If they can only reach yellow people (not orange ones) then who cares?
We've got 28,500 troops in South Korea. They're American-colored and I wouldn't call them yellow. Of course, if a nuke hits Seoul, 29k is in the noise.
...tell me keeping the illegals out won't save more money that the wall costs.
Here's a report from the Center for Immigration Studies that attempts an estimate at how much illegals cost vs. the cost of a wall. There are a million caveats on the data - there's a lot we don't know, but it's something. It concludes that further securing our border would pay for itself pretty handily. (They estimate that if it stopped 9-12% of illegal crossers, a $12-15B wall would be paid for in a decade.)
For the record, I think that spending $12-15B on border improvements is excessive.
Come on, you'd have to be crazy to think that it would only cost $21 billion.
The best proposal I've seen that includes building a new border structure is for a ~$5B, 831-mile long fence. It's based on a request from the Border Patrol - They specifically want a fence, not a wall. Walls inhibit vision. A 2000-mile long cement and rebar wall would be enormously expensive and almost nobody who has thought this through wants it. I predict some degree of reason to set in between now and groundbreaking. I hope I'm not being overly optimistic.
Now we can decide which programs to bring back with the $16B saved from not building a $21B wall! If we don't build the wall twice, we could bring back twice as much!
But the point is they claim they didn't have FULL access:
They did have full access - There was nothing being held back.
Deaf? You need captions. Blind? You need all the stuff written on the board spelled out. Both? Hoo boy.
So they didn't have access to content that didn't exist and the university didn't have funding to create it. That seems reasonable to me and mirroring it out somewhere seems like a fine workaround for the law.
Of course, when you are in a situation where you need more digits. (I faced moments like that...) you probably already have the tools to fetch an approximation with more digits...
That's what I was thinking. If you're in a situation where you care about the difference between 22/7, 3.14, and pi, you're probably using a tool that can help you with more digits than you need. To quote the OP:
If I want more decimal places, I can google it.
What were you doing that needed more than 3 digits? Orbits?
22/7 is a marginally better estimate than 3.14 (~.04% vs ~.05%), both at the "cost" of remembering 3 digits. Are you suggesting that it's easier to remember "." than "/"? Not sure where you're going with this.
I remember out to 3.14159, but that's wasted space and I'm not sure how those wasted digits snuck in there. Either 3-digit estimate is good enough for just about everything you're likely to run into.
They can prohibit Uber from using self driving technology all together.
That's what TFA makes it sound like: "Waymo... is formally asking a judge to block Uber from operating its autonomous vehicles..." No mention of a time frame or conditions to meet to get back on the road. If this is a permanent thing, this could spell doom for Uber's long-term success. Eventually, using human drivers just won't allow them to be competitive. Then again, how "long-term" do we expect Uber to be a thing?
As Uber continues to brush its teeth, Google scrambles to put the toothpaste back in the tube. I'm not sure a judge can order Uber to selectively forget the stolen designs. Is the idea a permanent block on Uber running self-driving cars? TFA's unclear.
Nothing misleading about the headline unless you're really easily confused - It does not say DJT was wiretapped. It doesn't even imply it. From the Snopes article that directly addresses the article in question:
...“only the most obtuse misreading” of the article would lead one to conclude that Donald Trump was under surveillance.
Did you even read that? It does not say that DJT was wiretapped. It doesn't remotely say that he was wiretapped by Obama. What was the point of that link? Just to show that NYT used "Wiretap" and "Trump" in the same headline?
"Slashdot asks: Password rules are bullshit" ? Betteridge be damned - This doesn't fit "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no." Phrasing the headline as a question in this case was entirely appropriate, since it was an invitation for input on a contested issue rather than a simple news announcement. "Jeff Atwood says password rules are bullshit" would have been just fine but would have set a different tone. Simply titling TFA "Password rules are bullshit" would be presenting opinion as fact.
