Accepting the decision of the voters means not obstructing the president from doing things that he explicitly said he would do. Like for instance, the extreme vetting. Or the repeal of Obamacare. Or any number of things he said he would. It means not obstructing ICE from cracking down and deporting Illegal Immigrants. It means not demonstrating outside airports in response to the EO on the travel ban. It means not blackmailing companies like Nordstorm for carrying Trump products. It means not boycotting schools that Don's kids may be attending. It means accepting the fact that people who like Trump have the right to display it w/o being intimidated by college professors and students alike.
For instance, in both 2008 and 2012, Conservatives who were unhappy @ Obama's election organized the Tea Party and held demonstrations w/o intimidating schools, businesses, colleges, et al, organized electorally and got a few of their own elected to Congress. If the Leftists wanna be taken seriously, they should try winning support in the other 32 states that they didn't win
He might also want to have an environmental impact statement from the EPA on what would happen by excessively boring the earth from a myriad combination of locations
Completely agree. The last time I saw a major leap in iPhone was from 5s to 6, when they brought in Apple Pay, and enlarged the phone a bit, allowing for more icons per screen. Had I bought my phone a bit later when 6 came out, I'd have avoided any upgrades - depending on the storage that I bought.
I recently upgraded from the 5s to a 7, and the loss of the aux slot hasn't hurt, since I don't use the music aspect of the phone. However, that's the last upgrade I've done. I don't plan to ever go w/ 8. I'd be curious about what a Surface Phone is like once it's out.
It would be interesting to know how many years/centuries/millenia old is this super earth? Does it have life on it, and how populated is it? If it's underpopulated, could it be a place that, say, half the earth's population could go to?
Shouldn't the Russians be acting like the US was Belarus or Tajikistan instead, if the Dems were correct in portraying Trump as a vassal of Putin?
At least the sources I use aren't claiming that Trump is a vassal of Putin - they're claiming that Trump is Putin's pawn.
It's been apparent for years that Russia has been trying to pick a real fight with the US or the EU, the usual reason given being that Putin needs to distract a restless Russian population from local issues particularly corruption. Putin getting Trump elected is seemingly a big win if all these things are true - Trump certainly seems far more likely to get into a war with Russian than... pretty much any other 2016 presidential candidate.
To sum: Trump is Putin's pawn, not a vassal. Putin is now manipulating his pawn into starting an armed conflict (or at least another cold war) with Russia.
Viktor Yanukovich - Ukraine's former president - was Putin's pawn. And while he was in power, Putin did not do to Ukraine what he subsequently did - annex Crimea, and support ethnic Russian separatists in the Donbass. Once Yanukovich was removed, then Russia decided to treat the new government in Kyiv as a hostile government, and went into Crimea and Donbass.
Same thing here - had Trump been Putin's pawn, there would be no Russian ships off the CT coast, nor would Russian jets be buzzing a US destroyer in the Black Sea. And why would Putin manipulate his pawn to start an armed conflict, when he'd have a lot more to gain by having the US get on the same side of Russia on things like sanctions, and get more emboldened to spite Europe?
but that Julian Assange was getting his leaks from the Russians, and putting it out
Yes, as a completely fabricated story without any basis in fact or proof. This was a democrat talking point and was denied by Assange multiple times.
Oh, I agree w/ that, I was just pointing out that this was their talking point, not that Russian operatives hacked voting machines in battleground states
Yes & no. While they have been co-operating on a few things, most of the stunts, like the demands to impeach him from Maxine Waters, or the rants against him by Warren, as well as the saboteur attempts by members of the intelligence who leaked his phone calls to Mexico and Australia, are certainly signs that too many have not accepted the decision of the voters on Nov 8th.
That's very different on the GOP side. During the primaries, he had very little official Republican support, other than Jeff Sessions, a few evangelical leaders like Jerry Falwell Jr and Robert Jeffreys, and a few renagade GOP congressmen here and there. Most either supported Bush, Rubio or Kasich if they were establishment types, or Cruz if they were your classical conservatives. At the grassroots, it was a different story, w/ Carson actually having most of the groundswell after Trump. But fact remains that not only did the GOP oppose Trump until he was the last man standing, some of them even declined to support him at the convention, and some like the 2 Whitmans - Meg of HP and Christie Todd of NJ - downright supported Hilary, or stated that they wouldn't vote for Trump. Particularly after the Access Hollywood tapes came to light, and Paul Ryan refused to be on any joint campaigns w/ Trump. And in the media - the part that's pro GOP - people like George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Jonah Goldberg, Steve Hayes, et al opposed him to the end, and only flipped after he won the elections.
