My point is that it never was cheap as advertised. It never was $60 million per launch: NASA paid $1.6 billion for 12 missions, $133+ million per launch, but two of those 12 missions were really tests with very light payloads, so it was something closer to $160 million per launch. Now they're saying that the cost per mission is $152 million and someone is surprised. I am not.
Translated: SpaceX thought they needed to charge a premium to deal with bureaucracy but wildly underestimated just how much bureaucracy is required to interact with a multi multi billion dollar internationally operated property.
Not really. SpaceX were cheap only if you ignore the truckload of money that NASA paid them to develop their rockets and the fact that NASA bought 12 flights to carry supplies to the ISS, but the first two were basically test launches with very light payloads (CRS-1 and CRS-2).
The problem with this anecdotal evidence is that you probably simply don't notice most vegan and animal friends that are not as radicalised as PETA members.
A vegan and animal rights activist who had no trouble shooting people - who last time I checked, are also animals.
Well, anecdotal evidence, I know, but many vegan, animal activists I met think that animals are better than humans (there's no criminality among animals!!1!) and despise humans who do not care animals like they do.
The 9am work time exists because that's the time that people in their 50s, on average, become most awake and those were the ones in management positions when the working day drifted towards standardisation. The average time for different age groups to reach peak awareness is basically later for younger people (teenagers are basically useless before 11am). This has been studied for ages and is well known.
I'd like to see some credible source for all this. If yours was a contribution to Wikipedia, I'd be writing [citation needed] at the end of each sentence right now.
I have many relatives and friends who work in education and every one of them could tell you that late hours in the morning are the worse, because by then students are more tired. If school starts at 8am, the most productive hours are indicatively at 9am and 10am.
Ya we know there probably is this type of life on many of our planets.
There probably isn't, you mean. In fact no place on Earth is Mars-like, atmosphere and gravity are totally different. Besides, the fact there is life in a desert today does not mean that life can arise in a desert: you can find humans in Greenland nowadays, but Greenland is not a place where the human race could have arisen.
There is nothing to prove there: there is something improper about the warrant.
Not until you prove it.
Prove what? The fact that they omitted to say that dossier was paid by political adversaries of Trump? The fact that they omitted to say that the corroborating source Yahoo News was in fact the same source? The fact that Steele was a known critic of Trump, per Ohr testimony? They used a libellous source at best.
No one has yet proven that any substantial amount of the material in the Steele dossier is actually false.
Warrants are frequently granted on the word of known drug addicts and petty criminals, they're not the most trustworthy people, but if the evidence seems credible enough, then further investigation is warranted.
If that is not worrisome to you, I do not know what to say. However in this case it is not just unverified information, it is also a matter of unverified sources. A drug addict probably knows a given drug dealer, so he may not be trustworthy, but he is surely an informed source. In this case the source is an anonymous guy, who claims to know everything about the most protected secrets of the Kremlin. It is untrustworthy the information and the source.
Which in this case is those trying to discredit the investigation. They not only need to prove that there was something improper about the warrant
There is nothing to prove there: there is something improper about the warrant. Those who filed the application used fabricated evidence and they knew it. Maybe the application would have been successful even without the forged evidence (the Steele dossier, the Yahoo News article etc.), but that does not change the fact that someone willingly tried to deceive the FISA judge. I repeat it, because it seems that many here do not get it: someone used fabricated evidence knowingly to get a FISA warrant. That is a very serious, concerning fact by itself.
The validity of the warrant is a further step that must be addressed, but it is a different problem.
they also need to prove that the alleged impropriety of the warrant is relevant to the Mueller investigation
Don't go too far. Right now the situation is: someone conspired to fabricate evidence to get a FISA warrant (proved fact). Then there could be an invalid FISA warrant (unproved fact) and even a bogus investigation (unproved fact). But those are further steps.
It is not possible to know what evidence besides the memo was used in the application
Well, another piece of evidence used in the application was the infamous Yahoo News article, which was based on a controlled leak by Steele himself. So there are at least two pieces of evidence which were invalid. Not only that, it is clear that someone tried to inflate the available evidence for the application with a classical propaganda tactic, that is the controlled leak (the same tactic used by Dick Cheney as a pretext to start the Iraq War).
