TFS quotes "Rick Astley tracks" from TFA, so blame Wired, not Slashdot.
Calling it rickrolling would have been slightly more hip, but perhaps the Wired editors didn't want to confuse the few readers who might not know what it is.
"Pointing out that the Kremlin is interfering in its own election is not interference," adds schwit1.
Of course it is. But, it's entirely aboveboard, unlike the secret (at the time) Russian interference.
I think we need to qualify "interfering" a bit more carefully. IMHO, interfering with an election means you are trying to pick a winner. That's not the same as commenting on the events and episodes of a foreign election in a way that expresses your own interests. The fairness of foreign elections is a legitimate interest of all democratic countries.
And then, there is colluding. That's not just a foreign power interfering with an election. Colluding means a candidate joins forces with a foreign power that is trying to interfere.
Newsflash: Most countries try to influence other countries, and they do it in a lot more ways that social media and fake news. This has only become 'news' because certain people feel the need to believe this past US election was somehow different. Sad bunch of morons.
Allegedly, the 2016 US election was different.
It's one thing for a foreign government to try to influence(*) another country's election. It's yet another when one of the campaigns in an election colludes with a foreign power to gain an advantage in that election. Whether that happened or not, and to what extent, is what Robert Mueller and his team are investigating.
(*) By "influence" I mean an active effort (overt or covert) by Country A to try to sway the election towards a particular candidate in Country B. That is not the same as the government of Country A speaking out on candidate policies or electoral procedures in Country B that affect the interests of Country A.
The 9th circuit said, basically, that they were pretty much the same stature as executive orders
If you read the actual article, instead of just the first sentence which you cited, you'll see that the 9th circuit claimed nothing of the kind. They merely cited a tweet in the context of their ruling that Trump exceeded his statutory authority, and that he had no rationale for his decision:
Indeed, the President recently [tweeted] his assessment that it is the “countries” that are inherently dangerous, rather than the 180 million individual nationals of those countries who are barred from entry under the President’s “travel ban.”
So, the court merely made note of one of his tweets, even though they mocked it. But the court paying attention to them does not elevate them to the status of executive orders. If that were true, then God help us. What are we to make of his re-tweets of phony news stories?
And one of the shepherds spoke to the others, why are you afraid? And the shepherd said, science can explain this, it is not an angel, there is no God. And as soon as the shepherd finished those words, he was smitten by the Almighty God. And the shepherds trembled at the sight of this.
I don't think the point of this, or Andy Warhol's movies, is to watch them for the full duration. They're a kind of tableau vivant -- something you observe for as long as you wish, then go on to something else in your life. They're something more than a photograph, but less than a movie.
You're a mean one, Mr. Kim You really are a grump You have all the tender sweetness of a seasick Donald Trump, Mr. Kim... Given a choice between the two of you, I'd take the... the... uh... Can I get back to you?
Attorney-client privilege. That has nothing to do with being the President. Everyone in this country has that right.
Attorney-client privilege is irrelevant here. Executive privilege is. Trump cannot use it to shield his pre-office communications.
Mueller did not seek records of one-on-one communication between Trump and his attorney. He sought e-mails exchanged amongst his transition team.
And BTW, attorney-client privilege is not absolute. You cannot claim privilege just because your attorney was in the room when you spoke to someone, or s/he was cced on an e-mail. And you cannot claim privilege if your communication was part of an intent to commit or cover up a crime.
Trump's lawyer may have said that Mueller's acquisition of transition e-mails was unlaful, but that does not make it so. IIRC, the lawyer's argument was that these e-mails are privileged. That's BS. Trump was not yet president, so he and his team did not enjoy the protection of privilege at that time.
This attempt to discredit Mueller in the right-wing media has been quite intense lately. In the opinion of many, it's an attempt to weaken his image and set up cover for Trump to fire him.
Except it was the department recommending to not use such words. The headlines were implying that Trump banned them. When in reality it's bureaucrats recommending certain language in order to avoid conflict with those that control the budget in Congress.
Those bureaucrats may not be physically situated in the White House, but they are indeed part of the Trump administration, which is what the headline said was the source of the word-ban.
And it is not a stretch to imagine that this kind of lexicographic micromanaging came from the White House. Far from being "iresponsible journalism" or "fake news", this was journalism doing what it is supposed to do: uncover and report stories that could indicate changes in policy in the administration that the POTUS controls.
> Is our consciousness a divine spark created by some all powerful being or an illusion caused by the random interactions of chemicals and enzymes?
You see a universe with supernatural elements, but there's no evidence for them. I'm going to stick with science over faith - science has a much better track record for modeling reality.
Face it, you need both faith and science (or more broadly, reason.) Look, I'm not trying to be religious. I'm just saying that you need faith to get you through situations where you don't have data to "model reality." You need essentially no faith to be sure that the sun will rise tomorrow. You may need only a little faith when you cross the street and expect that the oncoming car will stop and not run you over. And you may need a lot if a loved one is seriously ill, and you are hoping for a good outcome.