My point above is that while his conservative credentials may have been questionable - and still are on a few things like Eminent Domain - the Republicans ended any attempts to delegitimize him once he won the election, and have been working w/ him on parts of the agenda that's common to both. That's in sharp contrast to the Dems, who've been organizing their rallies in college campii denigrating him and his family, Obama holdovers who are busy leaking to the media, media people who are comparing this to Watergate, and so on. If Trump got this far to do the Dems a favor, not only do they have a funny way of thanking him: the Republicans, who would stand to lose in this set-up, should be opposing him tooth & nail.
Right now, the media meme is that Russia is supporting nationalist parties in Europe like Marine Le Pen, hoping to have pliant European leaders just like they 'succeeded' in the US
Except that none of these parties would be anywhere even close to power had people like Merkel, Hollande, et al not thrown their borders open to millions of Syrian refugees, thereby creating a law & order nightmare in their countries
It can be, but then, you'd need Russian agents in polling places in many battleground states to pull this off to the scale needed to make a difference, w/o getting noticed
That wouldn't have made any difference. This election was a vertical election, where Trump and Sanders were on one end, and Clinton and Cruz on the other. Republican candidates like Cruz, Rand Paul, even Jeb tried to point out how heretical Trump was on things like Eminent Domain, which Trump actively supported. That didn't do a thing to hurt him amongst Conservatives. Similarly, Bernie's socialism wouldn't have hurt him amongst Liberals.
Similarly, had Bernie been the candidate, attacks on him, like honeymooning in the Soviet Union in 1987, or what he did before he became an elected member in Burlington City Hall wouldn't have done a thing. He would have trounced Trump easily. First of all, WI, MI, PA and even OH would not have flipped - while the Union types turned against Clinton due to her Wall Street ties, they'd have gone w/ Sanders due to his TPP message. In addition, he may even have won FL, NC and AZ. And I can't think of any state that Hilary won that he would have lost. In fact, not just TPP and trade, Bernie was even on the same side as Trump on the 2nd Amendment - something that Hilary tried to use against him, even though he had to do that since he represents a very rural state which doesn't have cops all over the place.
I think that that could only have happened in states where either Clinton or Sanders were shoo-ins to win, and where Dems could afford to go out to sabotage what happened in the GOP. Like they infiltrated GOP ranks to vote for McCain in 2000, or like GOP voters were encouraged by Rush Limbaugh to infiltrate the Dems and promote his 'Operation Chaos' to make it tricky for Obama to win.
the democrat apparatus also stuffed the ballot box for Trump during the primaries
Got a source for that? I know that Trump entered the race as a favor to Hillary to sow discord in the Republican ranks, but I haven't seen any evidence that the apparat did anything more for him than give him round-the-clock news coverage that starved out his rivals.
-jcr
That's a really amazing conspiracy theory, given that he was so successful that he defeated her majesty, and ended up in uniting all Republicans behind him after the elections. As Jonah Goldberg pointed out, the 'Never Trump' movement is dead (at least on the GOP side), and all Republicans are happily working w/ him. As for the GP's claim that he's a democrat, he may have been once upon a time, but that's ancient history. None of the Trump derangement Dems anywhere in the country are even remotely respecting him - going so far as to boycotting a school in New York's East side just b'cos Don Jr's kid is rumored to be entering kindergarten there. While his border tax, infrastructure plan and repeal of TPP may be things that classical Dems would embrace, he has been more than happy to endorse much of the rest of the GOP platform. Only major difference b/w him and the GOP has been on Russia, and that could end soon now that Russia is doing things that can only be interpreted by him as being in bad faith.
