Almost everyone could figure it out... in 3rd grade. If you had a teacher that understood math, they can make anything easy to understand. The problem is, most grade school teachers are VERY poor at basic math. And it shows.
I'm in education, I see this first hand. Teachers who need calculators to do basic math. And we wonder why our kids can't do simple math anymore.
No, regulation makes sure that only qualified (see Government / Corporate) uses are allowed. People for gun control aren't against guns, they are against normal people having guns.
Why not, when we catch one of those Child Molesting perverts simply toss them into General Population ? Instead we protect them from the consequences of their own actions by giving them "special" treatment. I have no problem letting prison justice work itself out.
Unlimited is not a "marketing term". It means that there is no limits to usage. Marketing people use the term indiscriminately and that is the problem. Hell, I'm not opposed to bandwidth limits for "unlimited" usage. Namely, you can have Unlimited data, but are slowed to 1/5 speed after X MB/GB/TB of transfers. That would still be "unlimited" data, just not the rate at which abusers want. I have no problem with that kind of cap.
Any sufficient level of incompetence is indistinguishable from Malice. Which is the more likely scenario, Incompetence or Malice? Knowing Sprint Techs, Incompetence is my initial guess.
Now, if it was something out of Corporate, I would assume Malice. Just because it usually takes evil to get to the top of such organizations.
Security Theater is nothing more than the Wizard of Oz. The problem is, nobody learned that lesson, in spite of nearly universal knowledge of that movie's pivotal scene.
The problem is, the security theater only makes it more difficult, and now we're finding out it actually doesn't make it all much more difficult.
IMHO the chances of hijacking a plane became much less likely to be successful after 9/11, because they broke the cardinal rule of hijacking, and turned the plane into a weapon. People on planes already know they are dead if a hijacker takes over, and will respond accordingly.
I wouldn't call it Tribalism, but that works too. I would call it Group Politics. Which is why, fundamentally, rights are ascribed to individuals and not groups. The very idea is that a group cannot violate an individual's right, simply because they are more numerous.
What is liberal about it isn't that it happens. What is liberal about it is that we have people saying the very document that prohibits it is old and antiquated, giving tacit approval to violating it for governmental convenience (in the name of Security or the Children)
I would go one step further. I would suggest that the US constitution is a framework for ALL government activities, regardless of border. I see no reason why the Constitution's restrictions end at our border.
Trust me when I say this, both Liberals and Conservative Republicans have the same problem with Libertarians, because both are statists. They are just statits for different causes.
The SJWs lament the Constitution not because of what it says, but who built it. They are all for the 1st amendment, until it no longer suits them (see Political Correctness). They are all for guns, as long as it is the government has them, and the people don't, while in the very next breath complain about cops shooting unarmed blacks. And so on down the line. Trust me when I say, we were complaining about War on Terror / Patriot Act was going on, we were saying "Hold on a second", while the (D) and (R) were conspiring to remove liberties in the name of security.
The problem is, that unlike some in the (R) party, there is nobody on the left that is really wanting reforms that limit government power. In fact, most of the powers collected by the Federal Government are actually reserved to the states or the people. The current legal status of the Commerce Clause has nullified all the enumerated restrictions elsewhere in the Constitution. But nobody is really talking about revoking that clause or Amending it to reflect the original intentions of the Framers of the Constitution.
Knowing where the problem is, isn't helping. Too many people, both (D) and (R) like the status quo. You can tell me I am wrong when Bernie wins the (D) primaries, and Donald or Ben win the (R). My gut tells me that it will be Clinton v Bush round 2, which will prove my point.
You make a very excellent case for diesel hybrid. An engine that is tuned to produce slightly more power (overall) than is needed for average driving, would be the most efficient one made.
It is a shitty excuse. It is also a shitty outlook by the same people who think that it is Out-Dated, relic without contemporary relevance. These kids have been taught by liberal elites with a twisted SJW attitude.