If they're compliant now, it shouldn't be a problem. If you're suspicious, they just kick you back to the system they were using before. If they're not compliant now, this may be part of their accessibility solution.
Where I vehemently disagree with you is that they are not calling for America to be disbanded. When the majority of their demands require squashing the US Constitution and wealth redistribution (from the middle class to them of course) that _is_ disbanding America.
I think it depends on what you mean by "America" and what you mean by "disbanded." In the Civil War, one side wanted America disbanded. In that sense, not many of the protesters are calling for America to be disbanded. In the Civil War and in those protests, both sides loved America. You can find Americans that hate America, but they're the exception.
...it sounds like the app was putting fake people into cars and directing the driver elsewhere...
To further confuse the issue, here are a couple of articles on Uber "Ghost Drivers" that give us a definition that doesn't really work here. In those articles, "ghost drivers" are people that post gruesome pics on their profile to scare customers into canceling. That can't be right unless Uber has gotten weird.
You're probably right, although that's not very subtle. I assume the regulator would book a ride and then the ghost driver just wouldn't show or would cancel?
Your scenario describes a wiretap. It does not describe DJT being wiretapped. It doesn't remotely describe Obama wiretapping Trump.
Or is it just a matter of semantics?
Maybe, but when you're accusing a former president of a crime this serious and announcing a scandal bigger than Watergate, it's important to pick your words carefully. The people denying the wiretap know this and have mostly danced around their denials carefully.
What I said about the information becoming unclassified came directly from General Hayden. Despite being a former clearance holder, I just assumed he knew better than I did. There have certainly been issues where classified data have become public leading to "neither confirm nor deny" scenarios, but an outright announcement from our classifier-in-chief muddies the waters some. It's my understanding that he can declassify the information on his own. The issue is whether or not he did. The notion that this information is likely inaccurate just muddies the waters further.
As a semi-relevant aside, I was once in a meeting where the authors had to leave the room before we could discuss their paper. Their clearances were no longer valid so they were no longer allowed to discuss their own work.
Are you attempting to claim that there are no "libtard snowflakes" who hate America?
I don't think there are many who actually hate America. Whether they should be labelled "libtard snowflakes" I believe is a reflection on the sophistication of the person labeling them and an indication of whether or not they have anything worth-while to say. They're not calling for America to be disbanded. They're not leaving. The fact that they're staying here and protesting demonstrates that they'd like America to "improve," which to me indicates some devotion to the American ideal. If they truly hated America, they'd either leave or simply refuse to give a shit about the things they perceive as problems.
I'm not sure what inspired the GP AC rant, but he has you on one thing - You keep using the word "can" when I think you mean "should."
As president you shouldn't make unfounded claims against predecessors that alleges massively illegal acts, you shouldn't unleash a constant flow of stream of consciousness tweets every morning at 3am, or say whatever the hell you want...
DJT has demonstrated that he can do exactly those things. And there's very little legally to stop him. Maybe what you're trying to imply is that he can't do these things without consequences or that he can't do these things without betraying his office. That doesn't mean he can't do these things anyway.
It is actually funny seeing the same NYT "reporter" reporting "Donald Trump was Wiretapped" and "Donald Trump wasn't wiretapped".
Why does this NYT report saying "Donald Trump was Wiretapped" seem to exist only in your memory? The closest I've been able find from anywhere remotely reliable is "Some calls to/from Trump Tower may have been on a tapped line." Not remotely the same. I also find no "Donald Trump wasn't wiretapped" reports - Just reports that no evidence of wiretaps has been presented.
Slashdot Mirror
Modern war rarely has winners. It's not typical to come out ahead.
Note: if you have 400 times as high budget for the war as the enemy, and you spend $300 for every $1 you cost the enemy, you're still losing less.
The problem begins if you have 400 times as high budget, and gets worse when you spend $500 per $1 damage...
If they can only reach yellow people (not orange ones) then who cares?
