Nothing is wrong with me. I was sincere. I just wanted to make a gentle criticism. Go ahead and tease us about the way we talk. But please get it right.
If anyone understands Americans, it's Canadians. We're besties.
But Canada (like most countries) does care about due process. They're not just going to hand her over. She'll have a hearing first to determine whether that even happens. Of course, she has to make assurances that she'll show up, hence the bail bond and agreement to monitoring in lieu of detainment in a prison cell.
Dear Americans, we love you. But please, once and for all, Canadians do not say "oot." It's more like "aout" - soft 'a' followed by a rising 'o' to 'u' vowel transition, ending in a 't' consonant. Perhaps a linguist could explain it better. But it's not "oot."
There's a huge difference between writing a letter to some company urging them to repudiate an employee's offensive remark, and convening a congressional committee to investigate a company's perceived editorial slant.
I'm sure this will be a very unpopular comment on the heavily left-slanted Slashdot. But the tariffs are working. I build custom manufacturing hardware (in the US). While my component costs have gone up (since most ICs come from Asia) I've noticed a boom in business.
I assume you supply manufacturing machinery to other industries that benefit from tariffs. Good for you, you're one of the lucky ones.
But there are plenty of losers from tariffs: those whose businesses depend on imported materials (or even domestic-sourced materials now priced higher thanks to less competition) and those who export to countries that have imposed counter-tariffs.
Yes, the tariffs are working -- to the benefit of some, and to the detriment of others.
The Stock Market only turned downward when it became obvious that the Dems would take the House. It's been positive for two years, and suddenly it starts tanking, mostly after the midterms handed the purse to the dems.
Wrong. Try again.
Stock markets hate uncertainty. There's loads of uncertainty right now coming from Trump's trade wars and a teetering Brexit. There is no uncertainty regarding who has the House. In fact, the market has expected it for months, and whatever effect it was going to have happened months ago.
Sorry, we've already been through this very example with Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards. He used campaign funds to pay off his mistress, not his personal funds. He was charged, and then let go - because it was determined that it wasn't a campaign finance violation to pay off mistresses.
That's a pretty generous mischaracterization. John Edwards was indicted on six counts. He was found not guilty on one of them (pertaining to a transaction that occurred after he had dropped out of the race). The other five counts ended in a mistrial. Prosecutors elected not to re-try the case. So nothing was "determined" regarding payments to a mistress.
You are confused. NN is not about what websites publish. It's about how service providers shape traffic.
As for Youtube and other sites, it's entirely up to them what they allow. You have freedom of speech, but Youtube is under no obligation whatsoever to hand you a megaphone.
The incoming Democrats COULD do a lot of things. They won't. They'll spend 90% of their time, energy, and press on a futile, symbolic push to impeach Trump for paying off a woman he had an affair with. A perfectly legal action (though distasteful) that he did before he was President.
Clearly you're behind on current events. The payments to a porn star and a Playboy model, arranged by Mike Cohen under the direction of the POTUS, were made in the context of an election. As such, they were a violation of campaign finance laws, something Cohen pleaded guilty to.
So the POTUS is implicated in a felony. And this may just be the beginning. 'Scuse me, I'm going to make some popcorn.
Obviously that depends on the regulation. Anti-trust laws protect a free market. NN regulations protect a free internet. Other examples are left as an exercise.
Remember the story is about restoring the FCC rules they lost. Liberals crave power, just as the original social democrat Hitler did. More brownshirts, more power, more violence!
Wow, that's one hell of a false equivalence. I'll just let it stand.
Well they also can't pardon themselves or anyone of a crime they're at all involved in.
There have been discussions back and forth on this topic ever since the Russia investigation began. One side of the argument is that the POTUS pardon-power is wide-sweeping. On the other side, there is a principle in law (sorry, don't remember where) that "no man can be his own judge."
So Pence would be too close to be able to pardon Trump.
Can the POTUS pardon someone else of a crime if he is also complicit? Excellent question. IANAL, but I suppose the answer is yes, unless it's seen as obstruction of justice. Note the recent hue and cry after Trump hinted that he hasn't ruled out pardoning Manafort. It can be seen as a way to keep Manafort from co-operating with Mueller's investigation.
Interesting post. Thanks for it. One point, though:
Trump doesn't deserve 50% of America's support - and he'll never have it. He'll die in prison like Paul Manafort.
As much as I think an orange jumpsuit would look good on him, I doubt he'll go to prison. He'll pardon himself on the way out -- or at least he'll try, and if it doesn't work, then Pence probably will (just like Ford pardoned Nixon.) And although he does not, and may never have, 50% of America's support, I have to wonder whether 50% of American citizens want to see a former president in the slammer.
Hypocrisy? Well maybe, if someone is using a private jet purely for the sheer opulence of it. But someone may have practical reasons for using private air transportation. Maybe commercial flights are not feasible because of scheduling, logistics, lack of privacy, and so on. I'm no apologist for the 1%, but I can understand their needs for travel may be different than mine. If they make a sincere effort to help the planet despite their carbon footprint, I think they deserve more respect than the more cynical who just don't care about their impact.
