Hillary is clearly in the pocket of Wall Street and the prison-industrial complex. She gives expensive speeches to these groups and won't release the transcripts. This isn't from "the Republican machine", this is all public record. Hillary IS corrupt. You can't take millions of dollars from special interest groups without being corrupt.
Wrong. Hillary is an order of magnitude worse. She's a warmonger who helped create ISIS and helped ISIS get involved in Libya, and she's in the pocket of the prison-industrial complex and Wall Street. If she's elected, I guarantee we'll have another war. And she also has no real accomplishments of actual value.
Trump is a buffoon, but at least his Presidency will be one with great comic value, and will lack any significant military campaigns or loss of life. That's far better than I can say for Hillary or Cruz.
Funny how a bill which would give bad police another tool to harass poor minorities this way is coming from a Democrat. It all fits with the Party of Hillary: give lip service to poor minorities while screwing them over. And what's really bad is they're happily voting for her in the Primaries rather than the guy who would really help them.
That's because they're all doing their religions wrong. The fundamentalists have it right, because they actually read their holy texts and do what they say.
If you're non-violent and follow one of these religions, maybe you should try reading that book that you claim to believe in. Then decide for yourself, "do I really want to promote this? Do I want to be part of a belief system that advocates violence this way?"
There's nothing "deluded" about that fraction of believers subscribing to violence. What's deluded is trying to claim that a religion based on violence, and which explicitly endorses and calls for violence in its holy texts, is somehow peaceful. Pointing this out with the 3 major religions is a great example of the emperor having no clothes.
Except that Hillary also only does what is best for Hillary, and has proven this over a long political career. She's now so unpalatable that Trump is most likely going to get elected if those two end up running in the general election. So if there really was a shadowy conspiracy to get Hillary elected this way, it's going to backfire.
When the other choices are a Dominionist Christian nut-case who even other Republicans hate because he won't work with anyone, and an evil liar in the pocket of Wall Street and the prison-industrial complex who personally profits from arms sales, both of them being giant warmongers, then Trump is the only sensible choice. (Except for Sanders, of course, but the Dems are doing all they can to make sure Hillary gets the nomination.)
When driving and I want to skip a song, I just push a button on my watch, no need to unlock the screen and try to guess where the skip button is.
That's pretty lame, having to remove your hands from the wheel to skip a song.
When I'm driving and want to skip a song, I just press the "next track" button on my steering wheel. No need to mess around with phones or watches or remove my hands from the wheel at all.
The government needs to fix or end the war on drugs, stop importing cheap labor immigrants who take jobs from blacks, and revamp entitlement programs to end welfare cliffs. That will help fix poverty.
That all sounds great, but electing Hillary isn't going to bring any of it about. Electing Sanders might (he'll at least try, for much of this stuff), but they're not voting for him.
How exactly is Trump *not* better than the other candidates? (Except for Bernie)
Cruz is a Dominionist Christian who refuses to budge on anything at all. Even all the other Republicans hated him until Trump came around. Cruz wants to create a theocracy and spread his brand of Christianity around the world.
Hillary is just plain corrupt, and firmly in the pocket of Wall Street, the prison-industrial complex, and various other corporate interests. She's all in favor of Disney forcing their workers to train their H1-B replacements.
Cruz and Hillary are both warmongers, and will certainly start yet another big war in the middle east.
I fail to see how Trump could possibly be any worse than these two. If you really want to avoid a Trump presidency, I suggest you put more effort into getting people to vote for Bernie.
Is it? How is it any more mad than electing Hillary or Cruz and having another multi-trillion dollar war in the middle east? Seems to me that Trump's plan is more sensible: stop spending so much money on warmongering, and then you don't need as much in taxes.
Finally, his plan could very well end up pulling in *more* tax money, from the corporations. Right now, the corporate tax is ridiculously high but corporations don't pay it because of various tricks they use to offshore all their income and avoid paying US tax. His plan changes that and will probably result in them paying more taxes here.