Now. to me it seems the republicans are taking full advantage of this fact and trying to portray the memo as the singular piece of evidence on which the whole thing hangs upon, because they know that they cannot be disproven without the releasing of classified material, meaning their backs are covered.
The burden of proof is on the accuser. You can say that the Democrats are taking full advantage of that fact to downplay the undisputed fact that (some of) the evidence given in the FISA application was fabricated, by them and the Clinton Campaign (which was the same thing given what Donna Brazile and Wikileaks said).
Even if that were true - and given the cherry-picked nature of the information in the memo, I doubt it's the complete story - the Steel dossier was just one more piece of information.
Actually (at least) two more pieces. From the very succinct memo:
The Carter Page FISA application also cited extensively a September 23, 2016, Yahoo News article by Michael Isikoff, which focuses on Page's July 2016 trip to Moscow. This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News. The Page FISA application incorrectly assesses that Steele did not directly provide information to Yahoo News. Steele has admitted in British court filings that he met with Yahoo News --and several other outlets-- in September 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS.
That's a ridiculous thing to say. Criticizing China outside of China is not the same as going to Sweden and raping someone.
This is the "rape" account according to the victim:
“The complainant ‘AA’ said in her statement that Mr Assange ripped off her clothes and at the same time broke her necklace. She tried to put her clothes on again, but Mr Assange had immediately removed them again. She had thought that she did not really want to continue, but it was too late to tell Mr Assange to stop as she had consented so far. Accordingly she let Mr Assange take off all her clothes. Thereafter they laid down on the bed naked with AA on her back and Mr Assange on top. Mr Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina, but she did not want him to do that as he was not using a condom. She therefore squeezed her legs together in order to avoid him penetrating her. She tried to reach several times for a condom which Mr Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without a condom. Mr Assange must have known it was a condom AA was reaching for and he had held her arms to stop her. After a while Mr Assange had asked AA what she was doing and why she was squeezing her legs together; AA told him she wanted him to put on a condom before he entered her. Mr Assange let go of AA’s arms and put on a condom which AA found for him. AA felt a strong sense of unexpressed resistance on Mr Assange’ s part against using a condom.”
Basically he is investigated because he allegedly made resistance when asked to use a condom, even though he actually used it.
SW and AA were victims of violence, and the Swedish and British legal systems are doing the right thing in prosecuting Assange.
From the same article, "From Russia, with Panic" by Yasha Levine: “You don’t know there is anybody there. It’s not like it’s a club and everyone has a membership card that says Fancy Bear on it. It’s just a made-up name for a group of attacks and techniques and technical indicators associated with these attacks,” author and cybersecurity expert Jeffrey Carr told me. “There is rarely if ever any confirmation that these groups even exist or that the claim was proven as correct.”
My guess is the methods they are using for dating materials is a complete joke, but no one likes to admit it.
Not just that, even though dating is almost always very difficult and a source of fiery debates among experts. Fossils interpretation is oftentimes a kind of witchcraft (is that molar from an early sapiens, a late erectus, a new species, a neanderthal? by the way are neanderthals sapiens?...). Moreover most scientists, who are not physicists, simply don't grasp statistics and measure theory, and pull numbers out of thin air. And then there's poli-fitting, which is like poly-fitting, but using politics for fitting your data...
Ahem, from the introduction of the first article you linked (emphasis mine): "the first wave took place between 130,000 and 115,000 years ago via northern Africa, and appears to have mostly died out or retreated".
Besides that, there is a lot of evidence that early humans migrated back and forth from Africa, multiple times.
In a certain way, yes. However there is no dubt that today music is among the crappiest new music ever created. I am particularly annoyed at the fact that new music is getting louder and louder since the 80s (point 2). That is a well known and sourced fact: during the 80s, music producers discovered that people's attention is better caught by loud music, especially when they are doing other things (e.g. driving, watching tv, having a drink at the bar...). Not only that, but it must be constantly and continuously loud to hold attention. The end result is music without volume dynamics. It is very stressful to hear, albeit catchy at first. I sincerely cannot stand it physically, my poor ears need something better (yes, better).