If he is such a puppet of Putin, then why are the Russians running a spy ship off the DE coast, buzzing a US destroyer in the Black Sea, and testing a cruise missile capable of carrying nuke warheads in violation of the arms control treaty. Shouldn't they be acting like we are Belarus or Tajikistan instead, who will do whatever they ask us? (Sort of like Obama dismantling the Missile Defense program in 2009 as a part of the Russia Reset)
It has yet to proven the Russians had any affect on the outcome of the US Presidential Election 2016. Hillary was the worst candidate the Democrats could have fronted. I would have liked President Trump to have kept NSA Flynn and then working with the Russian Government plan and deliver a bunker busting bomb on the parliament buildings of North Korea in response for their repeated missile launches. Sadly Trump is succumbing to Washington, DC's, "business as usual." Sad.
Also, the issue at hand during and after the election was not that Russians were hacking the votes, but that Julian Assange was getting his leaks from the Russians, and putting it out daily at their behest. It was never the argument that they were actually breaking into voting machines to alter anything: in fact, when Trump was the one alleging that the elections were rigged, it was President Obama who pointed out that each state had their own voting systems, including states run overwhelmingly by Republicans, and that most of the voting machines were not on the internet. Ironically, that was an argument Republicans could turn around against Jill Stein in the battleground states once Trump won.
But the most bizarre thing over the last week has been Russian aggressiveness in three separate cases: having a spy ship off the DE coast, buzzing a US destroyer in the Black Sea, and the new revelation that they have been developing a cruise missile capable of carrying nuke warheads in violation of the arms control treaty. Shouldn't they be acting like the US was Belarus or Tajikistan instead, if the Dems were correct in portraying Trump as a vassal of Putin?
At any rate, this story reasserts the previously discredited claim that the Russians were hacking voting machines, which runs counter to the argument that they were manipulating Assange.
I'll second this one. My TrueOS - I've not been able to apply the latest updates, and already, it's screwing up w/ Wells Fargo certificates on my Chromium browser. I'll wait a few months before I order a new DVD for $6 and then try updating then.
Uh, no. When he started, there were all sorts of computer alternatives - Mac, Amiga, Unix, VMS and a whole host of others. On PCs, there was CP/M, and Gates provided DOS for the IBM PC. What made him rich was the PC clones made by other companies that needed an OS other than IBM's own PC DOS. Gates provided MS DOS and the rest was history
For 3 years, the US government has been trying to make (state-issued) DL cards like passports; only a few states have complied.
Uh, that's what I was arguing against. Leave DL cards only for driving, rather than as a photo ID, so that DMVs in sanctuary states like CA are free to issue them to illegals, w/o making them recognized ID for anything else. Instead, overhaul what the SS card is and let that be the universal ID that people use whenever they are travelling within the borders.
Passports will be needed, since there are a lot of countries that are not geared to use something like this as a substitute.
According to whom? If a US DMV is issuing such identity to non-citizens, then it obviously isn't a representation of immigration status. To be fair, this is the government's fault. They should give people a kick up the arse for using a DL as a green card, or an SS card as an identity card.
The latter - SS number for ID - has been there for the last 30 years, so it's probably there to stay. Which is why I suggested overhauling the SS card. Once it's there and loaded w/ all the information, any establishment that wants proof of ID will require to see that, instead of a DL or a college ID card.
What does the Metric system have to do w/ this? In fact, I can make a good case for building a new system based on powers of 2, which would enable microprocessor based instrumentation w/ little software programming involved, since it would mainly involve registers, counters, muxes, et al rather than complete computer systems
One more cretin who can't tell the difference b/w race and nationality. Yeah, I only want citizens, regardless of their race, to vote. I do not want a citizen of UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Iran, China, Russia, India, Israel, Laos or Brunei voting in our elections
This is what struck me as well. They explicitly want to address government sponsored cyberattacks, while ignoring cyberattacks by everybody else. Interesting approach for a company that has a very cavalier attitude towards privacy
What exactly is your idea of a 'National ID card'? My idea 2 posts above was to make the SSN card more secure - include a chip w/ a smart card interface, and in it, embed all the information about you that's necessary for any background check. Name, photo, fingerprint/retina scan, legal status (citizen/GC/type of visa held), marital status, married name (if applicable), state in which you are registered to vote, just about everything. All that is embedded in the card chip. You're ever asked for ID, that's what you give. Not DLs. You're taking a flight? It's needed, not your DL. Your DL would only be needed to let you drive, and nothing else.