There's definitely a lot of questionable stuff about this guy, but you can't just look at him alone and cast a judgment: you have to compare him to the other candidates, because one of them is most likely to become President. Is Trump wonderful? I don't think so. Is he worse than Hillary or Cruz? Definitely not. Cruz is downright terrifying. IMO, our best bet is Bernie, but the Dems are doing everything they can to keep him from winning.
In don't have any idea what the UNECE NEDC is. Those are the official mpg figures for US cars, and they're entirely valid in the USA, using a US testing regime.
For the Mustang, the 2.3L gets 22/31 with manual, 21/32 with auto. With the 3.7L V6, it gets 17/28 manual, 19/28 auto. With the 5.0L V8, it gets 15/25 manual, 16/25 auto.
For the Camaro, the 2.0L turbo manual gets 21/30 and auto gets 22/31. On the 3.6L V6, the manual gets 18/27 and auto gets 19/28. On the 6.2L V8, the manual gets 16/25, and the auto gets 17/28.
By that logic, when a wartime enemy drops bombs on your city, you shouldn't bother with any AAA defenses to keep their bombers away, you should just sit around and let yourself be bombed, and then just talk about how bad the bombers are for bombing you.
Um, you're confusing "the hackers" with "all hackers".
I was only talking about blaming the hackers who were directly responsible for this particular incident. I'm not talking about all hackers (which is a pretty vague term BTW) for all history. Maybe I wasn't clear, and should have used the term "these hackers".
But blaming these hackers I think is counter-productive. It's as pointless as blaming "the Chinese hackers" for the OPM data breech last year. They're doing their jobs. Blaming them is pointless, because you're making a moral judgment that they shouldn't do what they did. They disagree. Esp. for the Chinese, where they're doing the right thing by hacking into US government computers. If you disagree, then you have to also denounce the US government for employing hackers who do the same thing to other nations. There is no moral high ground anywhere here.
It's very simple: if you don't want to be hacked, then improve your security. Not using Windows is a good, first, easy step. There's no such thing as ransomware for Linux systems.
Too late, they already are. The number of single mothers these days is absolutely insane, and they're not all lower-income people like some might think: tons of ~40yo professional women are basically deciding they don't feel like trying to find a decent relationship partner (mainly because their standards are unrealistic) and are getting IVF.
If Starboard has taken over they should fire every web developer and person involved with the crapfest they call a web site. Since they changed to the horrid design I, and many others I know, haven't gone back.
The problem here is that most web sites have done the same thing. They're all horrid these days!
No, hackers shouldn't get any blame at all. The hackers were doing their jobs, and they did them well as you can see by their success.
It was the IT people at the hospital who failed. Their *job* was to prevent this kind of thing, and they failed miserably.
Malicious hackers are going to exist whether you like it or not, and trying to "blame" them makes as much sense as blaming a hurricane for the damage it does. There's nothing productive about that; you're not going to convince hurricanes to not happen or to take different courses by talking to them and trying to convince them they're wrong. The same goes for career criminals. The only thing you can do is try to reduce your risk from hurricanes and criminals, by designing and building better buildings, not building next to the shore in a hurricane-prone area, and by using good IT security practices.
Slashdot Mirror
Hillary shill detected.
Hillary is clearly in the pocket of Wall Street and the prison-industrial complex. She gives expensive speeches to these groups and won't release the transcripts. This isn't from "the Republican machine", this is all public record. Hillary IS corrupt. You can't take millions of dollars from special interest groups without being corrupt.
Wrong. Hillary is an order of magnitude worse. She's a warmonger who helped create ISIS and helped ISIS get involved in Libya, and she's in the pocket of the prison-industrial complex and Wall Street. If she's elected, I guarantee we'll have another war. And she also has no real accomplishments of actual value.
Trump is a buffoon, but at least his Presidency will be one with great comic value, and will lack any significant military campaigns or loss of life. That's far better than I can say for Hillary or Cruz.