As the article suggested, if just having your name and email address on a "free to sign up" website database, then Barack Obama was trying to cheat on his wife at Ashley Madison.
But it is much easier to get people to spread the lies, than it is to actually verify them. Just accuse, and disseminate the lies and as Harry Reid says about his lying "It worked".
This is why I can't stand many progressives, they don't care about the truth, only the narrative they are promoting. "It was a YouTube Video"
Unlimited, as a word, has a meaning. That meaning becomes meaningless if you change the definition simply because someone fully tests the the terminology.
The point being, "Unlimited" is a great marketing term, but will cause issues in practicality. Do not use it if you can't fathom people pushing the limit towards infinity.
The lawyers need to put their heads together and come up with a commercial definition of "unlimited" that 99.9% of us can live with.
No, they don't. Marketing droids can say "We offer 'nearly unlimited*' storage" and then define what "nearly unlimited" actually means. e.g. "*Nearly Unlimited = 25 TB" (or whatever they want to define it as)
So, being the biggest, loudest most outspoken "Global Warming" alarmist means nothing to you? Or you just saying that because he has said provably wrong predictions in the past?
Which is all fine and dandy if the same people who forgave him, would also forgive all the "KKK" that other politicians had, that they also renounced. But that is typically only reserved for good liberals in standing.
Robert Bird was a democrat and KKK member. One of the more famous cases of liberal bias against their own hate. He got a pass for being KKK because he was a good liberal.
Slashdot Mirror
> and 1 (X is bigger / greater than 1 )
Almost everyone could figure it out ... in 3rd grade. If you had a teacher that understood math, they can make anything easy to understand. The problem is, most grade school teachers are VERY poor at basic math. And it shows.
I'm in education, I see this first hand. Teachers who need calculators to do basic math. And we wonder why our kids can't do simple math anymore.
No, regulation makes sure that only qualified (see Government / Corporate) uses are allowed. People for gun control aren't against guns, they are against normal people having guns.
Why not, when we catch one of those Child Molesting perverts simply toss them into General Population ? Instead we protect them from the consequences of their own actions by giving them "special" treatment. I have no problem letting prison justice work itself out.
Unlimited is not a "marketing term". It means that there is no limits to usage. Marketing people use the term indiscriminately and that is the problem. Hell, I'm not opposed to bandwidth limits for "unlimited" usage. Namely, you can have Unlimited data, but are slowed to 1/5 speed after X MB/GB/TB of transfers. That would still be "unlimited" data, just not the rate at which abusers want. I have no problem with that kind of cap.
"All it takes for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing".
QED
Except, it is a Sprint owned MDM and domain.
Any sufficient level of incompetence is indistinguishable from Malice. Which is the more likely scenario, Incompetence or Malice? Knowing Sprint Techs, Incompetence is my initial guess.
Now, if it was something out of Corporate, I would assume Malice. Just because it usually takes evil to get to the top of such organizations.
Here's the difference between a hot girl and Big Pharma,Media, Corporations et al ...
TPP is like being promised the hot girl, and getting fucked in your virgin ass by a bunch of well hung dudes.
Security Theater is nothing more than the Wizard of Oz. The problem is, nobody learned that lesson, in spite of nearly universal knowledge of that movie's pivotal scene.
The problem is, the security theater only makes it more difficult, and now we're finding out it actually doesn't make it all much more difficult.
IMHO the chances of hijacking a plane became much less likely to be successful after 9/11, because they broke the cardinal rule of hijacking, and turned the plane into a weapon. People on planes already know they are dead if a hijacker takes over, and will respond accordingly.
genuinely atoning.... that would STILL carry a lot of weight.
Maybe.
Nearly Unlimited means there are possible restrictions. Kind of like how Calculus works. ;)
I wouldn't call it Tribalism, but that works too. I would call it Group Politics. Which is why, fundamentally, rights are ascribed to individuals and not groups. The very idea is that a group cannot violate an individual's right, simply because they are more numerous.
