I have little time for left or right, libertarians or authoritarians. A good policy is one that does the job well with no exceptions, a good politician is one who holds that failure is not an option. Neither exist.
No, they didn't say that she had. The Senate examined the issue and decided any offences were minor, as did the FBI. If you know better, please contact them.
But I repeat what I said. Justice has to be fair, unbiased. You cannot prosecute opponents for being opponents, no matter what conspiracies you believe. You can investigate, but you must investigate all who may be guilty. Every last one. On both sides.
And that is where you draw the line. You'd never tolerate your heroes being convicted. That goes for some on the other side, too. You and they use the law to inflict harm. You weaponize justice. And that makes you more of a criminal than Clinton, whatever her crimes turn out to be.
You know that fiction doesn't become real simply by being on the other team?
The conspiracies are delusions by the severely mentally ill. There were misdeeds, nobody gets into political office without a criminal history. But that applies to those on your side, too.
Difference is, I hate the crimes, whereas you hate the people. You don't care about the crimes, that's just an excuse to hate the people. That's why you're OK with fictional crime.
Most such people ARE SJWs and most certainly would have had codes of conduct. People back then had very strict codes. They were individualists because they were tired of populist abuse and societal malice. They walked away from people like you with absolute contempt.
So, if he got flamed, it was by your sort, not his sort.
The FCC won't permit town's to provide Internet because that unfairly competes, but will pay large sums of money to obscenely rich providers, particularly the ones paying their boss under the table, to alter the throttling settings because then they can avoid neutrality lawsuits by pretending to provide better service.
Besides, the FCC has previously ruled they don't have to provide the rated speed, they only have to advertise it.
Difference is, nobody on Mars is opposed to metropolitan networks being installed. Lovely hundred gigabit networks. The sort you could have to the home, but can't because Verizon and Comcast got competition banned.
I do so love the idea of hundred gigabit networks, and I live in a country where that would be legal.
The extra added on to petrol in Britain simply gets paid by the US driver by other means. And by having more people collecting the money by more methods, you pay a higher premium.
Your distances are about twenty times greater, and your vehicles maybe twice as heavy, so you end up using fourty times the fuel for the same tasks.
So you pay far more and pay far more often, all you do is pay less at a time.
Fighting a hot cyberwar against an entire nation that can be turned into a supersized botnet (and which probably runs half the existing major botnets out there), when your own country has grotesquely incompetent IT managers, virtually no cybersecurity, a bunch of Federally-required backdoors into mission critical systems and a vast number of SCADA-based critical servers on the public Internet, is such a good idea.
Countries don't fight wars if they don't have to. Most listened to Sun Tzu. Some countries don't have any armed forces at all, but aren't attacked.
Wars are for resources. Always. That's why the U.S. invaded Iraq. They had no WMDs and nobody believed they did. It was a war to control resources, nothing more.
Most countries don't hate America, America likes to play victim. Those that do have higher priorities. Permanent warfare is a great way to control a populace and doesn't require sending anyone to fight. War, for such people, is peace. A deluded fantasy peace, but still peace.
That you bought into their mythology reflects more on your gullibility than their weapons.
The first world war was the product of an arms race, not an assassination. The war would have happened in some other way, had the Duke lived. The Duke was irrelevant. So was self-preservation. Thousands dead or wounded each day, every day. And don't think that couldn't happen again. It will. And there's nothing the weapons of America can do to stop it. It won't even delay it. It may, however, cause it.
Nations terrified Trump will attack them for no reason may well decide on a pre-emptive strike. Not because they expect to win, but because they'd rather die fighting than die the way so many Afghan and Iraqi civilians did, by being gunned down at random by their conquerors.
You're not scaring anyone from attacking, but you might scare them into attacking. Right now, nobody cares enough to bother. America has nothing they want. You aren't dipped in gold, the way you seem to think. You're just a fairly boring agrarian society with a bit of technology and almost no interesting resources.
Anyone wanting to take over your industries either bought them or bought the improperly scrubbed hard drives. Besides, the important bits are in Taiwan, China and India.
Your attitude misses most of the facts, such as other countries already doing better than the U.S. but not by increasing gun ownership.
