Only if you think Chickens and Humans share enough commonality in our immune systems and the viruses that infect us will act the same in a human host as in a chicken.
Of course the anti-vaxxers are accustom to threading together some pretty sketchy evidence to create their "science" to start with, so why not let them have this.... Most of them are still on the "vaccinations cause autism" band wagon, which has about as much evidence as Neil Armstrong not having been to the moon.... Why should this little study be left out?
Where the Oral polio vaccine does sometimes cause polio, it hasn't yet caused a new more virulent strain of polio to appear. What they say is that sometimes the attenuated Polio virus mutates back into the non-attenuated version and can infect the recipient. The injectable version of the vaccine never causes Polio. This vaccine has been in nearly constant use since it came out in the late 60's, so I think that for Polio at least, the vaccine hasn't had this affect of creating a SUPER POLIO virus, but it's done an excellent job of nearly eliminating Polio for the planet. One year in the US in 1964, 5,000 people DIED from Polio and many more where harmed for life. Last year, there where zero cases of Polio in the whole western hemisphere.
Between the two types of vaccine, we have successfully eradicated one of the three types of polio virus (Type 2 I believe) and are nearly to the point where "in the wild" infections of polio world wide are getting close to single digits per year. (I believe it as something like 55 total infections, with a significant number being from the oral vaccine.) I'll have to go check the WHO's numbers to be sure though.
Again, We are going to have to disagree on this one. I believe that mortgage lenders where coerced into making loans they knew where likely going to be bad by federal fair housing standards and equal opportunity laws where they started looking at things like race and sex and deciding which lenders where in compliance and which ones where too discriminating. HUD was big into this kind of thing for decades. What do you think Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac where all about and why do you think they got left holding most of the bag?
I realize that it's pretty indirect, but the fact remains that it was government relaxation of mortgage standards and the government accepting the risk for the sub-prime loans that got this ball rolling. If you had left banks to their own devices, skipped on Fannie and Freddie, you can bet 2008 would never have happened...
You want to just blame the evil banks for everything..... They had a PART in this, but it was government that really messed this thing up, both by pushing the lenders into making loans that NOBODY in the right mind would buy, and then soaking up this bad paper by funding Fannie and Freddie to take on the risk for it almost without bound. There should have been laws about this, but that would have killed the sacred cow of "affordable housing" congress was trying to keep alive. It was the S&L thing on steroids, which ALSO was a failure of government regulation with the S&L's being encouraged to do bad things in the process....
Don't make me laugh. Batteries may be getting cheaper but It's not happening *anytime* soon with any kind of capacity that can really make a difference for photovoltaic solar and wind power even with batteries that are free. It's absolutely NOT cost effective because the conversion and storage losses are huge and it makes it way too expensive.... And don't be fooled by the "sunshine is free" so we don't care how much we waste argument. Despite how hard Elion Musk tries to market his little home battery pack thing, it's simply NOT cost effective to charge a battery and use the power later.
The only real way one can do electric storage on an industrial scale is to pump water up hill into a large reservoir, then use it coming back down hill to generate power when you want it back. However, this technique only has a few places where it will work where the geography is suitable and enough water is available. Even then, the efficiency is abysmal and it's only really viable cost wise when you can buy the power for about 1/3rd what you sell it for at peek. Batteries are worse at efficiency, especially on the industrial scales required for what you are suggesting.
I have a smart meter and my provider has yet to offer me the option of automatically shedding load automatically based on my instantaneous use. But this idea is NOT new. I've seen devices on AC units and electric water heaters designed to cycle the unit off to shed load and that was over a decade ago. The provider controlled these devices via radio signals and gave you some credit or better rate for the ability to turn off your devices when they wanted.
My provider does offer an incentive for shedding load on peek days with advanced warning. They send me an E-mail about 24 hours before the event, asking me to reduce use during projected peek loads. They pay $0.60 per KWH for any reduced load I manage to provide. Turn up your AC, turn off your lights and don't cook indoors during those hours for savings. Seems effective to me, they get to shed load, don't have to pay peak rates for the power I don't use and I get a credit on my bill. I'm guessing this saves them about $0.60 per KWH even after paying me a credit, depending on the spot electric market cost during peak. However, this is not an automatic thing for them.
My point is that it's not really "smart meters" that allow this automatic shedding of load, but increased communications capacity that "smart meters" bring to the table. Smart Meters do allow for "time of use" billing which allows providers like mine to pass on the costs (or in this case the reduced costs) more directly and encourage conservation during more critical times.
