And just in case this needs to be said, information is often classified whether marked that way or not.
Common sense example: Writing an email containing information you previously knew was of a sensitive nature but obviously isn't marked classified if you don't mark it yourself.
How is this woman still eligible for a clearance? As someone who unfortunately has seen a lot of the security clearance process, and has been punished for much less, I'm legitimately concerned she could somehow still get access after this. I suspect they want to revoke it, but would much rather avoid the bad PR in case she is voted in.
Everyone with any experience knows the quickest way to lose your clearance is: Step 1: Lie about handling of classified information Step 2: Lose clearance
Disclaimer: It's true, I don't want her in office anyway; and it's true I feel I have been held to uneven standards as a member of the working class. If it makes you feel any better, though, I'm sure she's not the only politician who's done this. I just don't think that should matter in determining responsibility.
Again: there is no war on police. And if there is, it is a pittance compared to the War being waged by police upon the citizenry.
There isn't a war but if there is then who cares? Sure, let them feel the wrath brought upon them!
First of all, just looking at police deaths is not enough to make a blanket statement that there is no increase in the mentality of targeting police for homicide. This source is assuming that because the statistics agree, then the motives do as well. It's easy and convenient that the numbers agree, therefore it must be true! Never mind what people are actually thinking.
Well, what else is true is that maybe, just maybe, we can hold both agendas. We need to hold people accountable that believe in targeting cops for blind justice AND ALSO our political agenda of holding cops accountable can be pursued. Let's not ignore the bad eggs that will only give police more cause to be afraid.
The point remains that he only told half the story. Person has right of way only if there's a tie. This is another example of how computers are better drivers than people, even competent ones like the GGP (or at least they appear competent).
There are so many rules, it's easy to forget, confuse and utterly destroy the flow of traffic. I see it happen every day, and I'm forced to go out of turn. I'd be a lot happier without that frustration every morning on the way to work.
I'm not sure I care so much about what it once stood for, though. Even if it did stand for bigotry, if people are trying to re-brand it as something more positive, that's probably a win for us all.
Were they? Any more so than ancestors of the north who also owned slaves while acting in treason from the crown who died fighting for their cause? Does that mean the patriots were full of hatred and bigotry? Some of them, yes, others fought with freed slaves. Others murdered Native Americans while their neighbors broke bread with them.
I'm just saying that, IMO, it isn't worth hating people for what their ancestors may or may not have believed. I know many relatives of those confederates and, although I am not one, the point of America is to embrace moving forward. If they want to re-purpose a symbol once seen as bigotry and hatred into something people of today can get behind, that's pretty much a win for us all.
Belongs on a state building? I don't know, to me that's all just politics.
And more on point to the article, government buildings can fly the Betsy Ross version which supported many things we oppose today. Buildings can fly a state flag even though it isn't the U.S. flag. As long as they aren't flying the confederate flag in place of the U.S. flag, who cares? Many Americans fought for that flag and were brothers, welcomed in the Union. Why shouldn't their memory be?
Wow, saying the confederate flag means slavery, hatred, bigotry and treason and it gets a +5 Insightful? The second part may be insightful but somehow this isn't marked flamebait.
Some people say the flag means that, some people say it means states rights, who knows. But do people actually believe someone who flies the flag is saying bring back slavery or a succession from the Union? Maybe they just want to stand for a weaker Federal government, something many people support today.
Maybe the reason they fly the flag is to respect their ancestors who fought and died for what they believe in. Would you ask someone to take down the original U.S. flag that so heavily fought for their rights and owned slaves?
My point is, people are afraid of a flag that is being flown for many reasons. But the fact remains, that those spreading all of this fear of the flag are just as guilty of perpetrating hatred as those they accuse of flying the flag...and in most cases more so.
I think I'll buy a confederate flag, just to support the right to own a confederate flag. Does that make me a racist? Will America ever stop generalizing everything with labels just to make complicated issues easier? Stay tuned...
If a point to not having smartphones is that the student will space out, then teachers haven't learned anything in the last two decades. That or they found a way to keep games off the graphing calculators?
Depends on the facts stated in the article. If you're trying to talk people out of science and fact (like gravity) then the movie is wrong. But if it says it's all about the frame of reference, and which one you prefer, then it's not wrong to say the sun moves around us. It's just that most people pick Sol because it makes more sense. Picking the center of the galaxy would make even more sense (in which case we would still be revolving around the sun) but I digress...
I cancelled my cable because of the overpricing and the disregard for customers. How come when we don't pay we lose service, but when we lose service they don't provide a refund?
Anyway I don't miss the harassment of cable at all. My only concerns now are they find some way to take away Netflix and over the air broadcasting. Because they have shown us that when you can't compete by being better, compete by being worse.
Slashdot Mirror
When are lawyers not involved in making this decision?
Because space travel is all NASA does, right?
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/ear...
I think he's referring to the grand scale of time and money spent studying the earth, it's environment, climate and hazard changes...
But at least someone is thinking of the children!
And just in case this needs to be said, information is often classified whether marked that way or not.
Common sense example:
Writing an email containing information you previously knew was of a sensitive nature but obviously isn't marked classified if you don't mark it yourself.
