stop using the chemicals that are killing the bees?
Which ones are those? Because so far studies show that it's not chemicals killing them, varroa destructor seems to be the main factor. Granted not all of those chemical studies are public yet, the most recent one was discussed at our club and it shows pretty conclusively that its not chemicals.
Sure would take a lot of drones. It might be easier to genetically engineer the bees to have genes to resist whatever is killing them
They're not on the splicing genes yet but for $300 you can buy a queen specially engineered (through selective breeding an AI) to resist the stuff killing them, best yet her offspring queens actually do better than she does about resisting, though the generation after falls off.
if you want to be able to store your data on your machine
You generally wouldn't keep EKGs on the machine doing the monitoring if you want to keep them around, you'd store them with the patient record so no problem here
not pay rent to keep using your cloud software
It's a web application running on a local server so...
work offline
It runs on a local server so once again.... not an issue
not have forced updates remove features or totally break your software
Forced updates is kind of the point of using web software, thats a benefit not a downside.
be constantly spied upon
These are work machines so once again you've listed a benefit. Employees don't exactly have an expectation of privacy on them.
or otherwise be at the mercy of losing everything because of an "update" in the EULA.
Breaks what, everything's standards compliant. If a firefox update ever breaks the software I just switch to chrome. I use firefox because I have a configuration suite that sets up everything automatically for me. Manual configuration is still possible with any other browser.
I just got done setting up a heart rate monitor on a machine at a clinic where we use a web based software package on firefox. The bluetooth stuff is one of the last things requiring a native application. I wonder how much longer we'll need any native software at all with stuff like this coming out.
all you need is an indictment and you get pardoned for that.
In Ex parte Garland they held that:
The power thus conferred is unlimited, with the exception stated. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency or after conviction and judgment. This power of the President is not subject to legislative control. Congress can neither limit the effect of his pardon nor exclude from its exercise any class of offenders. The benign prerogative of mercy reposed in him cannot be fettered by any legislative restrictions.
(The mentioned limitation was in cased of impeachment). So no you don't even need an indictment to receive a pardon. I personally like Obama but damn he must be the absolute worst constitutional lawyer ever.
People have a right to their property, But if you intend to exclude others from it, then you need suitable notice, otherwise, people walking around are just exercising their natural-born right to explore the streets and unimproved areas, and simply pass through.
Not according to the law where I live in Louisiana.
You are correct. Again, some kids get excited, look at the phone, and play it right away instead of "moving away to a safe zone" to initiate the capturing.
There's no need to go onto private property to capture a pokemon on the private property. Once you know the pokemon is there you can capture it. There's no moving away to safe zone. You tap on the pokemon thats in private property from the public sidewalk.
Yeah I'm not getting these warnings. Until the pokemon comes out of hiding you can't tell where they are so trespassing to find them makes no sense. Then once they're out of hiding you tap to bring up the capture screen. There's no need to get closer to capture em. So why would trespassing even come up?
You're not quoting me there. My first post on the subject was
Clinton probably didn't lie to the FBI, whether you call what she did lying or not she did it publicly. In her interview with the FBI I guarantee you everything she said they felt was the truth.
You are correct: what he confirmed was that Clinton lied under oath to Congress, not to the FBI.
Once again totally irrelevant to the discussion I asserted:
Clinton probably didn't lie to the FBI,
And you tried to argue that I was wrong. You seem to think "Clinton lied" + "Clinton spoke to the FBI" == "Clinton lied to the FBI" and you keep your nonsensical arguments going. on that premise. But the fact is according to a direct quote from a discussion you yourself cited. Clinton DID NOT lie to the FBI.
She couldn't have lied under oath to the FBI because she wasn't put under oath
You don't get put under oath to talk to the FBI, but you can still be arrested and charged for lying to the FBI, being under oath doesn't make a difference
Comey will now be tasked with a formal investigation of her lying to Congress. If we're lucky, they'll still get her.
And it doesn't matter one bit because if she gets elected she can simply pardon herself. The people voting for her will simply believe it was a republican conspiracy and she did nothing wrong so they will vote for her anyway. Since there is no prohibition on felons running for presidency this is all a moo point. Even in the unlikely case that she ends up with a felony conviction (and remember, the republicans are now just trying to get her security clearance terminated and not a conviction) she will simply pardon herself if she gets elected and since the president is exempt from security clearance requirements any action that the house takes against her will be negated should she get elected. All they can do is make it so that if she does get elected then Trump can't add her to his cabinet... You know without pardoning her himself, which if he were to add her to his cabinet he would just do that anyway. Congress is impotent in this matter and just throwing a hissy fit because they don't have anything else they think matters.
What legal basis to shoot him? Because the guy was struggling against an arrest?