Funny how a bill which would give bad police another tool to harass poor minorities this way is coming from a Democrat. It all fits with the Party of Hillary: give lip service to poor minorities while screwing them over. And what's really bad is they're happily voting for her in the Primaries rather than the guy who would really help them.
That's because they're all doing their religions wrong. The fundamentalists have it right, because they actually read their holy texts and do what they say.
If you're non-violent and follow one of these religions, maybe you should try reading that book that you claim to believe in. Then decide for yourself, "do I really want to promote this? Do I want to be part of a belief system that advocates violence this way?"
There's nothing "deluded" about that fraction of believers subscribing to violence. What's deluded is trying to claim that a religion based on violence, and which explicitly endorses and calls for violence in its holy texts, is somehow peaceful. Pointing this out with the 3 major religions is a great example of the emperor having no clothes.
I'm also on the side of the patent troll. Anything which bleeds Microsoft is a good thing IMO.
Since Microsoft has publicly announced they're a big fan of him, will Microsoft use this to show us a virtual Hitler?
Why would it be a problem for Korean names? Korean has an alphabet with only 36 characters. It's not like Chinese.
As I said before, if the IT manager can show why his hands were tied by the CxO, then the CxO should go to jail instead.
I think Sanders would work to create more sensibly-run entitlement programs, rather than our broken and dysfunctional ones.
You think Cruz and Hillary care about you?
You think Cruz and Hillary aren't lying out their asses?
If you think Trump is more likely to get us into a war than Cruz or Hillary, you're a complete idiot. Cruz and Hillary are both avowed warmongers.
Except that Hillary also only does what is best for Hillary, and has proven this over a long political career. She's now so unpalatable that Trump is most likely going to get elected if those two end up running in the general election. So if there really was a shadowy conspiracy to get Hillary elected this way, it's going to backfire.
When the other choices are a Dominionist Christian nut-case who even other Republicans hate because he won't work with anyone, and an evil liar in the pocket of Wall Street and the prison-industrial complex who personally profits from arms sales, both of them being giant warmongers, then Trump is the only sensible choice. (Except for Sanders, of course, but the Dems are doing all they can to make sure Hillary gets the nomination.)
When driving and I want to skip a song, I just push a button on my watch, no need to unlock the screen and try to guess where the skip button is.
That's pretty lame, having to remove your hands from the wheel to skip a song.
When I'm driving and want to skip a song, I just press the "next track" button on my steering wheel. No need to mess around with phones or watches or remove my hands from the wheel at all.
The government needs to fix or end the war on drugs, stop importing cheap labor immigrants who take jobs from blacks, and revamp entitlement programs to end welfare cliffs. That will help fix poverty.
That all sounds great, but electing Hillary isn't going to bring any of it about. Electing Sanders might (he'll at least try, for much of this stuff), but they're not voting for him.
How exactly is Trump *not* better than the other candidates? (Except for Bernie)
Cruz is a Dominionist Christian who refuses to budge on anything at all. Even all the other Republicans hated him until Trump came around. Cruz wants to create a theocracy and spread his brand of Christianity around the world.
Hillary is just plain corrupt, and firmly in the pocket of Wall Street, the prison-industrial complex, and various other corporate interests. She's all in favor of Disney forcing their workers to train their H1-B replacements.
Cruz and Hillary are both warmongers, and will certainly start yet another big war in the middle east.
I fail to see how Trump could possibly be any worse than these two. If you really want to avoid a Trump presidency, I suggest you put more effort into getting people to vote for Bernie.
Is it? How is it any more mad than electing Hillary or Cruz and having another multi-trillion dollar war in the middle east? Seems to me that Trump's plan is more sensible: stop spending so much money on warmongering, and then you don't need as much in taxes.
Finally, his plan could very well end up pulling in *more* tax money, from the corporations. Right now, the corporate tax is ridiculously high but corporations don't pay it because of various tricks they use to offshore all their income and avoid paying US tax. His plan changes that and will probably result in them paying more taxes here.