We've got 28,500 troops in South Korea. They're American-colored and I wouldn't call them yellow. Of course, if a nuke hits Seoul, 29k is in the noise.
...tell me keeping the illegals out won't save more money that the wall costs.
Here's a report from the Center for Immigration Studies that attempts an estimate at how much illegals cost vs. the cost of a wall. There are a million caveats on the data - there's a lot we don't know, but it's something. It concludes that further securing our border would pay for itself pretty handily. (They estimate that if it stopped 9-12% of illegal crossers, a $12-15B wall would be paid for in a decade.)
For the record, I think that spending $12-15B on border improvements is excessive.
Come on, you'd have to be crazy to think that it would only cost $21 billion.
The best proposal I've seen that includes building a new border structure is for a ~$5B, 831-mile long fence. It's based on a request from the Border Patrol - They specifically want a fence, not a wall. Walls inhibit vision. A 2000-mile long cement and rebar wall would be enormously expensive and almost nobody who has thought this through wants it. I predict some degree of reason to set in between now and groundbreaking. I hope I'm not being overly optimistic.
Now we can decide which programs to bring back with the $16B saved from not building a $21B wall! If we don't build the wall twice, we could bring back twice as much!
But the point is they claim they didn't have FULL access:
They did have full access - There was nothing being held back.
Deaf? You need captions. Blind? You need all the stuff written on the board spelled out. Both? Hoo boy.
So they didn't have access to content that didn't exist and the university didn't have funding to create it. That seems reasonable to me and mirroring it out somewhere seems like a fine workaround for the law.
Some people are saying that @realDonaldTrump is definitely a bot.
No bot is that unpredictable.
Of course, when you are in a situation where you need more digits. (I faced moments like that...) you probably already have the tools to fetch an approximation with more digits...
That's what I was thinking. If you're in a situation where you care about the difference between 22/7, 3.14, and pi, you're probably using a tool that can help you with more digits than you need. To quote the OP:
If I want more decimal places, I can google it.
What were you doing that needed more than 3 digits? Orbits?
22/7 is a marginally better estimate than 3.14 (~.04% vs ~.05%), both at the "cost" of remembering 3 digits. Are you suggesting that it's easier to remember "." than "/"? Not sure where you're going with this.
I remember out to 3.14159, but that's wasted space and I'm not sure how those wasted digits snuck in there. Either 3-digit estimate is good enough for just about everything you're likely to run into.
They can prohibit Uber from using self driving technology all together.
That's what TFA makes it sound like: "Waymo... is formally asking a judge to block Uber from operating its autonomous vehicles..." No mention of a time frame or conditions to meet to get back on the road. If this is a permanent thing, this could spell doom for Uber's long-term success. Eventually, using human drivers just won't allow them to be competitive. Then again, how "long-term" do we expect Uber to be a thing?
Name ONE other bad thing Uber has done!
Uber hid my car keys to make me use their service. Of course, I can't prove it... Yet.
As Uber continues to brush its teeth, Google scrambles to put the toothpaste back in the tube. I'm not sure a judge can order Uber to selectively forget the stolen designs. Is the idea a permanent block on Uber running self-driving cars? TFA's unclear.
Nothing misleading about the headline unless you're really easily confused - It does not say DJT was wiretapped. It doesn't even imply it. From the Snopes article that directly addresses the article in question:
...“only the most obtuse misreading” of the article would lead one to conclude that Donald Trump was under surveillance.
Here's the Snopes article that uses your graphic. It explains why you're confused at least as well as I can.
Did you even read that? It does not say that DJT was wiretapped. It doesn't remotely say that he was wiretapped by Obama. What was the point of that link? Just to show that NYT used "Wiretap" and "Trump" in the same headline?
"Slashdot asks: Password rules are bullshit"
?
