the circle of trust. It's not just social, either. Sometimes sharing things outside a company has financial or legal consequences to the company itself. So if he has someone who is giving confidential business strategy away to potential rivals, then he won't be able to share things he otherwise would.
Zuckerberg isn't being unreasonable here.
they're specifically talking about the Monsanto crops which are a: terminal (they do not produce viable seed)
If they are, they're not blocking anything, as Monsanto has never sold terminator seeds.
specifically resistant to insect and disease strains that have already adapted to the resistant strain crops such as triticale (a hybrid of wheat and rye)
If they are, they're not blocking everything, because all crops are being constantly bred for disease resistance
as synthetic strains, are patented, hence with marker genes can be traced into the wild and used to shut down farmers who refuse to buy Monsanto strains by litigating them to death when those marked strains are found sprouting in their hedgerows.
There has never been a lawsuit for accidental wind sprouting. The closest case was Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser, in which Schmeiser bred roundup-ready seed, pretending to have had it been part of a wind-blow, but actually having purchased the seed before, and simply bred a new crop without paying for it:
Lots of luddites on slashdot right now. I thought I ought to correct the record.
We're talking a cool technology here (though not quite as new as many think - I remember cameras being put on model rockets in the 1970s), and all slashdot talks about is how to treat them like skeets. "Hurr durr. I'mma gon' shoot it down with my slingshot. No Clem! Use a waterhose, or maybe toss a polecat at it or somethin'."
When did Slashdot become a luddite website?
To be clear, the "work" was a demo for the car company. But because the Tizen source didn't compile, that demo had to be more rigged than normal.
I worked on a contract in which an auto manufacturer was trying to use that abomination, and we could never even get the source to compile. Literally a year later, it came out that Samsung was trying to use both git/gerrit and Perforce as version control for it, mixed between different teams:
Luckily, that contract was short term. But because I put it on my resume, I got a few head-hunters inquiring about it. Quickly though, interest waned. Not hard to see why...
I'm pretty sure that "Lawnchair" isn't a typical appellation given by right-wingers to President Obama. ( They typically go for things like "Obummer", "Binladen-lover", "Tyrant", "Dictator, and "Weak" - not that these make much sense.) It sounds like damn_registrars is mad that Obama hasn't done more, which equally senseless, given the dysfunction of Congress. But I count him as absolutely very left wing.
Yes, they could potentially do this legally. Prosecutors quite often twist the law to try to make it cover things it does not. However, Twitter isn't some nearly unknown white-hat security hacker who just happens to know a few things, and can be quietly persecuted. Twitter is a service used by billions of people. And I promise you, "The U.S. government is trying to shut down Twitter because it refuses to turn over foreign data it isn't legally entitled to." is not a news story that will ever see the light of day - because that would move the uncaring populace (and hence, politicians) in ways that many other things would not.
Mark Twain has a good line about this effect: "Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel".
The real question, SuperKendall, is when your hilariously wrong prediction utterly fails to come true, or even better, is an amazingly good deal that helps settle the regiou will you admit that you were wrong and start voting for the Democrats who backed it? Or will you, in the face of the never-ending drumbeat of psychotic far-right ineptitude in the Middle East ("they will greet us as liberators"), just conveniently pretend it never happened, and go on to the next completely inane prediction, backed by a nearly clinically-paranoid world view?
Let me go out on a limb here, and predict that it will be the latter.
Huh? You can just forward classified material to non-secure servers outside of a classified network? I think not!
As Secretary of State she would have access to incredibly sensitive material.
A couple of things, that might set your mind at ease. According to reports:
This is much akin to the media breathlessly discovering that Hillary Clinton also has a private phone number, which maybe official calls were received. Except that because this is "email", it's totally different somehow. (By which I mean, as she's the presumptive Democratic nominee, the nutcases and conspiracy loons are going to do their nutcase conspiracy theorizing, which Blogs and FOX will pick up - because it sells eyeballs.)
In short, nothing in science proves the earth is older than 10,000 year old. In only proves that it could be older and doesn't need the creation explanation. Or in other words, you cannot disprove that a supernatural being supernaturally created things with the appearance of a natural beginning simply for our understanding.
You fundamentally fail to understand science, "sumdumass". No hypothesis is ever proven right in science. It simply offers testable hypotheses that would falsify it, and then when such discoveries are made, survives the new information unchanged. When a hypothesis survives enough of these attempts, scientists will call it a theory, and start to believe it to be true.
The problem with the "God planted the dinosaur bones (and the light of the universe, and stratification in sediments, radioactive dating, and the tens of thousands of interlocking details that show us how long the earth has been around, etc., etc., etc.)" idea, is that it offers no falsifiable predictions. There is literally no fact that an adherent to one of these belief systems would accept as proof it is incorrect. All of these ideas stem from magical thinking, and so, in the immortal words of Wolfgang Pauli, they're not only not right, they're "not even wrong".
That is not science. And it is absurd to pretend as such.
(Alas, your attitude is quite common among the religious right and a tiny sprinkling of the kook left, which is a big reason why politics is doing such a disservice to science.)
Probably not. His head is too far up Mohammed's ass to see the real world.
According to the Wikipedia article on the subject, as of "15 January 2015, it was reported that over 16,000 airstrikes had been carried out by the Coalition". Please note that this coalition consists of both a backbone of U.S. military power, and surrounding Islam-majority states like Jordan, which the Obama administration has coaxed into the war.
Let me repeat that, in case you appear to misread it. 16,000 airstrikes
I'm not exactly sure how anyone can say we're not "stopping them". Indeed, about the only thing they can really do at this point is make snuff videos of idiots who wander into the region.
But go back to watching your wall-to-wall CPAC coverage and FOX lies. That seems to be what you prefer. No actual facts seem likely to persuade you.
from gameability (in short, SPAM) to politics. Rather than punish above-board or non-predatory websites, it will punish both subversive and innovative thought that runs well ahead of social consensus. Sure, it will also eliminate willful misinformation, but it turns Google into an inherently conservative, rather than socially innovative, force.
Can't say I think it's better. Probably not any worse, but certainly not panacea.
You seem to be confusing "opinion" with "fact". Presumably "subversive" and "innovative" thought is simply giving a different take on established fact, as opposed to actually pulling "facts" out of one's ass - which is the way many websites work these days.
I can't help but think this is a good thing, because my opinion is the same as Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
Google sole arbiter of truth. Just what I need an MIC/advertisement company will define what is and isnt truth for me.
I trust google over random Anonymous Cowards pulling "facts" out of their ass, especially in political discussions. But, you can always choose to not use google. There are other search engines, you know.