Thank you sincerely, you self-righteous, petty dipshit.
In point of fact, I have a great deal of respect for Musk, Tesla Motors and the designs they have created. I mean, hell, they are badass vehicles. I double that respect for the reason that Musk has made many (all?) of his patents freely available for the open market in hopes that his designs can be used by both established manufacturers and entrepreneurs. And then his passion for space exploration puts the icing on the cake.
But we weren't talking specifically about Musk, were we.
No, we were talking about one fucking moron who made a blanket statement that "electricity is renewable". To a degree, yes, it is, provided the SOURCE of the electricity is. It's not when the source is a coal plant, and it cracks me up to no end when coworkers sit there and pat themselves on the back for how responsible they are for driving their fully electric (non-Musk) shitbox and I know it is being fueled every day by the coal plant that powers our region.
Electricity is renewable when it's solar, wind or hydro. But even then there's an environmental cost. Something has to store that power. And batteries are notoriously nasty contraptions. They are getting better. They are getting more and more recyclable. They are getting safer. But no intellectually honest person would ever claim they are "free". To do so shows bias, ignorance and stupidity.
And why is it that zealots of the church of environmentalism (do not mistake that for actual environmentalists) can tell me every damn second of every day that a naturally occuring gas in the atmosphere that plants must have and thrive on when the concentration rises is causing the planet's weather to dramatically change, but somehow absorbing the energy from the sun before it hit's the planet's surface, taking the energy from the planet's running water, and taking the energy from the wind that moves our weather around won't also have a marked impact on the planet's weather patterns as they are put into greater and greater use? Are there any studies deeply investigating that?
Read as; Not Free. There is an environmental cost in manufacturing, and directly in application.
I know its convenient to throw "Renewable" around like a fucking hand grenade and hope that people will just scatter rather than actually engage you. But eventually people like you are going to have to stop the Gregorian Earth chant long enough to actually discuss your bullshit.
,,,
Awesome plan.
Pack people in more tightly.
Increase crime.
Increase conflict brought on by dense proximity.
Increase dependency on government programs.
Increase the absolute reliance on just-in-time shipping and stocking of goods.
And increase taxation to accomodate all the above.
When the predictable results of rebellion become dangerous, jail dissidents and begin capital punishment for crimes against the State.
Historically it's worked without a hitch in Soviet Russia, Maoist China, North Korea... Hey, wait a minute...
You should probably actually look up libertarianism.
The fundamental principles there aren't that anyone is required to do anything at all for me, tell me what I can or cant say, or ensure that I cannot be harmed or even offended. It's much more to just leave me the fuck alone, and stay the fuck out of my business, and I will do the same for you.
Instead we now have Republican AND Democrat parties contriving on a daily basis how they will tell us to, and ensure we will live our lives in a better manner and for better collective goals. We are no longer presumed innocent. We are instead presumed guilty, so instead of principle that you will be punishes commiserate to the harm you have caused another, a law must instead be instituted that prevents you from becoming guilty in any and all possible ways. Additionally, the only way to measure the success of the legislature is to count the quantity of said laws passed in a given time period. After all, if we require every person to think and act in the same way we can transcend conflict, right?
If Mr O'Neill and the rest of these corporate leaders were actually so desperate for qualified tech people, perhaps they could consider starting extensive intern programs. If they failed to get adequate enrollment, they could work with high schools and/or community colleges, and even community outreach programs in economically suffering areas. Detroit comes to mind. Broad areas of the south do as well. They could provide valuable skills to people who wouldnt otherwise reach out to get them and reverse what these companies market as a shortage of talent and bloated wages.
So if it's not a man-made phenomenon, do you suggest that we engineer a way to stop the Earth from doing exactly what it has, and will continue to do naturally?
If it's bad to cause it, isnt it equally bad to try to stop it?
It will be interesting to hear the first case of a journalist or dissident whose stirred up too much trouble, or who is protecting a confidential source who becomes subject to one of these copyright searches. Not surprising in the least, but interesting.
The device was not created to defeat law enforcement. It was designed to defeat thieves. That's why people buy phones that can be secured. Ironically the features the government is demanding by circumvented are features the government also demands be on federally issued mobile devices, depending on the type of use. Requiring the creation of a method to break these features actually reduces the security of federal systems and data.
