From what I understand, it's a poorly kept secret that the Oscars are all about bribery to get nominations, and then even more bribery to get awards.
And it makes perfect sense because a lot of average movies win awards. I remember seeing Lost in Translation get a ton of awards, then seeing the movie and being completely bored the whole time. Bill Murray is an awesome actor, but that movie was shit, and didn't deserve any awards at all, nevermind 6.
Unless the polls were hacked, then the election wasn't hacked.
If somebody obtains dirt on a political party through illicit means, and that dirt swayed public opinion, then that might be unfair, but it doesn't mean the election was less legitimate. People can vote any way they choose for any reason.
Every major windows 10 build update resets your program defaults to all of the Microsoft applications (including edge) and pins several Microsoft applications to your taskbar if you've unpinned them. Namely edge, store, and cortana.
So far in the history of windows 10, this has happened four times.
Given that this is all speculation, I think what they speculated on doesn't cover the bases, but was the most PC thing to suggest. For example if they suggested things like "higher rate of having sex with men with HPV" or "less condom use" then the blogosphere would be getting out its pitch forks.
I kind of doubt that. For homelessness in particular, it more comes down to supply of housing, not supply of money. If you give everybody a basic income, then only those with more than basic income will have housing.
He quit his day job to work for Uber. Basic income won't do a damn thing to prevent people from making stupid decisions. If anything, it will reward stupid decisions because failure effectively has no consequence.
Well, asswipe (my apologies, I meant to say asshole, because you get insecure when somebody misidentifies you) the point for most people is that by locking their cars, they can somewhat secure the possessions inside from a run of the mill thief, essentially treating it like a mobile locker. For a transport companies, they don't store personal items in their vehicles, so there's little point to locking them.
I realize that you want to ban things like having anonymous speech on the internet and lockable doors on cars, houses, and bedrooms, because you believe that the government should totally own you, but not everybody thinks that way.
Careful. BarbaraHudson will accuse you of victim blaming, then go off on a tangent about how anonymous speech should be illegal because anonymously saying something that somebody else disagrees with should never be acceptable, and then talk about how you should be subject to Canadian law (regardless of where you live) and go to jail and pay them money for making statements like this. It happens all the time; BarbaraHudson is highly narcissistic.
The top of Mount Everest seems the most logical to me. It's really fucking cold and the atmosphere is thin enough to kill you. Just set up a shelter that has a heavily tinted sun roof.
Oh right... so the right to bear arms only applies to Americans ? Oh sorry, i forgot, WHITE Americans. Anybody else has a gun - their fair game to kill....
Yes, they are called bodyguards. The mere presence of a weapon does not make somebody an enemy combatant. The Geneva convention is supposed to mean you ONLY shoot at other soldiers.
Again, that's the crack talking.
Geneva Convention is quite specific that enemy soldiers are supposed to bear a uniform or other insignia to indicate that they are a legitimate target, among other things. Since the opposition forces there didn't follow any Geneva rules, then Geneva just flat out didn't apply as per its own rules. However generally accepted rules of engagement against enemy combatants certainly applied in this case -- they were in an area that was only hours ago inhabited by people who were firing upon US soldiers, and they were carrying weapons. That was all that was required to justify lethal force by any existing legal standard. There is no requirement for them to open fire.
And in fact, neither Al-Qaeda, ISIS/ISIL/Daesh, nor any other terrorist group meet any internationally accepted legal definition of being soldiers.
That said, you haven't made a single correct statement yet. Just stop already, you're fucking stupid.
Manning leaked a lot more than one video. One of the others, for example show US soldiers murdering an Al Jazeera journalist and laughing about it. Other leaks by her revealed the torture happening in Abu Ghraib which put an end to that travesty.
I have to ask; what kind of crack are you on?
The reason I ask is because Abu Ghraib was exposed in 2004, and Manning didn't even enlist until 3 years afterwards. Furthermore, you're going to have to be specific about the soldiers supposedly laughing as they murder somebody because I'm looking at a list of Manning's leaks and nothing like this is mentioned among them.
Even if you think that "that" video has visible weapons (which somehow nobody else can see - and kind of disputed considering we know from other evidence they were ambulance workers) that doesn't mean there wasn't a public interest in the many other atrocities she revealed. Or are you denying those as well ? Was Abu Ghraib just harmless fun by horny girl soldiers who liked any excuse for showing their genitals to strangers ?
