Yes, but the map clearly shows the majority of the land area of the country is colored red. And everybody knows that the only fair way to conduct an election is for each square mile of the country's landmass to get exactly one vote.
wsj.com is paywalled. As far as I can tell from that link you posted, it could have just as easily been the Russians, or even space aliens, who firebombed that office.
So everybody with computing needs (i.e. everyone except your grandpa) should invest in geographically diverse real estate so that they can set up their own servers for backing up their data?
Wouldn't it make more sense for all those backups to be in datacenters dedicated for that purpose, run by people who know how to manage large computing infrastructure?
And even if they do have 3 hours of story to tell, they really should go the Lord of the Rings route. Do an initial release in theaters with a shorter cut, and save the full length cut for a special edition home video release.
Not all shootings are equal. The probability of being killed in a terroristic mass shooting in particular is very low, despite the media's obsession with covering that particular type of shooting.
Ironically, they potentially made it more unhealthy with the switch, as partially hydrogenated oils will contain trans fats. Due to an intentional loophole, they can get away with labeling a food with trans fat content below some threshold as containing 0g trans fat, to hide that fact.
The assertion that most people have the same level intelligence borders on tautological, as the measurement of IQ is normalized by standard deviation so that the majority of the population will have approximately the same IQ score.
They apparently accomplish a simulated bokeh effect through digital manipulation by somehow calculating a depth map to apply the blur. Therefore it is 'DSLR-like' by mimicking an effect that you would need a DSLR to accomplish ordinarily. We won't really know until it is released to know where the effect falls on the line between gimmick and useful tool.
There is a difference in how the laws are written. The speed limit law simply says you can't go over the posted speed. Whether you intended to or not is beside the point. The espionage act, on the other hand, specifically says in the text of the law that you may not intentionally disseminate classified information to anybody not cleared to see it.
FYI, the other half of the relevant law states that you can't negligibly allow classified information to fall into the wrong hands. But the FBI's investigation found no evidence that anybody nefarious did get a hold of classified emails stored on the server, and she did not put classified emails on the server with the intent to disseminate them to anybody who shouldn't see them. Therefore, neither half of the relevant law was broken.
That being said, if it does come to light that somebody did hack her private server and steal classified emails, then it would be a whole different story. But as it is, with the information we know, simply the act of having emails on a private server did not in of itself break the law.
I know that was the case with the supposed planet around Alpha Centauri B. Though, in that case the followup was just better statistical analysis, and not more refined observations. So even though the signal that was declared to be Alpha Centauri Bb turned out to be false, they didn't actually disprove the existence of planets around the Alpha Centauri stars, just that any planets that may exist are undetectable below the noise level of the current data.
"neo-liberal" has a legitimate academic definition, and most times I have seen it used it has been in that context. The equivalent over-simplified buzzword used in its place is I believe "libertard".
The point is that they have shifted from selling actual products and simply using their patents defensively to protect said products, to using the aforementioned patents themselves as a revenue stream.
The only problem with the terminology is that there is a disconnect between what the common person on the street thinks the capabilities of an autopilot is versus its actual capabilities. An actual autopilot is not much more than an airplane cruise control that maintains a preset altitude, heading, and airspeed, while the common perception is that it is essentially an autonomous robot pilot that can do everything up to and including dogfighting while the human pilot takes a nap.
The destabilization argument presumes that only one side builds ABM. If both sides are allowed to build ABM, the balance is preserved, and additionally, missiles themselves become obsolete as they can be effectively defended against. Additionally, if everybody is allowed to have ABM systems, the idea of obtaining ICBMs becomes less attractive to rogue nations who won't benefit from the power trip of having a superweapon that bigger nations have to take seriously.
I never understood that logic. We can have enough missiles pointed at you to turn all of your major cities into slag, but the moment you put up a system that would protect yourself from those missiles, hoo boy!
And you're still not answering my question as to what law she actually broke.