The police had exhausted non lethal techniques including verbal orders, a taser, PPCT and open handed control tactics against a man they knew to be armed with a gun, he then proceeded to overpower and lift both officers and there is some pretty clear evidence he was reaching for his gun at the time he was shot. What do you think the officers should have let him do? Remove the gun from his pocket and hope he just intends to hand it to them?
It is, because you incorrectly claimed that "Clinton did not lie". In fact, not only did Clinton lie in general, she also (according to Comey in today's hearings) lied to the FBI.
Are you sure about that?
Here's a direct quote from Comey in today's hearings:
We have no basis to conclude that she lied to the FBI
Too many people think that their local neighborhood is what everyone else must also live in and haven't seen anything that could be described as a bad neighborhood, let alone mildly troubling
Funny you say that. I looked Mr Sterling up on the sex offender registration site and his last known address (keep in mind he was wanted for failure to register so it's probably out of date) is a known bad neighborhood, a little boy was murdered there not long ago, it may be over a year by now but the memorial is still out, I drive through his neighborhood every day on my way to work.
When he posted up and managed to lift both officers, yes they rightfully felt fearful for their life. And watch the video closely. Right before they start shouting "He's got a gun" the officer on his chest's eyes went wide and his mouth dropped. And after the shooting they knew exactly which pocket the gun was in, they didn't need to frisk him. He clearly revealed the location of the gun at some point during their interaction AND somehow scared a man who had been on the force 5 years (or is it 4?)
Well the laws about using a private email server in her office were passed after she left that office, so they couldn't indict and convict her on that. They would have to prove she knowingly put classified information on the server. Much of the information was up to her to decide classification, much of it wasn't really classified despite reports it was, and the rest was classified after the fact. It would have been an uphill battle to prosecute her. And all of this is irrelevant to the discussion you are jumping into because I was responding to this exchange:
Clinton did not lie.
Clinton lied about not having classified information on her server. She lied about only deleting personal E-mails, and she destroyed evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
stop using the chemicals that are killing the bees?
Which ones are those? Because so far studies show that it's not chemicals killing them, varroa destructor seems to be the main factor. Granted not all of those chemical studies are public yet, the most recent one was discussed at our club and it shows pretty conclusively that its not chemicals.
Sure would take a lot of drones. It might be easier to genetically engineer the bees to have genes to resist whatever is killing them
They're not on the splicing genes yet but for $300 you can buy a queen specially engineered (through selective breeding an AI) to resist the stuff killing them, best yet her offspring queens actually do better than she does about resisting, though the generation after falls off.
if you want to be able to store your data on your machine
You generally wouldn't keep EKGs on the machine doing the monitoring if you want to keep them around, you'd store them with the patient record so no problem here
not pay rent to keep using your cloud software
It's a web application running on a local server so...
work offline
It runs on a local server so once again.... not an issue
not have forced updates remove features or totally break your software
Forced updates is kind of the point of using web software, thats a benefit not a downside.
be constantly spied upon
These are work machines so once again you've listed a benefit. Employees don't exactly have an expectation of privacy on them.
or otherwise be at the mercy of losing everything because of an "update" in the EULA.
You're a bit paranoid aren't you?
Good luck with that, outside of mozilla.org everything is blocked.
Breaks what, everything's standards compliant. If a firefox update ever breaks the software I just switch to chrome. I use firefox because I have a configuration suite that sets up everything automatically for me. Manual configuration is still possible with any other browser.
I just got done setting up a heart rate monitor on a machine at a clinic where we use a web based software package on firefox. The bluetooth stuff is one of the last things requiring a native application. I wonder how much longer we'll need any native software at all with stuff like this coming out.
Three things here...
#1 I didn't quote any post, I quoted twitter.
#2 the post I replied to says:
Except that is indeed what he said. Assange said "pardoned" and Manning wasn't pardoned.
#3 I didn't reply to an AC I replied to ShanghaiBill
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/819630102787059713
If Obama grants Manning clemency Assange will agree to US extradition despite clear unconstitutionality of DoJ case
Can you tell me where it says pardon?
Clemency is commutation, assange specifically said clemency.
The same evidence exists to show donald trump is a pedophile as well. Hell he's even openly commented on how pretty epstein's younger girls are.
all you need is an indictment and you get pardoned for that.
In Ex parte Garland they held that:
The power thus conferred is unlimited, with the exception stated. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency or after conviction and judgment. This power of the President is not subject to legislative control. Congress can neither limit the effect of his pardon nor exclude from its exercise any class of offenders. The benign prerogative of mercy reposed in him cannot be fettered by any legislative restrictions.
(The mentioned limitation was in cased of impeachment). So no you don't even need an indictment to receive a pardon. I personally like Obama but damn he must be the absolute worst constitutional lawyer ever.
If the client doesn't send the master password and only sends an encrypted blob,how the hell do you think they manage to decrypt it on the server?
Since LastPass is open source whats your complaint?
https://github.com/lastpass/la...
