1. "most-feared" is more about the news agencies reporting. Statistically you are in more danger from your own family/friends.
Umm...That really, heavily, depends on where you live. In this case it was Jordan. Big difference than in the US.
2. Al-Qaeda used to be "the most-feared" and they managed it without Twitter.
Al Qaeda never managed to establish a caliphate.
3. Finally, what evidence does she have that those specific terrorists actually used Twitter to recruit/plan/whatever? As opposed to, say, text messages.
Considering that it's well known to be their primary recruitment platform (even by their own admission,) I'm sure you can find plenty.
Private industry is already throwing billions at it. Why do the taxpayers need to throw even more at it? All he has to do is tell the NTSB to work with them rather than against them, which I'm sure can't cost more than a few million, nevermind billions.
I suppose one possible good outcome would be to stop this insanity of using the race card to shut down political opponents even when race has nothing to do with anything.
Yeah the GDP is rising, but I think (disclaimer: I'm not a European so I can't exactly speak for them) that what they're trying to say is that other economies are outpacing theirs. The US and a lot of Asian countries are at any rate.
Between the bad Eurozone (economic) conditions and the recent resurgence of Fascism in Europe, it's looking like Europe's second renaissance may come to an end soon.
I don't think iOS would ever run on it. Apple would shit bricks and summon a demon hoard army of lawyers on anybody who runs it on anything except for their in-house designed ARM SoC's.
There don't seem to be any actual banned books in the US. We're not Germany or China.
Generally when people say "banned books" in the US, they're referring to public schools that don't include those books in their official curriculum or libraries. However there's nothing stopping a student from acquiring and bringing their own copy.
"Enterprise is a much bigger market" is what I'd otherwise say, but seeing as that (and datacenters) runs on vmware, I doubt this will see that much adoption. Unless of course the value prop is so good that open source virtualization (I.e. xen) starts running on it.
Try using sickrage and CouchPotato, combined with either deluge or rutorrent, with Plex as a front end (has a roku app, if pc is too hard.) Basically impossible for him to install malware, especially if he uses a streaming set top.
Sickrage is awesome by the way. Works much like a DVR, just tell it what shows you want and it fetches the episodes as they air. Only it's better than a DVR because the commercials are removed before you begin watching.
Well I don't know about you, but I really like where I'm working at. We don't seem to hire any douchebags so I don't ever see any infighting, and everybody from the building maintenance people to the CEO seems to be treated equally.
and no, there are no efforts to get Beck or anyone else off the air.
First of all, google "stop beck". That alone proves you wrong. Second of all, indeed there are concerted efforts to get talking heads off the air all the time. In fact, that's how I typically hear about people like Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage. I don't listen to or watch their programs, but when I do run across them in the news, it's about some organization or social media effort trying to take them off the air.
Are they actually biased, or they just didn't agree with your views on the matter?
That's basically the same thing as bias. Agreement or disagreement is an opinion. I.e. saying "we think firearms are bad" is different from saying "a district court made a new ruling against private ownership of firearms today". One is stating an opinion, the other is reporting on current events.
Conservatism by it's nature does not like other points of view, ie it's conservative, whereas Liberalism embraces it (even if it's plain wrong)
That's blatantly false (and quite naive on your part.) Take for example the concerted effort to get Glenn Beck off of the air. If they don't watch his show, why did they even want it off of the air? Simple: They don't want anybody else hearing him either, even if those people watch his show. (Disclaimer: I never did watch his show, nor do I identify as right, left, conservative, liberal, or even centrist. More like libertarian) Similar efforts are routinely undertaken to get other conservative talking heads off of the air.
Oh and by the way, have I mentioned (from what I hear) that Glenn Beck is very outspoken against Donald Trump? If he was still on Fox News, his program would likely be routinely plastering Trump every day. Consider it poetic justice to the left if Trump gets elected (I don't care either way as moving from one president to the next doesn't ever change much.)
These same right wing politicians will happily go on Fox News, so most of the times whenever I hear "bias" it usually means "disagrees with me and shouldn't be heard".
You mean like the concerted effort to take Beck off of the air? No shit? You're pretty far off of the deep end dude.
It's probably also more likely to improve your overall health, which is hard to argue is a bad thing.
My company is self insured (we go through a major provider but we only use them to take advantage of their contract rates with doctors in their network) and while they don't require anything like fitness bands, they do offer free programs (I.e fitness classes, diet programs) and offer an incentive (lower premium cost) if you either meet certain health standards OR show year over year improvement in those metrics.
And before somebody snarks about employer provided coverage, I'm in need of a kidney transplant, which they cover 100% (not even so much as a copay) and I'm just a rank and file employee.
I doubt that. The Chinese don't care where a VPN ends, which is what Netflix needs to target. What the Chinese target are the entry points, which has to be known in order to even have service.
Notice how they're perfectly straight with no branches? Guess what, normal trees don't grow that way. They grow these trees like this because it results in a better product. Nobody is cutting down forests to make that kind of stuff. If they are, then it's of such a small amount to be insignificant.