IMHO, faith and reason are two sides of a coin we call The Human Condition.
He did lie to them. He said so himself when he put in a guilty plea. Believe me, I'm no big fan of the plea bargaining system in the US because of the way it rolls over the little guy who can't afford expensive lawyers, but Mike Flynn can afford expensive lawyers. That means, in order to plead guilty of this, they must have had him over a barrel. He plead guilty because he was as guilty as sin and they could have crucified him on much worse charges.
Yes, he pleaded guilty probably because he was. But IIRC, The Feds had his son on stuff too. So perhaps it was also a father's love that was part of his motivation.
The next few months will be fun. 'Scuse me, I need to make some popcorn.
It is all a publicity stunt. The NYS AG knows he has no standing. But "fighting for the people" looks good on a campaign sticker.
No standing? That's debatable. From TFS:
my Spitalnick, Schneiderman's press secretary, said in a statement that the FCC "made clear that it will continue to obstruct a law enforcement investigation. It's easy for the FCC to claim that there's no problem with the process, when they're hiding the very information that would allow us to determine if there was a problem. To be clear, impersonation is a violation of New York law," she said... "The only privacy jeopardized by the FCC's continued obstruction of this investigation is that of the perpetrators who impersonated real Americans."
We can blame this on hyperspeculation in the value of cryptocurrencies. When these currencies become insanely valuable, it becomes profitable to get energy to mine them from insane sources.
Recall hyperinflation of the German Mark in the 1920s. At one point its value was so low that it made more sense to burn the notes than to use them to buy firewood. How long before it becomes profitable to burn actual bank notes to make electricity to mine bitcoin?
Slashdot Mirror
British currency went decimal in 1971 (100 pence to the pound.) Before that, there were 12 pence to a shilling, and 20 shillings to a pound.
And there were other quirky amounts:
2 farthings = 1 ha'penny
2 ha'pennies = 1 penny
3 pennies = 1 thrupenny bit (or thrupence)
2 thrupences = 1 sixpence
2 sixpences = 1 shilling (or bob)
2 bob = 1 florin
1 florin + 1 sixpence = half a crown
4 half crowns = 1 ten-bob note
2 ten-bob notes = 1 pound (or 240 pennies)
1 pound + 1 shilling = 1 guinea
Oops, sorry: "sed -e s/Wired/The Verge/g". That is all.
TFS quotes "Rick Astley tracks" from TFA, so blame Wired, not Slashdot.
Calling it rickrolling would have been slightly more hip, but perhaps the Wired editors didn't want to confuse the few readers who might not know what it is.
This refers to Alexa but it's close enough.
Of course it is. But, it's entirely aboveboard, unlike the secret (at the time) Russian interference.
I think we need to qualify "interfering" a bit more carefully. IMHO, interfering with an election means you are trying to pick a winner. That's not the same as commenting on the events and episodes of a foreign election in a way that expresses your own interests. The fairness of foreign elections is a legitimate interest of all democratic countries.
And then, there is colluding. That's not just a foreign power interfering with an election. Colluding means a candidate joins forces with a foreign power that is trying to interfere.
In Soviet Russia, pot and kettle mock you!
FTFY. You're welcome.
Newsflash: Most countries try to influence other countries, and they do it in a lot more ways that social media and fake news. This has only become 'news' because certain people feel the need to believe this past US election was somehow different. Sad bunch of morons.
Allegedly, the 2016 US election was different.
It's one thing for a foreign government to try to influence(*) another country's election. It's yet another when one of the campaigns in an election colludes with a foreign power to gain an advantage in that election. Whether that happened or not, and to what extent, is what Robert Mueller and his team are investigating.
(*) By "influence" I mean an active effort (overt or covert) by Country A to try to sway the election towards a particular candidate in Country B. That is not the same as the government of Country A speaking out on candidate policies or electoral procedures in Country B that affect the interests of Country A.
The 9th circuit said, basically, that they were pretty much the same stature as executive orders
If you read the actual article, instead of just the first sentence which you cited, you'll see that the 9th circuit claimed nothing of the kind. They merely cited a tweet in the context of their ruling that Trump exceeded his statutory authority, and that he had no rationale for his decision:
Indeed, the President recently [tweeted] his assessment that it is the “countries” that are inherently dangerous, rather than the 180 million individual nationals of those countries who are barred from entry under the President’s “travel ban.”
So, the court merely made note of one of his tweets, even though they mocked it. But the court paying attention to them does not elevate them to the status of executive orders. If that were true, then God help us. What are we to make of his re-tweets of phony news stories?
Wasn't it established in a federal court that Trump's tweets amount to official statements and can be cited as effective policy statements?
Established that they are official statements? No, but that was claimed earlier this year by Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary at the time.
And one of the shepherds spoke to the others, why are you afraid? And the shepherd said, science can explain this, it is not an angel, there is no God. And as soon as the shepherd finished those words, he was smitten by the Almighty God. And the shepherds trembled at the sight of this.
Where did this come from? That's not in Luke.