You can find a lot of documents on the subject, just google it. And it is not a new thing, it is a known and documented fact since at least the late 90s, when the trend became evident.
Yeah we get it: when James Damore says something it's free speech when AmiMojo does it's a lynch mob.
If AmiMojo says things that are readily verifiable as false, and, on top of that, those things are even disparaging, yes.
After all, as Jefferson put it, "it seems to escape them, that it is not he who prints, but he who pays for printing a slander, who is it's real author".
Free speech: so good it's only allowed for right wingers.
Luckily enough, the only two* parties of the US are both right-wing parties: everybody's covered.
* I know there are a couple more, including at least one true leftist party, but those are pariah.
Slashdot Mirror
Pluto is a planet, you racist!
Like... this poison?
Putin has a poisonous attitude towards russians not following his script.
And American media have a poisonous attitude towards whoever is not conformed to mainstream thinking (e.g. Jill Stein).
Moreover, Russian troll =/= Russian agent. Conflating those two definitions is disingenuous.
My point is that it never was cheap as advertised. It never was $60 million per launch: NASA paid $1.6 billion for 12 missions, $133+ million per launch, but two of those 12 missions were really tests with very light payloads, so it was something closer to $160 million per launch. Now they're saying that the cost per mission is $152 million and someone is surprised. I am not.
Translated: SpaceX thought they needed to charge a premium to deal with bureaucracy but wildly underestimated just how much bureaucracy is required to interact with a multi multi billion dollar internationally operated property.
Not really. SpaceX were cheap only if you ignore the truckload of money that NASA paid them to develop their rockets and the fact that NASA bought 12 flights to carry supplies to the ISS, but the first two were basically test launches with very light payloads (CRS-1 and CRS-2).
The problem with this anecdotal evidence is that you probably simply don't notice most vegan and animal friends that are not as radicalised as PETA members.
That may be true.
A vegan and animal rights activist who had no trouble shooting people - who last time I checked, are also animals.
Well, anecdotal evidence, I know, but many vegan, animal activists I met think that animals are better than humans (there's no criminality among animals!!1!) and despise humans who do not care animals like they do.
The 9am work time exists because that's the time that people in their 50s, on average, become most awake and those were the ones in management positions when the working day drifted towards standardisation. The average time for different age groups to reach peak awareness is basically later for younger people (teenagers are basically useless before 11am). This has been studied for ages and is well known.
I'd like to see some credible source for all this. If yours was a contribution to Wikipedia, I'd be writing [citation needed] at the end of each sentence right now. I have many relatives and friends who work in education and every one of them could tell you that late hours in the morning are the worse, because by then students are more tired. If school starts at 8am, the most productive hours are indicatively at 9am and 10am.
Nope, we have not caused any of this. Notably, you aren't even attempting to cite examples.
Libya, Syria, Honduras and Yemen are just the latest examples I can recollect for the past five years or so.
Ya we know there probably is this type of life on many of our planets.
There probably isn't, you mean. In fact no place on Earth is Mars-like, atmosphere and gravity are totally different. Besides, the fact there is life in a desert today does not mean that life can arise in a desert: you can find humans in Greenland nowadays, but Greenland is not a place where the human race could have arisen.
What's the angle there? Sow the seeds of common sense?
Common sense is what the warmongering cryptocracy establishment fear the most.
There is nothing to prove there: there is something improper about the warrant.
Not until you prove it.
Prove what? The fact that they omitted to say that dossier was paid by political adversaries of Trump? The fact that they omitted to say that the corroborating source Yahoo News was in fact the same source? The fact that Steele was a known critic of Trump, per Ohr testimony? They used a libellous source at best.
No one has yet proven that any substantial amount of the material in the Steele dossier is actually false.
Because it is mostly unverifiable and the author knew it when he wrote it. The few verifiable parts are false, like the fact that Trump's lawyer was in Prague to meet Russian officials. The rest is just unverifiable gossip (e.g. who can prove the existence of a Russian dossier on Trump to blackmail him, if not the Russian themselves?) retold by anonymous sources.