The heck they aren't.... Anti ship missiles do EXACTLY that for years. Fly to waypoint, engage any target you see, and go boom. Cruse missiles likely have the same capacity, fly to waypoint, search for and engage a certain kind of target (say a mobile Ground to Air radar) in the area, go boom when you find it. Both are aimed in the general location of an enemy and turned loose to find their own targets.
Mines are selective in the targets they engage. Antipersonnel mines differ from antitank mines in how they go off. Marine mines are even more selective. Sure mines generally don't move to find their targets, but they do react differently to varying targets sometimes.
If you define autonomous weapons as having the ability to "pick it's own target" then we've had that since before WW2. I'm telling you the barn is empty on this... The cows are out, and they are not coming back.
2008 was not about the free markets, but the results of government messing around with the mortgage markets. At it's core it was about loans made to people who couldn't pay them back, loans that government regulations nearly forced lenders into making or face discrimination charges.
All the "credit default swaps" and other such things where the way all this house of cards that was the sub-prime mortgage business where a result of the government messing around with the rules of who *should* qualify for a mortgage and the way banks could spread the risk around. But if you wanted to be in the mortgage business, you HAD to lend money to unqualified borrowers.
If the liberal position isn't producing one government program after another, what are they doing? (Trying to get elected.) Liberals believe that government and regulation is the answer, don't try to deny it.
That ship has sailed a LONG time ago... We've been making such weapons for decades.
What's a mine? What's a cruse missile? Proximity fused ground to air shells? Homing torpedos? What's all that "fire and forget" stuff we've been building?
I'm afraid the cows are ALREADY out of the barn on this....
She could strangle puppies on live TV and the Democrats would nominate her.
She's batshit crazy in the most evil of ways.
Wait a second here... We don't know that they will nominate her.. They didn't LAST time she ran and was seen as the heir apparent... And look who beat her then... A junior senator from Illinois out of Chicago who NOBODY outside of his state had taken any notice of...
Looking back, I wish she'd won that nomination.... Where I believe she would have won the general too, there would have been no way for her to win the second term and we'd be done with this craziness by now... Besides, Bill would have loved a new batch of interns to play with as I'm sure he's a lonely man even at his age...
Yes, it DOES cost the power company.... Even if they don't pay you for the power you generate.
The electric grid needs to be stable, that requires that every watt of power being used, must be instantly available when the demand for it happens. When you hit that light switch, the power to run the light must be instantly generated someplace, turn that light off and the system must stop providing that power, instantly. This instant power on/off capacity is actually done using mechanical storage in the spinning parts of power generation plants.
Solar panels and inverters have no such storage capacity, they push power into the system when the sun shines, and stop doing that when it doesn't. This means that on cloudy days there is a large variation in the power available from photovoltaic solar sources. This variation can be averaged over large areas, but there remains a lot of uncertainty in how much power will be available at any instant, because it's really hard to forecast with accuracy where a cloud or thunder storm will be formed and where it will go.
So, this leads to how photovoltaic solar has "cost" for your electric provider. Because of the uncertainty of how much power your solar panels will have available, the provider must maintain sufficient margin available to handle the instantaneous load of the entire system. So they are burning fuel to be ready to produce electricity they are unlikely to use because of the unpredictable nature of photovoltaic solar and not knowing if they will get what they expect from that source or not.
In addition, there are transmission grid efficiency issues that come into play. It is really hard to keep the grid efficient when you know where and when you've scheduled power to be available and when and where it will be used. With the load variance introduced from a photovoltaic power source this problem becomes even more difficult. Power companies respond by using less efficient, but more stable configurations and power flows because of this varying load within the system. This inefficiency costs them as well.
So, I'm not saying that it's all bad for power companies. Being able to buy power from your solar panels at your retail rate during peak load where the going spot rate may be triple or more is a good thing for them, but I am saying that there ARE costs in efficiency and complexity for them.
Then there is a safety issue that's not talked about too much when the power grid goes down in local areas. Your Photovoltaic system can be pretty lethal for linemen if left connected when the power grid is down. Hopefully you have an inverter that figures out pretty quick when the line voltage and frequency is out of working range and shuts down, but there is a risk things won't work as expected and somebody gets hurt. It's a minor issue, but it does have cost for electric providers.
she intends to pay for it by cutting tax breaks to the oil and gas industry.
