We had a convention recently and one of the presenters forgot to bring his display dongle for his Mac.
Regardless of what you're using, the possibility of not having the proper connector for a situation exists, unless you have a laptop with every known port.
I'm an American. It's nobody's business what I eat or drink.
True, but that doesn't make her a hypocrite. She'd be a hypocrite if she were Ron Paul calling for more limited government. But she's a big-government liberal, so there can be no hypocrisy in her using the government to mandate healthy eating.
This is the exact response I expected. Any claims that don't come true are just "one guy" or not really within the science (in your opinion). Any claims that do come true were solidly predicted by the science. You cherry-pick your sources.
And that's a lot of call for citation from someone who provided not one cite himself. Your classic demand for a cite came from this claim of mine:
The UK Met Office predicted continual record-breaking temperatures
You demand to know who predicted this? Read this again very carefully without blindly pasting your demand for source.
That's what it takes to run Siri. Sure, Apple could put the speech recognition part of Siri into the iPad, but that's only part of the whole system. The rest is the artificial intelligence to decipher what you actually *mean*. That uses a lot of computing power and storage, and relies on what millions of other people are saying in order to help tune the system with a sort of crowd-sourcing.
So, given that Apple has to ship your speech off to the servers to be analyzed anyway, might as well offload the speech processing too and just ship the audio to the cloud. This also allows them to tweak and refine it without software updates to your device.
Before the election, when they went anywhere public they were wearing clear safety glasses over their eyes, even the kids! They were afraid of some left lunatic throwing something at them.
Don't ignore the fact that there was a considerable effort made to paint the Occupy movement in a bad light.
You seriously think any effort had to be made to paint them in a bad light? With the trash, feces, urine, sexual assaults, vandalism, and major disruption to the lives of the average people living there for months, all any news outlet had to do to paint them in a bad light was report what was going on. An Occupy Cleveland organizer and four other members were even involved in a plot to bomb a bridge as part of their protest. You think that takes effort to dig up when the FBI arrests them?
If you want to look for concerted effort to paint a group in a bad light, look at the Tea Party. Unsupported claims of racism were constantly raised by the media. The media tried to create a huge uproar over many of them legally carrying weapons and even selectively edited a black guy carrying a gun to make it look like it was a white guy who was carrying it. A black guy carrying doesn't go with the media line that the Tea Party is just a bunch of racist white gun toters.
Show me a picture of a Tea Partier crapping on a police car, and you may have a point.
When you support the ruling elite, they usually don't mind if you are quite visible.
The Tea Party got several of the Republican "ruling elite" kicked out of office. They were far more a danger to incumbent Republicans in 2010 than Democrats.
its very unfortunate that all of the serious protestors in the Occupy movement got subsumed by so many people who were more about protesting and less about the issues being protested
In the end, a movement is defined by those in it, and you had a very large number of rather unsavory types involved in the Occupy movement. Congratulations, that's what your message attracts.
Their message -- complete and utter corporate control -- was already on the lips of every Republican on the hill.
Funny, since Tea Parties across the nation challenged and even defeated incumbent Republicans, who were their main target. This was doing so well that the Democrats planted fake Tea Party candidates in several states to split the fiscally conservative vote.
No, they tried to wait it out, and then when they realized that protesters wouldn't stop protesting until their demands were met
No, more like when protesters started breaking the law and became a public menace. I'm sure the vandalism during various protests had a lot to do with police response.
Only because corporations have complete and utter control of the American propaganda system.
Corporate fat cats such as George Soros and Dave Fenton financed the Occupy movement from the beginning. Meanwhile, the Tea Party movement did start grassroots, and was never centrally controlled. Big money did come in afterwards to support some of the protests though.
That's why one group gets to open carry and make death threats
Those open carrying at Tea Party protests were doing so legally, just as Occupy protesters could have done. No special privilege or allowance, but the left wing media tried to make a big deal of it (I loved the creative editing to make it look like a white guy was carrying the AR rifle for racist motives, not the black guy who was actually carrying it).