Warrants are frequently granted on the word of known drug addicts and petty criminals, they're not the most trustworthy people, but if the evidence seems credible enough, then further investigation is warranted.
If that is not worrisome to you, I do not know what to say. However in this case it is not just unverified information, it is also a matter of unverified sources. A drug addict probably knows a given drug dealer, so he may not be trustworthy, but he is surely an informed source. In this case the source is an anonymous guy, who claims to know everything about the most protected secrets of the Kremlin. It is untrustworthy the information and the source.
Which in this case is those trying to discredit the investigation. They not only need to prove that there was something improper about the warrant
There is nothing to prove there: there is something improper about the warrant. Those who filed the application used fabricated evidence and they knew it. Maybe the application would have been successful even without the forged evidence (the Steele dossier, the Yahoo News article etc.), but that does not change the fact that someone willingly tried to deceive the FISA judge. I repeat it, because it seems that many here do not get it: someone used fabricated evidence knowingly to get a FISA warrant. That is a very serious, concerning fact by itself.
The validity of the warrant is a further step that must be addressed, but it is a different problem.
they also need to prove that the alleged impropriety of the warrant is relevant to the Mueller investigation
Don't go too far. Right now the situation is: someone conspired to fabricate evidence to get a FISA warrant (proved fact). Then there could be an invalid FISA warrant (unproved fact) and even a bogus investigation (unproved fact). But those are further steps.
It is not possible to know what evidence besides the memo was used in the application
Well, another piece of evidence used in the application was the infamous Yahoo News article, which was based on a controlled leak by Steele himself. So there are at least two pieces of evidence which were invalid. Not only that, it is clear that someone tried to inflate the available evidence for the application with a classical propaganda tactic, that is the controlled leak (the same tactic used by Dick Cheney as a pretext to start the Iraq War).
Now. to me it seems the republicans are taking full advantage of this fact and trying to portray the memo as the singular piece of evidence on which the whole thing hangs upon, because they know that they cannot be disproven without the releasing of classified material, meaning their backs are covered.
The burden of proof is on the accuser. You can say that the Democrats are taking full advantage of that fact to downplay the undisputed fact that (some of) the evidence given in the FISA application was fabricated, by them and the Clinton Campaign (which was the same thing given what Donna Brazile and Wikileaks said).
Even if that were true - and given the cherry-picked nature of the information in the memo, I doubt it's the complete story - the Steel dossier was just one more piece of information.
Actually (at least) two more pieces. From the very succinct memo:
The Carter Page FISA application also cited extensively a September 23, 2016, Yahoo News article by Michael Isikoff, which focuses on Page's July 2016 trip to Moscow. This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News. The Page FISA application incorrectly assesses that Steele did not directly provide information to Yahoo News. Steele has admitted in British court filings that he met with Yahoo News --and several other outlets-- in September 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS.
Could fake news turn out to be good news?
When they are not less true than official news, yes. Ostensibly, this is often the case.
The West doesn't carpet bomb entire villages with dumb ordinance, WW2-style like the Russians do.
No, the Americans just used WW1-style* white phosphorus bomb during the siege of Raqqa and Mosul.
*White phosphorus ammunition was first used by the British in 1916.
That's a ridiculous thing to say. Criticizing China outside of China is not the same as going to Sweden and raping someone.
This is the "rape" account according to the victim:
“The complainant ‘AA’ said in her statement that Mr Assange ripped off her clothes and at the same time broke her necklace. She tried to put her clothes on again, but Mr Assange had immediately removed them again. She had thought that she did not really want to continue, but it was too late to tell Mr Assange to stop as she had consented so far. Accordingly she let Mr Assange take off all her clothes. Thereafter they laid down on the bed naked with AA on her back and Mr Assange on top. Mr Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina, but she did not want him to do that as he was not using a condom. She therefore squeezed her legs together in order to avoid him penetrating her. She tried to reach several times for a condom which Mr Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without a condom. Mr Assange must have known it was a condom AA was reaching for and he had held her arms to stop her. After a while Mr Assange had asked AA what she was doing and why she was squeezing her legs together; AA told him she wanted him to put on a condom before he entered her. Mr Assange let go of AA’s arms and put on a condom which AA found for him. AA felt a strong sense of unexpressed resistance on Mr Assange’ s part against using a condom.”