There's definitely a lot of questionable stuff about this guy, but you can't just look at him alone and cast a judgment: you have to compare him to the other candidates, because one of them is most likely to become President. Is Trump wonderful? I don't think so. Is he worse than Hillary or Cruz? Definitely not. Cruz is downright terrifying. IMO, our best bet is Bernie, but the Dems are doing everything they can to keep him from winning.
In don't have any idea what the UNECE NEDC is. Those are the official mpg figures for US cars, and they're entirely valid in the USA, using a US testing regime.
No, I'm not wrong:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg...
For the 2.0 engine on the Focus, the manual gets 26/36, the AM-S6 auto gets 26/38, and the AM6 auto gets 27/40.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg...
For the Fiesta, the manual gets 28/36, the auto gets 27/37.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg...
For the Mustang, the 2.3L gets 22/31 with manual, 21/32 with auto. With the 3.7L V6, it gets 17/28 manual, 19/28 auto. With the 5.0L V8, it gets 15/25 manual, 16/25 auto.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg...
For the Chevy Cruze, the manual gets 29/41 and the auto 30/42.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg...
For the Camaro, the 2.0L turbo manual gets 21/30 and auto gets 22/31. On the 3.6L V6, the manual gets 18/27 and auto gets 19/28. On the 6.2L V8, the manual gets 16/25, and the auto gets 17/28.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg...
For the Honda Civic 2.0L, the manual gets 26/38, the auto gets 30/41.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg...
Fro the Subaru BRZ, the manual gets 22/30 and the auto gets 25/34.
So yes, you're full of shit, and I've proven YOU wrong with references.
By that logic, when a wartime enemy drops bombs on your city, you shouldn't bother with any AAA defenses to keep their bombers away, you should just sit around and let yourself be bombed, and then just talk about how bad the bombers are for bombing you.
Um, you're confusing "the hackers" with "all hackers".
I was only talking about blaming the hackers who were directly responsible for this particular incident. I'm not talking about all hackers (which is a pretty vague term BTW) for all history. Maybe I wasn't clear, and should have used the term "these hackers".
But blaming these hackers I think is counter-productive. It's as pointless as blaming "the Chinese hackers" for the OPM data breech last year. They're doing their jobs. Blaming them is pointless, because you're making a moral judgment that they shouldn't do what they did. They disagree. Esp. for the Chinese, where they're doing the right thing by hacking into US government computers. If you disagree, then you have to also denounce the US government for employing hackers who do the same thing to other nations. There is no moral high ground anywhere here.
It's very simple: if you don't want to be hacked, then improve your security. Not using Windows is a good, first, easy step. There's no such thing as ransomware for Linux systems.
Too late, they already are. The number of single mothers these days is absolutely insane, and they're not all lower-income people like some might think: tons of ~40yo professional women are basically deciding they don't feel like trying to find a decent relationship partner (mainly because their standards are unrealistic) and are getting IVF.
If Starboard has taken over they should fire every web developer and person involved with the crapfest they call a web site. Since they changed to the horrid design I, and many others I know, haven't gone back.
The problem here is that most web sites have done the same thing. They're all horrid these days!
Wow, this is a good example of some really badly-mixed metaphors. How'd the sharks get into the toilet?
No, hackers shouldn't get any blame at all. The hackers were doing their jobs, and they did them well as you can see by their success.
It was the IT people at the hospital who failed. Their *job* was to prevent this kind of thing, and they failed miserably.
Malicious hackers are going to exist whether you like it or not, and trying to "blame" them makes as much sense as blaming a hurricane for the damage it does. There's nothing productive about that; you're not going to convince hurricanes to not happen or to take different courses by talking to them and trying to convince them they're wrong. The same goes for career criminals. The only thing you can do is try to reduce your risk from hurricanes and criminals, by designing and building better buildings, not building next to the shore in a hurricane-prone area, and by using good IT security practices.