Wow so now she is backing out of the race entirely? If she was actually serious about it she would never get elected. My guess is if elected those cuts would mysteriously change place and come from somewhere with less money flowing into Washington.
Actually, one needs to specify what tax breaks she thinks she's talking about.. What tax break is given to oil companies that isn't given to other types of businesses too? I dare say, she's intending to cripple the whole economic system in this country, or she's intending to single out one specific industry for "special" treatment concerning things like capital equipment depreciation and deduction of business expenses for paying leases and insurance..
You didn't do well in economics, eh? Increased demand drives prices up, not down.
Yes, but you got to believe the liberal lie that government interference ALWAYS produces a good result... After all, it's the GOAL that counts, not the way proposed to achieve that goal.... Case in point: Solyndra... It was about the stated goals of pushing solar panel production (not what it turned out to really be, a quid pro quo for large investors in the proper party).
You act like Oil Companies care about solar panels.... They don't. Let me explain why...
Solar panels exclusively generate electricity, Oil companies have little to do with electricity. Yea, they sell natural gas to electric producers, but that's the limit of their involvement in electricity production. Natural gas production is not a huge money maker right now, prices are down even though demand is up and there is little expectation that this changes in the next decade. Oil companies don't care about solar panels or wind farms because they don't have anything to do with their core business. Start messing with fuel oil, gasoline and other Oil based industrial production, then you might get some interest from big oil.
Of course this Clinton position is about appealing to the liberal environmentalists. Now THAT does interest Big Oil because this position implies a national energy position that is slanted in a way that impacts the ability of oil companies to produce more domestically. Solar panels don't matter to this, but it's the rest or the implied policy that this solar panel idea betrays.
So you are parroting what really amounts to a "liberal lie", which amounts to a misrepresentation of what is really going on. Big Oil doesn't oppose solar panels... They simply don't care...
I fully recognize that the issue with this regulation is going to be enforcement and I said so.
Likewise, the laws being discussed here may indeed look silly in 50 years, but they are reasonable and sensible NOW. The only real question is about enforcement, which may be difficult (as you point out.)
So for now, the law is fine. Could it become an issue for enforcement in the future? You betcha. Will it? Seems likely to me, but there's no way to be sure.
But just because a law is possibly going to be hard to enforce in the future is not enough to make it a bad one now..One could have argued that with the foreseeable advent of fire hydrants and pumper fire engines, which both existed at the time, that the fire bucket thing was stupid in 1871.
I think you are correct about who caught him, but the point remains valid... This guy managed to breach several layers of security and enter the Whitehouse before being stopped, but he WAS stopped, even though the president and his family where not there.
All indications are that the Secret Service remains effective at protecting the president, despite somebody taking pot shots that nobody noticed for awhile, one yahoo making it into the residence and all the other "scandals" which really are personnel issues for the most part.
The Red Flag act was indeed necessary for a time due to the unfamiliar technology which could easily kill was being used in public under less than ideal conditions or traffic rules. It was a public safety issue until the public became generally aware of automobiles, roads improved to handle automobiles, and traffic laws where in place to govern their operations.
So, I do not think the Red Flag laws where crazy when put into historical context, any more than the laws requiring fire buckets being required in all entry ways in Chicago after the fire in 1871. Sure, in today's day it looks silly, but in historical context it is perfectly reasonable and sensible.
Likewise, the laws being discussed here may indeed look silly in 50 years, but they are reasonable and sensible NOW. The only real question is about enforcement, which may be difficult (as you point out).
> Deflecting possible Colombian hooker attacks on the president.
I hear this is quite a rigorous training course.
Just be sure to negotiate the fees and pay in advance, leaving your credit cards in the hands of others while taking the course. Be sure to tip well...
Well, there have been some pretty dangerous attempts which where literally "long shots" and one guy who actually got INTO the Whitehouse before he got stopped by the cleaning staff...
But the Secret Service has apparently been effective at disrupting plots before they had a reasonable chance of success. One could argue that it's only been dumb luck and dumb people who are trying, but I'm inclined to think the Secret Service is doing a good job overall.
Slashdot Mirror
The science behind the study does though.
Only if you think Chickens and Humans share enough commonality in our immune systems and the viruses that infect us will act the same in a human host as in a chicken.
Of course the anti-vaxxers are accustom to threading together some pretty sketchy evidence to create their "science" to start with, so why not let them have this.... Most of them are still on the "vaccinations cause autism" band wagon, which has about as much evidence as Neil Armstrong not having been to the moon.... Why should this little study be left out?