There have been no credible, real death threats at Tea Party rallies. There was one statement against McCaskill, but that was as much of a real threat as thinking Obama actually meant to bring a real gun to counter Republican political attacks. However, at least one real death threat was made against Tea Party organizers.
There was even a huge reward out for proof of one racist statement, but nobody ever collected..
and the other group gets truncheons and tear gas canisters to the face when they hold up signs
You make it sound like all they did was hold up signs. Did you not notice the rampant illegal activity associated with most Occupy protests? Where the organizers bothered to get permits, many cities later revoked them after criminal activities and violations of neutral laws and ordinances occurred.
I wanted a stamp in my passport and they just wanted to wave me through. It took some convincing to get them to find the stamp and stamp my passport. Damn Czechs, so relaxed, they can't even have a violent revolution and civil war, just peacefully transfer governments and split the country.
Yes, health and safety. Occupy protesters squatted in makeshift tent cities for weeks, with trash, feces and urine uncontrolled. The city of Los Angeles had to haul away 30 tons of garbage after the protesters left. Drug use and sexual assault was rampant. Some Occupy organizers even had plans for dealing with sexual assaults (we prefer you don't report it to the police), but it's pretty sad that they had to in the first place -- that's the kind of people the protests attracted.
This is quite different from people protesting in the town square to make a point and then going home.
It's definitley quite different from the Tea Party protests, which were generally clean, safe and orderly, and temporary. If you wonder why the police broke up Occupy and didn't break up Tea Party, that's why.
Ended up sitting next to her in the train. She was a nearby college student, and loved that she could make a few hundred DM for a day of standing around in heels. She said it was tiring, but the money was well worth it.
Global warming science predicted that 30-40% of the Great Barrier Reef coral could die within a month. That was in 2006, and the reef is doing just fine.
Global warming science predicted the large Australian cities would be under severe drought. Didn't happen.
Global warming science was predicting an ice-free Arctic around 2008. The projection has been extended due to it not happening.
The UK Met Office predicted continual record-breaking temperatures in the 2000s, didn't happen (the infamous Phil Jones was not happy).
I could keep going and going and going on these failed predictions. You are cherry picking the ones that came true in order to make it look like it has a perfect prediction record. This doesn't make the theory false necessarily, but it shows it is not quite as bulletproff as we are led to believe.
The lighter the tail, the better, but too light and the beast dies. It's hard to achieve a good balance, and unfortunately politics plays a role, with all the kingdom building and buying things that need too much maintenance.
Statistics was my hardest math-related class in college. Everything else was pretty straight and therefore easy to understand for me, but statistics was a mind-bender.
The US government reserve the right to strike anyone it determines an enemy, with no limitation of time or place
Al Qaeda is an organization that planned, authorized, committed and aided the 9/11 attack. Any member is clearly fair game. Any organization that aided Al Qaeda, its members are also fair game.
Citation needed?
One, many German-Americans went back to fight for the fatherland. This somewhat equates to Alwaki, who never had allegiance to the United States, only an American by accident of birth location, but to Yemen. Other than that, several Americans are known to have defected to the German side and some were of course killed in action. A list of just the SS people is here. Quite simple: You fight for the enemy, you are fair game in any location and by any means, be it a bullet or a Hellfire missile.
Also, in the Yemen case, the individuals were nowhere near a battlefield.
Neither was Yamamoto. This entire thing is considered a military action against Al Qaeda and its allies. Members of Al Qaeda are not considered to be civilians any more than a member of the WWII Wehrmacht could be considered a German civilian.
all the US government needs to do to legally kill a US citizen (without any trial or any form of judicial process) is to declare them "an enemy".