Also I'm not a republican, but you can take your greenpeace anti-science propaganda and shove it up your hippie ass.
Issues like polluting and deforestation are separate from carbon.
On a slight tangent: I think it's worth saying though that those who are against GMO food and/or those in favor of organic food (which it seems a lot on the left are) are inadvertently proponents of deforestation. The reason why is because making way for farm land is the biggest cause of deforestation. Modern farming techniques are the reason why food yield is up 300% since the 1950's, while farm land used for food has only increased by 12%. Organic farming basically mandates that we go back to 1950's style agriculture, which means that if we do that, we have to choose between more destruction of natural landmass OR starvation. And to feed the growing world population, GMO food will be required to squeeze even higher yield out of existing landmass.
And by the way, paper and lumber are produced on tree farms these days; that is, they come from trees bread specifically for that purpose because you get better paper and better lumber from them, and we aren't going to run out of those trees any sooner than eating potatoes will make us run out of potatoes. Also by the way, the World Health Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations, Academy of Sciences, and American Medical Association have all spoken in favor of GMO food.
I personally decided not to fully turn off telemetry. The reason why is because I want Microsoft to see that I don't give a shit about the app store, cortana, Bing searches, or edge, and that I just want an ordinary desktop OS, not an Apple iOS wannabe.
It's not just Sweden. Fascism itself has seen somewhat of a resurgence in Europe in the last 15 years. (Though technically it hasn't ever really gone away, as Spain was officially Fascist until 1976, and official Fascist parties have existed in some form throughout Europe ever since Benito Mussolini coined the term.)
France itself has some 28% of the vote going towards Front National (a fascist party,) where it otherwise holds a majority vote, and Denmark has similar numbers, with about 15 other European countries having somewhere between 10% and 20% of the vote going to Fascist parties. The EU itself thus has quite a number of Fascists holding seats in its parliament. The only places that it doesn't exist are places where it's outright banned (i.e. Germany)
If I were to guess, I would say the recent uptick might be attributable to a response to the perceived threat from the growing muslim population, which would explain why France is seeing such high numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
Believe it or not, there's actually a legal precedent for this:
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/08...
Probably a lot more too.
1. "most-feared" is more about the news agencies reporting. Statistically you are in more danger from your own family/friends.
Umm...That really, heavily, depends on where you live. In this case it was Jordan. Big difference than in the US.
2. Al-Qaeda used to be "the most-feared" and they managed it without Twitter.
Al Qaeda never managed to establish a caliphate.
3. Finally, what evidence does she have that those specific terrorists actually used Twitter to recruit/plan/whatever? As opposed to, say, text messages.
Considering that it's well known to be their primary recruitment platform (even by their own admission,) I'm sure you can find plenty.
This.
Private industry is already throwing billions at it. Why do the taxpayers need to throw even more at it? All he has to do is tell the NTSB to work with them rather than against them, which I'm sure can't cost more than a few million, nevermind billions.
I suppose one possible good outcome would be to stop this insanity of using the race card to shut down political opponents even when race has nothing to do with anything.
Yeah the GDP is rising, but I think (disclaimer: I'm not a European so I can't exactly speak for them) that what they're trying to say is that other economies are outpacing theirs. The US and a lot of Asian countries are at any rate.
Between the bad Eurozone (economic) conditions and the recent resurgence of Fascism in Europe, it's looking like Europe's second renaissance may come to an end soon.
I don't think iOS would ever run on it. Apple would shit bricks and summon a demon hoard army of lawyers on anybody who runs it on anything except for their in-house designed ARM SoC's.
There don't seem to be any actual banned books in the US. We're not Germany or China.
Generally when people say "banned books" in the US, they're referring to public schools that don't include those books in their official curriculum or libraries. However there's nothing stopping a student from acquiring and bringing their own copy.
Interesting, which ones? And what specific laws?
I don't know about these other movies, I remember his performance the most from Dogma.
"Enterprise is a much bigger market" is what I'd otherwise say, but seeing as that (and datacenters) runs on vmware, I doubt this will see that much adoption. Unless of course the value prop is so good that open source virtualization (I.e. xen) starts running on it.
Thank you for proving my point.
Try using sickrage and CouchPotato, combined with either deluge or rutorrent, with Plex as a front end (has a roku app, if pc is too hard.) Basically impossible for him to install malware, especially if he uses a streaming set top.
Sickrage is awesome by the way. Works much like a DVR, just tell it what shows you want and it fetches the episodes as they air. Only it's better than a DVR because the commercials are removed before you begin watching.
The US doesn't seem to have any "domestic content" laws.
Well I don't know about you, but I really like where I'm working at. We don't seem to hire any douchebags so I don't ever see any infighting, and everybody from the building maintenance people to the CEO seems to be treated equally.
and no, there are no efforts to get Beck or anyone else off the air.
First of all, google "stop beck". That alone proves you wrong. Second of all, indeed there are concerted efforts to get talking heads off the air all the time. In fact, that's how I typically hear about people like Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage. I don't listen to or watch their programs, but when I do run across them in the news, it's about some organization or social media effort trying to take them off the air.