Where the Oral polio vaccine does sometimes cause polio, it hasn't yet caused a new more virulent strain of polio to appear. What they say is that sometimes the attenuated Polio virus mutates back into the non-attenuated version and can infect the recipient. The injectable version of the vaccine never causes Polio. This vaccine has been in nearly constant use since it came out in the late 60's, so I think that for Polio at least, the vaccine hasn't had this affect of creating a SUPER POLIO virus, but it's done an excellent job of nearly eliminating Polio for the planet. One year in the US in 1964, 5,000 people DIED from Polio and many more where harmed for life. Last year, there where zero cases of Polio in the whole western hemisphere.
Between the two types of vaccine, we have successfully eradicated one of the three types of polio virus (Type 2 I believe) and are nearly to the point where "in the wild" infections of polio world wide are getting close to single digits per year. (I believe it as something like 55 total infections, with a significant number being from the oral vaccine.) I'll have to go check the WHO's numbers to be sure though.
Again, We are going to have to disagree on this one. I believe that mortgage lenders where coerced into making loans they knew where likely going to be bad by federal fair housing standards and equal opportunity laws where they started looking at things like race and sex and deciding which lenders where in compliance and which ones where too discriminating. HUD was big into this kind of thing for decades. What do you think Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac where all about and why do you think they got left holding most of the bag?
I realize that it's pretty indirect, but the fact remains that it was government relaxation of mortgage standards and the government accepting the risk for the sub-prime loans that got this ball rolling. If you had left banks to their own devices, skipped on Fannie and Freddie, you can bet 2008 would never have happened...
You want to just blame the evil banks for everything..... They had a PART in this, but it was government that really messed this thing up, both by pushing the lenders into making loans that NOBODY in the right mind would buy, and then soaking up this bad paper by funding Fannie and Freddie to take on the risk for it almost without bound. There should have been laws about this, but that would have killed the sacred cow of "affordable housing" congress was trying to keep alive. It was the S&L thing on steroids, which ALSO was a failure of government regulation with the S&L's being encouraged to do bad things in the process....
Grid storage? PFFFT..
Don't make me laugh. Batteries may be getting cheaper but It's not happening *anytime* soon with any kind of capacity that can really make a difference for photovoltaic solar and wind power even with batteries that are free. It's absolutely NOT cost effective because the conversion and storage losses are huge and it makes it way too expensive.... And don't be fooled by the "sunshine is free" so we don't care how much we waste argument. Despite how hard Elion Musk tries to market his little home battery pack thing, it's simply NOT cost effective to charge a battery and use the power later.
The only real way one can do electric storage on an industrial scale is to pump water up hill into a large reservoir, then use it coming back down hill to generate power when you want it back. However, this technique only has a few places where it will work where the geography is suitable and enough water is available. Even then, the efficiency is abysmal and it's only really viable cost wise when you can buy the power for about 1/3rd what you sell it for at peek. Batteries are worse at efficiency, especially on the industrial scales required for what you are suggesting.
I have a smart meter and my provider has yet to offer me the option of automatically shedding load automatically based on my instantaneous use. But this idea is NOT new. I've seen devices on AC units and electric water heaters designed to cycle the unit off to shed load and that was over a decade ago. The provider controlled these devices via radio signals and gave you some credit or better rate for the ability to turn off your devices when they wanted.
My provider does offer an incentive for shedding load on peek days with advanced warning. They send me an E-mail about 24 hours before the event, asking me to reduce use during projected peek loads. They pay $0.60 per KWH for any reduced load I manage to provide. Turn up your AC, turn off your lights and don't cook indoors during those hours for savings. Seems effective to me, they get to shed load, don't have to pay peak rates for the power I don't use and I get a credit on my bill. I'm guessing this saves them about $0.60 per KWH even after paying me a credit, depending on the spot electric market cost during peak. However, this is not an automatic thing for them.
My point is that it's not really "smart meters" that allow this automatic shedding of load, but increased communications capacity that "smart meters" bring to the table. Smart Meters do allow for "time of use" billing which allows providers like mine to pass on the costs (or in this case the reduced costs) more directly and encourage conservation during more critical times.
The heck they aren't.... Anti ship missiles do EXACTLY that for years. Fly to waypoint, engage any target you see, and go boom. Cruse missiles likely have the same capacity, fly to waypoint, search for and engage a certain kind of target (say a mobile Ground to Air radar) in the area, go boom when you find it. Both are aimed in the general location of an enemy and turned loose to find their own targets.