I don't think the point of this, or Andy Warhol's movies, is to watch them for the full duration. They're a kind of tableau vivant -- something you observe for as long as you wish, then go on to something else in your life. They're something more than a photograph, but less than a movie.
Not to mention better refreshments. 16-year-old Lagavulin? Count me in.
Another fun fact re Canada: it unofficially and humbly claims to have the mailing address of old St. Nick:
Santa Claus
The North Pole
H0H 0H0
(The postal code has a nice ring, doesn't it?)
Talk about a War on Christmas...
You're a mean one, Mr. Kim ... ... the ... uh ...
You really are a grump
You have all the tender sweetness of a seasick Donald Trump, Mr. Kim
Given a choice between the two of you, I'd take the
Can I get back to you?
Attorney-client privilege. That has nothing to do with being the President. Everyone in this country has that right.
Attorney-client privilege is irrelevant here. Executive privilege is. Trump cannot use it to shield his pre-office communications.
Mueller did not seek records of one-on-one communication between Trump and his attorney. He sought e-mails exchanged amongst his transition team.
And BTW, attorney-client privilege is not absolute. You cannot claim privilege just because your attorney was in the room when you spoke to someone, or s/he was cced on an e-mail. And you cannot claim privilege if your communication was part of an intent to commit or cover up a crime.
Trump's lawyer may have said that Mueller's acquisition of transition e-mails was unlaful, but that does not make it so. IIRC, the lawyer's argument was that these e-mails are privileged. That's BS. Trump was not yet president, so he and his team did not enjoy the protection of privilege at that time.
This attempt to discredit Mueller in the right-wing media has been quite intense lately. In the opinion of many, it's an attempt to weaken his image and set up cover for Trump to fire him.
Except it was the department recommending to not use such words. The headlines were implying that Trump banned them. When in reality it's bureaucrats recommending certain language in order to avoid conflict with those that control the budget in Congress.
Those bureaucrats may not be physically situated in the White House, but they are indeed part of the Trump administration, which is what the headline said was the source of the word-ban.
And it is not a stretch to imagine that this kind of lexicographic micromanaging came from the White House. Far from being "iresponsible journalism" or "fake news", this was journalism doing what it is supposed to do: uncover and report stories that could indicate changes in policy in the administration that the POTUS controls.
> Is our consciousness a divine spark created by some all powerful being or an illusion caused by the random interactions of chemicals and enzymes?
You see a universe with supernatural elements, but there's no evidence for them. I'm going to stick with science over faith - science has a much better track record for modeling reality.
Face it, you need both faith and science (or more broadly, reason.) Look, I'm not trying to be religious. I'm just saying that you need faith to get you through situations where you don't have data to "model reality." You need essentially no faith to be sure that the sun will rise tomorrow. You may need only a little faith when you cross the street and expect that the oncoming car will stop and not run you over. And you may need a lot if a loved one is seriously ill, and you are hoping for a good outcome.
IMHO, faith and reason are two sides of a coin we call The Human Condition.
Are we going to see...the Q screen of death?
Yes and no.
Let's use actual numbers, eh?
g = 9.81 m/s^2 /s
\Omega = 7.3e-5
R = 6380 km
R \Omega^2 is much less than g
Looks like you'll be fine.
To be more precise, R * omega^2 = 0.0337 m/s^2, or about 0.34% of gravitational acceleration.
He did lie to them. He said so himself when he put in a guilty plea. Believe me, I'm no big fan of the plea bargaining system in the US because of the way it rolls over the little guy who can't afford expensive lawyers, but Mike Flynn can afford expensive lawyers. That means, in order to plead guilty of this, they must have had him over a barrel. He plead guilty because he was as guilty as sin and they could have crucified him on much worse charges.
Yes, he pleaded guilty probably because he was. But IIRC, The Feds had his son on stuff too. So perhaps it was also a father's love that was part of his motivation.
The next few months will be fun. 'Scuse me, I need to make some popcorn.
That's Amy Spitalnick. Sorry for missing "A" in the copy-paste.
It is all a publicity stunt. The NYS AG knows he has no standing. But "fighting for the people" looks good on a campaign sticker.
No standing? That's debatable. From TFS:
my Spitalnick, Schneiderman's press secretary, said in a statement that the FCC "made clear that it will continue to obstruct a law enforcement investigation. It's easy for the FCC to claim that there's no problem with the process, when they're hiding the very information that would allow us to determine if there was a problem. To be clear, impersonation is a violation of New York law," she said... "The only privacy jeopardized by the FCC's continued obstruction of this investigation is that of the perpetrators who impersonated real Americans."
I think we've found our new economics 'IgNobel' Prize winner here.
FTFY ;-P
We can blame this on hyperspeculation in the value of cryptocurrencies. When these currencies become insanely valuable, it becomes profitable to get energy to mine them from insane sources.
Recall hyperinflation of the German Mark in the 1920s. At one point its value was so low that it made more sense to burn the notes than to use them to buy firewood. How long before it becomes profitable to burn actual bank notes to make electricity to mine bitcoin?