Because the GOP 1) didn't really believe that the emails were anything other than a BS talking point and 2) they want to use their own private communication too (see #1).
"[H]er lawyer says she sent the emails before she was briefed on the rules."
It's a testament to this lawyer's iron will that he/she could utter that sentence without vomiting. If there's anyone on earth who really thinks that this administration could have entered the White House being blissfully unaware that email privacy and security was something to probably think about...
Hey, if you've been pissed that Mar-Vel died in 1977 and harbored that feeling for 40 years, I got no problems with that. If that's what you grew up with, I get it. That's at least consistent and I can get behind that...I'm still partial to the Spider Man story lines that occurred in the late 90s when I was finishing high school rather than...whatever the heck happened after 2001.
My issue is people who seem to think that Carol Danvers as Marvel is some kind of recent rewriting of long standing history.
Ah...so you're too lazy to actually look up the history of the subject you're pissed off about, and then you're going to take umbridge when someone points out that you have no idea what you're talking about because you can't be bothered to actually learn about it. Got it.
I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where the ownership and character rights for Marvel had anything to do with this present discussion. I thought we were talking about the gender of Captain/Ms Marvel and how ANGRY the internet is that she's been female for going on 40 years.
This discussion has absolutely nothing to do with Shazam...if anyone thinks that Marvel Comics has stolen Shazam (previously known as Captain Marvel) and rewritten him as a female, then they're not even in the ballpark.
Captain Marvel was caught in a explosion in 1969. In 1977 it was revealed that Carol Danvers inherited his powers to become Ms Marvel. So folks have had since 1977 to deal with this. It's not like Marvel suddenly looked at the Trump administration and MAGA folks and said, "Let's take away their cherished male superhero!"
Seriously...like the late 70s. People who think this is some sort of gender swap in the name of equality are showing just how comic book clueless they actually are.
Mortality improved for lots of reasons, "Total Food" likely not being any one of them. Things like ventilators, dialysis, antibiotics, and recognition of quarantine practices all improved mortality in the early 1900s. But just because you can save a person by spending huge amounts of money and ventilating them in the ICU doesn't mean that's the best way to manage an illness. Pretty sure those kids would prefer to have never gotten sick in the first place.
They're all so anti-vaccine and pro-disease, I'm sure they would have been just fine with a couple of the active measles patients coming to the hearing.
Blocking 3 of 6 stalls and yelling at people is still a dick move and is still harassment. Sometimes, it turns out, there are enough drivers there that they really need all the charging stations. Saying "well they didn't block all of them...FAKE NEWS" makes you look like an idiot.
p.s. "Not even a city" you say? Might I point you to the first paragraph... "views of New York’s Hudson River". Now I know that's not a slam dunk because that's a long river, but when I put on my detective hat I tried "New York" in my search terms...TADA!
I will addend that by agreeing that the Leaf is the best selling EV worldwide through the length of it's production life, even if it's year-over-year sales currently lag behind Tesla.
Nevertheless, FF's own marketing and demographic projection is clearly targeting Tesla, not Nissan, Ford, or anyone else.
That Tesla link is the summary author's work, not the original article. Really you're going to complain about "all the other auto makers that have been developing electric vehicles"? Like who, GM? Or the Leaf? How would that paragraph have read..."Faraday Future, having recently claimed the ability to produce an EV sports car with full autonamous driving, which would occupy an entirely separate marketing niche from Nissan's Leaf, is struggling to produce units or complete their proposed factory. Having hoped to dethrone Nissan as the 2nd best selling EV worldwide, Faraday's hopes seem to be fading."
Faraday Future wasn't trying to compete with the Leaf, or the Smart Car. Mentioning Tesla in an article about FF is appropriate, not spurious.
The article mentions Tesla twice. Once as the maker of a similar EV, and again as a reference to building a factory. I don't think that's "fawning". It's EV news, and I suppose if you consider EV to be just about Tesla then you probably shouldn't ever read anything about EV. Unfortunately, Tesla is a relatively dominant company in the EV space, so they're going to be mentioned in articles about EV.
FF grabbed a bunch of headlines when they launched making bold, impressive, and pretty hard to swallow claims about how great their EV was going to be. At the time I felt that they were doing a disservice to the EV market because people looked at their vaporware and thought "Why would I buy these shitty EVs on the market when these folks are going to deliver all that 10 times over?". Those who actually knew something about EV were skeptical, but many car buyers don't understand, yet, some of the limits on EV hardware. Turns out, FF really wasn't remotely positioned to deliver on its extensive claims.