It's documented that they were in fact carrying weapons. Furthermore, Assange himself even admitted to editing the video in order to manipulate the public:
What Assange is up to is more prosaic. He hit the big time with his video entitled "Collateral Murder" that used footage, shot from a US helicopter, of the killing of alleged insurgents and two Iraqi employees of Reuters, to accuse the American military of a war crime.
Oddly enough, it was Stephen Colbert, ostensibly a comedian, who skewered him. "There are armed men in the group. They did find a rocket-propelled grenade among the group. The Reuters photographers who were regrettably killed were not identified as photographers.
"And you have edited this tape, and you have given it a title called 'Collateral Murder'. That's not leaking. That's a pure editorial." Assange admitted that he was seeking to manipulate and create "maximum political impact".
Or the ESA just fails at engineering. For example they've done many Mars missions and none has been successful, and for what purpose would the CIA sabotage that?
That might be beneficial to your liver, but likely won't have a big impact on heart health. Even if it did, it would only be good advice for a younger age to mitigate (but not prevent) the possibility of heart disease when you're 60 or older. It certainly won't do you any favors if you have any congenital heart diseases.
Maybe, as that change has been attributable to an increase in dietary iodine. However it's also said that human intelligence is analogous to the tail feathers on a peacock, and since arranged marriages stopped being a thing in the west ever since world war 2, and faster/more affordable travel allows for a much broader mate selection, it's possible that we're inadvertently subjecting ourselves to selective selection instead of the more arbitrary selection we had before. This would also help explain the higher autism rates, which nobody has been able to pinpoint a cause for (and no, it's not vaccines.)
Apple also only publishes to its own platform, basically pretendin that only theirs exists, so they have at least some excuse. But, I'm curious why Microsoft does this and yet if somebody else wanted to install their services on a Windows lock screen, Microsoft would have none of that.
It's probably a good thing that both consumers and developers are eschewing Microsoft's UWP and mobile platforms to the point that even Microsoft is starting to do the same.
We are not defending the man. We are defending the fundamental principle of free expression. Assange is not being persecuted because he "raped" anyone, but because he said things that powerful people didn't like.
If this was true, the UK had just as much reason to want him as the US, and the later would have applied stiffer legal pressure than Sweden so that they could get him first.
He wouldn't turn himself in to the US because they'd likely just end up giving him to Sweden just like the UK would, which is what he really wants to avoid.
I think the biggest thing is: Who the fuck didn't see this coming? He's such a fucking weasel. The whole reason he claims to be avoiding Swedish authorities to begin with is just a big load of shit, and anybody who has defended him at this point is either stupid or naive to believe that Sweden is even the slightest bit more interested in handing him over to the US than the UK.
That point is especially clear when you consider that Sweden is a serial violator of the second worst sin in the eyes of the US: Harboring known pirates of hollywood movies. The only worse sin is harboring a known terrorist.
You also forgot: You'll have to upgrade to a Kaby Lake based CPU and have a video card and monitor that support hdcp 2.2, and when windows 11 comes out you'll have to upgrade or else it will quit working.
I'm having a hard time believing that what Manning did was whistleblowing. The entire thing was labeled as outright murder when it didn't seem to be the case unless you already came into it with a preconceived notion of that being the case. The people being killed in that video Manning leaked were obviously carrying weapons.
I guess the good thing that will come out of this is Assange is now forced to prove that he's not a total weasel. Of course, he'll probably backtrack and say that because it wasn't a full pardon that he doesn't have to honor his word because IMO Assange is a total weasel.
And to be honest, I think Snowden should be the one getting the pardon, not fucking Manning.
I remember the first time I kissed open mouth, just out of nowhere she kissed me without me expecting it at all. Although I'm a bit too timid to do the opposite, I could see it happening where the man does it and the woman is not expecting it and it would still be fine.
Slashdot Mirror
Either way, Tim Cook seems more like a salesman than an inventor. Same problem Microsoft had with Steve Ballmer.
From what I understand, it's a poorly kept secret that the Oscars are all about bribery to get nominations, and then even more bribery to get awards.