Slashdot Mirror
Accepting the decision of the voters means not obstructing the president from doing things that he explicitly said he would do. Like for instance, the extreme vetting. Or the repeal of Obamacare. Or any number of things he said he would. It means not obstructing ICE from cracking down and deporting Illegal Immigrants. It means not demonstrating outside airports in response to the EO on the travel ban. It means not blackmailing companies like Nordstorm for carrying Trump products. It means not boycotting schools that Don's kids may be attending. It means accepting the fact that people who like Trump have the right to display it w/o being intimidated by college professors and students alike.
For instance, in both 2008 and 2012, Conservatives who were unhappy @ Obama's election organized the Tea Party and held demonstrations w/o intimidating schools, businesses, colleges, et al, organized electorally and got a few of their own elected to Congress. If the Leftists wanna be taken seriously, they should try winning support in the other 32 states that they didn't win
He might also want to have an environmental impact statement from the EPA on what would happen by excessively boring the earth from a myriad combination of locations
Why can't they take your thumb print on the touch screen itself, and match it to whatever is in the database?
Completely agree. The last time I saw a major leap in iPhone was from 5s to 6, when they brought in Apple Pay, and enlarged the phone a bit, allowing for more icons per screen. Had I bought my phone a bit later when 6 came out, I'd have avoided any upgrades - depending on the storage that I bought.
I recently upgraded from the 5s to a 7, and the loss of the aux slot hasn't hurt, since I don't use the music aspect of the phone. However, that's the last upgrade I've done. I don't plan to ever go w/ 8. I'd be curious about what a Surface Phone is like once it's out.
It would be interesting to know how many years/centuries/millenia old is this super earth? Does it have life on it, and how populated is it? If it's underpopulated, could it be a place that, say, half the earth's population could go to?
Shouldn't the Russians be acting like the US was Belarus or Tajikistan instead, if the Dems were correct in portraying Trump as a vassal of Putin?
At least the sources I use aren't claiming that Trump is a vassal of Putin - they're claiming that Trump is Putin's pawn.
It's been apparent for years that Russia has been trying to pick a real fight with the US or the EU, the usual reason given being that Putin needs to distract a restless Russian population from local issues particularly corruption. Putin getting Trump elected is seemingly a big win if all these things are true - Trump certainly seems far more likely to get into a war with Russian than ... pretty much any other 2016 presidential candidate.
To sum: Trump is Putin's pawn, not a vassal. Putin is now manipulating his pawn into starting an armed conflict (or at least another cold war) with Russia.
Viktor Yanukovich - Ukraine's former president - was Putin's pawn. And while he was in power, Putin did not do to Ukraine what he subsequently did - annex Crimea, and support ethnic Russian separatists in the Donbass. Once Yanukovich was removed, then Russia decided to treat the new government in Kyiv as a hostile government, and went into Crimea and Donbass.
Same thing here - had Trump been Putin's pawn, there would be no Russian ships off the CT coast, nor would Russian jets be buzzing a US destroyer in the Black Sea. And why would Putin manipulate his pawn to start an armed conflict, when he'd have a lot more to gain by having the US get on the same side of Russia on things like sanctions, and get more emboldened to spite Europe?
but that Julian Assange was getting his leaks from the Russians, and putting it out
Yes, as a completely fabricated story without any basis in fact or proof. This was a democrat talking point and was denied by Assange multiple times.
Oh, I agree w/ that, I was just pointing out that this was their talking point, not that Russian operatives hacked voting machines in battleground states
Yes & no. While they have been co-operating on a few things, most of the stunts, like the demands to impeach him from Maxine Waters, or the rants against him by Warren, as well as the saboteur attempts by members of the intelligence who leaked his phone calls to Mexico and Australia, are certainly signs that too many have not accepted the decision of the voters on Nov 8th.
That's very different on the GOP side. During the primaries, he had very little official Republican support, other than Jeff Sessions, a few evangelical leaders like Jerry Falwell Jr and Robert Jeffreys, and a few renagade GOP congressmen here and there. Most either supported Bush, Rubio or Kasich if they were establishment types, or Cruz if they were your classical conservatives. At the grassroots, it was a different story, w/ Carson actually having most of the groundswell after Trump. But fact remains that not only did the GOP oppose Trump until he was the last man standing, some of them even declined to support him at the convention, and some like the 2 Whitmans - Meg of HP and Christie Todd of NJ - downright supported Hilary, or stated that they wouldn't vote for Trump. Particularly after the Access Hollywood tapes came to light, and Paul Ryan refused to be on any joint campaigns w/ Trump. And in the media - the part that's pro GOP - people like George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Jonah Goldberg, Steve Hayes, et al opposed him to the end, and only flipped after he won the elections.