What is liberal about it isn't that it happens. What is liberal about it is that we have people saying the very document that prohibits it is old and antiquated, giving tacit approval to violating it for governmental convenience (in the name of Security or the Children)
I would go one step further. I would suggest that the US constitution is a framework for ALL government activities, regardless of border. I see no reason why the Constitution's restrictions end at our border.
Trust me when I say this, both Liberals and Conservative Republicans have the same problem with Libertarians, because both are statists. They are just statits for different causes.
The SJWs lament the Constitution not because of what it says, but who built it. They are all for the 1st amendment, until it no longer suits them (see Political Correctness). They are all for guns, as long as it is the government has them, and the people don't, while in the very next breath complain about cops shooting unarmed blacks. And so on down the line. Trust me when I say, we were complaining about War on Terror / Patriot Act was going on, we were saying "Hold on a second", while the (D) and (R) were conspiring to remove liberties in the name of security.
The problem is, that unlike some in the (R) party, there is nobody on the left that is really wanting reforms that limit government power. In fact, most of the powers collected by the Federal Government are actually reserved to the states or the people. The current legal status of the Commerce Clause has nullified all the enumerated restrictions elsewhere in the Constitution. But nobody is really talking about revoking that clause or Amending it to reflect the original intentions of the Framers of the Constitution.
Knowing where the problem is, isn't helping. Too many people, both (D) and (R) like the status quo. You can tell me I am wrong when Bernie wins the (D) primaries, and Donald or Ben win the (R). My gut tells me that it will be Clinton v Bush round 2, which will prove my point.
You make a very excellent case for diesel hybrid. An engine that is tuned to produce slightly more power (overall) than is needed for average driving, would be the most efficient one made.
You can't have individuals deciding what is and what is not a national security secret with no consequence.
You're not talking about Hillary Clinton are you? You probably should. Those Damn eMails.
It is a shitty excuse. It is also a shitty outlook by the same people who think that it is Out-Dated, relic without contemporary relevance. These kids have been taught by liberal elites with a twisted SJW attitude.
Unless he was involved in a lynching, then nothing he says fixes that. Guilty by association and all that.
Lets start with the four mentioned ... Mkay?
http://www.mediaite.com/online...
As the article suggested, if just having your name and email address on a "free to sign up" website database, then Barack Obama was trying to cheat on his wife at Ashley Madison.
But it is much easier to get people to spread the lies, than it is to actually verify them. Just accuse, and disseminate the lies and as Harry Reid says about his lying "It worked".
This is why I can't stand many progressives, they don't care about the truth, only the narrative they are promoting. "It was a YouTube Video"
Unlimited, as a word, has a meaning. That meaning becomes meaningless if you change the definition simply because someone fully tests the the terminology.
The point being, "Unlimited" is a great marketing term, but will cause issues in practicality. Do not use it if you can't fathom people pushing the limit towards infinity.
The lawyers need to put their heads together and come up with a commercial definition of "unlimited" that 99.9% of us can live with.
No, they don't. Marketing droids can say "We offer 'nearly unlimited*' storage" and then define what "nearly unlimited" actually means. e.g. "*Nearly Unlimited = 25 TB" (or whatever they want to define it as)
So, being the biggest, loudest most outspoken "Global Warming" alarmist means nothing to you? Or you just saying that because he has said provably wrong predictions in the past?
So, what you're saying is as long as the accusation is "KKK" it is okay to be guilty until proven innocent.
Accusations are all you need? I think you might be a child molester and domestic terrorist.
And then he later renounced his KKK membership.
Which is all fine and dandy if the same people who forgave him, would also forgive all the "KKK" that other politicians had, that they also renounced. But that is typically only reserved for good liberals in standing.
Let me know when you have figured out how to prove a negative.
Robert Bird was a democrat and KKK member. One of the more famous cases of liberal bias against their own hate. He got a pass for being KKK because he was a good liberal.