Betteridge be damned - This doesn't fit "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no." Phrasing the headline as a question in this case was entirely appropriate, since it was an invitation for input on a contested issue rather than a simple news announcement. "Jeff Atwood says password rules are bullshit" would have been just fine but would have set a different tone. Simply titling TFA "Password rules are bullshit" would be presenting opinion as fact.
If they're compliant now, it shouldn't be a problem. If you're suspicious, they just kick you back to the system they were using before. If they're not compliant now, this may be part of their accessibility solution.
Pi is 22/7. Anyone who tells you differently is selling something.
Where I vehemently disagree with you is that they are not calling for America to be disbanded. When the majority of their demands require squashing the US Constitution and wealth redistribution (from the middle class to them of course) that _is_ disbanding America.
I think it depends on what you mean by "America" and what you mean by "disbanded." In the Civil War, one side wanted America disbanded. In that sense, not many of the protesters are calling for America to be disbanded. In the Civil War and in those protests, both sides loved America. You can find Americans that hate America, but they're the exception.
...it sounds like the app was putting fake people into cars and directing the driver elsewhere...
To further confuse the issue, here are a couple of articles on Uber "Ghost Drivers" that give us a definition that doesn't really work here. In those articles, "ghost drivers" are people that post gruesome pics on their profile to scare customers into canceling. That can't be right unless Uber has gotten weird.
You're probably right, although that's not very subtle. I assume the regulator would book a ride and then the ghost driver just wouldn't show or would cancel?
Who is right? Was it a wiretap or no?
Your scenario describes a wiretap. It does not describe DJT being wiretapped. It doesn't remotely describe Obama wiretapping Trump.
Or is it just a matter of semantics?
Maybe, but when you're accusing a former president of a crime this serious and announcing a scandal bigger than Watergate, it's important to pick your words carefully. The people denying the wiretap know this and have mostly danced around their denials carefully.
What I said about the information becoming unclassified came directly from General Hayden. Despite being a former clearance holder, I just assumed he knew better than I did. There have certainly been issues where classified data have become public leading to "neither confirm nor deny" scenarios, but an outright announcement from our classifier-in-chief muddies the waters some. It's my understanding that he can declassify the information on his own. The issue is whether or not he did. The notion that this information is likely inaccurate just muddies the waters further.
As a semi-relevant aside, I was once in a meeting where the authors had to leave the room before we could discuss their paper. Their clearances were no longer valid so they were no longer allowed to discuss their own work.
Are you attempting to claim that there are no "libtard snowflakes" who hate America?
I don't think there are many who actually hate America. Whether they should be labelled "libtard snowflakes" I believe is a reflection on the sophistication of the person labeling them and an indication of whether or not they have anything worth-while to say. They're not calling for America to be disbanded. They're not leaving. The fact that they're staying here and protesting demonstrates that they'd like America to "improve," which to me indicates some devotion to the American ideal. If they truly hated America, they'd either leave or simply refuse to give a shit about the things they perceive as problems.
I'm not sure what inspired the GP AC rant, but he has you on one thing - You keep using the word "can" when I think you mean "should."
As president you shouldn't make unfounded claims against predecessors that alleges massively illegal acts, you shouldn't unleash a constant flow of stream of consciousness tweets every morning at 3am, or say whatever the hell you want...
DJT has demonstrated that he can do exactly those things. And there's very little legally to stop him. Maybe what you're trying to imply is that he can't do these things without consequences or that he can't do these things without betraying his office. That doesn't mean he can't do these things anyway.
It is actually funny seeing the same NYT "reporter" reporting "Donald Trump was Wiretapped" and "Donald Trump wasn't wiretapped".
Why does this NYT report saying "Donald Trump was Wiretapped" seem to exist only in your memory? The closest I've been able find from anywhere remotely reliable is "Some calls to/from Trump Tower may have been on a tapped line." Not remotely the same. I also find no "Donald Trump wasn't wiretapped" reports - Just reports that no evidence of wiretaps has been presented.