How is this woman still eligible for a clearance? As someone who unfortunately has seen a lot of the security clearance process, and has been punished for much less, I'm legitimately concerned she could somehow still get access after this. I suspect they want to revoke it, but would much rather avoid the bad PR in case she is voted in.
Everyone with any experience knows the quickest way to lose your clearance is:
Step 1: Lie about handling of classified information
Step 2: Lose clearance
Disclaimer: It's true, I don't want her in office anyway; and it's true I feel I have been held to uneven standards as a member of the working class. If it makes you feel any better, though, I'm sure she's not the only politician who's done this. I just don't think that should matter in determining responsibility.
I don't know if we should compare dildos sales to fleshlights. Most men have hands that simulate well enough.
Again: there is no war on police.
And if there is, it is a pittance compared to the War being waged by police upon the citizenry.
There isn't a war but if there is then who cares? Sure, let them feel the wrath brought upon them!
First of all, just looking at police deaths is not enough to make a blanket statement that there is no increase in the mentality of targeting police for homicide. This source is assuming that because the statistics agree, then the motives do as well. It's easy and convenient that the numbers agree, therefore it must be true! Never mind what people are actually thinking.
Well, what else is true is that maybe, just maybe, we can hold both agendas. We need to hold people accountable that believe in targeting cops for blind justice AND ALSO our political agenda of holding cops accountable can be pursued. Let's not ignore the bad eggs that will only give police more cause to be afraid.
This is true
No points left, but this and the parent, too.
The point remains that he only told half the story. Person has right of way only if there's a tie. This is another example of how computers are better drivers than people, even competent ones like the GGP (or at least they appear competent).
There are so many rules, it's easy to forget, confuse and utterly destroy the flow of traffic. I see it happen every day, and I'm forced to go out of turn. I'd be a lot happier without that frustration every morning on the way to work.
But he'd be a lot less likely to get juicy photos at a park. Probably just normal, public, legal type stuff
At least it'll prevent those hooligans and armed militias!
I'm not sure what your two points are referring to. Can you break your post down for me?
I'm not sure I care so much about what it once stood for, though. Even if it did stand for bigotry, if people are trying to re-brand it as something more positive, that's probably a win for us all.
Were they? Any more so than ancestors of the north who also owned slaves while acting in treason from the crown who died fighting for their cause? Does that mean the patriots were full of hatred and bigotry? Some of them, yes, others fought with freed slaves. Others murdered Native Americans while their neighbors broke bread with them.
I'm just saying that, IMO, it isn't worth hating people for what their ancestors may or may not have believed. I know many relatives of those confederates and, although I am not one, the point of America is to embrace moving forward. If they want to re-purpose a symbol once seen as bigotry and hatred into something people of today can get behind, that's pretty much a win for us all.
Belongs on a state building? I don't know, to me that's all just politics.
And more on point to the article, government buildings can fly the Betsy Ross version which supported many things we oppose today. Buildings can fly a state flag even though it isn't the U.S. flag. As long as they aren't flying the confederate flag in place of the U.S. flag, who cares? Many Americans fought for that flag and were brothers, welcomed in the Union. Why shouldn't their memory be?
Wow, saying the confederate flag means slavery, hatred, bigotry and treason and it gets a +5 Insightful? The second part may be insightful but somehow this isn't marked flamebait.
Some people say the flag means that, some people say it means states rights, who knows. But do people actually believe someone who flies the flag is saying bring back slavery or a succession from the Union? Maybe they just want to stand for a weaker Federal government, something many people support today.
Maybe the reason they fly the flag is to respect their ancestors who fought and died for what they believe in. Would you ask someone to take down the original U.S. flag that so heavily fought for their rights and owned slaves?
My point is, people are afraid of a flag that is being flown for many reasons. But the fact remains, that those spreading all of this fear of the flag are just as guilty of perpetrating hatred as those they accuse of flying the flag...and in most cases more so.
I think I'll buy a confederate flag, just to support the right to own a confederate flag. Does that make me a racist? Will America ever stop generalizing everything with labels just to make complicated issues easier? Stay tuned...
Note: Captcha was encroach
"Why don't the poor get it? How could we pay their salaries without THEIR money!" - Jack Donaghy
I was just going to say the same thing. There's a reason it's "We the people"
Games like Kingdoms of Amalur come out but then sht happens.
If a point to not having smartphones is that the student will space out, then teachers haven't learned anything in the last two decades. That or they found a way to keep games off the graphing calculators?
Ugh, I'm always so bad that these things. Okay, here goes...
Stand O'Neal, you will not be forgotten.
Pass it on...
Depends on the facts stated in the article. If you're trying to talk people out of science and fact (like gravity) then the movie is wrong. But if it says it's all about the frame of reference, and which one you prefer, then it's not wrong to say the sun moves around us. It's just that most people pick Sol because it makes more sense. Picking the center of the galaxy would make even more sense (in which case we would still be revolving around the sun) but I digress...
I cancelled my cable because of the overpricing and the disregard for customers. How come when we don't pay we lose service, but when we lose service they don't provide a refund? Anyway I don't miss the harassment of cable at all. My only concerns now are they find some way to take away Netflix and over the air broadcasting. Because they have shown us that when you can't compete by being better, compete by being worse.