it doesn't happen. its dark, there's no sunlight. the average temp, both water and air is well below freezing.
until now. until this year.
its polar winter, there is no sun, the temp should be well below freezing and the ice should be growing. but for the first time ever, winter temps are above freezing, and the ice is actually melting.
this has not happened during human history before.
although I must say, there's also a lot of parallels between Wilhelm and Trump as well, particularly in the "in over his head", "isolated the country", "anti-Semitism", and a few other metrics.
and if that's true....the fact that Wilhelm's ineptitude led to first WWI and then WWII (it being itself a continuation of events and movements caused by Wilhelm) then that means there's someone even worse coming down the line.
Germany, 1932: "Hitler can't be worse than Kaiser Wilhelm, right?"
(*Kaiser Wilhelm didn't really want to fight against England/France/Russia, but was rather inept at diplomacy and de-escalation (being unable to talk Austria out of their invasion plans for Serbia), as well as being unable to control his Generals, and so felt compelled by treaty and drawn along by events he couldn't quite control and didn't have the stomach for standing up against and opposing. Throughout the war he offloaded more and more leadership to other people, effectively turning himself into a ceremonial figurehead, while the military generals ran the war in whatever way they saw fit, essentially a military dictatorship under Hindenburg. the further you did, the further the parallels to Bush/Cheney/military complex go...)
its not about forcing local government to allow competition in the last mile. that is isn't practical for the same reasons allowing competition in the last mile to your driveway isn't. and its not about forcing government to allow competition.
rather, its about allowing (or having rather) government force competition on the ISPs.
IE, if you go that route, the best solution is to instead force (by regulation) competition in the last mile by saying "you (the ISP) don't own the last mile."
Yes, yes he did claim he was legally not allowed to do so. All the way back in February:
"You don't learn anything from a tax return. I will say this. Mitt Romney looked like a fool when he delayed and delayed and delayed and Harry Reid baited him and Mitt Romney didn't file until a month and a half before the election and it cost him big league. [..] As far as my return, I want to file it except for many years, I've been audited every year. Twelve years or something like that. Every year they audit me, audit me, audit me. I have friends that are very wealthy people. [..] I will absolutely give my return but I'm being audited now for two or three now so I can't."
The key word is can't. He can't. He wants to, but he can't. not "I have been advised not to". not "it would be unwise" "I'd love to but I can't" do it. eg, I'm not allowed to. It's not possible for me to.
(Also note, that he refused to release -any- returns, even though it was only his most recent few years that were being audited.)
No one ever said it wasn't legal for him to release those documents
Trump did. Several times. Referring specifically to his taxes. Including on live TV, during the first debate. Even after the head of the IRS said he could release them.
So you committed two falsehoods here: first you moved the goalposts (saying it wasn't his tax returns), and then you denied that he said what he said.
you show a marked lack of knowledge of the court system.
-a pardon is not an absolution. a pardon is typically detailed to specific offenses. Ford's was never tested legally; its absolution approach falls outside precedent. -Snowden could absolutely still be tried for other offenses following a pardon. -remember how great Ford's pardon of Nixon was received? it made a mockery of the Presidential pardon, and one this this president would not do would be to further turn it into a tool where every 4(8) years each side just pardons its side.
You don't know that. This is where your fanboyism goes off the deep end. You really think Putin just lets him live there scot-free, no bargain, no wheedling for tidbits?
I don't that Snowden did give them anything, and I don't know that he didn't, and apparently unlike you I'm smart enough to not draw blanket conclusions either way based on my emotional attachment to the idea or issue of what he did.
I also know that Putin, a dictator unfriendly to the US an its interests, as well as a former KGB agent, never does anything that he cannot get advantage from. And while embarrassing the US suits his aims, he is unlikely to hold onto Snowden for so long just for that. So whether Snowden has given them anything or not, you have to know that Putin has at least tried, and will continue to do so, to get information from him.
-the WMD claims from the Bush admin. were specifically about current and ongoing WMD manufacturing. -the weapons found were chemical weapons dated from the 1980s, weapons sold to Iraq during the Reagan years, when we were propping up Saddam during his war against Iran, and coincidentally sold to them by Halliburton while Cheney worked there. -even the Bush administration itself admitted the existence of these old weapons multiple times during the Iraq War, and that they were NOT the WMDs being sought
and how exactly did everyone respond to that pardon of nixon?
its clear here that Obama is using some personal principles in not just dishing out the pardon to whatever cause of the day it is, that he wont see it cheapened, just as he refused to pre-emptively pardon Clinton as many also said he should do.
and how many programmers exactly does it take to program that fleet? does it take 3.5million newly re-trained programmers? or just a handful of existing ones?