Mines are selective in the targets they engage. Antipersonnel mines differ from antitank mines in how they go off. Marine mines are even more selective. Sure mines generally don't move to find their targets, but they do react differently to varying targets sometimes.
If you define autonomous weapons as having the ability to "pick it's own target" then we've had that since before WW2. I'm telling you the barn is empty on this... The cows are out, and they are not coming back.
2008 was not about the free markets, but the results of government messing around with the mortgage markets. At it's core it was about loans made to people who couldn't pay them back, loans that government regulations nearly forced lenders into making or face discrimination charges.
All the "credit default swaps" and other such things where the way all this house of cards that was the sub-prime mortgage business where a result of the government messing around with the rules of who *should* qualify for a mortgage and the way banks could spread the risk around. But if you wanted to be in the mortgage business, you HAD to lend money to unqualified borrowers.
If the liberal position isn't producing one government program after another, what are they doing? (Trying to get elected.) Liberals believe that government and regulation is the answer, don't try to deny it.
Out standing in his field perhaps?
Close the barn door... Or be prepared to wait until he comes home...
Big oil opposes and end to oil subsidies. Clear enough for you.
There are NO subsidies unique to oil companies that I know of.. Care to enlighten me?
That ship has sailed a LONG time ago... We've been making such weapons for decades.
What's a mine? What's a cruse missile? Proximity fused ground to air shells? Homing torpedos? What's all that "fire and forget" stuff we've been building?
I'm afraid the cows are ALREADY out of the barn on this....
She could strangle puppies on live TV and the Democrats would nominate her.
She's batshit crazy in the most evil of ways.
Wait a second here... We don't know that they will nominate her.. They didn't LAST time she ran and was seen as the heir apparent... And look who beat her then... A junior senator from Illinois out of Chicago who NOBODY outside of his state had taken any notice of...
Looking back, I wish she'd won that nomination.... Where I believe she would have won the general too, there would have been no way for her to win the second term and we'd be done with this craziness by now... Besides, Bill would have loved a new batch of interns to play with as I'm sure he's a lonely man even at his age...
Yes, it DOES cost the power company.... Even if they don't pay you for the power you generate.
The electric grid needs to be stable, that requires that every watt of power being used, must be instantly available when the demand for it happens. When you hit that light switch, the power to run the light must be instantly generated someplace, turn that light off and the system must stop providing that power, instantly. This instant power on/off capacity is actually done using mechanical storage in the spinning parts of power generation plants.
Solar panels and inverters have no such storage capacity, they push power into the system when the sun shines, and stop doing that when it doesn't. This means that on cloudy days there is a large variation in the power available from photovoltaic solar sources. This variation can be averaged over large areas, but there remains a lot of uncertainty in how much power will be available at any instant, because it's really hard to forecast with accuracy where a cloud or thunder storm will be formed and where it will go.
So, this leads to how photovoltaic solar has "cost" for your electric provider. Because of the uncertainty of how much power your solar panels will have available, the provider must maintain sufficient margin available to handle the instantaneous load of the entire system. So they are burning fuel to be ready to produce electricity they are unlikely to use because of the unpredictable nature of photovoltaic solar and not knowing if they will get what they expect from that source or not.
In addition, there are transmission grid efficiency issues that come into play. It is really hard to keep the grid efficient when you know where and when you've scheduled power to be available and when and where it will be used. With the load variance introduced from a photovoltaic power source this problem becomes even more difficult. Power companies respond by using less efficient, but more stable configurations and power flows because of this varying load within the system. This inefficiency costs them as well.
So, I'm not saying that it's all bad for power companies. Being able to buy power from your solar panels at your retail rate during peak load where the going spot rate may be triple or more is a good thing for them, but I am saying that there ARE costs in efficiency and complexity for them.
Then there is a safety issue that's not talked about too much when the power grid goes down in local areas. Your Photovoltaic system can be pretty lethal for linemen if left connected when the power grid is down. Hopefully you have an inverter that figures out pretty quick when the line voltage and frequency is out of working range and shuts down, but there is a risk things won't work as expected and somebody gets hurt. It's a minor issue, but it does have cost for electric providers.
she intends to pay for it by cutting tax breaks to the oil and gas industry.
Wow so now she is backing out of the race entirely? If she was actually serious about it she would never get elected. My guess is if elected those cuts would mysteriously change place and come from somewhere with less money flowing into Washington.