Second, who said I'm against guns? This fanatical belief of for vs against is stupid. Gun violence has a non-linear relationship to gun ownership. It's roughly parabolic and the minimum is not at zero. How can I be against guns when I don't do defective solutions? The optimal solution has very low gun ownership.
Yes, gangs are a problem. Want to know how to deal with gangs? Become an inclusive, not exclusive, society. The moment you tell others that they're inferior for their views is the moment you create conditions perfect for gangs. The moment you alienate is the moment you make anger seem a credible alternative to what you offer.
Guns facilitate that anger. Don't bother denying it. Guns divide. Guns create arms races.
That may well be a viable accusation and it warrants looking into seriously. The usual accusations have, however, been debunked.
Frankly, I'd remove all immunity from all in office. You do the crime, you do the time. To avoid frivolous lawsuits, I'd make those a crime too, false charges should result in time served equal to that the accused would have served if found guilty.
Make trials about the truth of a matter, not mere innocence or guilt, with justice for all.
A waverider should generate little sonic boom because of where the shockwave is placed. We also know how to build them and they should be capable of passenger loads comparable to - or better than - the high-end Airbusses.
I assume they're not the design used because they're a bugger to make stable and NASA had some accidents, but that would seem a better way to go.
Slashdot Mirror
There haven't been any moderates since 2000.
I have little time for left or right, libertarians or authoritarians. A good policy is one that does the job well with no exceptions, a good politician is one who holds that failure is not an option. Neither exist.
You might snivel. Bloody wingnut. Those who have the guts to think have better things to do.
Sending classified information is legal.
There are constraints, but it is legal.
No, they didn't say that she had. The Senate examined the issue and decided any offences were minor, as did the FBI. If you know better, please contact them.
But I repeat what I said. Justice has to be fair, unbiased. You cannot prosecute opponents for being opponents, no matter what conspiracies you believe. You can investigate, but you must investigate all who may be guilty. Every last one. On both sides.
And that is where you draw the line. You'd never tolerate your heroes being convicted. That goes for some on the other side, too. You and they use the law to inflict harm. You weaponize justice. And that makes you more of a criminal than Clinton, whatever her crimes turn out to be.
That's legal under Federal law, provided it's authorised and meets Federal data standards.
The Democrats want escalation. They want Trump or his supporters to do something so utterly stupid that the moderates in the Republicans defect.
Ah, yes, the fable.
You know that fiction doesn't become real simply by being on the other team?
The conspiracies are delusions by the severely mentally ill. There were misdeeds, nobody gets into political office without a criminal history. But that applies to those on your side, too.
Difference is, I hate the crimes, whereas you hate the people. You don't care about the crimes, that's just an excuse to hate the people. That's why you're OK with fictional crime.
They did not say Hillary committed a crime. Neither they nor the GOP could find evidence she had.
But, yes, anything that is truthful or consistent is fair and reasonable. Any defence that is applicable holds. Both ways.
Only thing you can't do is say that a legitimate defence only applies to people you like or are on your side. Same goes for Democrats.
Would you be willing to live with such a standard?
IFOs are 66% like UFOs.
Most such people ARE SJWs and most certainly would have had codes of conduct. People back then had very strict codes. They were individualists because they were tired of populist abuse and societal malice. They walked away from people like you with absolute contempt.
So, if he got flamed, it was by your sort, not his sort.
The FCC won't permit town's to provide Internet because that unfairly competes, but will pay large sums of money to obscenely rich providers, particularly the ones paying their boss under the table, to alter the throttling settings because then they can avoid neutrality lawsuits by pretending to provide better service.
Besides, the FCC has previously ruled they don't have to provide the rated speed, they only have to advertise it.
Difference is, nobody on Mars is opposed to metropolitan networks being installed. Lovely hundred gigabit networks. The sort you could have to the home, but can't because Verizon and Comcast got competition banned.
I do so love the idea of hundred gigabit networks, and I live in a country where that would be legal.
Actually, not so good.
The extra added on to petrol in Britain simply gets paid by the US driver by other means. And by having more people collecting the money by more methods, you pay a higher premium.
Your distances are about twenty times greater, and your vehicles maybe twice as heavy, so you end up using fourty times the fuel for the same tasks.
So you pay far more and pay far more often, all you do is pay less at a time.