It helps if that person is an active and valuable member of an organization bent on destroying us. I agree a trial could have been appropriate if he had turned himself in, but he didn't although he was given a chance. He preferred to hide out in Yemen under protection of his tribe and continue his work for Al Qaeda. I don't believe an arrest warrant and Dog the Bounty Hunter is appropriate for this case, or likely to be effective.
Or if he prefers Geneva Convention (to which we are NOT bound in this case) and prisoner of war status, he would simply be detained until the end of hostilities, which means he rots in prison since I don't think Al Qaeda will stop any time soon.
Not that complicated, not even a story I cared about, just noticed a discrepancy, the motivation for a crime stated one way in one story, the other way in another story. One version was neutral and better cited, I decided to change the story that appeared incorrect.
Problem is the second story was very sensitive to a certain demographic, and that motivation was a key in the whole mythos surrounding the incident. It had to be protected, even if the second article was left intact.
Too easy. Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, September 14, 2001.
And don't go down the dumb path of "It didn't say declaration of war." That is irrelevant. What matters is the constitutional separation of powers, and that Congress authorizes the military actions taken by the President. That can take whatever form Congress wishes.
"The strike marked the first known time that the US had deliberately targeted US citizens in a drone attack.".
Who cares? It won't be the first time a US citizen on side of the enemy was killed in military action. Hint: It doesn't do good for your longevity to fight on the side of the enemy.
Who does Obama need to kill in order for you to realize this is a dramatic power grab
What part of authorized by Congress did you miss? It can't be a power GRAB if the power was given. If Congress doesn't like predators specifically, then funding the program is a very strange way to show it.
The problem is that killing civilian turns people that had no animosity towards Amercia into "terrorist supporters". How hard an idea is this to grasp?
News flash: Muslims like to use human shields. I guess we're supposed to never attack when they're doing that, so we're stuck not fighting at all.
when the executive branch orders drone assassinations abroad
They are not assassinations. As you note, this is a war. Killing enemies during a war, by whatever means, is not an assassination. We targeted Yamamoto during WWII, shot down his plane. Assassination? No, not called that.
Don't these people realize the real damage caused by drones strikes?
Yes, we're taking out a lot of their guys. If this pisses off their supporters, or if they're fond of using human shields, then too bad. Shooting down Yamamoto really pissed off the Japanese too.
Slashdot Mirror
So says the guy who started this off by posting three unsourced claims.
You earlier gave your citeria for cherry picking. If it comes true, it was "more restrained" scientists. If it doesn't, it was "radical" scientists.
Regardless of what you're using, the possibility of not having the proper connector for a situation exists, unless you have a laptop with every known port.
True, but that doesn't make her a hypocrite. She'd be a hypocrite if she were Ron Paul calling for more limited government. But she's a big-government liberal, so there can be no hypocrisy in her using the government to mandate healthy eating.
This is the exact response I expected. Any claims that don't come true are just "one guy" or not really within the science (in your opinion). Any claims that do come true were solidly predicted by the science. You cherry-pick your sources.
And that's a lot of call for citation from someone who provided not one cite himself. Your classic demand for a cite came from this claim of mine:
You demand to know who predicted this? Read this again very carefully without blindly pasting your demand for source.
She was seen eating a big cheesburger, oh no she's a hypocrite telling everybody to eat healthy while she enjoys a fat cheeseburger herself!
Uh, no. If you generally eat healthy and exercise, a cheeseburger once in a while is not a bad thing. Damn, people, let the lady enjoy a cheeseburger.
That's what it takes to run Siri. Sure, Apple could put the speech recognition part of Siri into the iPad, but that's only part of the whole system. The rest is the artificial intelligence to decipher what you actually *mean*. That uses a lot of computing power and storage, and relies on what millions of other people are saying in order to help tune the system with a sort of crowd-sourcing.
So, given that Apple has to ship your speech off to the servers to be analyzed anyway, might as well offload the speech processing too and just ship the audio to the cloud. This also allows them to tweak and refine it without software updates to your device.
So toxic, yet it can also be used medicinally. Nature is strange.