The only reason why I'd say it's not worth a headline is that it's no surprise at all that they're still falling on their face.
I'm a stupid **** because I don't have a brand new AppleTV? Aren't you precious... But you're right, I didn't actually know that Apple added local storage back since I own an older generation (but not 1st generation which did have local storage). Regardless, how many movies does 64GB hold...32...40 tops? Guess I can rest easy now! No one owns more than 40 movies.
Even with 64GB of storage I think practically nothing in my post changes for the average consumer. Pretty confident that it doesn't say "Please know that if you purchase more than 32 movies that you may not be able to keep them indefinitely" on the box.
I think the only stupid person here is the one who assumed that every single AppleTV user has a brand new device. Didn't they start selling those things without storage since 2010? Do we really want to encourage companies even further to make any device older than a year or two obsolete and punish consumers who use them?
Unfortunately, Apple sells this device called an "AppleTV" that gives you access to the iTunes store, complete with that pesky "buy" button. Of course the AppleTV has no self storage and even though it can stream from your home server system, it can't send purchases there even if you wanted to.
If Apple wants to move in a direction where digital content is only "purchased" permanently if it is stored locally, they need to rethink the AppleTV and its ability to "buy" movies. I think any user of the AppleTV would find a EULA based argument to be bad faith and misleading at best.
While not explicitly insider trading (as I understand it), it seems dubious and borderline to, for example, short a stock/tell your company to short a stock while knowing that a smear piece of negative press is about to hit the internet in the next day (which you wrote).
While it may not be as surefire as shorting it in advance when you know the quarterly report is going to be worse than expected, once you gain a certain level of influence in the public eye, your posts ARE going to push the stock when they land. It would, for example, seem dubious if Trump sold a bunch of Exxon stock and then the next day announced that his administration was going to "seriously look" at cutting subsidies for oil drilling.
Well I suppose you responded to a lot of my observations/opinions with ones of your own. Lots of "no it's not, it's this way instead."
I imagine the body of research on men's sexual aggression and societal conditioning is rubbish. And all the work in the feminist movement on changing perceptions on women's right to enjoy or initiate sex is just superfluous and aimed at selling books.
But from reading your post it sounds like you genuinely believe that society really doesn't have a patriarchal leaning that encourages young men, if not by direct messaging then certainly by example, to be sexually aggressive. If that's how you genuinely feel, I don't have the time or energy to try and pull up enough literature and readings to try and change your mind. Frankly, the statements you've made about how men are doormats to women in order to get sex and how women lord their sexual power over men makes you sound like quite the MRA (men as a "disposable resource", women leveraging sex, men are taught to be doormats, boys "forced to be quiet", women "tricking" men into fathering kids, and the idea what you don't know anyone who has committed sexual assault where statistically speaking you almost certainly do). Maybe I'm off point.
I did though find it hilarious that you said "Unless America is so fucking far diverged from Europe that it's an entirely different culture." Really? You don't think that America is a different culture from Europe? Hell, we're a different culture from Canada and Mexico too...why would you possibly think that we're "the same" as Europe?
If the only reason that men were more prone to sexual assault was testosterone, it seems unlikely there would be such a vast quantity of social and psychiatric literature on the topic. We'd just say "gosh, it's the testosterone."
Here's some tidbits though: When men are taught to be dominant and aggressive, this often leads to hyper-masculinity, male peer support for sexual aggression, development of rape myths, and adversarial sexual beliefs (Kilmartin, 2000; Rozee & Koss, 2001). In his classic study of college date rapists, Kanin’s sample (Kanin, 1985) were significantly more sexually active, but also more sexually frustrated than controls, and believed that rape could be justified under certain conditions.
Few men acknowledged using physical force to obtain sex, whereas more men acknowledged some form of sexual coercion. This included pressuring women and saying things they did not mean to obtain sex, using alcohol to obtain sex, and having sex with a woman even when she wanted to stop. A few men reported some likelihood of raping if they could be sure of not getting caught. (Carr and Van Deusen, 2004).
Although the association between rape and pornography remains controversial, a number of studies have linked violent pornography and sexual arousal to rape depictions, violent sexual fantasies, rape callousness, and woman abuse (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 1998; Malamuth, 1984; Malamuth & Check, 1983). *this isn't meant to throw porn under the bus, but you asked "where are men learning this?" as if you're naive to the presence of messaging to men that sexual violence is on some level acceptable.
TLDR: Males sexually assault not because they "want sex more" but because more men are of the opinion that they're owed sex and decide that assault is an OK way to get it. Women who want sex and can't get it rarely think that assaulting someone is the way to fix that issue.