And it makes perfect sense because a lot of average movies win awards. I remember seeing Lost in Translation get a ton of awards, then seeing the movie and being completely bored the whole time. Bill Murray is an awesome actor, but that movie was shit, and didn't deserve any awards at all, nevermind 6.
Unless the polls were hacked, then the election wasn't hacked.
If somebody obtains dirt on a political party through illicit means, and that dirt swayed public opinion, then that might be unfair, but it doesn't mean the election was less legitimate. People can vote any way they choose for any reason.
The DNC was hacked; not the election.
Every major windows 10 build update resets your program defaults to all of the Microsoft applications (including edge) and pins several Microsoft applications to your taskbar if you've unpinned them. Namely edge, store, and cortana.
So far in the history of windows 10, this has happened four times.
Given that this is all speculation, I think what they speculated on doesn't cover the bases, but was the most PC thing to suggest. For example if they suggested things like "higher rate of having sex with men with HPV" or "less condom use" then the blogosphere would be getting out its pitch forks.
I kind of doubt that. For homelessness in particular, it more comes down to supply of housing, not supply of money. If you give everybody a basic income, then only those with more than basic income will have housing.
He quit his day job to work for Uber. Basic income won't do a damn thing to prevent people from making stupid decisions. If anything, it will reward stupid decisions because failure effectively has no consequence.
Watch the video, asswipe.
Well, asswipe (my apologies, I meant to say asshole, because you get insecure when somebody misidentifies you) the point for most people is that by locking their cars, they can somewhat secure the possessions inside from a run of the mill thief, essentially treating it like a mobile locker. For a transport companies, they don't store personal items in their vehicles, so there's little point to locking them.
I realize that you want to ban things like having anonymous speech on the internet and lockable doors on cars, houses, and bedrooms, because you believe that the government should totally own you, but not everybody thinks that way.
Careful. BarbaraHudson will accuse you of victim blaming, then go off on a tangent about how anonymous speech should be illegal because anonymously saying something that somebody else disagrees with should never be acceptable, and then talk about how you should be subject to Canadian law (regardless of where you live) and go to jail and pay them money for making statements like this. It happens all the time; BarbaraHudson is highly narcissistic.
The top of Mount Everest seems the most logical to me. It's really fucking cold and the atmosphere is thin enough to kill you. Just set up a shelter that has a heavily tinted sun roof.
I wonder how you're supposed to smelt it in space. Perhaps space air is flammable?
https://vk.com/video51098255_1...
Oh right... so the right to bear arms only applies to Americans ? Oh sorry, i forgot, WHITE Americans. Anybody else has a gun - their fair game to kill. ...
Yes, they are called bodyguards. The mere presence of a weapon does not make somebody an enemy combatant. The Geneva convention is supposed to mean you ONLY shoot at other soldiers.
Again, that's the crack talking.
Geneva Convention is quite specific that enemy soldiers are supposed to bear a uniform or other insignia to indicate that they are a legitimate target, among other things. Since the opposition forces there didn't follow any Geneva rules, then Geneva just flat out didn't apply as per its own rules. However generally accepted rules of engagement against enemy combatants certainly applied in this case -- they were in an area that was only hours ago inhabited by people who were firing upon US soldiers, and they were carrying weapons. That was all that was required to justify lethal force by any existing legal standard. There is no requirement for them to open fire.
And in fact, neither Al-Qaeda, ISIS/ISIL/Daesh, nor any other terrorist group meet any internationally accepted legal definition of being soldiers.
That said, you haven't made a single correct statement yet. Just stop already, you're fucking stupid.
Manning leaked a lot more than one video. One of the others, for example show US soldiers murdering an Al Jazeera journalist and laughing about it. Other leaks by her revealed the torture happening in Abu Ghraib which put an end to that travesty.
I have to ask; what kind of crack are you on?
The reason I ask is because Abu Ghraib was exposed in 2004, and Manning didn't even enlist until 3 years afterwards. Furthermore, you're going to have to be specific about the soldiers supposedly laughing as they murder somebody because I'm looking at a list of Manning's leaks and nothing like this is mentioned among them.