My point above is that while his conservative credentials may have been questionable - and still are on a few things like Eminent Domain - the Republicans ended any attempts to delegitimize him once he won the election, and have been working w/ him on parts of the agenda that's common to both. That's in sharp contrast to the Dems, who've been organizing their rallies in college campii denigrating him and his family, Obama holdovers who are busy leaking to the media, media people who are comparing this to Watergate, and so on. If Trump got this far to do the Dems a favor, not only do they have a funny way of thanking him: the Republicans, who would stand to lose in this set-up, should be opposing him tooth & nail.
Right now, the media meme is that Russia is supporting nationalist parties in Europe like Marine Le Pen, hoping to have pliant European leaders just like they 'succeeded' in the US
Except that none of these parties would be anywhere even close to power had people like Merkel, Hollande, et al not thrown their borders open to millions of Syrian refugees, thereby creating a law & order nightmare in their countries
It can be, but then, you'd need Russian agents in polling places in many battleground states to pull this off to the scale needed to make a difference, w/o getting noticed
His is not an 'app': it's a shell script, which one could ostensibly run by editing /etc/hosts
That wouldn't have made any difference. This election was a vertical election, where Trump and Sanders were on one end, and Clinton and Cruz on the other. Republican candidates like Cruz, Rand Paul, even Jeb tried to point out how heretical Trump was on things like Eminent Domain, which Trump actively supported. That didn't do a thing to hurt him amongst Conservatives. Similarly, Bernie's socialism wouldn't have hurt him amongst Liberals.
Similarly, had Bernie been the candidate, attacks on him, like honeymooning in the Soviet Union in 1987, or what he did before he became an elected member in Burlington City Hall wouldn't have done a thing. He would have trounced Trump easily. First of all, WI, MI, PA and even OH would not have flipped - while the Union types turned against Clinton due to her Wall Street ties, they'd have gone w/ Sanders due to his TPP message. In addition, he may even have won FL, NC and AZ. And I can't think of any state that Hilary won that he would have lost. In fact, not just TPP and trade, Bernie was even on the same side as Trump on the 2nd Amendment - something that Hilary tried to use against him, even though he had to do that since he represents a very rural state which doesn't have cops all over the place.
I think that that could only have happened in states where either Clinton or Sanders were shoo-ins to win, and where Dems could afford to go out to sabotage what happened in the GOP. Like they infiltrated GOP ranks to vote for McCain in 2000, or like GOP voters were encouraged by Rush Limbaugh to infiltrate the Dems and promote his 'Operation Chaos' to make it tricky for Obama to win.
the democrat apparatus also stuffed the ballot box for Trump during the primaries
Got a source for that? I know that Trump entered the race as a favor to Hillary to sow discord in the Republican ranks, but I haven't seen any evidence that the apparat did anything more for him than give him round-the-clock news coverage that starved out his rivals.
-jcr
That's a really amazing conspiracy theory, given that he was so successful that he defeated her majesty, and ended up in uniting all Republicans behind him after the elections. As Jonah Goldberg pointed out, the 'Never Trump' movement is dead (at least on the GOP side), and all Republicans are happily working w/ him. As for the GP's claim that he's a democrat, he may have been once upon a time, but that's ancient history. None of the Trump derangement Dems anywhere in the country are even remotely respecting him - going so far as to boycotting a school in New York's East side just b'cos Don Jr's kid is rumored to be entering kindergarten there. While his border tax, infrastructure plan and repeal of TPP may be things that classical Dems would embrace, he has been more than happy to endorse much of the rest of the GOP platform. Only major difference b/w him and the GOP has been on Russia, and that could end soon now that Russia is doing things that can only be interpreted by him as being in bad faith.