a) its Reason.com. they're about as bad as anything Breitbart publishes. they just make it look more intellectual b) it refutes one single attack, out of the 700+ now catalogued in the 2 weeks since the election (that's 50 per day btw). way to draw conclusions from insufficient evidence.
if you had the power to stop an autocratic dictator in waiting, who has openly talked about enemies lists, muzzling the press, and concentration camps, wouldn't you?
no one wants to repeat the mistake they made in the 1920s when they ignored Hitler's "Make Germany great again" rhetoric as the ravings of a lunatic who would never be taken seriously.
we have the benefit of history to learn from. sadly, we seem more concerned with using it as a how-to guide, rather than a warning.
its because 98% of the people playing chess tournaments are men. because it's seen as a man's area.
so yes, its a result of sexism, specifically structural sexism.
lack of representation causes a positive feedback loop that causes further lack of representation.
you posit a choice of equality of outcome or opportunity. its a false dichotomy. the correct answer is: BOTH.
under ideal conditions both an equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes will result, as there is no inherent advantage in male chess players compared to women. an equality of opportunity will lead to an equality of outcome in the aggregate. ie, over time you'd expect the population of chess tournament winners to reflect the base population, which is ~53% women. the fact it doesn't is what itself reveals the self-selecting nature of structural sexism.
-sometimes you remove sanctions as a carrot to the diplomatic process, or did you think punishment should be eternal? -there's a difference between the idea that Russia is hostile, and the idea that they are a threat. even your limited intellect should be able to grasp that one. -false news story from nypost -unlike trump foundation, the Clinton foundation isn't treated like a personal piggy bank. and it actually does good in the world, being among the most highly rated charities in the world by watchdog groups
once again you show a sorry disconnect from reality
Medicare IS more efficient that private insurers. that's an established fact agreed upon by both sides of the aisle. the most efficient sector of the US health care system is Medicare, a single payer system, even at the 10% value.
whatever point you're trying to make here, it's not working.
Slashdot Mirror
she did beat him.
by over 1.8 million votes so far.
he won because we use an archaic outdated and undemocratic system known at the electoral college.
the arctic does not lose ice in the winter.
it doesn't happen.
its dark, there's no sunlight.
the average temp, both water and air is well below freezing.
until now.
until this year.
its polar winter, there is no sun, the temp should be well below freezing and the ice should be growing.
but for the first time ever, winter temps are above freezing, and the ice is actually melting.
this has not happened during human history before.
there are those dogs and squidheads though.
although I must say, there's also a lot of parallels between Wilhelm and Trump as well, particularly in the "in over his head", "isolated the country", "anti-Semitism", and a few other metrics.
and if that's true....the fact that Wilhelm's ineptitude led to first WWI and then WWII (it being itself a continuation of events and movements caused by Wilhelm) then that means there's someone even worse coming down the line.
Germany, 1932: "Hitler can't be worse than Kaiser Wilhelm, right?"
(*Kaiser Wilhelm didn't really want to fight against England/France/Russia, but was rather inept at diplomacy and de-escalation (being unable to talk Austria out of their invasion plans for Serbia), as well as being unable to control his Generals, and so felt compelled by treaty and drawn along by events he couldn't quite control and didn't have the stomach for standing up against and opposing. Throughout the war he offloaded more and more leadership to other people, effectively turning himself into a ceremonial figurehead, while the military generals ran the war in whatever way they saw fit, essentially a military dictatorship under Hindenburg. the further you did, the further the parallels to Bush/Cheney/military complex go...)
its not about forcing local government to allow competition in the last mile.
that is isn't practical for the same reasons allowing competition in the last mile to your driveway isn't.
and its not about forcing government to allow competition.
rather, its about allowing (or having rather) government force competition on the ISPs.
IE, if you go that route, the best solution is to instead force (by regulation) competition in the last mile by saying "you (the ISP) don't own the last mile."
Silly goose.
They obviously want to the best of both worlds.
And will throw around whatever lobbying money it takes to get there.
God knows, they've got the cash to do it.
no, he made it very clear that "I want to, but I can't."
he never mentioned lawyers, he never mentioned advice.
he said he cant because of the audit.
Yes, yes he did claim he was legally not allowed to do so.
All the way back in February:
"You don't learn anything from a tax return. I will say this. Mitt Romney looked like a fool when he delayed and delayed and delayed and Harry Reid baited him and Mitt Romney didn't file until a month and a half before the election and it cost him big league. [..] As far as my return, I want to file it except for many years, I've been audited every year. Twelve years or something like that. Every year they audit me, audit me, audit me. I have friends that are very wealthy people. [..] I will absolutely give my return but I'm being audited now for two or three now so I can't ."
The key word is can't.
He can't.
He wants to, but he can't.
not "I have been advised not to".
not "it would be unwise"
"I'd love to but I can't" do it.
eg, I'm not allowed to. It's not possible for me to.
