Does the Democratic National Committee pay you to repeat liberal talking points, or do you do it because you really don't understand the facts as they actually exist?
I'm sure the 130 US and South Korean troops killed in active combat since the armistice started are happy to know that the war has been over for years.
He's doing it because he made a campaign promise to do so.
Like all things done by the government (or any organization really) whether this is a good idea depends on how it is implemented. Was the Strategic Defense Initiative a good idea? A lot of people say no. Nothing was actually every deployed and a lot of money was spent. But other sources say that SDI was the final nail that buried the Soviet Union, because they couldn't outspend the US. Carl Sagan called it equivalent to starting and economic war with the Soviets. It was and the US won.
The point being that properly handled consolidating most if not all military space assets into one military branch might save a lot of money, increase information sharing and reduce inter-branch operational friction.
Badly handled it could increase cost, result in increased inter-branch information hiding, and more bureaucratic empire building.
A typical modern house (in the US at least) is made of vinyl siding over chipboard backerboard with fiberglass insulation covered by drywall on a pine 2x4 frame.
You don't have to back a truck through the steel deadbolted security door. Just take a battery powered sawsall to the wall between the door and the windows. In most neighborhoods they won't even notice the 45 seconds it takes you to cut an opening.
There use to be a TV show called "It Takes A Thief", not the spy one. This one teamed a security expert up with an ex-thief. They arranged to break into people's houses to show them how bad their security was and then gave them a new security system, which the thief than tried to compromise.
He managed to defeat the ''dog security system" every time by feeding them bacon. The ultimate insult was that after he emptied out the house he'd steal the dog.
It was a great show. Sometimes he'd have to break a cheap door lock, but most often he'd get in because they left a window open or the garage door unlocked or had a hidy key under a fake rock or turtle figure. Sometimes they even had alarm systems, which they left off when leaving their house.
Even though it was arrange before hand the people were always devastated. They never figured he would take all their stuff like he did. They seem to feel totally violated and almost always his second attempt was a failure, because for now at least they were actually paying attention to security
It's almost impossible to secure a bike against theft. No lock made will resist a portable battery powered angle grinder. Even the best bike locks, made by the most reputable bike lock companies, which provide a guarantee against theft, will not honor their guarantee if a power tool is used. Such a tool can cut through even a harden steel U-lock in seconds. Fast enough that the thief can ride off before anyone who hears the tool can react.
Bike theft in New York City is so bad that insurance companies won't insure bikes there. Bike thieves there steal crappy bikes to ride to the location of their next theft, so even having a crappy bike doesn't save you. It's so bad the NYPD actually puts bikes out with GPS just to be stolen.
So living in Mexico is equivalent to living in East Germany? I'm sure the Mexican government would be delighted to hear that.
Let's cut to the chase here. None of these people are getting into the US legally. When they present themselves at a port of entry they will be told that being poor is not a justifiable cause for political asylum.
The Republican as shit for pretending that they would get in if they arrive at a port of entry.
Like wise the Democrats are shit for pretending they are asylum seekers. Poverty is not a legal cause to claim asylum.
Don't yell at me I didn't write the law. Don't like it? Tell Congress to change the law, don't tell DHS to ignore the law.
Under present law a Mexican citizen who's not a doctor, lawyer or physicist will wait seventy years to legally get into this country. The law is broken, but you don't fix that by breaking it.
Meanwhile both Dems amd Repubs are using the issue for poll numbers. Tell them its time to build the wall and change the immigration laws so that anyone who isn't a terrorist or a criminal can get in. Make it easy to kick people out who are convicted of crimes, but also make it easy for people who have jobs to stay.
This is only hard because both sides want to make political capital out of it, the hell with the people and what's good for the country.
I don't think anyone need to talk about kneecaps here.
I'm generally a Trump supporter, but I think he's wrong here. Reasonable people should be able to disagree with individual policies of a specific president without getting excoriated for it.
I know what's the chances of that now days?
This pretty much has bipartisan support and is a good idea. If Trump vetoes it he's likely to lose on override. Hopefully he'll just sign it if it passes both houses.
This is reflective of Ford's major market not being in the coastal corridors. In most of the country electric is a non-started for a lot of reasons.