That aside, you're still missing the underlying distinction. While I agree that the court may certainly order a landlord to provide the keys to an establishment in which a tenant was a suspected criminal, it would be ridiculous to suggest that if that tenant had changed the locks and installed high security features that the landlord would be required to dismantle the building so that law enforcement could gain entry. Hell, even if the landlord installed the high security features and as part of the lease agreement forfeited all keys, he STILL shouldnt be held accountable for the methods, let alone costs, of gaining access.
Ironically, these are both required security functions that must be present on government issued mobile devices, depending on the nature of the device use.
A court order to investigate an individual is one thing. A court order demanding a private business that is under no suspicion create a thing that makes the company's products less secure for their customers (and quite possibly less valuable to them) is another entirely. Put aside that it's the court tell the company they have to create something, and how ludicrous that statement is alone. The creation of this tool cannot be specific to the one users who is the subject of the search. It presents the possibility that every customer's information could be more subject to inspection, and by more than just the government entity requesting the creation of it. The simple act of creating the access announces to every hacker that the access is possible.
It cant be justified. But there are so many brain-damaged Americans thoroughly enthralled by our cult of personality that they can do damn near anything and all we'll hear is that Obama is a visionary.
Despite all the hoopla about the Iran arms deal, Iran just tested a ballistic missile. It barely made the news despite the fact that it was a clear violation of the deal. Sanctions? Roll-back on the treaty? A stern talking to? No, nothing.
Oh, and the union lobbyists are innocent? The ones that make donations to campaigns, and pressure lawmakers into adding pork to bills to give jobs to their union members? That doesnt happen?
I agree that the systems is corrupted by corporations. But your argument is that unions balance the scales by participating equally in the corruption.
None of it is logical. Don't you get that? Do you think it's going to result in better products? Better support? More smooth inner-workings of the company? Better internal communication? No. This is a common example of management by spreadsheet, where the predicted gross profits are the only driving factor in the decision.
The reality is that often the whole paradigm will cost the company more money in the long-term, if only in the lost revenues from customers who refuse to by the garbage their product has become. But it doesn't stop them from driving forward so that the CEO who happened to be at the helm that year can show on that years assets that they reduced labor costs by a factor of X, takes a huge bonus for that year, and when he or she is fired when the rest of the shit hits the fan they still get a nice multi-million dollar parachute on their exit.
Much of the email, including its subject line, were redacted, making it difficult to discern the topic and full context of the document.
Talking points are useless without context. The context could very well have been classified, and wouldnt have specifically been what would be shared with the press. State decided the information was sensitive enough to redact it before release, so it would not have been included in what was shared to the press at the time.
Why should anyone be required to lean on an union to litigate a pretty obvious violation of H1-B visa? Or to file suit for wrongful termination? Or half a dozen other legal arguments? There are realistically hundreds of thousands of layers in the US slavering over the payouts of a civil rights lawsuit like this. They dont need a union. They just need to suck up start researching their own rights and the legal avenues available to them. They don't need some union siphoning their paycheck and then doing nothing more than trying to increase the paycheck only to ensure higher dues payed them.
One particular email drew scrutiny Friday — a June 17, 2011, exchange between Clinton and adviser Jake Sullivan. In that email string, she tells Sullivan she did not receive the evening's talking points — typically specifics used to speak to the press and for briefings.
"They say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it," he writes to Clinton. She responds, "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."
Exactly right. The arguments are :
1) I wasn't qualified enough to know that this information was classified, and didn't treat it with it's appropriate care.
2) I knew but didn't care enough to treat the classified information appropriately.
3) I knew but felt that I was special and didnt have to treat it appropriately.
None of the above gives a glowing recommendation to be POTUS.
The new stamps indicate that some of Clinton's emails from her time as the nation's most senior diplomat are filled with a type of information the U.S. government and the department's own regulations automatically deems classified from the get-go — regardless of whether it is already marked that way or not.
And this from August of last year. Yet this DOJ refuses to even appoint a special prosecutor to even give an appearance of taking the alllegations seriously.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you sincerely, you self-righteous, petty dipshit.
,,,
In point of fact, I have a great deal of respect for Musk, Tesla Motors and the designs they have created. I mean, hell, they are badass vehicles. I double that respect for the reason that Musk has made many (all?) of his patents freely available for the open market in hopes that his designs can be used by both established manufacturers and entrepreneurs. And then his passion for space exploration puts the icing on the cake.