(Also note, that he refused to release -any- returns, even though it was only his most recent few years that were being audited.)
No one ever said it wasn't legal for him to release those documents
Trump did.
Several times.
Referring specifically to his taxes.
Including on live TV, during the first debate.
Even after the head of the IRS said he could release them.
So you committed two falsehoods here: first you moved the goalposts (saying it wasn't his tax returns), and then you denied that he said what he said.
you show a marked lack of knowledge of the court system.
-a pardon is not an absolution. a pardon is typically detailed to specific offenses. Ford's was never tested legally; its absolution approach falls outside precedent.
-Snowden could absolutely still be tried for other offenses following a pardon.
-remember how great Ford's pardon of Nixon was received? it made a mockery of the Presidential pardon, and one this this president would not do would be to further turn it into a tool where every 4(8) years each side just pardons its side.
He didn't give a single state secret to Russia
You don't know that.
This is where your fanboyism goes off the deep end.
You really think Putin just lets him live there scot-free, no bargain, no wheedling for tidbits?
I don't that Snowden did give them anything, and I don't know that he didn't, and apparently unlike you I'm smart enough to not draw blanket conclusions either way based on my emotional attachment to the idea or issue of what he did.
I also know that Putin, a dictator unfriendly to the US an its interests, as well as a former KGB agent, never does anything that he cannot get advantage from. And while embarrassing the US suits his aims, he is unlikely to hold onto Snowden for so long just for that. So whether Snowden has given them anything or not, you have to know that Putin has at least tried, and will continue to do so, to get information from him.
this tired canard again?
look pal:
-the WMD claims from the Bush admin. were specifically about current and ongoing WMD manufacturing.
-the weapons found were chemical weapons dated from the 1980s, weapons sold to Iraq during the Reagan years, when we were propping up Saddam during his war against Iran, and coincidentally sold to them by Halliburton while Cheney worked there.
-even the Bush administration itself admitted the existence of these old weapons multiple times during the Iraq War, and that they were NOT the WMDs being sought
and how exactly did everyone respond to that pardon of nixon?
its clear here that Obama is using some personal principles in not just dishing out the pardon to whatever cause of the day it is, that he wont see it cheapened, just as he refused to pre-emptively pardon Clinton as many also said he should do.
you are wrong, and he will go down as one of the best.
god youre such a moron.
and how many programmers exactly does it take to program that fleet?
does it take 3.5million newly re-trained programmers?
or just a handful of existing ones?
a) its Reason.com. they're about as bad as anything Breitbart publishes. they just make it look more intellectual
b) it refutes one single attack, out of the 700+ now catalogued in the 2 weeks since the election (that's 50 per day btw). way to draw conclusions from insufficient evidence.
if you had the power to stop an autocratic dictator in waiting, who has openly talked about enemies lists, muzzling the press, and concentration camps, wouldn't you?
no one wants to repeat the mistake they made in the 1920s when they ignored Hitler's "Make Germany great again" rhetoric as the ravings of a lunatic who would never be taken seriously.
we have the benefit of history to learn from.
sadly, we seem more concerned with using it as a how-to guide, rather than a warning.
still smoking that crack pipe I see
its because 98% of the people playing chess tournaments are men.
because it's seen as a man's area.
so yes, its a result of sexism, specifically structural sexism.
lack of representation causes a positive feedback loop that causes further lack of representation.
you posit a choice of equality of outcome or opportunity.
its a false dichotomy.
the correct answer is: BOTH.
under ideal conditions both an equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes will result, as there is no inherent advantage in male chess players compared to women. an equality of opportunity will lead to an equality of outcome in the aggregate. ie, over time you'd expect the population of chess tournament winners to reflect the base population, which is ~53% women. the fact it doesn't is what itself reveals the self-selecting nature of structural sexism.
this stuff is not a difficult concept.
that only keeps structural sexism in place.
the way to eradicate structural bias is to purposely elevate numbers of un(der)represented minorities.
just wait.
some libertarian will try to say its a business's right to lie or something.
-sometimes you remove sanctions as a carrot to the diplomatic process, or did you think punishment should be eternal?
-there's a difference between the idea that Russia is hostile, and the idea that they are a threat. even your limited intellect should be able to grasp that one.
-false news story from nypost
-unlike trump foundation, the Clinton foundation isn't treated like a personal piggy bank. and it actually does good in the world, being among the most highly rated charities in the world by watchdog groups
once again you show a sorry disconnect from reality
Medicare IS more efficient that private insurers.
that's an established fact agreed upon by both sides of the aisle.
the most efficient sector of the US health care system is Medicare, a single payer system, even at the 10% value.
whatever point you're trying to make here, it's not working.