Are they actually biased, or they just didn't agree with your views on the matter?
That's basically the same thing as bias. Agreement or disagreement is an opinion. I.e. saying "we think firearms are bad" is different from saying "a district court made a new ruling against private ownership of firearms today". One is stating an opinion, the other is reporting on current events.
Conservatism by it's nature does not like other points of view, ie it's conservative, whereas Liberalism embraces it (even if it's plain wrong)
That's blatantly false (and quite naive on your part.) Take for example the concerted effort to get Glenn Beck off of the air. If they don't watch his show, why did they even want it off of the air? Simple: They don't want anybody else hearing him either, even if those people watch his show. (Disclaimer: I never did watch his show, nor do I identify as right, left, conservative, liberal, or even centrist. More like libertarian) Similar efforts are routinely undertaken to get other conservative talking heads off of the air.
Oh and by the way, have I mentioned (from what I hear) that Glenn Beck is very outspoken against Donald Trump? If he was still on Fox News, his program would likely be routinely plastering Trump every day. Consider it poetic justice to the left if Trump gets elected (I don't care either way as moving from one president to the next doesn't ever change much.)
These same right wing politicians will happily go on Fox News, so most of the times whenever I hear "bias" it usually means "disagrees with me and shouldn't be heard".
You mean like the concerted effort to take Beck off of the air? No shit? You're pretty far off of the deep end dude.
It's probably also more likely to improve your overall health, which is hard to argue is a bad thing.
My company is self insured (we go through a major provider but we only use them to take advantage of their contract rates with doctors in their network) and while they don't require anything like fitness bands, they do offer free programs (I.e fitness classes, diet programs) and offer an incentive (lower premium cost) if you either meet certain health standards OR show year over year improvement in those metrics.
And before somebody snarks about employer provided coverage, I'm in need of a kidney transplant, which they cover 100% (not even so much as a copay) and I'm just a rank and file employee.
I doubt that. The Chinese don't care where a VPN ends, which is what Netflix needs to target. What the Chinese target are the entry points, which has to be known in order to even have service.
The US military, or at least a sizable number of them, would likely have sympathy for a rebellion against tyranny.
Actually cow burping does more than farting.
http://news.psu.edu/story/1417...
While development does play a role, it uses considerably less landmass than farmland.
Toilet paper and mansions (or even mcdonalds stores) are created from trees that are selectively bread like these:
http://lh5.ggpht.com/-6yvLBQRO...
Notice how they're perfectly straight with no branches? Guess what, normal trees don't grow that way. They grow these trees like this because it results in a better product. Nobody is cutting down forests to make that kind of stuff. If they are, then it's of such a small amount to be insignificant.
Also I'm not a republican, but you can take your greenpeace anti-science propaganda and shove it up your hippie ass.
Umm...I'm not an expert on the subject, but I think I wouldn't be wrong if I suggested that volcanic CO2 is neither plant nor fossil fuel based.
Issues like polluting and deforestation are separate from carbon.
On a slight tangent: I think it's worth saying though that those who are against GMO food and/or those in favor of organic food (which it seems a lot on the left are) are inadvertently proponents of deforestation. The reason why is because making way for farm land is the biggest cause of deforestation. Modern farming techniques are the reason why food yield is up 300% since the 1950's, while farm land used for food has only increased by 12%. Organic farming basically mandates that we go back to 1950's style agriculture, which means that if we do that, we have to choose between more destruction of natural landmass OR starvation. And to feed the growing world population, GMO food will be required to squeeze even higher yield out of existing landmass.
And by the way, paper and lumber are produced on tree farms these days; that is, they come from trees bread specifically for that purpose because you get better paper and better lumber from them, and we aren't going to run out of those trees any sooner than eating potatoes will make us run out of potatoes. Also by the way, the World Health Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations, Academy of Sciences, and American Medical Association have all spoken in favor of GMO food.
I personally decided not to fully turn off telemetry. The reason why is because I want Microsoft to see that I don't give a shit about the app store, cortana, Bing searches, or edge, and that I just want an ordinary desktop OS, not an Apple iOS wannabe.
It's not just Sweden. Fascism itself has seen somewhat of a resurgence in Europe in the last 15 years. (Though technically it hasn't ever really gone away, as Spain was officially Fascist until 1976, and official Fascist parties have existed in some form throughout Europe ever since Benito Mussolini coined the term.)
France itself has some 28% of the vote going towards Front National (a fascist party,) where it otherwise holds a majority vote, and Denmark has similar numbers, with about 15 other European countries having somewhere between 10% and 20% of the vote going to Fascist parties. The EU itself thus has quite a number of Fascists holding seats in its parliament. The only places that it doesn't exist are places where it's outright banned (i.e. Germany)
If I were to guess, I would say the recent uptick might be attributable to a response to the perceived threat from the growing muslim population, which would explain why France is seeing such high numbers.