Even if you think that "that" video has visible weapons (which somehow nobody else can see - and kind of disputed considering we know from other evidence they were ambulance workers) that doesn't mean there wasn't a public interest in the many other atrocities she revealed. Or are you denying those as well ? Was Abu Ghraib just harmless fun by horny girl soldiers who liked any excuse for showing their genitals to strangers ?
It's documented that they were in fact carrying weapons. Furthermore, Assange himself even admitted to editing the video in order to manipulate the public:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tec...
What Assange is up to is more prosaic. He hit the big time with his video entitled "Collateral Murder" that used footage, shot from a US helicopter, of the killing of alleged insurgents and two Iraqi employees of Reuters, to accuse the American military of a war crime.
Oddly enough, it was Stephen Colbert, ostensibly a comedian, who skewered him. "There are armed men in the group. They did find a rocket-propelled grenade among the group. The Reuters photographers who were regrettably killed were not identified as photographers.
"And you have edited this tape, and you have given it a title called 'Collateral Murder'. That's not leaking. That's a pure editorial." Assange admitted that he was seeking to manipulate and create "maximum political impact".
In other words, you're full of shit.
Or the ESA just fails at engineering. For example they've done many Mars missions and none has been successful, and for what purpose would the CIA sabotage that?
That might be beneficial to your liver, but likely won't have a big impact on heart health. Even if it did, it would only be good advice for a younger age to mitigate (but not prevent) the possibility of heart disease when you're 60 or older. It certainly won't do you any favors if you have any congenital heart diseases.
Maybe, as that change has been attributable to an increase in dietary iodine. However it's also said that human intelligence is analogous to the tail feathers on a peacock, and since arranged marriages stopped being a thing in the west ever since world war 2, and faster/more affordable travel allows for a much broader mate selection, it's possible that we're inadvertently subjecting ourselves to selective selection instead of the more arbitrary selection we had before. This would also help explain the higher autism rates, which nobody has been able to pinpoint a cause for (and no, it's not vaccines.)
Apple also only publishes to its own platform, basically pretendin that only theirs exists, so they have at least some excuse. But, I'm curious why Microsoft does this and yet if somebody else wanted to install their services on a Windows lock screen, Microsoft would have none of that.
It's probably a good thing that both consumers and developers are eschewing Microsoft's UWP and mobile platforms to the point that even Microsoft is starting to do the same.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/...
http://m.windowscentral.com/mi...
Given that it's known that genes play the biggest role in one's intelligence, it's possible and even likely that this is simply a matter of pedigree.
If you have a better treatment option, then by all means, release it.
We are not defending the man. We are defending the fundamental principle of free expression. Assange is not being persecuted because he "raped" anyone, but because he said things that powerful people didn't like.
If this was true, the UK had just as much reason to want him as the US, and the later would have applied stiffer legal pressure than Sweden so that they could get him first.
He wouldn't turn himself in to the US because they'd likely just end up giving him to Sweden just like the UK would, which is what he really wants to avoid.
I think the biggest thing is: Who the fuck didn't see this coming? He's such a fucking weasel. The whole reason he claims to be avoiding Swedish authorities to begin with is just a big load of shit, and anybody who has defended him at this point is either stupid or naive to believe that Sweden is even the slightest bit more interested in handing him over to the US than the UK.
That point is especially clear when you consider that Sweden is a serial violator of the second worst sin in the eyes of the US: Harboring known pirates of hollywood movies. The only worse sin is harboring a known terrorist.
You also forgot: You'll have to upgrade to a Kaby Lake based CPU and have a video card and monitor that support hdcp 2.2, and when windows 11 comes out you'll have to upgrade or else it will quit working.
I'm having a hard time believing that what Manning did was whistleblowing. The entire thing was labeled as outright murder when it didn't seem to be the case unless you already came into it with a preconceived notion of that being the case. The people being killed in that video Manning leaked were obviously carrying weapons.
I guess the good thing that will come out of this is Assange is now forced to prove that he's not a total weasel. Of course, he'll probably backtrack and say that because it wasn't a full pardon that he doesn't have to honor his word because IMO Assange is a total weasel.
And to be honest, I think Snowden should be the one getting the pardon, not fucking Manning.
I remember the first time I kissed open mouth, just out of nowhere she kissed me without me expecting it at all. Although I'm a bit too timid to do the opposite, I could see it happening where the man does it and the woman is not expecting it and it would still be fine.