You simply refuse to grasp that a hardline, belligerent stance backed up with credible threats of military action actually work when facing down tyrannical dictatorships.
I never said it didn't or wouldn't work, but then again the word "work" assumes that this was all planned.
Nothing you've posted suggests that Trump was doing anything other than being a belligerent asshole rather than acting like one as part of a cunning plan.
But no doubt had this happened on his watch you'd have given him full credit and claimed him a master politician.
Obama wouldn't and couldn't have done it for many reasons, not least that NK would never have bought it coming from him.
Trump being a gibbering lunatic might just be one of several factors that contribute to a lasting peace between NK and SK. That doesn't make him any less of a gibbering lunatic.
Can't give Trump credit. That might validate his ideology and invalidate yours and that simply can't be allowed.
It's very childish to go stating your baseless conclusions as to what I'm thinking as fact, when you could instead argue your own point constructively.
Meanwhile, Trump also offered to engage in direct talks with North Korea, something past presidents have refused to do.
"Meanwhile" implies that he was planning ahead for this when he was shooting his mouth off with nuclear threats. I really don't think he was planning that far ahead. He seized the opporunity for talks when the solid opportunity presented itself, but not before. Any other president would have done the same; but any other president wouldn't have forced NK into that position - deliberately or accidentally, and the key poinit is that it could have quite likely been entirely accidental and unplanned - with such a ridiculous display in the first place.
That people shouldn't be awarded prizes for things they didn't deliberately set out to achieve? Yes, I do believe that.
I'll give Trump credit for not continuing to be the belligerent, childish bully once the opportunity for peace presented itself, but that's not exactly rocket science. I've yet to see any evidence that his previous blustering rhetoric was any kind of 4D chess. His actions may have helped bring about a historic result, but that still doesn't mean he was right to take that stance in the first place. I don't think he was planning that far ahead.
Yes, but did he do it because he's such an insightful analyst that he knew it was the best way to force Kim into a peaceful solution, or did he do it because he's a belligerent, childish bully?
I think you'd have to show there was some intent. If two people are arguing, then a third person runs through the room flinging their poop at the walls and gibbering like a madman, it doesn't automatically mean the poop flinger is a master negotiator just because the argument gets cut short.
International standard ISO 8601 would seem to disagree. It has a year 0, and according to this and this, centuries are xx00-xx99 and millennia are x000-x999.
Not that also includes ISO 8601 - a recognized standard. So there you go. No year zero, we start with year 1.
Err, what? Doesn't what you quoted from the Wikipedia page contradict what you just said?
For dates before the year 1, unlike the proleptic Gregorian calendar used in the international standard ISO 8601, the traditional proleptic Gregorian calendar (like the Julian calendar) does not have a year 0
ISO 8601 uses astronomical year numbering which includes a year 0
---
It doesn't matter whether the first calendar year recognised as 1, or 43, or 729. What I'm getting is: who or what, if anyone, defines when a century or millennium officially starts and ends?
According to this, ISO 8601 says that millenia are x000-x9999, and according to this the same goes for centuries.
"After years of phones, laptops, tablets, and TV screens converging on 16:9 as the 'right' display shape -- allowing video playback without distracting black bars
What's distracting about a black bar that isn't distracting about anything else around an image? Screens are always surrounded by something. No-one complains at the movies before they find the ceiling too distracting.
My neighbour with respiratory problems and daily care visits got a battery backup installed along with the other box when they switched him to fibre. I didn't, but I think it's an optional extra for anyone who wants one.
Earlier this week, James Bloodworth, a former UK Amazon employee that worked undercover in the "fulfillment center" for six-months, released a book
Not that I'm saying he's lying, or even exaggerating, but you've got to at least acknowledge the fact that he went in with an agenda, and is coming out with a book to sell.
Though he obviously didn't think it through. If he'd gone undercover somewhere else, he could've sold the book on Amazon. D'oh!
The most "corporate" reason for doing it - and getting fined for it - that I can find is:
If someone calls a rural area T-Mobile pays the receiving carrier. A lot of these are a scam and charge extremely high rates.
It's also, basically, a lie. If you hear a ring, you expect that the other person's phone is ringing. If it isn't, that's false information, regardless of whether the customer ends up paying for the call or not.
The FCC said false ring tones “cause callers to believe that the phone is ringing at the called party’s premises when it is not.” The agency added that uncompleted calls “cause rural businesses to lose revenue, impede medical professionals from reaching patients in rural areas, cut families off from their relatives, and create the potential for dangerous delays in public safety communications.”
Every time you see someone putting a hand in their pocket, do you think they're going for a gun?
This is not "every time" though, is it? And many other times are not "every time." This is armed officers responding to a report of an armed man.
There are times - and I'm not saying this was definitely one of them - when yes, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that someone reaching for a pocket is reaching for a gun.
Slashdot Mirror
You simply refuse to grasp that a hardline, belligerent stance backed up with credible threats of military action actually work when facing down tyrannical dictatorships.
I never said it didn't or wouldn't work, but then again the word "work" assumes that this was all planned.
Nothing you've posted suggests that Trump was doing anything other than being a belligerent asshole rather than acting like one as part of a cunning plan.
But no doubt had this happened on his watch you'd have given him full credit and claimed him a master politician.
Obama wouldn't and couldn't have done it for many reasons, not least that NK would never have bought it coming from him.
Trump being a gibbering lunatic might just be one of several factors that contribute to a lasting peace between NK and SK. That doesn't make him any less of a gibbering lunatic.