I own a private automobile, and I suspect you might also. I use it for my municipal travel needs, even though there are public-transit alternatives. Does that make us hypocrites? No. Public transit is not feasible for most of our travel needs.
And my disclosure: I fly coach also, unless I get an upgrade.
Despite what the internet offers for communication, people still need to travel. For some, it's part of their job: performers, subject-matter experts, buisnesspeople -- and yes, politicians too.
Let's all work on and support ways to travel more efficiently, and offset its effects. But we can't just stop traveling.
The world relies on encryption to protect everything from credit card transactions to databases yet they keep getting hacked repeatedly so what's the point?
The point is to keep making it harder for the bad guys to succeed. It's an arms race.
Of course, the good guys can turn into the bad guys, so be vigilant.
I suspect suicide after he loses the election in two years. Ivanka in womens' prison will be serialized on Netflix.
I doubt that suicide is Donald's style. He loves adoration from others too much, and I think he'll never run out of sycophants. And it's by no means certain that he'll lose in 2020. Not without a credible challenge from the Dems.
What I think is likely is that his son Don Jr. is going to be indicted in a matter of weeks. Whether he goes to trial, is convicted, and serves time is another matter. I see his dad poised with a pen to sign a pardon.
Donald Sr.'s fate is less clear. Some have said you can't indict a sitting president -- the remedy is impeachment and a trial in the Senate. But I wonder. We'll see.
As for Ivanka, I don't think she has done anything that will put her in a jail cell. Not even her mishandling of her e-mail account. (See Hillary Clinton and Colin Powell.)
What does this have to do with equality? This is about civility.
There have been many professions that have achieved a practice of civility without sacrificing value. I see no reason why software development can't do the same.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing is wrong with me. I was sincere. I just wanted to make a gentle criticism. Go ahead and tease us about the way we talk. But please get it right.
If anyone understands Americans, it's Canadians. We're besties.
But Canada (like most countries) does care about due process. They're not just going to hand her over. She'll have a hearing first to determine whether that even happens. Of course, she has to make assurances that she'll show up, hence the bail bond and agreement to monitoring in lieu of detainment in a prison cell.
Bet she's glad to be oot, eh?
Canadian expat here.
Dear Americans, we love you. But please, once and for all, Canadians do not say "oot." It's more like "aout" - soft 'a' followed by a rising 'o' to 'u' vowel transition, ending in a 't' consonant. Perhaps a linguist could explain it better. But it's not "oot."
Thank you.
There's a huge difference between writing a letter to some company urging them to repudiate an employee's offensive remark, and convening a congressional committee to investigate a company's perceived editorial slant.
I'm sure this will be a very unpopular comment on the heavily left-slanted Slashdot. But the tariffs are working. I build custom manufacturing hardware (in the US). While my component costs have gone up (since most ICs come from Asia) I've noticed a boom in business.
I assume you supply manufacturing machinery to other industries that benefit from tariffs. Good for you, you're one of the lucky ones.
But there are plenty of losers from tariffs: those whose businesses depend on imported materials (or even domestic-sourced materials now priced higher thanks to less competition) and those who export to countries that have imposed counter-tariffs.
Yes, the tariffs are working -- to the benefit of some, and to the detriment of others.
The Stock Market only turned downward when it became obvious that the Dems would take the House. It's been positive for two years, and suddenly it starts tanking, mostly after the midterms handed the purse to the dems.
Wrong. Try again.
Stock markets hate uncertainty. There's loads of uncertainty right now coming from Trump's trade wars and a teetering Brexit. There is no uncertainty regarding who has the House. In fact, the market has expected it for months, and whatever effect it was going to have happened months ago.
Not fare well,
But fare forward, voyagers.
-- TS Eliot, The Dry Salvages
[Ed Stone added this quote to the last slide of his Voyager-Neptune talk, at the Fall 1989 AGU meeting.]
Sorry, we've already been through this very example with Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards. He used campaign funds to pay off his mistress, not his personal funds. He was charged, and then let go - because it was determined that it wasn't a campaign finance violation to pay off mistresses.
That's a pretty generous mischaracterization. John Edwards was indicted on six counts. He was found not guilty on one of them (pertaining to a transaction that occurred after he had dropped out of the race). The other five counts ended in a mistrial. Prosecutors elected not to re-try the case. So nothing was "determined" regarding payments to a mistress.
You are confused. NN is not about what websites publish. It's about how service providers shape traffic.
As for Youtube and other sites, it's entirely up to them what they allow. You have freedom of speech, but Youtube is under no obligation whatsoever to hand you a megaphone.
The incoming Democrats COULD do a lot of things. They won't. They'll spend 90% of their time, energy, and press on a futile, symbolic push to impeach Trump for paying off a woman he had an affair with. A perfectly legal action (though distasteful) that he did before he was President.