The sex drive in males and females may be equal. But in our society, men are taught, conditioned, and exposed to influences from an early age that teaches many of them that sex is owed, or expected. They learn that force is an acceptable part of being a male. They learn that boys are supposed to be the sexually aggressive member of relationships. They learn that sex is about them moreso than about their partner. Etc.
Meanwhile, women are taught that wanting sex, or acting on sexual urges is shameful. They're taught that they are worth less if they choose to have sex. They carry the responsibility of birth control. They are taught to be "pretty", be polite, be quiet, be respectful, etc.
And yes, testosterone is a hell of a chemical. But I think that societal pressures are at least if not far moreso responsible for men's willingness to commit sexual assault versus women.
Last time we upgraded service with Qwest the billing/support folks insisted that we needed a new modem and that a technician HAD TO come out to our house.
When the tech arrived he had our same exact modem and looked at us like we were crazy for having him there. We stood there while he called up the office and told them to cancel the charge for the visit and to, essentially, "push the button" to change our service as we'd requested. We thanked him for his time and we didn't get charged.
Had we not had a great tech or if we hadn't been paying attention, you absolutely better believe Qwest would have charged us for the "visit."
This isn't unique to Verizon, it's shitty telecom/internet behavior all around.
That's primarily because cars like Nissan Leaf and Chevy Volt/Bolt are not nearly as fast or aggressive as Teslas. So people don't drive them as foolishly and the accidents they get in are less likely to cause catastrophic damage to the battery pack. It's more an issue that "supercars" capable of driving very fast have a tendency of getting into more spectacular wrecks when those wrecks do occur.
An at least marginally interesting question would be, should the government get into the business of regulating availability or use of such "supercars?" Should you need, for example, a special driver's license rider to purchase a car capable of 4s 0-60? Insurance companies already charge a premium for such cars. Perhaps municipalities should consider it if it becomes a problem as more and more electric powertrains make such impressive acceleration attainable for the average driver.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the GOP 1) didn't really believe that the emails were anything other than a BS talking point and 2) they want to use their own private communication too (see #1).
"[H]er lawyer says she sent the emails before she was briefed on the rules."
It's a testament to this lawyer's iron will that he/she could utter that sentence without vomiting. If there's anyone on earth who really thinks that this administration could have entered the White House being blissfully unaware that email privacy and security was something to probably think about...
Hey, if you've been pissed that Mar-Vel died in 1977 and harbored that feeling for 40 years, I got no problems with that. If that's what you grew up with, I get it. That's at least consistent and I can get behind that...I'm still partial to the Spider Man story lines that occurred in the late 90s when I was finishing high school rather than...whatever the heck happened after 2001.
My issue is people who seem to think that Carol Danvers as Marvel is some kind of recent rewriting of long standing history.
Ah...so you're too lazy to actually look up the history of the subject you're pissed off about, and then you're going to take umbridge when someone points out that you have no idea what you're talking about because you can't be bothered to actually learn about it. Got it.
I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where the ownership and character rights for Marvel had anything to do with this present discussion. I thought we were talking about the gender of Captain/Ms Marvel and how ANGRY the internet is that she's been female for going on 40 years.
This discussion has absolutely nothing to do with Shazam...if anyone thinks that Marvel Comics has stolen Shazam (previously known as Captain Marvel) and rewritten him as a female, then they're not even in the ballpark.
Captain Marvel was caught in a explosion in 1969. In 1977 it was revealed that Carol Danvers inherited his powers to become Ms Marvel. So folks have had since 1977 to deal with this. It's not like Marvel suddenly looked at the Trump administration and MAGA folks and said, "Let's take away their cherished male superhero!"
Please tell me how Ms Marvel is shitting on the beloved character you grew up with. Since...well...Ms Marvel was introduced in 1977.
No, no, really...tell us how that's affected you.
Seriously...like the late 70s. People who think this is some sort of gender swap in the name of equality are showing just how comic book clueless they actually are.
Mortality improved for lots of reasons, "Total Food" likely not being any one of them. Things like ventilators, dialysis, antibiotics, and recognition of quarantine practices all improved mortality in the early 1900s. But just because you can save a person by spending huge amounts of money and ventilating them in the ICU doesn't mean that's the best way to manage an illness. Pretty sure those kids would prefer to have never gotten sick in the first place.
They're all so anti-vaccine and pro-disease, I'm sure they would have been just fine with a couple of the active measles patients coming to the hearing.
That'd help things along.
