They're making a very naive assumption about the continuation and linearity of a trend over the next 60 months based on the last 12. The reasoning is fallacious, and I'm pretty sure there is a name for it, I just don't know what that name is.
I doubt it would work against Russia. Even if Putin would approve a candidate that could actually challenge him, you have too many points of involvement to go undetected.
Besides, it's been tried. When Putin was PM, running to get his old job back, we tried to sway the election. It didn't work. Nor does it seem likely that it worked when Putin returned the favor last year, though the investigation is ongoing.
Not rigged as such. One of the duties of the Russian President is vetting and approving candidates for President, so Putin simply exercises his legal authority and prevents anyone with a real chance from running. It's a huge, gaping flaw in the process that renders the elections totally illegitimate by democratic standards.
The funny part is that the criticism from the State Department is nothing considering that in the past it went to much greater lengths to influence the outcome of Russia's elections. It's why Putin bears a grudge against Hillary.
Did someone say there wasn't? Even if the FBI didn't, Safran would have had to if they wanted to integrate it with their own code, right?
And as it happens, the unnecessarily lengthy article quotes the FBI saying that yes, they did audit the code. The whistleblowers, on the other hand, did not work on the code so they can't actually speak to it's content. Which they aren't, the whistle is being blown because buying Russian code and hiding that fact is a no-no.
That sounds like Safran's job first, and I see no reason to assume they didn't do it. Seriously, what company is going to buy code and then not read it?
I see no dates here. It doesn't matter when this happened, it's still nonsense. So what if it's Russian code, the French company would have had to check it if they wanted to integrate it with their code. The concerns raised are based on the unjustifiable assumption that Safran is incompetent.
Quick semantic point - cash has derived/representative value, not inherent. Value is an idea, and currency is based on a common agreement that it represents value.
The text wasn't generally taken literally for most of its history. The modern idea of reading it as literal fact was a 19th century invention, but it wasn't the first time that was popular. It seems almost cyclical.
The problem comes from the Jewish style of writing. Part historical fact (though generally filtered through generations of oral history), part moral education, part explanatory and part religious metaphor. Soddom and Gemorrah, for example, related the memory of two cities being destroyed by fire, explained the presence of unusual salt formations, reminded people not to disobey God, and reinforced the rules of hospitality (Lot was saved because he was a good host, the rest were not). The miracle of "Feeding the Multitude" may not ever have been intended to portray Jesus as being able to create bread and fish out of thin air, but how he was able to nourish their souls with his teaching.
Interestingly, there's a Jewish tradition that God was planning to allow Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree the next day, but they were naughty and ate early.
Personally, I see the story as a metaphor for ascending to sentience. Adam was an animal that spoke, walking around naming things for God, but not self-aware. The "garden" was blissful ignorance, and their punishment was knowledge of themselves; like, "I have to work every day?", and, "OH MY GOD GIVING BIRTH HURTS!!!"
Regarding ACORN, I'm not familiar with the details but Congress can grant or cancel funding for specific non-profits. Kaspersky, on the other hand, is being told they can't bid on open government contracts anymore. Whether that's improper or not may rest on the wording of the laws describing the bidding process.
Funny you should phrase it that way - the first use of civil forfeiture in the US (as best I recall) was for the seizure of a pirate ship. While I completely agree with your assessment of the practice now, it isn't related to bills of attainder. Those are laws that single out and punish a specific person (or presumably, group). Like if Congress passed a bill saying, "The person using the alias 'bsDaemon' is hereby stripped of all rights and possessions, and shall be immediately taken into custody and locked away for the rest of their life."
It's not Trump saying so, Congress passed a bill explicitly naming and banning Kaspersky. That brings up the 5th Amendment Takings clause, the 14th's due process clause, and may even be arguable as a bill of attainder.
Seeing as how the bill calls identifies and punishes Kaspersky by name, it might be possible to argue that it was a bill of attainder. Which would make it explicitly unconstitutional.
I don't know if it's the case in SF, but I'm pretty sure other cities make businesses responsible for keeping the sidewalk in front of their building clean and free of loiterers. So, is the ASPCA responsible for keeping homeless people from camping out in front of their building? Because there could be a whole other layer of absurdity in play here.
Are there enough beds in existing mental health facilities for everyone who wants treatment?