Clearly you're behind on current events. The payments to a porn star and a Playboy model, arranged by Mike Cohen under the direction of the POTUS, were made in the context of an election. As such, they were a violation of campaign finance laws, something Cohen pleaded guilty to.
So the POTUS is implicated in a felony. And this may just be the beginning. 'Scuse me, I'm going to make some popcorn.
More regulation is a freer market??
Obviously that depends on the regulation. Anti-trust laws protect a free market. NN regulations protect a free internet. Other examples are left as an exercise.
Remember the story is about restoring the FCC rules they lost. Liberals crave power, just as the original social democrat Hitler did. More brownshirts, more power, more violence!
Wow, that's one hell of a false equivalence. I'll just let it stand.
Well they also can't pardon themselves or anyone of a crime they're at all involved in.
There have been discussions back and forth on this topic ever since the Russia investigation began. One side of the argument is that the POTUS pardon-power is wide-sweeping. On the other side, there is a principle in law (sorry, don't remember where) that "no man can be his own judge."
So Pence would be too close to be able to pardon Trump.
Can the POTUS pardon someone else of a crime if he is also complicit? Excellent question. IANAL, but I suppose the answer is yes, unless it's seen as obstruction of justice. Note the recent hue and cry after Trump hinted that he hasn't ruled out pardoning Manafort. It can be seen as a way to keep Manafort from co-operating with Mueller's investigation.
Correct. Nobody in the WH can pardon a state crime. Thanks for pointing that out.
Interesting post. Thanks for it. One point, though:
Trump doesn't deserve 50% of America's support - and he'll never have it. He'll die in prison like Paul Manafort.
As much as I think an orange jumpsuit would look good on him, I doubt he'll go to prison. He'll pardon himself on the way out -- or at least he'll try, and if it doesn't work, then Pence probably will (just like Ford pardoned Nixon.) And although he does not, and may never have, 50% of America's support, I have to wonder whether 50% of American citizens want to see a former president in the slammer.
Hypocrisy? Well maybe, if someone is using a private jet purely for the sheer opulence of it. But someone may have practical reasons for using private air transportation. Maybe commercial flights are not feasible because of scheduling, logistics, lack of privacy, and so on. I'm no apologist for the 1%, but I can understand their needs for travel may be different than mine. If they make a sincere effort to help the planet despite their carbon footprint, I think they deserve more respect than the more cynical who just don't care about their impact.
I own a private automobile, and I suspect you might also. I use it for my municipal travel needs, even though there are public-transit alternatives. Does that make us hypocrites? No. Public transit is not feasible for most of our travel needs.
And my disclosure: I fly coach also, unless I get an upgrade.
America First position
Most uncultured xenophobes do. It's the "I got mine so fuck everyone else attitude".
Also known as Beggar Thy Neighbor.
The USA has tried it already, during The Great Depression in the early 20th century. It made it worse for everyone.
So, you have your own rationalization for doing nothing.
Despite what the internet offers for communication, people still need to travel. For some, it's part of their job: performers, subject-matter experts, buisnesspeople -- and yes, politicians too.
Let's all work on and support ways to travel more efficiently, and offset its effects. But we can't just stop traveling.
The world relies on encryption to protect everything from credit card transactions to databases yet they keep getting hacked repeatedly so what's the point?
The point is to keep making it harder for the bad guys to succeed. It's an arms race.
Of course, the good guys can turn into the bad guys, so be vigilant.
them 5G apples are probably sour anyways
FTFY
Someone has to have the courage to push tech forward and it sure isnt apple.
This. I'll grant that Apple innovates in design. But technology? Not so much.
I suspect suicide after he loses the election in two years. Ivanka in womens' prison will be serialized on Netflix.
I doubt that suicide is Donald's style. He loves adoration from others too much, and I think he'll never run out of sycophants. And it's by no means certain that he'll lose in 2020. Not without a credible challenge from the Dems.
What I think is likely is that his son Don Jr. is going to be indicted in a matter of weeks. Whether he goes to trial, is convicted, and serves time is another matter. I see his dad poised with a pen to sign a pardon.
Donald Sr.'s fate is less clear. Some have said you can't indict a sitting president -- the remedy is impeachment and a trial in the Senate. But I wonder. We'll see.
As for Ivanka, I don't think she has done anything that will put her in a jail cell. Not even her mishandling of her e-mail account. (See Hillary Clinton and Colin Powell.)
I trust Wikileaks to do what is in their interest. Today, harming the GOP is not in their interest. Tomorrow? Who knows.
That assumes, of course, that Wikileaks has even received copies of the e-mails from whoever stole them.
Oh come on. That's art. That's not an invective aimed at a co-worker.
What does this have to do with equality? This is about civility.
There have been many professions that have achieved a practice of civility without sacrificing value. I see no reason why software development can't do the same.