Blocking 3 of 6 stalls and yelling at people is still a dick move and is still harassment. Sometimes, it turns out, there are enough drivers there that they really need all the charging stations. Saying "well they didn't block all of them...FAKE NEWS" makes you look like an idiot.
p.s. "Not even a city" you say? Might I point you to the first paragraph... "views of New York’s Hudson River". Now I know that's not a slam dunk because that's a long river, but when I put on my detective hat I tried "New York" in my search terms...TADA!
Yeah, I'm sure Google is the problem here.
Try "air bnb new york new years party damaged" or "air bnb Nicko Feinberg" and tell me again how Google is too biased and inconsistent.
Really? Took me less than 30 seconds on Google. Try harder.
https://www.lohud.com/story/ne...
https://abc7ny.com/realestate/...
http://www.news12.com/story/37...
I will addend that by agreeing that the Leaf is the best selling EV worldwide through the length of it's production life, even if it's year-over-year sales currently lag behind Tesla.
Nevertheless, FF's own marketing and demographic projection is clearly targeting Tesla, not Nissan, Ford, or anyone else.
That Tesla link is the summary author's work, not the original article. Really you're going to complain about "all the other auto makers that have been developing electric vehicles"? Like who, GM? Or the Leaf? How would that paragraph have read..."Faraday Future, having recently claimed the ability to produce an EV sports car with full autonamous driving, which would occupy an entirely separate marketing niche from Nissan's Leaf, is struggling to produce units or complete their proposed factory. Having hoped to dethrone Nissan as the 2nd best selling EV worldwide, Faraday's hopes seem to be fading."
Faraday Future wasn't trying to compete with the Leaf, or the Smart Car. Mentioning Tesla in an article about FF is appropriate, not spurious.
The article mentions Tesla twice. Once as the maker of a similar EV, and again as a reference to building a factory. I don't think that's "fawning". It's EV news, and I suppose if you consider EV to be just about Tesla then you probably shouldn't ever read anything about EV. Unfortunately, Tesla is a relatively dominant company in the EV space, so they're going to be mentioned in articles about EV.
FF grabbed a bunch of headlines when they launched making bold, impressive, and pretty hard to swallow claims about how great their EV was going to be. At the time I felt that they were doing a disservice to the EV market because people looked at their vaporware and thought "Why would I buy these shitty EVs on the market when these folks are going to deliver all that 10 times over?". Those who actually knew something about EV were skeptical, but many car buyers don't understand, yet, some of the limits on EV hardware. Turns out, FF really wasn't remotely positioned to deliver on its extensive claims.
The only reason why I'd say it's not worth a headline is that it's no surprise at all that they're still falling on their face.
I'm a stupid **** because I don't have a brand new AppleTV? Aren't you precious... But you're right, I didn't actually know that Apple added local storage back since I own an older generation (but not 1st generation which did have local storage). Regardless, how many movies does 64GB hold...32...40 tops? Guess I can rest easy now! No one owns more than 40 movies.
Even with 64GB of storage I think practically nothing in my post changes for the average consumer. Pretty confident that it doesn't say "Please know that if you purchase more than 32 movies that you may not be able to keep them indefinitely" on the box.
I think the only stupid person here is the one who assumed that every single AppleTV user has a brand new device. Didn't they start selling those things without storage since 2010? Do we really want to encourage companies even further to make any device older than a year or two obsolete and punish consumers who use them?
Unfortunately, Apple sells this device called an "AppleTV" that gives you access to the iTunes store, complete with that pesky "buy" button. Of course the AppleTV has no self storage and even though it can stream from your home server system, it can't send purchases there even if you wanted to.
If Apple wants to move in a direction where digital content is only "purchased" permanently if it is stored locally, they need to rethink the AppleTV and its ability to "buy" movies. I think any user of the AppleTV would find a EULA based argument to be bad faith and misleading at best.
While not explicitly insider trading (as I understand it), it seems dubious and borderline to, for example, short a stock/tell your company to short a stock while knowing that a smear piece of negative press is about to hit the internet in the next day (which you wrote).
While it may not be as surefire as shorting it in advance when you know the quarterly report is going to be worse than expected, once you gain a certain level of influence in the public eye, your posts ARE going to push the stock when they land. It would, for example, seem dubious if Trump sold a bunch of Exxon stock and then the next day announced that his administration was going to "seriously look" at cutting subsidies for oil drilling.
Well I suppose you responded to a lot of my observations/opinions with ones of your own. Lots of "no it's not, it's this way instead."