Here is the Comey quote that everyone seems so apoplectic about:
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
If you re-read what he is saying, his point is that the reckless actions would normally lead to punishment within the department, just like any employee can expect to be chewed out by their boss for making bad decisions. Assuming he is talking about legal action here directly contradicts what he said earlier about how in the past legal action has only been taken in extreme circumstances where the person showed clear intent that confidential documents be seen by people without clearance such as Patraeus showing documents to his mistress. The line "But that is not what we are deciding now" means that he is not arguing whether or not the State Department should internally punish Clinton, but whether there is grounds for legal action. Since she did not intend for documents to fall into unclassified hands, and there is no evidence that through negligence documents did fall into the wrong hands, there is not grounds to prosecute.
Y'all didn't read the second half of my post, apparently. If you download movies off Pirate Bay, it's possible that you haven't broken the law if your use of said movies falls under fair use. The law is nuanced, which is why we have courts in the first place. Only a court can determine whether someone has actually broken the law, and anything else is just opinion.
I am still waiting to hear exactly what it was that she supposedly did that actually broke the law anyway.
I don't recall her having been tried, much less convicted. As in the United States of America, you are innocent until proven guilty, she did not "factually break the law". Insistence that she did break the law is completely right-wing one-sided propaganda.
FYI, The Espionage Act (18 U.S. Code 793(f)), which is the law most cited as the one she supposedly broke does not specify what the 'proper place' for a confidential document actually entails. Yes, she was dumb for designating, in the course of her duties, that the proper place for documents should be the digital equivalent of a cardboard box. But unless there is actual evidence that documents were improperly taken from that cardboard box, she is not actually in violation of anything.
Having the people directly vote on issues is done in states like California with their proposition system. However, the general public is largely uninformed, easily swayed by popular opinion, and doesn't take the time to consider, or isn't even capable of understanding wide reaching implications of policy decisions. This will lead to the state becoming nearly bankrupt, because the people will vote for entitlements, for increased regulation against things deemed 'scary', and against tax increases every time.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but the map clearly shows the majority of the land area of the country is colored red. And everybody knows that the only fair way to conduct an election is for each square mile of the country's landmass to get exactly one vote.
wsj.com is paywalled. As far as I can tell from that link you posted, it could have just as easily been the Russians, or even space aliens, who firebombed that office.
So everybody with computing needs (i.e. everyone except your grandpa) should invest in geographically diverse real estate so that they can set up their own servers for backing up their data?
Wouldn't it make more sense for all those backups to be in datacenters dedicated for that purpose, run by people who know how to manage large computing infrastructure?
You know, the cloud?
And even if they do have 3 hours of story to tell, they really should go the Lord of the Rings route. Do an initial release in theaters with a shorter cut, and save the full length cut for a special edition home video release.
Not all shootings are equal. The probability of being killed in a terroristic mass shooting in particular is very low, despite the media's obsession with covering that particular type of shooting.
You'd also have to mount one on the tailpipe of every car and truck in Beijing.
Ironically, they potentially made it more unhealthy with the switch, as partially hydrogenated oils will contain trans fats. Due to an intentional loophole, they can get away with labeling a food with trans fat content below some threshold as containing 0g trans fat, to hide that fact.
Ok, in that case it's the UK equivalent of a "loonie". (talk abut teenie language!)
The assertion that most people have the same level intelligence borders on tautological, as the measurement of IQ is normalized by standard deviation so that the majority of the population will have approximately the same IQ score.
Leave it to the fandroids to find a way to bash Apple even when it's their own devices exploding.
They apparently accomplish a simulated bokeh effect through digital manipulation by somehow calculating a depth map to apply the blur. Therefore it is 'DSLR-like' by mimicking an effect that you would need a DSLR to accomplish ordinarily. We won't really know until it is released to know where the effect falls on the line between gimmick and useful tool.
There is a difference in how the laws are written. The speed limit law simply says you can't go over the posted speed. Whether you intended to or not is beside the point. The espionage act, on the other hand, specifically says in the text of the law that you may not intentionally disseminate classified information to anybody not cleared to see it.
FYI, the other half of the relevant law states that you can't negligibly allow classified information to fall into the wrong hands. But the FBI's investigation found no evidence that anybody nefarious did get a hold of classified emails stored on the server, and she did not put classified emails on the server with the intent to disseminate them to anybody who shouldn't see them. Therefore, neither half of the relevant law was broken.