And you fell for it.
You really wouldn't. Can you imagine a Cambodian Comcast or Verizon with server rooms providing data to their police?
Maybe he's a dwarf. On Discworld, dwarves think irony means made of iron.
Fighting a hot cyberwar against an entire nation that can be turned into a supersized botnet (and which probably runs half the existing major botnets out there), when your own country has grotesquely incompetent IT managers, virtually no cybersecurity, a bunch of Federally-required backdoors into mission critical systems and a vast number of SCADA-based critical servers on the public Internet, is such a good idea.
I mean, what could possibly go wrong?
Countries don't fight wars if they don't have to. Most listened to Sun Tzu. Some countries don't have any armed forces at all, but aren't attacked.
Wars are for resources. Always. That's why the U.S. invaded Iraq. They had no WMDs and nobody believed they did. It was a war to control resources, nothing more.
Most countries don't hate America, America likes to play victim. Those that do have higher priorities. Permanent warfare is a great way to control a populace and doesn't require sending anyone to fight. War, for such people, is peace. A deluded fantasy peace, but still peace.
That you bought into their mythology reflects more on your gullibility than their weapons.
The first world war was the product of an arms race, not an assassination. The war would have happened in some other way, had the Duke lived. The Duke was irrelevant. So was self-preservation. Thousands dead or wounded each day, every day. And don't think that couldn't happen again. It will. And there's nothing the weapons of America can do to stop it. It won't even delay it. It may, however, cause it.
Nations terrified Trump will attack them for no reason may well decide on a pre-emptive strike. Not because they expect to win, but because they'd rather die fighting than die the way so many Afghan and Iraqi civilians did, by being gunned down at random by their conquerors.
You're not scaring anyone from attacking, but you might scare them into attacking. Right now, nobody cares enough to bother. America has nothing they want. You aren't dipped in gold, the way you seem to think. You're just a fairly boring agrarian society with a bit of technology and almost no interesting resources.
Anyone wanting to take over your industries either bought them or bought the improperly scrubbed hard drives. Besides, the important bits are in Taiwan, China and India.
Your attitude misses most of the facts, such as other countries already doing better than the U.S. but not by increasing gun ownership.
Second, who said I'm against guns? This fanatical belief of for vs against is stupid. Gun violence has a non-linear relationship to gun ownership. It's roughly parabolic and the minimum is not at zero. How can I be against guns when I don't do defective solutions? The optimal solution has very low gun ownership.
Yes, gangs are a problem. Want to know how to deal with gangs? Become an inclusive, not exclusive, society. The moment you tell others that they're inferior for their views is the moment you create conditions perfect for gangs. The moment you alienate is the moment you make anger seem a credible alternative to what you offer.
Guns facilitate that anger. Don't bother denying it. Guns divide. Guns create arms races.
You're neglecting two things.
First, WW3 was averted at least three times, despite MAD, because of freak events.
Second, there was imbalance throughout the cold war.
Selective truth is a lie. In fact, all the best lies are approximately true, because they're the hardest to detect.
That may well be a viable accusation and it warrants looking into seriously. The usual accusations have, however, been debunked.
Frankly, I'd remove all immunity from all in office. You do the crime, you do the time. To avoid frivolous lawsuits, I'd make those a crime too, false charges should result in time served equal to that the accused would have served if found guilty.
Make trials about the truth of a matter, not mere innocence or guilt, with justice for all.
A waverider should generate little sonic boom because of where the shockwave is placed. We also know how to build them and they should be capable of passenger loads comparable to - or better than - the high-end Airbusses.
I assume they're not the design used because they're a bugger to make stable and NASA had some accidents, but that would seem a better way to go.
You can do mach 5 using a hydrogen-powered ramjet on a waverider airfoil, according to theory.
The design would seat a lot of passengers.
The Scottish Rocketry Society produced a waverider before NASA had even been satisfied the theory would work.
Nobody has come close to producing a commercially viable waverider of the necessary design.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/de...
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/de...
That doesn't impact the 777 relative to the A380.
Nobody worships nature, silly! That would annoy Thor.
Money? NASA? They run ancient setups and antequated code because that's all they can afford. They have no money and get less each year in real terms.