Everywhere not in a city people travel way beyond the 220-300 miles a day a Tesla can give you. Heck I've been places you're going 50 miles just to get to a decent store, and that's only the closest store, you might have to go farther to hit a specialty shop.
Ford has accepted that they're major customer base is interested in trucks. They've kept the Mustang because there's still a market for that particular vehicle. In the truck arena they outpace other auto companies by far. They're playing to their strengths.
Accept that Manafort's charges stem from actions starting in 2006 and concern not Russia, but Ukraine, a nation that doesn't exactly have good relations with Russia.
So pointing Manafort's conviction as some kind of validation of an investigation of Trump for colluding with Russia is disingenuous at best or at worst out and out fabrication for partisan purposes.
Would he have been charged if not for Mueller's investigation? I don't know and neither do you. I suspect that as stringent as the laws are that there are a lot of people in D.C. who skirt the foreign agent law, specifically when they are paid by a foreign corporation with close foreign government ties. Manafort's partner, who never had any ties to Trump is being prosecuted too.
That's like saying Jim McDougal's conviction proves Bill Clinton broke the law in the Whitewater Development Corporation. Except McDougal was actually associated with Clinton during the period in which he committed his crimes. Manafort wasn't associated with Trump when he committed his crimes, but let's not let facts intrude upon a good partisan character assassination.
But its ok to tell the ambassador of a foreign nation that you'll have more flexibility to deal with them after the election?
Well actually it is. It's not illegal because you're suppose to talk to foreign ambassadors.
You know who else is suppose to talk to representatives of other countries? Members of a president elects staff. They can't set policy yet, but they are allowed to set up relationships for when they can.
You know what else is allowed. The FBI to lie to people and charge them with lying to the FBI, a felony, when they mis-remeber a date or actual fact, when you are not swore in or otherwise required to tell the truth.
Which is why you should never talk to the FBI without an attorney present and when talking to the FBI you should never state a fact, merely acknowledge a possible memory, that might be flawed or state you don't remember at all.
Obviously you are also allowed to create fake evidence and take it to a FISA court and lie to get wiretap permission, And it's allowed to plant government informants on opposition candidates too.
Would that be the John Kerry who went to Viet Nam, so that he could enhance his political career, before coming back to the US and, upon seeing that the wind was blowing from the other direction now, went on to support antiwar activities?
I suspect that the bias will go in the other direction.
"We don't have enough students in this particular socioeconomic or ethnic group, so we'd better pick some."
In almost all cases this will be to the detriment of other students who are more likely to benefit from attendance. The actual affluent don't go to the University of Chicago. They go to Harvard, Princeton, Dartmouth or Yale. U of C is huge for Physics, but otherwise it's not an prestigious college.
The SAT & ACT replaced tests that were given by most universities to students when they applied. Go back far enough (1900-1920) and such locally given tests were even used to determine where a student started their college career. It was quite possible to start as a sophomore if you had the requisite amount of knowledge in the subjects you tested on.
SAT & ACT were introduced so that students from what was considered a more or less equal and equivalent set of state and local school systems could be graded against each other with the purpose of picking those most likely to succeed in college. Of course that resulted in rewarding the best students and penalizing the worst students. In a society that gives participation awards choosing on merit just isn't politically correct.
I'm anxious to see how many new students will spend the first year in remediation, because they can't handle the work and how many end up dropping out because they should never have been in college.
Of course they could eventually go back to giving their own entrance exams, which would be a better solution than using standardized testing anyway, because it could be tailored to the base knowledge necessary to succeed in their particular academic environment
Consumers have to face it. There will always be a limited amount of bandwidth available. For example, you can't have each of the cars on a busy highway get individualized, personal audio streams simultaneously.
Then force them to stop using the term 'unlimited'. It is false advertising. I can't say I'm selling you an 'unlimited' buffet if I'm not. I can't say I'm selling you an 'unlimited' amount of gas if I'm not. Why should wireless companies be exempt from fraud and false advertising? If it's not 'unlimited' don't say it. if you say it you should be legally required to adhere to your advertising.