That being said, if it does come to light that somebody did hack her private server and steal classified emails, then it would be a whole different story. But as it is, with the information we know, simply the act of having emails on a private server did not in of itself break the law.
I know that was the case with the supposed planet around Alpha Centauri B. Though, in that case the followup was just better statistical analysis, and not more refined observations. So even though the signal that was declared to be Alpha Centauri Bb turned out to be false, they didn't actually disprove the existence of planets around the Alpha Centauri stars, just that any planets that may exist are undetectable below the noise level of the current data.
"neo-liberal" has a legitimate academic definition, and most times I have seen it used it has been in that context. The equivalent over-simplified buzzword used in its place is I believe "libertard".
The point is that they have shifted from selling actual products and simply using their patents defensively to protect said products, to using the aforementioned patents themselves as a revenue stream.
That's what they want you to think.
The only problem with the terminology is that there is a disconnect between what the common person on the street thinks the capabilities of an autopilot is versus its actual capabilities. An actual autopilot is not much more than an airplane cruise control that maintains a preset altitude, heading, and airspeed, while the common perception is that it is essentially an autonomous robot pilot that can do everything up to and including dogfighting while the human pilot takes a nap.
The destabilization argument presumes that only one side builds ABM. If both sides are allowed to build ABM, the balance is preserved, and additionally, missiles themselves become obsolete as they can be effectively defended against. Additionally, if everybody is allowed to have ABM systems, the idea of obtaining ICBMs becomes less attractive to rogue nations who won't benefit from the power trip of having a superweapon that bigger nations have to take seriously.
I never understood that logic. We can have enough missiles pointed at you to turn all of your major cities into slag, but the moment you put up a system that would protect yourself from those missiles, hoo boy!
And you're still not answering my question as to what law she actually broke.
Here is the Comey quote that everyone seems so apoplectic about:
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
If you re-read what he is saying, his point is that the reckless actions would normally lead to punishment within the department, just like any employee can expect to be chewed out by their boss for making bad decisions. Assuming he is talking about legal action here directly contradicts what he said earlier about how in the past legal action has only been taken in extreme circumstances where the person showed clear intent that confidential documents be seen by people without clearance such as Patraeus showing documents to his mistress. The line "But that is not what we are deciding now" means that he is not arguing whether or not the State Department should internally punish Clinton, but whether there is grounds for legal action. Since she did not intend for documents to fall into unclassified hands, and there is no evidence that through negligence documents did fall into the wrong hands, there is not grounds to prosecute.
Y'all didn't read the second half of my post, apparently. If you download movies off Pirate Bay, it's possible that you haven't broken the law if your use of said movies falls under fair use. The law is nuanced, which is why we have courts in the first place. Only a court can determine whether someone has actually broken the law, and anything else is just opinion.
I am still waiting to hear exactly what it was that she supposedly did that actually broke the law anyway.
I don't recall her having been tried, much less convicted. As in the United States of America, you are innocent until proven guilty, she did not "factually break the law". Insistence that she did break the law is completely right-wing one-sided propaganda.
FYI, The Espionage Act (18 U.S. Code 793(f)), which is the law most cited as the one she supposedly broke does not specify what the 'proper place' for a confidential document actually entails. Yes, she was dumb for designating, in the course of her duties, that the proper place for documents should be the digital equivalent of a cardboard box. But unless there is actual evidence that documents were improperly taken from that cardboard box, she is not actually in violation of anything.
Mythbusters proved that it is at least plausible to carry around all your weapons DOOM style, as long as you are in very good shape.
http://nerdist.com/what-we-lea...
Sort of like how it's all the fault of the Muslims and Mexicans in Trump's speeches?
Having the people directly vote on issues is done in states like California with their proposition system. However, the general public is largely uninformed, easily swayed by popular opinion, and doesn't take the time to consider, or isn't even capable of understanding wide reaching implications of policy decisions. This will lead to the state becoming nearly bankrupt, because the people will vote for entitlements, for increased regulation against things deemed 'scary', and against tax increases every time.