One of the factors involved in deinstitutionalization was the thorny ethical issue of forcing people to accept treatment. How many homeless, mentally ill, people are out there who have been diagnosed and prescribed medication, but for whatever reason would rather remain crazy than take their meds. Even after being treated, and are thus thinking rationally, many intentionally go back off their meds.
Unless their illness results in them committing crimes, there's no legal authority to forcibly medicate anyone. So, what to do?
Slashdot Mirror
And if you're going to post so much, why the hell don't you sign in?
They're making a very naive assumption about the continuation and linearity of a trend over the next 60 months based on the last 12. The reasoning is fallacious, and I'm pretty sure there is a name for it, I just don't know what that name is.
Besides, it's been tried. When Putin was PM, running to get his old job back, we tried to sway the election. It didn't work. Nor does it seem likely that it worked when Putin returned the favor last year, though the investigation is ongoing.
The funny part is that the criticism from the State Department is nothing considering that in the past it went to much greater lengths to influence the outcome of Russia's elections. It's why Putin bears a grudge against Hillary.
Why? The FBI already audited it. It's in the full article. Which is way too long and seems intent on creating baseless fears.
And as it happens, the unnecessarily lengthy article quotes the FBI saying that yes, they did audit the code. The whistleblowers, on the other hand, did not work on the code so they can't actually speak to it's content. Which they aren't, the whistle is being blown because buying Russian code and hiding that fact is a no-no.
That sounds like Safran's job first, and I see no reason to assume they didn't do it. Seriously, what company is going to buy code and then not read it?
I see no dates here. It doesn't matter when this happened, it's still nonsense. So what if it's Russian code, the French company would have had to check it if they wanted to integrate it with their code. The concerns raised are based on the unjustifiable assumption that Safran is incompetent.
Well, someone did - Safran.
Quick semantic point - cash has derived/representative value, not inherent. Value is an idea, and currency is based on a common agreement that it represents value.
What about prepaid debit cards?
Plus the EU already landed on that comet and I think we should do something new.
The problem comes from the Jewish style of writing. Part historical fact (though generally filtered through generations of oral history), part moral education, part explanatory and part religious metaphor. Soddom and Gemorrah, for example, related the memory of two cities being destroyed by fire, explained the presence of unusual salt formations, reminded people not to disobey God, and reinforced the rules of hospitality (Lot was saved because he was a good host, the rest were not). The miracle of "Feeding the Multitude" may not ever have been intended to portray Jesus as being able to create bread and fish out of thin air, but how he was able to nourish their souls with his teaching.
That's not an asteroid, nor is it an alien spaceship. It's an interstellar turd.
Personally, I see the story as a metaphor for ascending to sentience. Adam was an animal that spoke, walking around naming things for God, but not self-aware. The "garden" was blissful ignorance, and their punishment was knowledge of themselves; like, "I have to work every day?", and, "OH MY GOD GIVING BIRTH HURTS!!!"
Regarding ACORN, I'm not familiar with the details but Congress can grant or cancel funding for specific non-profits. Kaspersky, on the other hand, is being told they can't bid on open government contracts anymore. Whether that's improper or not may rest on the wording of the laws describing the bidding process.
The Constitution expressly forbids them.
It's not Trump saying so, Congress passed a bill explicitly naming and banning Kaspersky. That brings up the 5th Amendment Takings clause, the 14th's due process clause, and may even be arguable as a bill of attainder.
I don't know if you can sue the government for slander/libel, but arguing that a 5th Amendment 'taking' took place might work.
Seeing as how the bill calls identifies and punishes Kaspersky by name, it might be possible to argue that it was a bill of attainder. Which would make it explicitly unconstitutional.
Not all life, just that of very many turkeys. But that happens every November.
Wait, he only said, "The Bible never said that", which you then agreed with. For all you know, the commentor was a devout Catholic.
You old bastard.
I don't know if it's the case in SF, but I'm pretty sure other cities make businesses responsible for keeping the sidewalk in front of their building clean and free of loiterers. So, is the ASPCA responsible for keeping homeless people from camping out in front of their building? Because there could be a whole other layer of absurdity in play here.
One of the factors involved in deinstitutionalization was the thorny ethical issue of forcing people to accept treatment. How many homeless, mentally ill, people are out there who have been diagnosed and prescribed medication, but for whatever reason would rather remain crazy than take their meds. Even after being treated, and are thus thinking rationally, many intentionally go back off their meds.
Unless their illness results in them committing crimes, there's no legal authority to forcibly medicate anyone. So, what to do?