Before the election, when they went anywhere public they were wearing clear safety glasses over their eyes, even the kids! They were afraid of some left lunatic throwing something at them.
1. They are dumb
2. We know what's good for them
3. We can leverage the fact that they are poor to force them to do what we want
4. Those who don't do what we want IAW #3 just get poorer, and we don't care because we can blame that on the conservatives
You seriously think any effort had to be made to paint them in a bad light? With the trash, feces, urine, sexual assaults, vandalism, and major disruption to the lives of the average people living there for months, all any news outlet had to do to paint them in a bad light was report what was going on. An Occupy Cleveland organizer and four other members were even involved in a plot to bomb a bridge as part of their protest. You think that takes effort to dig up when the FBI arrests them?
If you want to look for concerted effort to paint a group in a bad light, look at the Tea Party. Unsupported claims of racism were constantly raised by the media. The media tried to create a huge uproar over many of them legally carrying weapons and even selectively edited a black guy carrying a gun to make it look like it was a white guy who was carrying it. A black guy carrying doesn't go with the media line that the Tea Party is just a bunch of racist white gun toters.
Show me a picture of a Tea Partier crapping on a police car, and you may have a point.
The Tea Party got several of the Republican "ruling elite" kicked out of office. They were far more a danger to incumbent Republicans in 2010 than Democrats.
In the end, a movement is defined by those in it, and you had a very large number of rather unsavory types involved in the Occupy movement. Congratulations, that's what your message attracts.
Funny, since Tea Parties across the nation challenged and even defeated incumbent Republicans, who were their main target. This was doing so well that the Democrats planted fake Tea Party candidates in several states to split the fiscally conservative vote.
No, more like when protesters started breaking the law and became a public menace. I'm sure the vandalism during various protests had a lot to do with police response.
Corporate fat cats such as George Soros and Dave Fenton financed the Occupy movement from the beginning. Meanwhile, the Tea Party movement did start grassroots, and was never centrally controlled. Big money did come in afterwards to support some of the protests though.
Those open carrying at Tea Party protests were doing so legally, just as Occupy protesters could have done. No special privilege or allowance, but the left wing media tried to make a big deal of it (I loved the creative editing to make it look like a white guy was carrying the AR rifle for racist motives, not the black guy who was actually carrying it).
There have been no credible, real death threats at Tea Party rallies. There was one statement against McCaskill, but that was as much of a real threat as thinking Obama actually meant to bring a real gun to counter Republican political attacks. However, at least one real death threat was made against Tea Party organizers.
There was even a huge reward out for proof of one racist statement, but nobody ever collected..
You make it sound like all they did was hold up signs. Did you not notice the rampant illegal activity associated with most Occupy protests? Where the organizers bothered to get permits, many cities later revoked them after criminal activities and violations of neutral laws and ordinances occurred.
I wanted a stamp in my passport and they just wanted to wave me through. It took some convincing to get them to find the stamp and stamp my passport. Damn Czechs, so relaxed, they can't even have a violent revolution and civil war, just peacefully transfer governments and split the country.
Yes, health and safety. Occupy protesters squatted in makeshift tent cities for weeks, with trash, feces and urine uncontrolled. The city of Los Angeles had to haul away 30 tons of garbage after the protesters left. Drug use and sexual assault was rampant. Some Occupy organizers even had plans for dealing with sexual assaults (we prefer you don't report it to the police), but it's pretty sad that they had to in the first place -- that's the kind of people the protests attracted.
This is quite different from people protesting in the town square to make a point and then going home.
It's definitley quite different from the Tea Party protests, which were generally clean, safe and orderly, and temporary. If you wonder why the police broke up Occupy and didn't break up Tea Party, that's why.
Ended up sitting next to her in the train. She was a nearby college student, and loved that she could make a few hundred DM for a day of standing around in heels. She said it was tiring, but the money was well worth it.