But we weren't talking specifically about Musk, were we.
No, we were talking about one fucking moron who made a blanket statement that "electricity is renewable". To a degree, yes, it is, provided the SOURCE of the electricity is. It's not when the source is a coal plant, and it cracks me up to no end when coworkers sit there and pat themselves on the back for how responsible they are for driving their fully electric (non-Musk) shitbox and I know it is being fueled every day by the coal plant that powers our region.
Electricity is renewable when it's solar, wind or hydro. But even then there's an environmental cost. Something has to store that power. And batteries are notoriously nasty contraptions. They are getting better. They are getting more and more recyclable. They are getting safer. But no intellectually honest person would ever claim they are "free". To do so shows bias, ignorance and stupidity.
And why is it that zealots of the church of environmentalism (do not mistake that for actual environmentalists) can tell me every damn second of every day that a naturally occuring gas in the atmosphere that plants must have and thrive on when the concentration rises is causing the planet's weather to dramatically change, but somehow absorbing the energy from the sun before it hit's the planet's surface, taking the energy from the planet's running water, and taking the energy from the wind that moves our weather around won't also have a marked impact on the planet's weather patterns as they are put into greater and greater use? Are there any studies deeply investigating that?
https://weather.com/science/en...
Oops.
I guess they are.
And I guess it does.
Read as; Not Free. There is an environmental cost in manufacturing, and directly in application.
I know its convenient to throw "Renewable" around like a fucking hand grenade and hope that people will just scatter rather than actually engage you. But eventually people like you are going to have to stop the Gregorian Earth chant long enough to actually discuss your bullshit.
Recycled is not the same thing as renewable.
Awesome plan.
Pack people in more tightly.
Increase crime.
Increase conflict brought on by dense proximity.
Increase dependency on government programs.
Increase the absolute reliance on just-in-time shipping and stocking of goods.
And increase taxation to accomodate all the above.
When the predictable results of rebellion become dangerous, jail dissidents and begin capital punishment for crimes against the State.
Historically it's worked without a hitch in Soviet Russia, Maoist China, North Korea... Hey, wait a minute...
Hell, go further than that. Utilize the attorneys general of states to threaten to prosecute anyone who delivers a message counter to your agenda.
Batteries aren't.
So the best way to provide liberty to the greatest number of people, is to ensure the greatest number of controls on all people?
You should probably actually look up libertarianism.
The fundamental principles there aren't that anyone is required to do anything at all for me, tell me what I can or cant say, or ensure that I cannot be harmed or even offended. It's much more to just leave me the fuck alone, and stay the fuck out of my business, and I will do the same for you.
Instead we now have Republican AND Democrat parties contriving on a daily basis how they will tell us to, and ensure we will live our lives in a better manner and for better collective goals. We are no longer presumed innocent. We are instead presumed guilty, so instead of principle that you will be punishes commiserate to the harm you have caused another, a law must instead be instituted that prevents you from becoming guilty in any and all possible ways. Additionally, the only way to measure the success of the legislature is to count the quantity of said laws passed in a given time period. After all, if we require every person to think and act in the same way we can transcend conflict, right?
Working with people on the opposite side has gotten us a $19 trillion debt.
Care to rephrase?
Doh!
The fact that they werent to her whitehouse.gov email address or any official govt address is the whole fucking point.
If Mr O'Neill and the rest of these corporate leaders were actually so desperate for qualified tech people, perhaps they could consider starting extensive intern programs. If they failed to get adequate enrollment, they could work with high schools and/or community colleges, and even community outreach programs in economically suffering areas. Detroit comes to mind. Broad areas of the south do as well. They could provide valuable skills to people who wouldnt otherwise reach out to get them and reverse what these companies market as a shortage of talent and bloated wages.
Invest in Americans and quit acting the victim.
So if it's not a man-made phenomenon, do you suggest that we engineer a way to stop the Earth from doing exactly what it has, and will continue to do naturally?
If it's bad to cause it, isnt it equally bad to try to stop it?
The universe doesn't give a flying fuck about climate scientists either. Or whether you "save" the planet, for that matter.
It will be interesting to hear the first case of a journalist or dissident whose stirred up too much trouble, or who is protecting a confidential source who becomes subject to one of these copyright searches. Not surprising in the least, but interesting.