Actually, one needs to specify what tax breaks she thinks she's talking about.. What tax break is given to oil companies that isn't given to other types of businesses too? I dare say, she's intending to cripple the whole economic system in this country, or she's intending to single out one specific industry for "special" treatment concerning things like capital equipment depreciation and deduction of business expenses for paying leases and insurance..
You didn't do well in economics, eh? Increased demand drives prices up, not down.
Yes, but you got to believe the liberal lie that government interference ALWAYS produces a good result... After all, it's the GOAL that counts, not the way proposed to achieve that goal.... Case in point: Solyndra... It was about the stated goals of pushing solar panel production (not what it turned out to really be, a quid pro quo for large investors in the proper party).
You act like Oil Companies care about solar panels.... They don't. Let me explain why...
Solar panels exclusively generate electricity, Oil companies have little to do with electricity. Yea, they sell natural gas to electric producers, but that's the limit of their involvement in electricity production. Natural gas production is not a huge money maker right now, prices are down even though demand is up and there is little expectation that this changes in the next decade. Oil companies don't care about solar panels or wind farms because they don't have anything to do with their core business. Start messing with fuel oil, gasoline and other Oil based industrial production, then you might get some interest from big oil.
Of course this Clinton position is about appealing to the liberal environmentalists. Now THAT does interest Big Oil because this position implies a national energy position that is slanted in a way that impacts the ability of oil companies to produce more domestically. Solar panels don't matter to this, but it's the rest or the implied policy that this solar panel idea betrays.
So you are parroting what really amounts to a "liberal lie", which amounts to a misrepresentation of what is really going on. Big Oil doesn't oppose solar panels... They simply don't care...
You did read my post right?
I fully recognize that the issue with this regulation is going to be enforcement and I said so.
Likewise, the laws being discussed here may indeed look silly in 50 years, but they are reasonable and sensible NOW. The only real question is about enforcement, which may be difficult (as you point out.)
So for now, the law is fine. Could it become an issue for enforcement in the future? You betcha. Will it? Seems likely to me, but there's no way to be sure.
But just because a law is possibly going to be hard to enforce in the future is not enough to make it a bad one now. .One could have argued that with the foreseeable advent of fire hydrants and pumper fire engines, which both existed at the time, that the fire bucket thing was stupid in 1871.
I think you are correct about who caught him, but the point remains valid... This guy managed to breach several layers of security and enter the Whitehouse before being stopped, but he WAS stopped, even though the president and his family where not there.
All indications are that the Secret Service remains effective at protecting the president, despite somebody taking pot shots that nobody noticed for awhile, one yahoo making it into the residence and all the other "scandals" which really are personnel issues for the most part.
Nice try, but I'm not buying it.
The Red Flag act was indeed necessary for a time due to the unfamiliar technology which could easily kill was being used in public under less than ideal conditions or traffic rules. It was a public safety issue until the public became generally aware of automobiles, roads improved to handle automobiles, and traffic laws where in place to govern their operations.
So, I do not think the Red Flag laws where crazy when put into historical context, any more than the laws requiring fire buckets being required in all entry ways in Chicago after the fire in 1871. Sure, in today's day it looks silly, but in historical context it is perfectly reasonable and sensible.
Likewise, the laws being discussed here may indeed look silly in 50 years, but they are reasonable and sensible NOW. The only real question is about enforcement, which may be difficult (as you point out).
That's only the smart ones..... But the smart ones would also realize that Ol' Uncle Joe is bat crazy and we are better off with the devil we know.
Minority report anyone?
> Deflecting possible Colombian hooker attacks on the president.
I hear this is quite a rigorous training course.
Just be sure to negotiate the fees and pay in advance, leaving your credit cards in the hands of others while taking the course. Be sure to tip well...
So am I to understand from TFS that Twitter is one of the ugliest corners of the internet? I guess I would have to agree...
But they didn't include Slashdot.... Talk about a dark ugly corner...
Well, there have been some pretty dangerous attempts which where literally "long shots" and one guy who actually got INTO the Whitehouse before he got stopped by the cleaning staff...
But the Secret Service has apparently been effective at disrupting plots before they had a reasonable chance of success. One could argue that it's only been dumb luck and dumb people who are trying, but I'm inclined to think the Secret Service is doing a good job overall.
Attempts yes... There has been multiple attempts...
What hasn't happened is somebody actually getting caught in the actual act..
No, they just reformatted the hard drives using "Quick Format"