Global warming science predicted that 30-40% of the Great Barrier Reef coral could die within a month. That was in 2006, and the reef is doing just fine.
Global warming science predicted the large Australian cities would be under severe drought. Didn't happen.
Global warming science was predicting an ice-free Arctic around 2008. The projection has been extended due to it not happening.
The UK Met Office predicted continual record-breaking temperatures in the 2000s, didn't happen (the infamous Phil Jones was not happy).
I could keep going and going and going on these failed predictions. You are cherry picking the ones that came true in order to make it look like it has a perfect prediction record. This doesn't make the theory false necessarily, but it shows it is not quite as bulletproff as we are led to believe.
The lighter the tail, the better, but too light and the beast dies. It's hard to achieve a good balance, and unfortunately politics plays a role, with all the kingdom building and buying things that need too much maintenance.
Statistics was my hardest math-related class in college. Everything else was pretty straight and therefore easy to understand for me, but statistics was a mind-bender.
Yeah, we don't have any of those. But most of their suicides use a method much more successful than handguns -- trains. Time to ban trains in Japan.
Al Qaeda is an organization that planned, authorized, committed and aided the 9/11 attack. Any member is clearly fair game. Any organization that aided Al Qaeda, its members are also fair game.
One, many German-Americans went back to fight for the fatherland. This somewhat equates to Alwaki, who never had allegiance to the United States, only an American by accident of birth location, but to Yemen. Other than that, several Americans are known to have defected to the German side and some were of course killed in action. A list of just the SS people is here. Quite simple: You fight for the enemy, you are fair game in any location and by any means, be it a bullet or a Hellfire missile.
Neither was Yamamoto. This entire thing is considered a military action against Al Qaeda and its allies. Members of Al Qaeda are not considered to be civilians any more than a member of the WWII Wehrmacht could be considered a German civilian.
It helps if that person is an active and valuable member of an organization bent on destroying us. I agree a trial could have been appropriate if he had turned himself in, but he didn't although he was given a chance. He preferred to hide out in Yemen under protection of his tribe and continue his work for Al Qaeda. I don't believe an arrest warrant and Dog the Bounty Hunter is appropriate for this case, or likely to be effective.
Or if he prefers Geneva Convention (to which we are NOT bound in this case) and prisoner of war status, he would simply be detained until the end of hostilities, which means he rots in prison since I don't think Al Qaeda will stop any time soon.
Not linking /. to Wikipedia identities.
Not that complicated, not even a story I cared about, just noticed a discrepancy, the motivation for a crime stated one way in one story, the other way in another story. One version was neutral and better cited, I decided to change the story that appeared incorrect.
Problem is the second story was very sensitive to a certain demographic, and that motivation was a key in the whole mythos surrounding the incident. It had to be protected, even if the second article was left intact.
Then it's strange that Japan, with almost no guns, has a suicide rate far higher than ours. How did they manage that without guns?
Too easy. Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, September 14, 2001.
And don't go down the dumb path of "It didn't say declaration of war." That is irrelevant. What matters is the constitutional separation of powers, and that Congress authorizes the military actions taken by the President. That can take whatever form Congress wishes.
Who cares? It won't be the first time a US citizen on side of the enemy was killed in military action. Hint: It doesn't do good for your longevity to fight on the side of the enemy.
What part of authorized by Congress did you miss? It can't be a power GRAB if the power was given. If Congress doesn't like predators specifically, then funding the program is a very strange way to show it.
News flash: Muslims like to use human shields. I guess we're supposed to never attack when they're doing that, so we're stuck not fighting at all.
They are not assassinations. As you note, this is a war. Killing enemies during a war, by whatever means, is not an assassination. We targeted Yamamoto during WWII, shot down his plane. Assassination? No, not called that.
Yes, we're taking out a lot of their guys. If this pisses off their supporters, or if they're fond of using human shields, then too bad. Shooting down Yamamoto really pissed off the Japanese too.
I almost thought you meant that seriously