McDonald's burger patties are also thin af, they dry out quick so they dont rot.
I thought commander keen was pretty close to nes in terms of smoothness. It did start life as a smb3 clone afterall.
People have a right to their property, But if you intend to exclude others from it, then you need suitable notice, otherwise, people walking around are just exercising their natural-born right to explore the streets and unimproved areas, and simply pass through.
Not according to the law where I live in Louisiana.
You are correct. Again, some kids get excited, look at the phone, and play it right away instead of "moving away to a safe zone" to initiate the capturing.
There's no need to go onto private property to capture a pokemon on the private property. Once you know the pokemon is there you can capture it. There's no moving away to safe zone. You tap on the pokemon thats in private property from the public sidewalk.
Yeah I'm not getting these warnings. Until the pokemon comes out of hiding you can't tell where they are so trespassing to find them makes no sense. Then once they're out of hiding you tap to bring up the capture screen. There's no need to get closer to capture em. So why would trespassing even come up?
What you asserted is, and I quote:
Clinton did not lie.
You're not quoting me there. My first post on the subject was
Clinton probably didn't lie to the FBI, whether you call what she did lying or not she did it publicly. In her interview with the FBI I guarantee you everything she said they felt was the truth.
You're quoting some anonymous coward.
You are correct: what he confirmed was that Clinton lied under oath to Congress, not to the FBI.
Once again totally irrelevant to the discussion
I asserted:
Clinton probably didn't lie to the FBI,
And you tried to argue that I was wrong. You seem to think "Clinton lied" + "Clinton spoke to the FBI" == "Clinton lied to the FBI" and you keep your nonsensical arguments going. on that premise. But the fact is according to a direct quote from a discussion you yourself cited. Clinton DID NOT lie to the FBI.
She couldn't have lied under oath to the FBI because she wasn't put under oath
You don't get put under oath to talk to the FBI, but you can still be arrested and charged for lying to the FBI, being under oath doesn't make a difference
Comey will now be tasked with a formal investigation of her lying to Congress. If we're lucky, they'll still get her.
And it doesn't matter one bit because if she gets elected she can simply pardon herself. The people voting for her will simply believe it was a republican conspiracy and she did nothing wrong so they will vote for her anyway. Since there is no prohibition on felons running for presidency this is all a moo point. Even in the unlikely case that she ends up with a felony conviction (and remember, the republicans are now just trying to get her security clearance terminated and not a conviction) she will simply pardon herself if she gets elected and since the president is exempt from security clearance requirements any action that the house takes against her will be negated should she get elected. All they can do is make it so that if she does get elected then Trump can't add her to his cabinet... You know without pardoning her himself, which if he were to add her to his cabinet he would just do that anyway. Congress is impotent in this matter and just throwing a hissy fit because they don't have anything else they think matters.
What legal basis to shoot him? Because the guy was struggling against an arrest?
The police had exhausted non lethal techniques including verbal orders, a taser, PPCT and open handed control tactics against a man they knew to be armed with a gun, he then proceeded to overpower and lift both officers and there is some pretty clear evidence he was reaching for his gun at the time he was shot. What do you think the officers should have let him do? Remove the gun from his pocket and hope he just intends to hand it to them?
It is, because you incorrectly claimed that "Clinton did not lie". In fact, not only did Clinton lie in general, she also (according to Comey in today's hearings) lied to the FBI.
Are you sure about that?
Here's a direct quote from Comey in today's hearings:
We have no basis to conclude that she lied to the FBI
Too many people think that their local neighborhood is what everyone else must also live in and haven't seen anything that could be described as a bad neighborhood, let alone mildly troubling
Funny you say that. I looked Mr Sterling up on the sex offender registration site and his last known address (keep in mind he was wanted for failure to register so it's probably out of date) is a known bad neighborhood, a little boy was murdered there not long ago, it may be over a year by now but the memorial is still out, I drive through his neighborhood every day on my way to work.
When he posted up and managed to lift both officers, yes they rightfully felt fearful for their life. And watch the video closely. Right before they start shouting "He's got a gun" the officer on his chest's eyes went wide and his mouth dropped. And after the shooting they knew exactly which pocket the gun was in, they didn't need to frisk him. He clearly revealed the location of the gun at some point during their interaction AND somehow scared a man who had been on the force 5 years (or is it 4?)
Well the laws about using a private email server in her office were passed after she left that office, so they couldn't indict and convict her on that. They would have to prove she knowingly put classified information on the server. Much of the information was up to her to decide classification, much of it wasn't really classified despite reports it was, and the rest was classified after the fact. It would have been an uphill battle to prosecute her. And all of this is irrelevant to the discussion you are jumping into because I was responding to this exchange:
Clinton did not lie.
Clinton lied about not having classified information on her server. She lied about only deleting personal E-mails, and she destroyed evidence.