Net neutrality is a buzz word, it means different things to different people. It's like 'middle class'. Meaningless as a designation because people on the right and people on the left mean different things.
Let's talk about the real problem. Pipe owners should not be allowed to own content creators. We use to not allow movie companies to own movie theaters. (I don't know if that still true.) We shouldn't allow ISP's to own content creation companies, but we do. Likewise about wireless companies. they should not be allowed to own content creation companies. Moreover exclusive contracts in this space should not be permitted.
Absolutely this kind of thing should not be the province of an executive body that flips parties with the occupant of the White House. It should be determined through the legislature through legislation.
That won't happen because our government is broken. It is broken because of the Democrats and Republicans. And they have no incentive to fix it.
OK. So you've accounted for.0005% of the population. Should we upturn 100,000 years of civilization because some 80,000 people out of a population of almost 7 billion have a genetic abnormality?
But even if we give you that, then going with your premise, anyone who has a genetic aberration affecting their XY genes can claim genetic confusion. All the rest need to except they are members of the gender determined by their XY/XX gene combination.
But is the sample unbiased? If it is comparing a modern multiculture population against an historical monocultural population it is not comparing apples to apples.
For example if you are comparing a Norwegian Population of 98% ethnic Norwegians from 1920 against a modern Norwegian population of 80% ethic Norwegians and 19% others then the comparison is flawed.
You've completely missed the point. Money is not power. It's just a way of keeping score.
In many cases we're talking about multi-generational 1% here. They don't just have money, they have connections. They control governments. You think they do this because they have money? No. They have money because they can do this.
Is Putin one of the richest men in the world because he was rich. No. He is one of the richest men in the world because he has power.
I think you're deriving the wrong conclusion because your assumptions are wrong.
The Miligram experiment makes my point. 65% of the participants preformed the nasty deed. 35% refused. The prevailing theory is that those 65% caved in to authority and were only evil because they were 'influenced' to be.
My theory is that the number of 'evil' people, 65%, reflects the number of people in the real world who will not do the right thing. They aren't 'good people like you or me' they are the proof that humanity consists overwhelmingly of more or less horrible people.
So in any country where evil people come into positions of leadership can count on 65% of the populous supporting them because they more or less agree with the actions of the leadership and 35% make up the resistance and a good portion of the victims.
Not a popular conclusion, but one I think history supports pretty well.
This is actually one of the easier ones. The MMR vaccine is a combined vaccine for measles, mumps, and rubella. The only reason that it is used is because it is more convenient than getting each vaccine separately. Antivaccers are against it because they believe that it is a contributing cause of autism. Many peer reviewed studies deny this claim, but I can understand the motivation of parents.
I must say I understand because a family friend had a child that seemed perfectly normal when they were young and exhibited symptoms of autism when older. Since the causes of autism are complex and Big pharma has not engendered a trusting reputation among thinking people it's easy to see why folks desperate to place the blame on something for their children's developmental problems would zero in on vaccines.
So your control group here is kids who get the vaccines separately. They're still protected against the diseases but this allows you to evaluate if somehow the combination of the three vaccines in one shot is the problem.
Personally I'm much more concerned with the use of fetal lines as mediums in the production of MMR vaccines. As well as the moral issues I can't ignore the possible outcome of introducing human DNA into the person inoculated. Very little research has been done on this, because it saves Merck billions. They hide behind the fact the FDA has approved fetal line use for vaccine development, even though neither the FDA nor Merck has done any research along these lines.
It is absolutely not factual that Clinton did not know what she was doing was illegal. She had her assistant Huma Abedin copy marked classified messages from a classified system to an unclassified system to her email account. These emails were discovered on Anthony Weiner's laptop. Weiner was Abedin's husband at the time. When the FBI found the emails during an investigation into Weiner Abedin was given immunity from prosecution by the FBI in return for, well nothing really.
Typically immunity from prosecution is given in return for testifying against a higher up in a criminal investigation. Best guess is Abedin was given immunity so she wouldn't testify against Clinton in an immunity deal with someone else.
Slashdot Mirror
Does the Democratic National Committee pay you to repeat liberal talking points, or do you do it because you really don't understand the facts as they actually exist?
