What are you talking about?
This story is regarding fake comments that are posed against net neutrality.
There is no argument against net neutrality other than private control and private money derived from public loss of freedom.
I feel what I am witnessing from you is a campaign to discredit the support of net neutrality by obfuscation of the meaning of the term net neutrality(neutral pipes on the net).
The bitter truth is a nice 90 min lecture that touches the topic. Biochemistry and all.
Summary: Fructose, and therefore sucrose, generates fat in the liver and blocks leptin recognition in the brain. Avoid all sugared beverages, and avoid products containing added sugar.
Under 30. Current place of employment has decent insurance, lots of PTO, 6% matching 401k, and a pension. 3 promotions in 7 years and I plan to be here for as long as I can manage it.
This stereotype is more of a software/IT sort of thing. Plus millennials don't know what a stable economy looks like, and are all afraid they won't find a job after their current one.
This is not hacking a smartphone. This is A) 'biasing output' or making it look like one has put in more steps for the day, and B) 'controlling output' or spelling a word with the graph of acceleration/time using tight sound manipulation of an accelerometer.
Link to TFPeer reviewed paper:
https://spqr.eecs.umich.edu/pa...
You see, you were bullishly aggressive and dismissive with your initial assessment. You assumed the informational and detached format used to refute your reductive argument was designed as a personal attack, and therefor assumed it came from a defensive stance aka 'butt hurt'.
I guess what I'm really saying is that you are the one who is butt hurt.
Most are simply a product of what has been put in. Education is not equitably distributed in the states. Hard to feel hate a dumb puppy for eating it's own shit.
The assholes training them to vote the way they do are already set for the climate end game, they just want more time to stuff the coffers and diversify before it kicks off.
Is not about distractions. The claim on planes is that there is spectrum interference. True or not, that's the lie you need to tell the voters wrt cars. (they do have a lot more electronics in them now adays. Fuck, just say it makes self-driving cars angry.)
Gamification is about taking a beneficial activity or habit and building a game around it to force a reward cycle, not the opposite as described above. Building an entertainment game and then trying to wedge in real world influences that cost money is called "Pay to Win" and they are inherently less fun than stabbing one's self with a sharp stick.
It's just money. What's a few hundred (400) billion dollars? I mean, what else are we going to spend it on? Education? Infrastructure? This is clearly the best use of the funds.
Adding a limit for otherwise unregulated chemicals is not increasing pollution. Raising a limit for a chemical that was regulated artificially low (and not based on toxicity) is fine.
The linked talks about benzene a bunch. The proposed lowers the limit for Class III (recreation water) and increases it from 1.18ug/L to 2 ug/L for Class I (Drinking water). EPA limit for drinking water is 5 ug/L, for reference.
This is nonsense. There was a warrant, but the guy wanted the court to find that it was too broad. The warrant was for anyone who was a registered user at Playpen (the kiddie porn website in question). They didn't know it was his computer before they hacked it, they just knew it was the terminal used to log in to Playpen. He thought this was too broad.
From the court finding:
"NIT warrant described the places to be searched - activating computers of users or administrators that logged into Playpen - and the things to be seized - the seven pieces of information obtained from those activating computers - with particularity."
The court finding states that this super broad warrant did not violate the 4th. Can we please discuss that?
Slashdot Mirror
What are you talking about?
This story is regarding fake comments that are posed against net neutrality.
There is no argument against net neutrality other than private control and private money derived from public loss of freedom.
I feel what I am witnessing from you is a campaign to discredit the support of net neutrality by obfuscation of the meaning of the term net neutrality(neutral pipes on the net).
a thing is the absolute control over it.
The bitter truth is a nice 90 min lecture that touches the topic. Biochemistry and all.
Summary:
Fructose, and therefore sucrose, generates fat in the liver and blocks leptin recognition in the brain. Avoid all sugared beverages, and avoid products containing added sugar.
Why not link direct to Pew?
Under 30. Current place of employment has decent insurance, lots of PTO, 6% matching 401k, and a pension. 3 promotions in 7 years and I plan to be here for as long as I can manage it.
This stereotype is more of a software/IT sort of thing. Plus millennials don't know what a stable economy looks like, and are all afraid they won't find a job after their current one.
This is not hacking a smartphone. This is A) 'biasing output' or making it look like one has put in more steps for the day, and B) 'controlling output' or spelling a word with the graph of acceleration/time using tight sound manipulation of an accelerometer. Link to TFPeer reviewed paper: https://spqr.eecs.umich.edu/pa...
Or the same for the reverse: increase apatite in those who may require it.
What you are suffering from is called projection.
You see, you were bullishly aggressive and dismissive with your initial assessment. You assumed the informational and detached format used to refute your reductive argument was designed as a personal attack, and therefor assumed it came from a defensive stance aka 'butt hurt'.
I guess what I'm really saying is that you are the one who is butt hurt.
there aren't enough mod points.
There are that many?
If they all report news, I imagine those people quickly realize that everyone is withholding facts or just making things up as they go.
Most are simply a product of what has been put in. Education is not equitably distributed in the states. Hard to feel hate a dumb puppy for eating it's own shit.
The assholes training them to vote the way they do are already set for the climate end game, they just want more time to stuff the coffers and diversify before it kicks off.
But in this case it is irresponsible to do it. Building jail cells into durable consumer goods is irresponsible.
Is not about distractions. The claim on planes is that there is spectrum interference. True or not, that's the lie you need to tell the voters wrt cars. (they do have a lot more electronics in them now adays. Fuck, just say it makes self-driving cars angry.)
Bake in logic and argumentative science courses into K-5 curriculum. Any later is too late.
Gamification is about taking a beneficial activity or habit and building a game around it to force a reward cycle, not the opposite as described above. Building an entertainment game and then trying to wedge in real world influences that cost money is called "Pay to Win" and they are inherently less fun than stabbing one's self with a sharp stick.
Right. Having a political affiliation tends to correlate with lying.
Mine assumes that anyone calling on a landline has divine right to her money.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10...
Better version
It's just money. What's a few hundred (400) billion dollars? I mean, what else are we going to spend it on? Education? Infrastructure? This is clearly the best use of the funds.
Class III is all surface waters. It covers fish toxicity / breeding / etc. as well.
Adding a limit for otherwise unregulated chemicals is not increasing pollution. Raising a limit for a chemical that was regulated artificially low (and not based on toxicity) is fine.
The linked talks about benzene a bunch. The proposed lowers the limit for Class III (recreation water) and increases it from 1.18ug/L to 2 ug/L for Class I (Drinking water). EPA limit for drinking water is 5 ug/L, for reference.
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/classes.htm
https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/table-regulated-drinking-water-contaminants#one
https://depnewsroom.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/hhc-criterion-comparison.pdf
Whoopsiedoodles.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DNCle...
https://www.reddit.com/r/DNCle...
Direct links to emails in here.
This is nonsense. There was a warrant, but the guy wanted the court to find that it was too broad. The warrant was for anyone who was a registered user at Playpen (the kiddie porn website in question). They didn't know it was his computer before they hacked it, they just knew it was the terminal used to log in to Playpen. He thought this was too broad.
From the court finding: "NIT warrant described the places to be searched - activating computers of users or administrators that logged into Playpen - and the things to be seized - the seven pieces of information obtained from those activating computers - with particularity."
The court finding states that this super broad warrant did not violate the 4th. Can we please discuss that?
Shouldn't it be, "Some extreme weather linked to climate change?"
The title implies that extreme weather causes climate change, no?