I imagine the body of research on men's sexual aggression and societal conditioning is rubbish. And all the work in the feminist movement on changing perceptions on women's right to enjoy or initiate sex is just superfluous and aimed at selling books.
But from reading your post it sounds like you genuinely believe that society really doesn't have a patriarchal leaning that encourages young men, if not by direct messaging then certainly by example, to be sexually aggressive. If that's how you genuinely feel, I don't have the time or energy to try and pull up enough literature and readings to try and change your mind. Frankly, the statements you've made about how men are doormats to women in order to get sex and how women lord their sexual power over men makes you sound like quite the MRA (men as a "disposable resource", women leveraging sex, men are taught to be doormats, boys "forced to be quiet", women "tricking" men into fathering kids, and the idea what you don't know anyone who has committed sexual assault where statistically speaking you almost certainly do). Maybe I'm off point.
I did though find it hilarious that you said "Unless America is so fucking far diverged from Europe that it's an entirely different culture." Really? You don't think that America is a different culture from Europe? Hell, we're a different culture from Canada and Mexico too...why would you possibly think that we're "the same" as Europe?
If the only reason that men were more prone to sexual assault was testosterone, it seems unlikely there would be such a vast quantity of social and psychiatric literature on the topic. We'd just say "gosh, it's the testosterone."
Here's some tidbits though:
When men are taught to be dominant and aggressive, this often leads to hyper-masculinity, male peer support for sexual aggression, development of rape myths, and adversarial sexual beliefs (Kilmartin, 2000; Rozee & Koss, 2001). In his classic study of college date rapists, Kanin’s sample (Kanin, 1985) were significantly more sexually active, but also more sexually frustrated than controls, and believed that rape could be justified under certain conditions.
Few men acknowledged using physical force to obtain sex, whereas more men acknowledged some form of sexual coercion. This included pressuring women and saying things they did not mean to obtain sex, using alcohol to obtain sex, and having sex with a woman even when she wanted to stop. A few men reported some likelihood of raping if they could be sure of not getting caught. (Carr and Van Deusen, 2004).
Although the association between rape and pornography remains controversial, a number of studies have linked violent pornography and sexual arousal to rape depictions, violent sexual fantasies, rape callousness, and woman abuse (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 1998; Malamuth, 1984; Malamuth & Check, 1983). *this isn't meant to throw porn under the bus, but you asked "where are men learning this?" as if you're naive to the presence of messaging to men that sexual violence is on some level acceptable.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/1...
TLDR: Males sexually assault not because they "want sex more" but because more men are of the opinion that they're owed sex and decide that assault is an OK way to get it. Women who want sex and can't get it rarely think that assaulting someone is the way to fix that issue.
See "Male privelage."
The sex drive in males and females may be equal. But in our society, men are taught, conditioned, and exposed to influences from an early age that teaches many of them that sex is owed, or expected. They learn that force is an acceptable part of being a male. They learn that boys are supposed to be the sexually aggressive member of relationships. They learn that sex is about them moreso than about their partner. Etc.
Meanwhile, women are taught that wanting sex, or acting on sexual urges is shameful. They're taught that they are worth less if they choose to have sex. They carry the responsibility of birth control. They are taught to be "pretty", be polite, be quiet, be respectful, etc.
And yes, testosterone is a hell of a chemical. But I think that societal pressures are at least if not far moreso responsible for men's willingness to commit sexual assault versus women.
Last time we upgraded service with Qwest the billing/support folks insisted that we needed a new modem and that a technician HAD TO come out to our house.
When the tech arrived he had our same exact modem and looked at us like we were crazy for having him there. We stood there while he called up the office and told them to cancel the charge for the visit and to, essentially, "push the button" to change our service as we'd requested. We thanked him for his time and we didn't get charged.
Had we not had a great tech or if we hadn't been paying attention, you absolutely better believe Qwest would have charged us for the "visit."
This isn't unique to Verizon, it's shitty telecom/internet behavior all around.
That's primarily because cars like Nissan Leaf and Chevy Volt/Bolt are not nearly as fast or aggressive as Teslas. So people don't drive them as foolishly and the accidents they get in are less likely to cause catastrophic damage to the battery pack. It's more an issue that "supercars" capable of driving very fast have a tendency of getting into more spectacular wrecks when those wrecks do occur.
An at least marginally interesting question would be, should the government get into the business of regulating availability or use of such "supercars?" Should you need, for example, a special driver's license rider to purchase a car capable of 4s 0-60? Insurance companies already charge a premium for such cars. Perhaps municipalities should consider it if it becomes a problem as more and more electric powertrains make such impressive acceleration attainable for the average driver.