I'm sure the 130 US and South Korean troops killed in active combat since the armistice started are happy to know that the war has been over for years.
He's doing it because he made a campaign promise to do so.
Like all things done by the government (or any organization really) whether this is a good idea depends on how it is implemented. Was the Strategic Defense Initiative a good idea? A lot of people say no. Nothing was actually every deployed and a lot of money was spent. But other sources say that SDI was the final nail that buried the Soviet Union, because they couldn't outspend the US. Carl Sagan called it equivalent to starting and economic war with the Soviets. It was and the US won.
The point being that properly handled consolidating most if not all military space assets into one military branch might save a lot of money, increase information sharing and reduce inter-branch operational friction.
Badly handled it could increase cost, result in increased inter-branch information hiding, and more bureaucratic empire building.
A typical modern house (in the US at least) is made of vinyl siding over chipboard backerboard with fiberglass insulation covered by drywall on a pine 2x4 frame.
You don't have to back a truck through the steel deadbolted security door. Just take a battery powered sawsall to the wall between the door and the windows. In most neighborhoods they won't even notice the 45 seconds it takes you to cut an opening.
There use to be a TV show called "It Takes A Thief", not the spy one. This one teamed a security expert up with an ex-thief. They arranged to break into people's houses to show them how bad their security was and then gave them a new security system, which the thief than tried to compromise.
He managed to defeat the ''dog security system" every time by feeding them bacon. The ultimate insult was that after he emptied out the house he'd steal the dog.
It was a great show. Sometimes he'd have to break a cheap door lock, but most often he'd get in because they left a window open or the garage door unlocked or had a hidy key under a fake rock or turtle figure. Sometimes they even had alarm systems, which they left off when leaving their house.
Even though it was arrange before hand the people were always devastated. They never figured he would take all their stuff like he did. They seem to feel totally violated and almost always his second attempt was a failure, because for now at least they were actually paying attention to security
It's almost impossible to secure a bike against theft. No lock made will resist a portable battery powered angle grinder. Even the best bike locks, made by the most reputable bike lock companies, which provide a guarantee against theft, will not honor their guarantee if a power tool is used. Such a tool can cut through even a harden steel U-lock in seconds. Fast enough that the thief can ride off before anyone who hears the tool can react.
Bike theft in New York City is so bad that insurance companies won't insure bikes there. Bike thieves there steal crappy bikes to ride to the location of their next theft, so even having a crappy bike doesn't save you. It's so bad the NYPD actually puts bikes out with GPS just to be stolen.
So living in Mexico is equivalent to living in East Germany? I'm sure the Mexican government would be delighted to hear that.
Let's cut to the chase here. None of these people are getting into the US legally. When they present themselves at a port of entry they will be told that being poor is not a justifiable cause for political asylum.
The Republican as shit for pretending that they would get in if they arrive at a port of entry.
Like wise the Democrats are shit for pretending they are asylum seekers. Poverty is not a legal cause to claim asylum.
Don't yell at me I didn't write the law. Don't like it? Tell Congress to change the law, don't tell DHS to ignore the law.
Under present law a Mexican citizen who's not a doctor, lawyer or physicist will wait seventy years to legally get into this country. The law is broken, but you don't fix that by breaking it.
Meanwhile both Dems amd Repubs are using the issue for poll numbers. Tell them its time to build the wall and change the immigration laws so that anyone who isn't a terrorist or a criminal can get in. Make it easy to kick people out who are convicted of crimes, but also make it easy for people who have jobs to stay.
This is only hard because both sides want to make political capital out of it, the hell with the people and what's good for the country.
I don't think anyone need to talk about kneecaps here.
I'm generally a Trump supporter, but I think he's wrong here. Reasonable people should be able to disagree with individual policies of a specific president without getting excoriated for it.
I know what's the chances of that now days?
This pretty much has bipartisan support and is a good idea. If Trump vetoes it he's likely to lose on override. Hopefully he'll just sign it if it passes both houses.
This is reflective of Ford's major market not being in the coastal corridors. In most of the country electric is a non-started for a lot of reasons.
Everywhere not in a city people travel way beyond the 220-300 miles a day a Tesla can give you. Heck I've been places you're going 50 miles just to get to a decent store, and that's only the closest store, you might have to go farther to hit a specialty shop.