Basically he is investigated because he allegedly made resistance when asked to use a condom, even though he actually used it.
SW and AA were victims of violence, and the Swedish and British legal systems are doing the right thing in prosecuting Assange.
So right that the UN ruled that JA is under arbitrary detention by Sweden and UK.
I think it has been said there were a few fake ones in between
Probably it has been said by the likes of you. Everybody else knows that all the emails published by Wikileaks are authentic.
but the breaki.n happened and was done by russians was never disputed.
It was disputed since the beginning that a breaking happened and it was disputed since the beginning that Russians had something to do with it. Even the "Cozy Bear" and "Fancy Bear" names that pop around are just marketing names by Crowdstrike (the cybersecurity firm that got rich with the DNC hack investigation): "Unfortunately, there were big problems with CrowdStrike’s account. For one thing, the names of the two Russian espionage groups that CrowdStrike supposedly caught, Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, were a fiction. Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear are what cyber monitors call “Advanced Persistent Threats,” or APTs. [...] Depending on the cybersecurity firm doing the analysis, these two APTs have been called by all sorts of names: Pawn Storm, Sofacy, Sednit, CozyCar, The Dukes, CozyDuke, Office Monkeys."
From the same article, "From Russia, with Panic" by Yasha Levine: “You don’t know there is anybody there. It’s not like it’s a club and everyone has a membership card that says Fancy Bear on it. It’s just a made-up name for a group of attacks and techniques and technical indicators associated with these attacks,” author and cybersecurity expert Jeffrey Carr told me. “There is rarely if ever any confirmation that these groups even exist or that the claim was proven as correct.”
Nobody is perfect :-p
My guess is the methods they are using for dating materials is a complete joke, but no one likes to admit it.
Not just that, even though dating is almost always very difficult and a source of fiery debates among experts. Fossils interpretation is oftentimes a kind of witchcraft (is that molar from an early sapiens, a late erectus, a new species, a neanderthal? by the way are neanderthals sapiens? ...). Moreover most scientists, who are not physicists, simply don't grasp statistics and measure theory, and pull numbers out of thin air. And then there's poli-fitting, which is like poly-fitting, but using politics for fitting your data...
Ahem, from the introduction of the first article you linked (emphasis mine): "the first wave took place between 130,000 and 115,000 years ago via northern Africa, and appears to have mostly died out or retreated".
Besides that, there is a lot of evidence that early humans migrated back and forth from Africa, multiple times.
New music has always sounded crap.
In a certain way, yes. However there is no dubt that today music is among the crappiest new music ever created. I am particularly annoyed at the fact that new music is getting louder and louder since the 80s (point 2). That is a well known and sourced fact: during the 80s, music producers discovered that people's attention is better caught by loud music, especially when they are doing other things (e.g. driving, watching tv, having a drink at the bar...). Not only that, but it must be constantly and continuously loud to hold attention. The end result is music without volume dynamics. It is very stressful to hear, albeit catchy at first. I sincerely cannot stand it physically, my poor ears need something better (yes, better).
You can find a lot of documents on the subject, just google it. And it is not a new thing, it is a known and documented fact since at least the late 90s, when the trend became evident.
Yeah we get it: when James Damore says something it's free speech when AmiMojo does it's a lynch mob.
If AmiMojo says things that are readily verifiable as false, and, on top of that, those things are even disparaging, yes.
After all, as Jefferson put it, "it seems to escape them, that it is not he who prints, but he who pays for printing a slander, who is it's real author".
Free speech: so good it's only allowed for right wingers.
Luckily enough, the only two* parties of the US are both right-wing parties: everybody's covered.
* I know there are a couple more, including at least one true leftist party, but those are pariah.