Can't give Trump credit. That might validate his ideology and invalidate yours and that simply can't be allowed.
It's very childish to go stating your baseless conclusions as to what I'm thinking as fact, when you could instead argue your own point constructively.
He's willing to act outside the box. I don't think thinking comes into it very much.
Meanwhile, Trump also offered to engage in direct talks with North Korea, something past presidents have refused to do.
"Meanwhile" implies that he was planning ahead for this when he was shooting his mouth off with nuclear threats. I really don't think he was planning that far ahead. He seized the opporunity for talks when the solid opportunity presented itself, but not before. Any other president would have done the same; but any other president wouldn't have forced NK into that position - deliberately or accidentally, and the key poinit is that it could have quite likely been entirely accidental and unplanned - with such a ridiculous display in the first place.
That people shouldn't be awarded prizes for things they didn't deliberately set out to achieve? Yes, I do believe that.
I'll give Trump credit for not continuing to be the belligerent, childish bully once the opportunity for peace presented itself, but that's not exactly rocket science. I've yet to see any evidence that his previous blustering rhetoric was any kind of 4D chess. His actions may have helped bring about a historic result, but that still doesn't mean he was right to take that stance in the first place. I don't think he was planning that far ahead.
Yes, but did he do it because he's such an insightful analyst that he knew it was the best way to force Kim into a peaceful solution, or did he do it because he's a belligerent, childish bully?
Trump brought Kim to the table
Again: deliberately or accidentally?
A lucky outcome doesn't justify a wrong move.
I think you'd have to show there was some intent. If two people are arguing, then a third person runs through the room flinging their poop at the walls and gibbering like a madman, it doesn't automatically mean the poop flinger is a master negotiator just because the argument gets cut short.
At least they acknowledge he was real.
Almost certainly real, because there's evidence for his existence. Not a very controversial position to take, even among historians.
He probably wasn't magic, though.
The meaning of the latin for A.D. is containing the year of Jesus' birth, by definition.
Historians, on the other hand, seem to be largely of the consensus that Jesus was born around 6 B.C. - 4 B.C.
International standard ISO 8601 would seem to disagree. It has a year 0, and according to this and this, centuries are xx00-xx99 and millennia are x000-x999.
Not that also includes ISO 8601 - a recognized standard. So there you go. No year zero, we start with year 1.
Err, what? Doesn't what you quoted from the Wikipedia page contradict what you just said?
For dates before the year 1, unlike the proleptic Gregorian calendar used in the international standard ISO 8601, the traditional proleptic Gregorian calendar (like the Julian calendar) does not have a year 0
ISO 8601 uses astronomical year numbering which includes a year 0
---
It doesn't matter whether the first calendar year recognised as 1, or 43, or 729. What I'm getting is: who or what, if anyone, defines when a century or millennium officially starts and ends?
According to this, ISO 8601 says that millenia are x000-x9999, and according to this the same goes for centuries.
Century dates start at the 1.
Says who? Is it codified anywhere?
"After years of phones, laptops, tablets, and TV screens converging on 16:9 as the 'right' display shape -- allowing video playback without distracting black bars
What's distracting about a black bar that isn't distracting about anything else around an image? Screens are always surrounded by something. No-one complains at the movies before they find the ceiling too distracting.
Neither of those figures are the actual length of the coastline.
...what?
Low tide or high tide? What do you do about rivers? Fjords? Streams?
Now that is exactly the information that should have been put in the summary.
"Old" landlines do work when the power's out.
My neighbour with respiratory problems and daily care visits got a battery backup installed along with the other box when they switched him to fibre. I didn't, but I think it's an optional extra for anyone who wants one.
How kind of them to deign to let me decide what I hear and see!
If only you were German.
Earlier this week, James Bloodworth, a former UK Amazon employee that worked undercover in the "fulfillment center" for six-months, released a book
Not that I'm saying he's lying, or even exaggerating, but you've got to at least acknowledge the fact that he went in with an agenda, and is coming out with a book to sell.
Though he obviously didn't think it through. If he'd gone undercover somewhere else, he could've sold the book on Amazon. D'oh!
The most "corporate" reason for doing it - and getting fined for it - that I can find is:
If someone calls a rural area T-Mobile pays the receiving carrier. A lot of these are a scam and charge extremely high rates.
It's also, basically, a lie. If you hear a ring, you expect that the other person's phone is ringing. If it isn't, that's false information, regardless of whether the customer ends up paying for the call or not.
The FCC said false ring tones “cause callers to believe that the phone is ringing at the called party’s premises when it is not.” The agency added that uncompleted calls “cause rural businesses to lose revenue, impede medical professionals from reaching patients in rural areas, cut families off from their relatives, and create the potential for dangerous delays in public safety communications.”
A non-police gunman wouldn't have been knocking at the guy's door in the first place.
Every time you see someone putting a hand in their pocket, do you think they're going for a gun?
This is not "every time" though, is it? And many other times are not "every time." This is armed officers responding to a report of an armed man.
There are times - and I'm not saying this was definitely one of them - when yes, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that someone reaching for a pocket is reaching for a gun.
"The officer who fired the shot, along with some others, thought Finch was reaching for a gun."
Yep. Not possible.
All other points aside, you seem to have overlooked the word "thought."
And while doing so, they take credit for it and reap all the rewardsâS -- such as revenue and influenceâS -- âSthat come with it.
We can do all these amazing things with modern technology, and yet Slashdot STILL CAN'T SUPPORT UNICODE.
At the very fucking least, you could implement something to identify Unicode in a submission and strip it out.