The device was not created to defeat law enforcement. It was designed to defeat thieves. That's why people buy phones that can be secured. Ironically the features the government is demanding by circumvented are features the government also demands be on federally issued mobile devices, depending on the type of use. Requiring the creation of a method to break these features actually reduces the security of federal systems and data.
That aside, you're still missing the underlying distinction. While I agree that the court may certainly order a landlord to provide the keys to an establishment in which a tenant was a suspected criminal, it would be ridiculous to suggest that if that tenant had changed the locks and installed high security features that the landlord would be required to dismantle the building so that law enforcement could gain entry. Hell, even if the landlord installed the high security features and as part of the lease agreement forfeited all keys, he STILL shouldnt be held accountable for the methods, let alone costs, of gaining access.
Ironically, these are both required security functions that must be present on government issued mobile devices, depending on the nature of the device use.
A court order to investigate an individual is one thing. A court order demanding a private business that is under no suspicion create a thing that makes the company's products less secure for their customers (and quite possibly less valuable to them) is another entirely. Put aside that it's the court tell the company they have to create something, and how ludicrous that statement is alone. The creation of this tool cannot be specific to the one users who is the subject of the search. It presents the possibility that every customer's information could be more subject to inspection, and by more than just the government entity requesting the creation of it. The simple act of creating the access announces to every hacker that the access is possible.
It cant be justified. But there are so many brain-damaged Americans thoroughly enthralled by our cult of personality that they can do damn near anything and all we'll hear is that Obama is a visionary.
Despite all the hoopla about the Iran arms deal, Iran just tested a ballistic missile. It barely made the news despite the fact that it was a clear violation of the deal. Sanctions? Roll-back on the treaty? A stern talking to? No, nothing.
Oh, and the union lobbyists are innocent? The ones that make donations to campaigns, and pressure lawmakers into adding pork to bills to give jobs to their union members? That doesnt happen?
I agree that the systems is corrupted by corporations. But your argument is that unions balance the scales by participating equally in the corruption.
None of it is logical. Don't you get that? Do you think it's going to result in better products? Better support? More smooth inner-workings of the company? Better internal communication? No. This is a common example of management by spreadsheet, where the predicted gross profits are the only driving factor in the decision.
The reality is that often the whole paradigm will cost the company more money in the long-term, if only in the lost revenues from customers who refuse to by the garbage their product has become. But it doesn't stop them from driving forward so that the CEO who happened to be at the helm that year can show on that years assets that they reduced labor costs by a factor of X, takes a huge bonus for that year, and when he or she is fired when the rest of the shit hits the fan they still get a nice multi-million dollar parachute on their exit.
The next sentence reads:
Much of the email, including its subject line, were redacted, making it difficult to discern the topic and full context of the document.
Talking points are useless without context. The context could very well have been classified, and wouldnt have specifically been what would be shared with the press. State decided the information was sensitive enough to redact it before release, so it would not have been included in what was shared to the press at the time.
Why should anyone be required to lean on an union to litigate a pretty obvious violation of H1-B visa? Or to file suit for wrongful termination? Or half a dozen other legal arguments? There are realistically hundreds of thousands of layers in the US slavering over the payouts of a civil rights lawsuit like this. They dont need a union. They just need to suck up start researching their own rights and the legal avenues available to them. They don't need some union siphoning their paycheck and then doing nothing more than trying to increase the paycheck only to ensure higher dues payed them.
One particular email drew scrutiny Friday — a June 17, 2011, exchange between Clinton and adviser Jake Sullivan. In that email string, she tells Sullivan she did not receive the evening's talking points — typically specifics used to speak to the press and for briefings.
"They say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it," he writes to Clinton. She responds, "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."
Exactly right. The arguments are :
1) I wasn't qualified enough to know that this information was classified, and didn't treat it with it's appropriate care.
2) I knew but didn't care enough to treat the classified information appropriately.
3) I knew but felt that I was special and didnt have to treat it appropriately.
None of the above gives a glowing recommendation to be POTUS.
The new stamps indicate that some of Clinton's emails from her time as the nation's most senior diplomat are filled with a type of information the U.S. government and the department's own regulations automatically deems classified from the get-go — regardless of whether it is already marked that way or not.
And this from August of last year. Yet this DOJ refuses to even appoint a special prosecutor to even give an appearance of taking the alllegations seriously.