Ford has accepted that they're major customer base is interested in trucks. They've kept the Mustang because there's still a market for that particular vehicle. In the truck arena they outpace other auto companies by far. They're playing to their strengths.
Yeah because it's not as if the major auto companies ever conspired with tire and petroleum companies to destroy competitors.
Accept that Manafort's charges stem from actions starting in 2006 and concern not Russia, but Ukraine, a nation that doesn't exactly have good relations with Russia.
So pointing Manafort's conviction as some kind of validation of an investigation of Trump for colluding with Russia is disingenuous at best or at worst out and out fabrication for partisan purposes.
Would he have been charged if not for Mueller's investigation? I don't know and neither do you. I suspect that as stringent as the laws are that there are a lot of people in D.C. who skirt the foreign agent law, specifically when they are paid by a foreign corporation with close foreign government ties. Manafort's partner, who never had any ties to Trump is being prosecuted too.
That's like saying Jim McDougal's conviction proves Bill Clinton broke the law in the Whitewater Development Corporation. Except McDougal was actually associated with Clinton during the period in which he committed his crimes. Manafort wasn't associated with Trump when he committed his crimes, but let's not let facts intrude upon a good partisan character assassination.
So trying to win an election is illegal?
But its ok to tell the ambassador of a foreign nation that you'll have more flexibility to deal with them after the election?
Well actually it is. It's not illegal because you're suppose to talk to foreign ambassadors.
You know who else is suppose to talk to representatives of other countries? Members of a president elects staff. They can't set policy yet, but they are allowed to set up relationships for when they can.
You know what else is allowed. The FBI to lie to people and charge them with lying to the FBI, a felony, when they mis-remeber a date or actual fact, when you are not swore in or otherwise required to tell the truth.
Which is why you should never talk to the FBI without an attorney present and when talking to the FBI you should never state a fact, merely acknowledge a possible memory, that might be flawed or state you don't remember at all.
Obviously you are also allowed to create fake evidence and take it to a FISA court and lie to get wiretap permission, And it's allowed to plant government informants on opposition candidates too.
Would that be the John Kerry who went to Viet Nam, so that he could enhance his political career, before coming back to the US and, upon seeing that the wind was blowing from the other direction now, went on to support antiwar activities?
Yeah, I'd use him as a source.
I suspect that the bias will go in the other direction.
"We don't have enough students in this particular socioeconomic or ethnic group, so we'd better pick some."
In almost all cases this will be to the detriment of other students who are more likely to benefit from attendance. The actual affluent don't go to the University of Chicago. They go to Harvard, Princeton, Dartmouth or Yale. U of C is huge for Physics, but otherwise it's not an prestigious college.
The SAT & ACT replaced tests that were given by most universities to students when they applied. Go back far enough (1900-1920) and such locally given tests were even used to determine where a student started their college career. It was quite possible to start as a sophomore if you had the requisite amount of knowledge in the subjects you tested on.
SAT & ACT were introduced so that students from what was considered a more or less equal and equivalent set of state and local school systems could be graded against each other with the purpose of picking those most likely to succeed in college. Of course that resulted in rewarding the best students and penalizing the worst students. In a society that gives participation awards choosing on merit just isn't politically correct.
I'm anxious to see how many new students will spend the first year in remediation, because they can't handle the work and how many end up dropping out because they should never have been in college.
Of course they could eventually go back to giving their own entrance exams, which would be a better solution than using standardized testing anyway, because it could be tailored to the base knowledge necessary to succeed in their particular academic environment
Consumers have to face it. There will always be a limited amount of bandwidth available. For example, you can't have each of the cars on a busy highway get individualized, personal audio streams simultaneously.
Then force them to stop using the term 'unlimited'. It is false advertising. I can't say I'm selling you an 'unlimited' buffet if I'm not. I can't say I'm selling you an 'unlimited' amount of gas if I'm not. Why should wireless companies be exempt from fraud and false advertising? If it's not 'unlimited' don't say it. if you say it you should be legally required to adhere to your advertising.