The Mach in this case is not used as a microkernel
Since his solution is based on /etc/hosts, it would work on OS X, which has FreeBSD underpinnings
If he is such a puppet of Putin, then why are the Russians running a spy ship off the DE coast, buzzing a US destroyer in the Black Sea, and testing a cruise missile capable of carrying nuke warheads in violation of the arms control treaty. Shouldn't they be acting like we are Belarus or Tajikistan instead, who will do whatever they ask us? (Sort of like Obama dismantling the Missile Defense program in 2009 as a part of the Russia Reset)
It has yet to proven the Russians had any affect on the outcome of the US Presidential Election 2016. Hillary was the worst candidate the Democrats could have fronted. I would have liked President Trump to have kept NSA Flynn and then working with the Russian Government plan and deliver a bunker busting bomb on the parliament buildings of North Korea in response for their repeated missile launches. Sadly Trump is succumbing to Washington, DC's, "business as usual." Sad.
Also, the issue at hand during and after the election was not that Russians were hacking the votes, but that Julian Assange was getting his leaks from the Russians, and putting it out daily at their behest. It was never the argument that they were actually breaking into voting machines to alter anything: in fact, when Trump was the one alleging that the elections were rigged, it was President Obama who pointed out that each state had their own voting systems, including states run overwhelmingly by Republicans, and that most of the voting machines were not on the internet. Ironically, that was an argument Republicans could turn around against Jill Stein in the battleground states once Trump won.
But the most bizarre thing over the last week has been Russian aggressiveness in three separate cases: having a spy ship off the DE coast, buzzing a US destroyer in the Black Sea, and the new revelation that they have been developing a cruise missile capable of carrying nuke warheads in violation of the arms control treaty. Shouldn't they be acting like the US was Belarus or Tajikistan instead, if the Dems were correct in portraying Trump as a vassal of Putin?
At any rate, this story reasserts the previously discredited claim that the Russians were hacking voting machines, which runs counter to the argument that they were manipulating Assange.
I'll second this one. My TrueOS - I've not been able to apply the latest updates, and already, it's screwing up w/ Wells Fargo certificates on my Chromium browser. I'll wait a few months before I order a new DVD for $6 and then try updating then.
Uh, no. When he started, there were all sorts of computer alternatives - Mac, Amiga, Unix, VMS and a whole host of others. On PCs, there was CP/M, and Gates provided DOS for the IBM PC. What made him rich was the PC clones made by other companies that needed an OS other than IBM's own PC DOS. Gates provided MS DOS and the rest was history
For 3 years, the US government has been trying to make (state-issued) DL cards like passports; only a few states have complied.
Uh, that's what I was arguing against. Leave DL cards only for driving, rather than as a photo ID, so that DMVs in sanctuary states like CA are free to issue them to illegals, w/o making them recognized ID for anything else. Instead, overhaul what the SS card is and let that be the universal ID that people use whenever they are travelling within the borders.
Passports will be needed, since there are a lot of countries that are not geared to use something like this as a substitute.
According to whom? If a US DMV is issuing such identity to non-citizens, then it obviously isn't a representation of immigration status. To be fair, this is the government's fault. They should give people a kick up the arse for using a DL as a green card, or an SS card as an identity card.
The latter - SS number for ID - has been there for the last 30 years, so it's probably there to stay. Which is why I suggested overhauling the SS card. Once it's there and loaded w/ all the information, any establishment that wants proof of ID will require to see that, instead of a DL or a college ID card.
What does the Metric system have to do w/ this? In fact, I can make a good case for building a new system based on powers of 2, which would enable microprocessor based instrumentation w/ little software programming involved, since it would mainly involve registers, counters, muxes, et al rather than complete computer systems
One more cretin who can't tell the difference b/w race and nationality. Yeah, I only want citizens, regardless of their race, to vote. I do not want a citizen of UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Iran, China, Russia, India, Israel, Laos or Brunei voting in our elections
This is what struck me as well. They explicitly want to address government sponsored cyberattacks, while ignoring cyberattacks by everybody else. Interesting approach for a company that has a very cavalier attitude towards privacy
What exactly is your idea of a 'National ID card'? My idea 2 posts above was to make the SSN card more secure - include a chip w/ a smart card interface, and in it, embed all the information about you that's necessary for any background check. Name, photo, fingerprint/retina scan, legal status (citizen/GC/type of visa held), marital status, married name (if applicable), state in which you are registered to vote, just about everything. All that is embedded in the card chip. You're ever asked for ID, that's what you give. Not DLs. You're taking a flight? It's needed, not your DL. Your DL would only be needed to let you drive, and nothing else.