Net neutrality is a buzz word, it means different things to different people. It's like 'middle class'. Meaningless as a designation because people on the right and people on the left mean different things.
Let's talk about the real problem. Pipe owners should not be allowed to own content creators. We use to not allow movie companies to own movie theaters. (I don't know if that still true.) We shouldn't allow ISP's to own content creation companies, but we do. Likewise about wireless companies. they should not be allowed to own content creation companies. Moreover exclusive contracts in this space should not be permitted.
Absolutely this kind of thing should not be the province of an executive body that flips parties with the occupant of the White House. It should be determined through the legislature through legislation.
That won't happen because our government is broken. It is broken because of the Democrats and Republicans. And they have no incentive to fix it.
OK. So you've accounted for .0005% of the population. Should we upturn 100,000 years of civilization because some 80,000 people out of a population of almost 7 billion have a genetic abnormality?
But even if we give you that, then going with your premise, anyone who has a genetic aberration affecting their XY genes can claim genetic confusion. All the rest need to except they are members of the gender determined by their XY/XX gene combination.
But is the sample unbiased? If it is comparing a modern multiculture population against an historical monocultural population it is not comparing apples to apples.
For example if you are comparing a Norwegian Population of 98% ethnic Norwegians from 1920 against a modern Norwegian population of 80% ethic Norwegians and 19% others then the comparison is flawed.
You've completely missed the point. Money is not power. It's just a way of keeping score.
In many cases we're talking about multi-generational 1% here. They don't just have money, they have connections. They control governments. You think they do this because they have money? No. They have money because they can do this.
Is Putin one of the richest men in the world because he was rich. No. He is one of the richest men in the world because he has power.
"Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried."
Sir Winston Churchill
I think you're deriving the wrong conclusion because your assumptions are wrong.
The Miligram experiment makes my point. 65% of the participants preformed the nasty deed. 35% refused. The prevailing theory is that those 65% caved in to authority and were only evil because they were 'influenced' to be.
My theory is that the number of 'evil' people, 65%, reflects the number of people in the real world who will not do the right thing. They aren't 'good people like you or me' they are the proof that humanity consists overwhelmingly of more or less horrible people.
So in any country where evil people come into positions of leadership can count on 65% of the populous supporting them because they more or less agree with the actions of the leadership and 35% make up the resistance and a good portion of the victims.
Not a popular conclusion, but one I think history supports pretty well.
This just isn't factual. Wind chill factor tables used everywhere every winter came out of the work of the Nazi concentration camp doctors.
This is actually one of the easier ones. The MMR vaccine is a combined vaccine for measles, mumps, and rubella. The only reason that it is used is because it is more convenient than getting each vaccine separately. Antivaccers are against it because they believe that it is a contributing cause of autism. Many peer reviewed studies deny this claim, but I can understand the motivation of parents.
I must say I understand because a family friend had a child that seemed perfectly normal when they were young and exhibited symptoms of autism when older. Since the causes of autism are complex and Big pharma has not engendered a trusting reputation among thinking people it's easy to see why folks desperate to place the blame on something for their children's developmental problems would zero in on vaccines.
So your control group here is kids who get the vaccines separately. They're still protected against the diseases but this allows you to evaluate if somehow the combination of the three vaccines in one shot is the problem.
Personally I'm much more concerned with the use of fetal lines as mediums in the production of MMR vaccines. As well as the moral issues I can't ignore the possible outcome of introducing human DNA into the person inoculated. Very little research has been done on this, because it saves Merck billions. They hide behind the fact the FDA has approved fetal line use for vaccine development, even though neither the FDA nor Merck has done any research along these lines.
It is absolutely not factual that Clinton did not know what she was doing was illegal. She had her assistant Huma Abedin copy marked classified messages from a classified system to an unclassified system to her email account. These emails were discovered on Anthony Weiner's laptop. Weiner was Abedin's husband at the time. When the FBI found the emails during an investigation into Weiner Abedin was given immunity from prosecution by the FBI in return for, well nothing really.
Typically immunity from prosecution is given in return for testifying against a higher up in a criminal investigation. Best guess is Abedin was given immunity so she wouldn't testify against Clinton in an immunity deal with someone else.